User talk:RA0808/Archives2017/May

RfD

Thanks for the notification. They had blanked the talk page when I saw it so it just looked like a non-notable spin-off. I've !voted delete. Sorry for any confusion! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: No worries, we all miss these things sometimes! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Green (politician) article

Kindly cease deleting accurate, appropriately-sourced descriptions of Green's controversial remarks. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.105.18 (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to be so hostile. I was a little trigger-happy with the revert because it appeared you were removing the information on his anti-evolution comments amidst adding the descriptions, I saw shortly afterward that you were simply moving them to the personal life section. The warning I issued has been redacted and the text was restored. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The Favours

I founded Hull band The Favours and after 10 years apart, we have just reformed, how do I update our wiki page? Mrfavourino (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mrfavourino: Addition of information to Wikipedia requires reliable sources on the topic, such as from music industry magazines in the case of the band. Also, if you are the band's founder then please review the policies on conflicts of interest. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Kate Middleton

Hi, RA0808, but your comment about the primary notability for Kate is her marriage to someone more notable is sexist and wrong. You (RA0808) do not purely exist because you are married to your husband or wife. You I am sure, have notable accomplishments in life. You do not simply want to be referred to, as say, Ashley's husband, the rest of your life. That is an honor, sure. But it is not the more forefront thing to be remembered as. Oh, he was just the husband of such and such. She is in and of herself a prominent person. You mean to tell me that in the first two sentences you can't briefly describe Kate without mentioning just how important Prince William is, when users can click on his related link to find out that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.248.82 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

In my case it would be something along the lines of David's husband, but your point is understandable. Unfortunately, while it is sexist (in a way) to describe her in terms of her marriage to William... it is also the truth. Catherine's sole claim to notability is that she is married to William, is the mother of two heirs to the throne, and will eventually be the Queen Consort. If it were not for her position as Duchess of Cambridge she would be just another run-of-the-mill English woman from a well-off family: she attended private school and then university in Scotland, briefly worked for a fashion retailer, and held a moderately important position in her family's business. She is now notably active in philanthropy and known as an international fashion icon but that is only because of the opportunities and coverage she has received as William's girlfriend and later when she became Duchess of Cambridge as his wife. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC); edited 22:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Patricia Black article

This article seems to me to be biased towards sympathy for this woman. You have reverted two of my edits so far and send an unpleasant threat about blocking me. Who are you to issue this sort of microaggression? Varnebank (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Varnebank: A few things to start: you're not using the term microaggressions correctly, said "unpleasant threats" were standardized template messages, and referring to messages from another editor as "partisan whingeing" is toeing close to issues with the civility policy. Comment on content and do not try to accuse or imply things about other editors. Your edits were reverted both times because you were removing cited content without adequate explanation. I'm glad to see you have taken your issue to discuss on the talk page, as that is the venue to have a discussion on the tone issues you feel the article has. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

NPP

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have reverted your PROD on Al and Christina: Take Cali. This article should have been tagged for deletion CSD-A7 as an article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Please bear in mind that patrolling by non holders of New Page Reviwer rights often creates more work than it saves. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank you for the note about the change, I chose to PROD because in past cases I've found that A7s get challenged when there is a source (even if it's IMDB). I don't understand why you included that last sentence... since I have New Page Reviewer rights. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 23:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A7 is about notability, not sources. Sometimes an article can have dozens of sources and still not be notable. The last comment is part of a boilerplate I use to save time - in your case I forgot to delete it it, but it does not alter the fact that accurate reviewing saves time, as you have seen from the 20 minutes this issue has now cost me ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Hi,

Thank you for your message about the Ontario Public Service Employees Union Wikipedia entry.

I actually work for the organization, so your idea that I might have a conflict of interest is correct -- I might. But in this post I have posted only general facts about the organization so that anyone who wanted basic facts would be able to find them (How many members does OPSEU represent? Who is the President? What kinds of workers does OPSEU represent?). The problem with the old post, which you have reverted to, is that it is a random assortment of facts that suggest, among other things, that OPSEU represents only Ontario Public Service workers and has only had two strikes in its history -- both factually inaccurate. The current OPSEU entry looks like someone describing Canada as made up of chickens, Camaros, and refrigerators -- all things you might find in Canada but in no way representative of what the country is actually about.

Many basic facts about any organization like OPSEU have never been reported in any news story, book, or academic article, so it is very difficult to post basic facts with references. In those cases where the information is available in a news story, book, or academic article, the actual source of the information is invariably the union itself. If, for example, a news story says that OPSEU has 130,000 members, I can assure you that the author only knows that because OPSEU said it was the right number.--76.66.90.183 (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as the copy I submitted having a promotional tone, I'm not sure what you mean. You might mean merely that it was clearly written, which is fine, but I deliberately included facts only. I don't have the deleted copy in front of me right now, and am leaving the country for two weeks tomorrow, so I'll have to end the discussion here for now. But if you can let me know what would be an acceptable source for the basic facts you deleted, that would certainly be helpful. Alternatively, can I post the facts I posted but then simply say I work for the organization? Or use another email address?

Thank you for your contribution. I'll check back in in a few weeks.

76.66.90.183 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Randolph Robinson

@Randolph Robinson: Hi again, in future please make sure you are logged in when making edits as it reveals your IP address and can cause confusion. Thank you for clarifying your role in OPSEU, please note that there is no "might" in this case... you do have a conflict of interest which it is good form to disclose on your talk page. Please note that editors with a conflict of interest are encouraged to request edits rather than editing unilaterally (see WP:COI.

I don't understand these changes being necessary since all your concerns are addressed:

• "I have posted only general facts about the organization so that anyone who wanted basic facts would be able to find them (How many members does OPSEU represent? Who is the President? What kinds of workers does OPSEU represent?)"

All of that information (130,000 members; Smokey Thomas; and public sector employees) is already in the article as it stands now.

• "The problem with the old post, which you have reverted to, is that it is a random assortment of facts that suggest, among other things, that OPSEU represents only Ontario Public Service workers and has only had two strikes in its history"

Actually, the article states that "most members of OPSEU work for the Ontario Public Service, municipal governments and services, and the public college system" or "work for private companies or organizations that are contracted to provide a public service such as hospitals and medical laboratories"; if you have sources on additional OPSEU strikes then by all means please add them

• "As far as the copy I submitted having a promotional tone, I'm not sure what you mean"

The promotional tone is difficult to quantify but put simply the submitted content gives the impression of an OPSEU promotional website, which is not in keeping with Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone and not adhering to neutral point of view. It also was, as I mentioned before, inappropriate layout.

• "But if you can let me know what would be an acceptable source for the basic facts you deleted, that would certainly be helpful."

Acceptable sources can be found at WP:RS.

• "Alternatively, can I post the facts I posted but then simply say I work for the organization? Or use another email address?"

Procedure to disclose a conflict of interest can be found at WP:DISCLOSE, and if you are employed by OPSEU in some form of marketing or promotional capacity then you must disclose it as a paid contribution (see WP:PAID). Editors with a conflict of interest are encouraged to avoid editing page where they have a conflict of interest directly, and instead propose edits using edit requests (see WP:PER).

Hope this helps! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 03:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Speed of sound

Hi, This is Baobab9, and I would like to ask WHY you changed what I wrote! Please reply as soon as you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baobab9 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Baobab9: Your edit was reverted because it was not constructive. It repeated information already provided in the first sentence of the article and use of terms like "for dummies" is not in keeping with the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Ashikaga Murder Case and North Kanto Serial Young Girl Kidnapping and Murder Case

That the Ashikaga case is just one of the cases included in the North Kanto Serial Young Girl Kidnapping and Murder Case is common knowledge in Japan; This been acknowledged widely, not just by the media and general public but also by the government including the prime minister himself at the time. Demanding a source for this is akin to demanding a source for who the president of the US is, which is simply nonsensical. I should also like to point out that the revert you made to my edit for the reason of it being an unsourced statement was on an article that at that point HAD NO SOURCES LISTED ON IT AT ALL. You also made an edit to the North Kanto Serial Young Girl Kidnapping and Murder Case which I had only just created and was (and still am) in the midst of editing and I cannot help but feel that you are following me around and scrutinising my edits. Given how your demand for a source shows you have very little knowledge about the topic at hand, I would like to request that you refrain from doing so. I did add a source, but would like to make it clear that I think your actions were unwarranted and unreasonable. Setagayaku (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Setagayaku: I'm sorry you feel that way, but please remember to maintain civility and refrain from personally attacking other editors. Wikipedia requires sources as part of its policy on verifiability, which is one of the three Core Content Policies. Simply saying that something is common knowledge in Japan is not sufficient... especially when most of the users who read the English Wikipedia would not be from Japan.

As for your claim that I am "following [you] around", as someone who participates in patrolling of new pages many new pages created by various editors come to my attention. I make it a habit to examine these editor's other contributions as well because on Wikipedia, much like page histories, a record of user's contributions are accessible to anyone. If you require further guidance as a new editor, please feel free to consult the Wikipedia Primer or request assistance at the Teahouse. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 13:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for Welcoming me to Wikipedia!

ZackDaviesUK (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zackdaviesuk: That's very nice of you, thanks! P.S. if you want to change how your signature appears you can check out WP:CUSTOMSIG. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 14:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Vicky Donor

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls004057481/ The citation you asked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.206.122 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Using IMDB as the only source is not considered acceptable, see WP:RS/IMDB. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Message from you

You sent me a message recently saying I made a change to the page "Efforts to impeach George W. Bush". I never edited that page or changed it in any way. Just want to be clear.--47.190.47.120 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, you saw that warning because you are currently using Wikipedia as an unregistered user which means your "account" is tied to your IP address. If you check your account's contribution page (here) you'll see that someone using the IP address that is currently assigned to you did make edits to Efforts to impeach George W. Bush today. IP addresses reserved by Internet service providers are often reassigned to different subscribers based on the policies of the ISP that owns the addresses, so it may be someone else in your area who is subscribed to the same provider who made that particular edit. If you would like to avoid this issue you can register an account to ensure that you only receive messages that are meant for your personally, not for anyone who might be assigned that IP address. Hope this clears things up! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

DJ Manny and NPP

That was very hasty tagging. < 2 minutes. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Hasty it may have been, but that article was an autobio for a DJ which was never going to be encyclopedic regardless of a suggested 10 minute delay in tagging. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We'll never know, will we? "Other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense, tagging other pages only a few minutes after creation can discourage a good-faith author," is the basis for my comment. I think 10 minutes is too quick. Your over-eagerness to CSD may be bitey.Perhaps I should review your CSD taggings and offer more feedback? Your lack of responsiveness to my concern is troubling.Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I appreciate your concern over not trying to discourage good-faith editors. That being said, I don't think a speedy for a single self-promotional article about a non-notable DJ is something to be dwelling on. As for "over-eagerness to CSD" it seems I just can't win in that department: on one hand I am told I am too eager to speedy articles while on the other I'm told that I should be tagging more articles A7 instead of PRODing. If you feel that my CSD tagging needs a review and would like to offer feedback, then I welcome it and please feel free! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 14:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This rings a bell. You can't win, can you. I'm with you here. Some things smell so strongly of garbage that the perp deserves a bit on the bum. Imo.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Friedenschiech (theatre style)

And there was I doing good deeds of general wikignomery, & its bogus. I would have thought this could be speedied as a blatant hoax.TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: I was hesitant to label it a blatant hoax since there was the distant possibility it was real and there were just some obscure German sources out there. That being said, if you want to add a db-hoax tag above my PROD then please go ahead! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: International_student

Hi, I see you have reverted one of my recent contributions on the said page. The referenced article states China as the third most popular destination in the world and most popular one in Asia. However the wiki article states that India is. This is incorrect information. Since information about China was mentioned earlier in the article, it is irrelevant in this section, and thus I had removed it. Thanks, 100.15.130.234 (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I've reviewed the source and removed the content from the article, as well as redacting the warning on your talk page. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Same vandal, Can u stop him/her?

193.154.251.102 (yesterday you stopped him) and 193.83.233.34 (today he changed his ip address.) are same vandal. Thank you.

Last edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction&diff=prev&oldid=781158874 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerboaeject (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jerboaeject: Since it is a new IP address, I have to go through the standard process of warning before reporting to administrators for blocking. Thank you for letting me know! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

secret hitler

Why did you redact /wiki/Secret_Hitler so much? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_%28party_game%29 has a gameplay section too. Nestea Zen (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nestea Zen: I shortened the section because it read like an instruction manual for how to play the game, and Wikipedia is not a guidebook. The purpose of the gameplay section (especially in a relatively short article like Secret Hitler) is to provide an overview of the game and not a step-by-step rundown of how it works. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 23:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Shikandi

I took so much time to do that article"Adi:Shikandi" and you just simply say that you may have reverted it.I am just child and I was happy atlast that I have created an article by myself! Today morning when I wanted to show my friends about this I read your message and my friends thought of it as a joke and they left and you say don't feel discouraged. Adithya muthukumar (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Adithya muthukumar: Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot have two articles about the same topic. Your article did not expand upon anything already in the article Shikhandi. If you would like to learn more about writing articles please see WP:YFA. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit Natalie Sims

Hello

I am actually Natalie Sims and have attempted to update my wikipedia several times with accurate information. Is there another route i should take to edit my page so that it is not constantly reverted?

Natalie Sims— Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalienative84 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Natalienative84: Hello, if you are indeed Natalie Sims it then you are encouraged to not edit the article about yourself directly under Wikipedia's policy on autobiographical contributions. Please see "If Wikipedia has an article about you" and "Problems in an article about you" about how to propose changes and pursue other resolutions. Since this also falls under a conflict of interest, you are encouraged to disclose your being Natalie Sims as a conflict of interest relating to the article (see WP:DISCLOSE for more information). Hope this helps, if there are any other questions please feel free to ask at the Wikipedia Teahouse as well! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

NPR

Hi. We have an exceptionally high backlog that even 400 reviewers appear to be no longer cable ope with. Please consider returning to ET bel Arabi and completing your review and notifying the author. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)