User talk:RayAYang/Archive 6

AfD

Since you are interested in Pomona College you might want to check out this AfD of a professor's bio: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA, which unfortunately did not pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Thanks for the support

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello RayAYang! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

RfC Invitation

Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (RfC)

Thank you for your comments at the RfC about ALF. I appreciate the input very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Constraint algorithm/GA1

Hey, it's been a month since you noted that you were going to review the GA, and just wanted to remind of of it in case you forgot. Wizardman 16:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Gah! I had! I was on an extended trip for a while, and I just got back a day or so ago ... thanks for reminding! Ray^Talk 17:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United States Indoor Football League

An article that you have been involved in editing, United States Indoor Football League, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Indoor Football League. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tom Danson (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Signorini problem

Thank you very much for your appreciation on the voice about the Signorini problem: nevertheless the voice is still not complete. In the next future there will be a sketch of the proof of existence and uniqueness of the solution to the problem. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala

Luis Ramirez is not a living person, so items from the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy do not apply to it. I have removed your tag. TAway (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

good point. Mistype, I meant WP:BIO1E. WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL also apply. Do you have other sources to add to the article, or should I take this to AfD? Cheers, Ray^Talk 00:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary for you to push this just so we can go through an identical repeat of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcelo_Lucero and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#Marcelo_Lucero? The results will be the same. Why don't you spend the time you're investing in deletion process wonkery on actually contributing to the article? I assure you there is no lack of sources. TAway (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying to convince me that there's any sort of enduring historical notability here, insulting my motivations is not helping. I help screen new articles and propose ones that fail notability criteria for deletion, because otherwise the Wikipedia would become an unmaintainable collection of dubious garbage. Ray^Talk 19:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to see that you have nothing better to do with your time. Investing a fraction of the time you spent on creating this AfD could have made a better article. See you at DRV after the AfD is closed as keep! TAway (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you did not think it possible to make a good case to me that the subject has enduring notability, and chose to insult my motives again instead. I suggest that instead of wasting your time defending poor articles, you work on creating good ones. Ray^Talk 21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Great pyramid merger proposal

I notice you have put up merger notices but have not started a discussion. I'd argue that the obvious target if you want to merge The Great Pyramid: Ramp Theories with something is Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Dougweller (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. I stuck up the merger notices in the course of newpage patrol, and hoped to get somebody more aware of the topic than I to act. Ray^Talk 03:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability tag on the Nokia E52 article.

You can't add a notability tag to an article for an unreleased cell phone. If you have different opinion, discuss on my talk page.Csifan16 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's not yet notable, it doesn't deserve to have an article. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Copying this message at your talk page. Ray^Talk 23:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wrote it so someone doesn't have to after the phone's release(somewhere in September).

Universal Systems Language

You added an article issues box to this page. Do you have anything specific that you'd like to see changed, or perhaps some suggestions to improve it?

• It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.

Could you identify the sections you believe contain either of these? USL has been in use for a long time, and this is no more original research than (say) ADA. It would help if you could identify the actual unverifiable claims, if any, so that they may be addressed.

• The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.

USL is as notable as ADA, or C++ or that matter. What is your basis for claiming lack of notability? Do you have any suggestions for ways to establish that it is, indeed notable, beyond what is already there?

• Its introduction provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.

This is a subjective opinion. Do the introductions to articles on ADA, or ARP, or many other technical subjects provide sufficient context? Again, your suggestions on how to add suitable context would be welcome.

• It may be confusing or unclear for some readers.

This is also rather subjective. Any suggestions you might have to make it less confusing or unclear would be welcome. Of course, this, like most topics of its ilk, are comprehensible only to those who have some related background. Anyone wanting a beginner's tutorial on USL should visit the refrerences. Would you want this article to be such a tutorial? I suspect not.

If you'd like to discuss these issues, perhaps we could do so on the USL talk page. Constructive criticism is always welcome and I'm not saying you don't have any valid points.

Famiddleton (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Duane Clarridge

You removed a section from the article Duane Clarridge. The section reads "He appeared in John Pilger's 2007 documentary The War on Democracy, denying crimes committed by Augusto Pinochet, the Contras, and others. He also claimed Amnesty International was a source of propaganda." You erased this, claiming it was "unsourced." Perhaps you do not consider giving the name of the film a source. If you want to see for yourself, you can watch it in Google video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4221598130733050551&hl=en 24.208.240.121 (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia's guideline concerning reliable sources. Please note, in particular, that self-publishing sites, like Google Video, do not qualify. Best, Ray^Talk 15:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming John Pilger isn't reliable? Or that a video isn't reliable? Contrary to Google Video being self-publishing, in this instance I think it was posted there by a fan in violation of copyright law, as The War on Democracy is a professionally produced documentary. Potential compromise: it could be said that he is in the film, saying controversial things, but not say what they are. This is a bad idea, because people deserve to know the content of his remarks. But referring people to the film at least gives them the option of finding out. 24.208.240.121 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is properly continued at Talk:Duane Clarridge. Please review the guideline. The rules for footnoting and needing secondary sources are quite clear, and if this documentary isn't a fly-by-night affair, it shouldn't be difficult for you to find one. On another note, I suggest you get an account on Wikipedia. It makes it easier to deal with people. Ray^Talk 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a couple cites for you. See which one you want to use: Faster Louder, North American Congress on Latin America, A World to Win, One World, The Documentary Blog, Guardian UK, Guerrilla News Network, Schema Magazine, New Statesman, BBC, Metro UK, Channel 4, Pacific Media Centre, Times UK. 24.208.240.121 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the information twice, and you removed it twice. I agree with you that someone's appearance in a documentary may or may not be notable. However, in this case the things he says in the documentary give insight into his character, and perhaps more importantly his view on his work and his opinion on his employer, the CIA. The documentary is notable, and his part in it was mentioned in at least 14 articles, many from reputable journalistic sources. So I think you have to prove one of the following: what someone says isn't relevant in a biography, or he didn't say those things. I gave you links to the documentary itself, as well as many secondary-sources. If you don't want to "advertise" the documentary, or have a point of view, or give undue weight, I suggest you constructively edit, by changing the content to something to don't find objectionable, rather than destructively edit by removing entire sections of relevant information. You could even find a different source where he is asked similar questions, if you can find one. Or find a source where he says the opposite, if you like. Just make sure it is reliable and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.22.100 (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what sort of biased "insight" you think you can draw from a documentary. We're not in the business of producing character portraits - we're in the business of encyclopedically reporting relevant facts about a person's life and notability. The documentary wasn't about him, it wasn't significant to his life in any meaningful way, and you have no call to insert a paragraph longer than our treatment of his career into the biography. The appropriate amount of space devoted to spamming a little-noticed documentary peripherally related to the subject in his biography is zero. If the documentary actually has useful facts to report about his career, that would be something else altogether. Ray^Talk 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want "speedy deletion" of Category:American neoconservatives

Seing that the Category:American socialists exist, I decided to create this category, because this issue is under-developed on Wikipedia (and I used the same sub-categories as Category:American socialists uses). It deals with an equally fringy political philosophy, but one that nevertheless has had a profound effect on developments in recent years, not least on the Iraq War, which probably wouldn't have happened, were it not for these particular neoconservatives. Given that the war has cost - according to some estimates 3 trillion dollar, and therefore have contributed significantly to the current poor health of the American economy, it is obvious that this is a category that attracts a lot of attention - and also why some might want to delete it, and just forget all about it, the same way that many neo-conservatives have given up their faith after the Iraq War, which was meant to be the first phase, from where democracy should spread throughout the Middle East.

But the people who wants to delete it, should not be allowed to. When we can have a category about american socialists, then of course we can have about neoconservatives - a group which have had a greater impact on America and thus the world, than American socialists have. I realise that there have been discussions about neoconservatives before, but never about American neoconservatives. I can also well understand why a Category called: "American conservatives" doesn't exist, cause they are covered by Category:Republicans (United States). Michelle Bentley (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jay says: (in the stamp he has put on the Category)

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. It was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This discussion took place some while ago, and the attendants may not have met what I would call ideal criteria, ie. the group that voiced their opinion were not representative of wikipedias editors, but just the people who happened to log in on this occasion. Among them were in all probability people who for political reasons wanted this category deleted. They had perhaps themselves sympatised with the neoconservatives, but starting around 2006 many key neo-cons deserted their previous faith. And by the way: The category in question is not substantially identical to the deleted version. It deals only with American neocons. Since you find reason to propose a deletion,of a Category, which just lists neo-cons (someones who themselves previously have listed themselves as such), it probably means that you are yourself symphatetic to the neoconservative agenda. So it is you who have a problem in meeting Wikipedias objectivety-standards, not I, who just want this field covered, the same way as American socialists are. Can you confirm that you are/used to be a neoconservative, symphatetic to the violent introduction of democracy in The Middle East, with the first phase being Iraq, from where it was supposed to spread? Michelle Bentley (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it was David Wurmsers inclusion in the Category that got you interested

But then it is just a question of removing his name from the Category, as you allready have done. There should be no reason to delete the Category. I, on my own initiative, did not include John Bolton and Jeanne Kirkpatrick because there is nothing in their articles that say they are neocons, but with all the other names on the list, you will find that the specific articles says that they are indeed neocons. Many sources says that Bolton and Kirkpatrick are as well, but I was not certain, and therefore did not include them.

Lets work the normal procedures, and see if anyone proposes it for deletion. Today another audience is present at Wikipedia. And through my participation I can testify that this audience viewed collectively is more mature, informed and keen at enhancing Wikipedia, than the ones that on two previous occasions voiced their opinions -- not on a Category called American neoconservatives, but one called neoconservatives. Michelle Bentley (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Obstacle problem

I have asked at WP:Wikiproject Mathematics fro a second opinion, but no response so far. Do you know of any Wiki Mathematicians who could look at this? They would of course need to be uninvolved in the sense of not having made major contributions. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reviewing. I don't offhand know -- the ones I know of all ready the project math page. Perhaps a second query? Ray^Talk 23:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is now one second opinion at Talk:Obstacle problem/GA1. Your input there would be useful. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We now have another full 2nd opinion. I will place the artcile on hold for seven days to allow for the improvemnets requested to be made. Please respond at Talk:Obstacle problem/GA1. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Um. I just read it, and Geometry Guy is right on every point. It's going to take too long to fix (at least a month, I should think -- I'm going to have to do a good bit of literature survey), and I can't in good conscience ask you to wait. Go ahead and fail it, and I'll work on trying to improve. Getting suggestions for improvement was the purpose of bringing the article to GAR, anyhow. Thanks very much for your efforts. Cheers, Ray^Talk 23:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello Mr. Yang and thank you for your welcome. I will try to keep my own opinions out of articles and rely more on facts. The Super Cool Amazement (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

have fun here, but don't be surprised if you bump up against a lot of things on your first couple of edits. My advice is to read throughly the help and howto sections for editing, and suggest things on the talk pages first for articles that seem to be well maintained if you think your edits might be controversial. Best, Ray^Talk 18:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ray, you better answer. I know you are out there somewhere

The thing is: I have never said to anybody: "Your template should be deleted", "Your wikitable should be deleted" or "The Category that you just created in order to make Wikipedia better should face a speedy deletion". All of it done a few hours after it was made. This is rude. And I firmly believe that what you do towards your fellow human beings come back to haunt you some day. That is why I don't do it myself. Also because I think that every effort to enhance wikipedia done honestly should be welcomed. Michelle Bentley (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, instead of haranguing me, you acquaint yourself with WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and other relevant Wikipedia policies. Bluntly, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own point of view, or other poorly researched political propaganda. Ray^Talk 18:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. If you cannot express yourself without referring to rather obscure rule-pages, then don't. Anyway I just had a brief look at these 3 pages you refer to, and none of them has any relevance to my recent creation of Category:American neoconservatives, which I notice you have shamelessly deleted JUST A FEW HOURS AFTER i HAD MaDE IT. I am soon going to create it again, because to delete it is destructive work. We try to keep destructive work out of Wikipedia. Instead we welcomes constructive work, like my Category of American Neoconservatives, which was created for the first time the day before yesterday. What other discussions there have been previously is no concern of mine, and shouldn't be to you, because they deals with other Categories. My Category is unique, its name is unique,its description on top of the page is unique and it is inspired by Category:American socialists and shares some of its sub-categories with it. In one of the subcategories you will see it in company with all sorts of fringe ideologies, like American pacifists and the like, and this categorisation is unique: For the first time American neocons are categorised this way. This is an entirely new approach initiated by me. I do not deal with Category:Conservatives, as some of the previous discussions about neoconservatives have done, because I realise beforehand that this is not relevant. The subject of American conservatives is covered by Category:Republicans (United States). when in due time i re-create this my unique Category, I expect you to remain calm, and not disrupt my work any further, as this will be considered vandalism.Michelle Bentley (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you appear incapable of taking a hint, let me explain a few things to you. The rules I sent you are not "obscure rules pages." They are major Wikipedia policies, and in the case of WP:NPOV, a core policy. If you cannot be bothered to read the rules that govern Wikipedia editing when you fall afoul of them, I wonder why you are here on Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia with standards, and if you care neither for standards nor collaboration, the Internet is a vast place, and you can create your own websites elsewhere. Similarly, I noticed on your talk page that R'n'B has very kindly given you a very through description of our resolution process for categories (to include WP:CFD, WP:DRV, and WP:CSD) - use it. I did not delete your category - I tagged it for deletion, which brought it to the attention of an administrator who reviewed the case, your arguments against deletion, found them wanting, and deleted the category, which is a very proper and reviewed process. I suggest that your frustration level would be a lot lower if you learned to respect the process, and the consensus of your fellow editors. Ray^Talk 18:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What have you been doing. You have reported this Category:American neoconservatives to administrators for deletion two times this week ? I demand an apology.

They write in the deletion log: (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). You got to realise that this Category was created for the first time ever on Wikipedia by me on the 20th of July 2009. Never has this particular Category existed before, - not with this name, not with this description, and not with this sub-category: Category:American people by political orientation. Whereas other attempts to categorise neoconservatives have focused on neoconservatives all over the world, this Category focuses on neoconservatives in America, where it all started and therefore is the appropriate place to focus. For the first time ever on Wikipedia, American neoconservatives are subcategorised with people with similar utopian philosophies, such as American socialists, American pacifists, American white nationalists, American monarchists, American libertarians, American fascists, American anti-communists and American anarchists. This is unique. So any previous discussions have no relevance, because they deal with another matter, and anyway had very few participants. What is more, these discussions used as argument, that Category:Conservatives doesn't exist, and so [[:Category:Neoconservatives shouldn't exist. This premise is false, since as any enlightenent individual knows, American conservatives are adequately covered by Category: Republicans (United States). I hope you realise then that your deletion was a mistake, and I expect an apology, before I shortly shall re-create this Category for the third time this week!. An admin is supposed to be constructive and welcoming to all categorisation efforts, not destructive, going about deleting, based on hear-say from others, without him having investigated thoroughly the background for the creation of this Category. Michelle Bentley (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this is enough. Use the appropriate wikipedia fora, which many people, including myself, have explained to you, or go find a more fruitful hobby. Drop another rant on my talk page, and I'll report you for harassment. Ray^Talk 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nachna Onedei Naei

Song was previously proposed for deletion, please comment on the deletion entry instead. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Have done. Thanks, Ray^Talk 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thio Li Ann

You are deletiing large chunk of text destroying the article. What's wrong with you?

Ahnan (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed a quotefarm that was grossly disproportionate and a clear example of undue weight. The article is not a coatrack for the expression of political prejudices, and the incident in question is a small event in a consequential career. Please do not revert my changes without explanation, as I have explained mine quite clearly in the edit summary, and here. Ray^Talk 04:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)