User talk:RA0808/Archives2012/February

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A Discussion that may be of interest to you

Hey there, Ra, God of the Sun, DCCCVIII, there is a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Re-formatting/Discussion#CVU Guideline Proposal. As one of the hardest working Anti-vandals that I've run into, I'm sure the Project would love to hear your imput. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Last time I had am image spuriously added to my talk pages over at Wikisource, it was images that you generally would get in trouble for viewing in the workplace. So at least it was tame this time around. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 07:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In regards to yor revert

The topic was Somnolence (sleepyness) and under treatment I put "take a nap, Einstein!", You gotta admit that's funny! I didn't intend it it a mean or nasty way , just being goofy and thanks for the welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.43.119 (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mannock

See my comments on his talk page. You can't be serious about that can you? I'd much rather you were taking the piss a bit. You're supposed to be an experienced editor. 81.147.74.229 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Robyn Lawley

Hi,

Just wondering why you reverted the external link? I know youtube videos were looked down upon but this one was an interview from the original author. Mount1313 (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Links to user-submitted video sites like YouTube are generally avoided due to copyright violations.

For example, the video you linked is licensed under the Standard YouTube License. This means that while it can be viewed freely on YouTube, the uploader retains all other copyright. Please see more info on Standard YouTube License here (external link to Google Help) and Wikipedia's policy on external links to YouTube. Hope this helps! RA0808 ^talk _contribs 06:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you for letting me know. Mount1313 (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Female Genital Mutilation

Why did you remove the informational resource on Female Genital Mutilation that was put on the female genital mutilation page along with other sub campaigns that were left untouched? The wiki external links guidelines below state that it can be placed as an external link if it contains "information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". There is not a more comprehensive site on information on FGM on the web that I have found than cagem.org. In fact the other two links there are regionally localized to Europe while this source contains global information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherylbarksdale (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the external link you added because your previous edits seem to indicate that you are campaigning for CAGEM. Your previous edits were doing nothing but promoting the organization and you refused to even wait for the review of the CAGEM article you posted at AFC before repeatedly posting the link. Your edits were disruptive, hence they were reverted. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 06:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I kept repeatedly posting the link because it was the most relevant and unbiased on the list (not just European). I felt the link was a good informational resource regardless of whether it had its own wiki page so I didn't think i needed to wait for a page. Wiki users will be very deprived to not have such a resource listed for FGM and I am asking that you repost this. As far as campaigning for CAGEM, I campaign against FGM internationally not just 1 organization. However, the general campaign encompasses all other sub-campaigns which is why I feel it should be on wiki. I consider myself to be an expert in the field and I don't think listing 1 organization that does not focus solely on FGM is appropriate considering many others that are more specific are being left out. So, could you please re-insert the external link? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherylbarksdale (talk • contribs) 07:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate, my revert had nothing to do with the QUALITY of the site you were adding. I reverted your edits because you were being disruptive (even though you were editing in good faith). RA0808 ^talk _contribs 14:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Bodyguard

I can't believe that you deleted my editing about the article bodyguard I was trying tell him he had many errors that he had to fix. PLus I have freedom of speech and I follewed all of Wiki's rules and regulations. You really need to reread it wtf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.104.158 (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted your edit to the article's talk page because you...

A) ...did not add anything constructive to the debate. All you did was claim to be a secret service agent and declare it the worst article you've read.

B) ...then went on to insult someone (I couldn't tell who, as your comments weren't directed to anyone) stating that they were "a disgrace to any bodyguard" and that they "suck".

These edits were non-constructive, hence they were reverted. As for your claim of "freedom of speech", under the GNU Free Documentation License (which you agree to whenever you submit content to Wikipedia) you have given permission for your work to be modified. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly if you did not know who I was talking to then you had no room to delete it. Just because you can control people's post doesn't mean you can delete thing on false grounds.Come on, man up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions ([[User talk:|talk]]) 16:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Derogatory comments against other editors (specific or not) are against Wikipedia's policy regarding personal attacks (see: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done"). If you would like to constructively suggest ways the article can be improved, you are free to do so. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

-msg removed-

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what a personal attack is. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Hallam Hope

Hello RA0808. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hallam Hope, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: One of the reasons why A1 and A3 srticles are not supposed to be speedied in their first few minutes is that they are often expanded by the creator. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:Battle of the Bridges Angry!

Why did you beat me to reverting vandalism? (Just joking :)) Actually, congrats for beating me to that one. Kiko4564 (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For the relentless slaying of IP vandals, often beating me to the punch! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 03:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Nirvana

Why you reverted my edit in the Nirvana article? there have never been any consensus regarding about.com as unreliable, also Nirvana formed in 1985 as fecal matter, you can see the fecal matter article to confirm. Nicrorus (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The article for Fecal Matter doesn't list anything about it "becoming" Nirvana. According to the article (which you told me to look at) the band broke up, and Cobain then went on to form Nirvana. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 04:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation

I want to seek your opinion on the article Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation. I've examined it and I don't feel that it is noteworthy enough for an article unto itself. Only one of the cited sources mention this campaign by name (former citation #8 which I removed for statements that implied that this organization has anything to do with the day of zero tolerance against FGM). I also googled for information on this campaign and I can only find their website, a yahoo group, and a facebook page. I am debating a request for deletion, and thought I would seek the opinion of someone more experienced than I. Vietminh (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the page, are any of the inline citations actually referencing CAGeM? Based on what you said about Googling and only finding the official webpage CAGeM is an organization, but the article's language makes it seem like an overall fight for something (i.e. civil rights, etc.). Are you picking up on that as well?

As for giving an opinion, I'm not sure that I could give an informed opinion. I tend to stick to vandalism reversion on recent changes, so I'm not particularly knowledgeable on any of the deletion rules/criteria besides speedy deletion. I'm more than happy to give you an opinion on the article itself and continue to discuss it with you, but I would suggest finding an editor with more experience about deletions of articles if you want to do an RfD. Hope this helps a bit! RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct, none of the citations actually reference this organization. I removed a citation whose source listed a page that was related to "CAGeM" under "additional resources" or something like that, but it was one of those websites where people post ongoing events, not something that explains the supposed breadth of this organization. Overall I would agree with your assessment of the article's language, the person who wrote it seems to be trying to link all of the disparate causes together without having a source that explicitly does so. Clearly there are many organizations and movements that are seeking to get rid of FGM, but from what I see here I can't say that any of them are affiliated or aware of "CAGeM". It seems like CAGeM is an idea someone has, or is something they're starting up, but without a source other than their website I can't say it's worth inclusion on Wikipedia. Thanks for your input, I also asked User Materialscientist for his input because he was also involved with the reversions on the FGM page. Thanks again. Vietminh (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so you're aware I tagged the article as a candidate for proposed deletion. Vietminh (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your second in two days, not bad ;) Great work on reverting all this IP vandalism, usually beating me to it! ScottSteiner ✍ 21:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just doing my job. Thank you for the barnstar, though! RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: toxicant

I believe you inappropriately reverted my edit, which you state that I did not justify in the talk page. Please read the talk page, and you will find my comments. The prior information in the first paragraph as close to nonsensical, referring to "toxic" as an noun, and concentrating on the distinction between toxic and toxin, neither of which is "toxicant", the subject of this page. If you wish to add back in the energy theory section or the vague portion on the effects of different levels of compounds, fine, though I think it added little or nothing. However, my new first paragraph actually defines the term correctly, which was not the case before. I am only a casual wikipedia contributor and generally only change articles when I see things that are way off. I do have relevant qualifications, and feel I can add something in those cases. However, it is discouraging to try to make contributions when I first get autoreverted by a bot and then reverted by someone else as well. Nanomed Dreams (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my mistake, I've withdrawn the warning from your talk page. Sorry about that, RA0808 ^talk _contribs 04:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still can't change the page. I tried to undo your reversion but got re-reverted by the bot again, which is more convinced than ever that I'm a vandal. Sucks to see such a poor quality entry still up there, but I give up. Nanomed Dreams (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: sumo games

Sorry for the accidental blanking of this page. I meant to add some basic information (not delete it) but I had multiple windows open and clicked the wrong one. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.41.68 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

about my blanking of the page Faraya Mzaar Kfardebian

Hello, I see you have restored the page Faraya mzaar kfardebian because I made it blank. Actually I copied all of its content but I want you to speedy-delete it (the blank page) because there is a huge misunderstang in the information, and I am going to make another one with the same content, but only with a different name, which is Mzaar Kfardebian, and not faraya mzaar kfardebian, and I will do a page (article) called Faraya, about the village of faraya. Please delete the Faraya Mzaar Kfardebian page, and leave the rest on me. Sincerely, samer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes8895 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again

I got your message and i am grateful that you understood why i blanked the page. Now do not worry i named it for speedy deletion. I only did not want you to this that i was some kind of spam or anything like that. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes8895 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And..

And sorry if it is personal, but you shouldnt call yourself "lovable nerd" because what you do is very efficient and shows that you really care about the wikipedia society as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes8895 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean, but thank you anyways. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this. Macedonian (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Epigram (newspaper)

Hi, could you please stop reverting the deletions made on this page concerning the 'Plagiarism scandal'? This fallacy should not appear on the page as it has no citation. The culprits who are persistently putting it up are doing it to spite a particular individual. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.32.250 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The section is clearly cited and the citation matches with the contents of the deleted section. Please do not remove information just because you don't like it, Wikipedia is not censored. Regards, RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks as though the editors of Epigram have taken down the web-page with the apology on. To me this smacks of editing the history to make it more palatable. Whilst this is a very minor storm in a very small tea-cup, I cannot believe that this is in accord with the no censorship stance of Wikipedia. The source was there, the event happened, it is significant and yet we are apparently left with no verifiability. any thoughts or suggestions ? Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this page needs to be semi-protected ASAP, "editing the history to make it more palatable" as you so aptly stated. It's obvious that Epigram is trying to cover up their mistake to avoid looking bad, and they're trying to do so through a variety of IP edits and new accounts. All IPs who have removed the Plagiarism section have either been registered to the University of Bristol's network or can be traced to the Bristol area, so it is obvious that everyone removing this section at least has ties to the University. At best they're concerned students, at worst they are Epigram or University staff trying to cover their rear-ends and gloss over the incident. I made a report to Requests for Page Protection yesterday stating this, but nothing has come of it. Does this need to go to WP:ANI?

In terms of the verifiability, we could cite this cached copy held by Google in the section. It is preserved from shortly after the page was posted. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation

I withdrew my AfD on this article, I'm gonna re-work the article as List of campaigns against female genital mutilation which may be notable as there are several high profile organizations which have campaigns in and of themselves. Vietminh (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good outcome. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, if you could state your new position on the AfD page that would be great :). Then the admin's can do a speedy keep so the article doesn't get deleted. Vietminh (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: La Mer (cosmetics)

I thought that some one looking/researching La Mer Would benefit from the articles/product reviews and low price search perks our website has to offer. where in wikipedia would i go to expose such a service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.95.131 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a means of advertising or promotion. If you wish to convince people to visit your website, I would advise you to purchase ad space. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)