User talk:RA0808/Archives2012/March
 | 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. |
IP 164.107.191.102
He's obviously the same person as recently blocked IP editors 164.107.191.102, 140.254.227.56 (rangeblocked), 132.235.129.86 (rangeblocked), and 174.101.125.106. Typically he just moves to a new terminal and starts up again. If you notice him active again, the foregoing list of IPs with their characteristic edits, will satisfy the folks at WP:AIV and obviate the need for warnings. JohnInDC (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
for the talk page revert! :) Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 17:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- And me! . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The IP did not remove any content, they merely moved it down a few sections, to a chronologically more suitable location [1]. Maybe you should slow down a little.--Atlan (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out my error. I see you've already removed my warning from the IP's talk page. RA0808 talkcontribs 19:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: Genu varum
Thanks! I didn't manage to revert to the clean version to start with, and then on it went...--Morel (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
As the student who wrote the piece in question for Epigram, I am writing to you in confidence in the hope of appealing to your kindness to help me. The continuation of the information and link on Wikipedia is causing me enormous anxiety. I realise that I made a stupid and naïve mistake but it seems to me that the issue has been exaggerated out of all proportion. The emotive word ‘plagiarism’ might be thought to suggest that I went onto the blog and simply copied the piece from the blog into the article for the newspaper. That is not what happened. What did happen is that the piece on Sunday football clichés was widely distributed some time last year by email. I saw the piece and thought it would be a great idea to write a similar article. Perhaps not surprisingly in an article on clichés, 6 out of 10 of the clichés that I listed were the same, as were some of the general ways I described them. Perhaps any Sunday footballer would come out with much the same list and some similar descriptions. The vast bulk of the article (contrary to what some people said on Twitter) was not simply copied. Clearly what I should have done in my article - and not to have done so was a stupid and naïve mistake - was to thank the author of the original piece. Even more naively I had just opened a Twitter account and this was the first article that I sent round on it. The reaction was simply horrifying and I was subjected to cyber-bullying that was way beyond anything I have ever experienced. The student editors of the newspaper seemed to me to panic and ‘dismissed’ me almost immediately (although ‘dismissal’ is an odd term to use here as noone on the paper has a paid position, we are simply full –time students). I have since apologised to the original author and that apology has been fully and graciously accepted. I have also fully apologised to those running the newspaper. In the circumstances, I hope you may consider that the continued inclusion of this on Wikipedia under the title of the plagiarism scandal of 2012 is out of all proportion to the incident. Even if you do not agree with this, I hope out of kindness you may agree to help me to have the piece removed. It is apparent to me that you are something of an expert in relation to the use of Wikipedia, and I am certainly not. (82.69.59.56 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC))
- The issue regarding the section is being discussed on the article's talk page, and the discussion (or lack thereof) seems to be trending towards the removal of the section. The issue with the section was more the seemingly coordinated attempts to censor it from Wikipedia, which is contrary to the site's policy (WP:CENSOR), without any discussion or attempt to achieve consensus.
- I would, however, like to address one of your statements. You said: "I hope out of kindness you may agree to help me to have the piece removed." My personal feelings regarding content on Wikipedia are irrelevant. If the content is notable and the sources that corroborate it are reliable, my belief is that it still appears on Wikipedia (this site is not censored) regardless of my personal feelings.
- As for being the victim of cyberbullying, unfortunately that happens on the Internet when you become an active contributor and not just a passive observer. While I empathize with your issue, once again it's up to whether content meets Wikipedia policy if it is included. Regards, RA0808 talkcontribs 20:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk page
Hi RA0808,
You really do need to take a look at [WP:Removed]. I quote: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages." Furthermore, from the very end: "Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule."
These words speak for themselves. I have every right to remove warnings from my page, so please desist. Thank you.138.38.10.143 (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- You have the right to remove them, but don't operate under the illusion that removing warnings makes them disappear. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh dear, is someone feeling a little bit silly now! No, I do not 'operate under that illusion' but then I never claimed to. Have fun!138.38.10.143 (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
List of countries by literacy rate
I think that user talk:176.248.117.123 was fixing vandalism to List of countries by literacy rate. Afganistan probably does not have a literacy rate of 100%. Georgia was at the top on previous versions. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"Burmese soil" edit war
I've opened a discussion on the List of White Collar episodes page in order to get this edit war over the use of the term Burmese soil under control. I've also tagged the IP editor's page for 3RR, which should have been done since he/she has 5 reverts. But I'll be honest, the whole notion of Peter and Neal being on Burmese territory, much less the need to use the term Burmese soil seems a bit silly to be squabbling over given the overall vagueness of the edit summary, and thereby, the lack of any information as to why their being there is significant. Edit summaries should be 100-250 works, and I'm hoping that the outcome of this will be a better written edit summary, not another TV Guide teaser. --Drmargi (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I found out that you were the original author of the article Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, as you may know by now, or don't, the article is now currently under investigation, due to the fact that I was trying to edit it. Wikipedia's has accused me of plagiarism, stating that I copy pasted from this particular website, http://www.developmentgateway.com.au/cms/sectors/governance/page6430.html, when all I did was copy pasted from this website, http://www.sprm.gov.my/, the actual website for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. I just wanted to tell you that the website that you copied from, has NO sorts of affiliations at all with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. All I did was added more information to the article, and suddenly Wikipedia says I plagiarized.
Please understand that I am not looking for any kind of conflict, I am not trying to incite hatred, insult or demean you. Obviously you are an expert or rather a veteran at Wikipedia, and I respect that. I am just looking for help here, as you are the original author. You can read my explanations at the article's talk page to know more about myself, as I don't have much time to explain myself here thoroughly. I have tried licensing it, it didn't work, I've tried explaining myself at the article's talk page, didn't work as well, I've tried having that article be put in its original state, without my edits, it didn't work, and now I am trying to have that page deleted, because I do not know what else to do. And that is why I am asking for your help. Please help me with this matter.
My original intention in editing this article was adding more information to it, regardless to what you have already wrote. I was not trying to erase your work, I was merely adding new information to it, but unfortunately, before I could finish, the article is already blocked because some duplication detector error reports that I copied from an unknown website, which is this http://www.developmentgateway.com.au/cms/sectors/governance/page6430.html. Please I am begging you, please help me with this matter, because this is an important and urgent issue for me. I really hope to resolve this as soon as possible.
SincerelyKery sprm (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- To begin, you are mistaken when referring to me as the original page creator. The page was created 6 years before my edit (link) by another user. The only time I ever edited that page was to revert a non-constructive edit made by an anonymous user. I would suggest seeking help from the other editors who are monitoring the article, such as Wikipelli.
- I have, however, done the reversion that Wikipelli suggested. Assuming that I didn't over-step my boundaries in this situation (which I can't say I've dealt with before), this is as much as I can do for this situation.
- Additionally, I would suggest consulting this page regarding your editing Wikipedia on behalf of an organization. Warm Regards, RA0808 talkcontribs 05:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear RA0808,
Thank you for your help, I am deeply grateful and I cannot say thank you enough, the reversion that you did is more than good enough, and I am terribly sorry for assuming that you were the original author of the page, and I also want to apologize if anything I said may have offended you in any way. Again, Thank you very much for your help, I will do take note to consider and evaluate on how to edit properly and accordingly in regards to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. P.s. Please excuse me for my bad English.
Kery sprm (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Kenneth Andam is a self-promoting scam artist
the changes i made were to warn of a scam artist using wikipedia to self promote and lure unsuspecting investors into investing in shell companies/ideas. please do a thurough search of Kenny Andam, his colleagues and his achievements (the businesses and patents he claims). On the surface, they appear legit with beautiful websites...but dig deeper and u will see there is nothing under the sheets.
he was a sprinter...that is true. after that...we was a serial businessman of the worst kind imo.
Look at the history of his own edits. He was using wikipedia to market may of his shell companies that him and his friends front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.98.198 (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Unless you have reliable sources to back up these assertions, please refrain from adding language like that to Wikipedia. Regards, RA0808 talkcontribs 18:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia edit Re:Rio Bravo
The original article incorrectly described the ending to the movie. I corrected it. As I stated in the text, the length was due to the problems with an earlier attempt to correct it. Please explain your actions. I have a background in computer science, physics, and history of technology. If you want me to contribute my expertise (I realize this might be considered arrogant but how else do you explain one's ability without being obsequiously humiliating) then please don't make my efforts a waste of my time.
Jim historyphysics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyphysics (talk • contribs) 01:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- There were numerous issues with your edit. It added Example.jpg for no reason, the text that you did add was riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, and you added notes referencing your edit ("This edit/additino is rather long because the previous one was thrown out for lack of support. It may seem minor but let's get it right! It's also an interesting insight into the making of movies when changes from the script are made at the artistic whim of the director and actors.") into the article space itself. I would advise that you propose these changes on the talk page and get some feedback from other editors before posting that into article space
- Additionally, how does having a background in "computer science, physics, and history of technology" have any bearing on this discussion? RA0808 talkcontribs 01:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism
- The above comment is from your guidelines. Therefore my edit was not vandalism. Please describe the errors that fall outside the area of literary license. The one misspelling (lend instead of land was an unnoticed result from Naturally Speaking) I tried to change it but your correction software refused to allow a one character correction when I checked the minor edit box.
- If example.jpg is in there it was added by your software.
- In regards to my credentials, a CV is usually welcome in order to support credibility. Jealous? I think it's time you went back and checked Lord Acton's famous saying about power. You seem to be enjoying it too much when your self-description mentions your joy at reverting what you describe is vandalism even if your description doesn't seem to agree with the guidelines.
- Try not to worry too much about your reply. The movie edits were a test to see what would happen when I made a change. Wikipedia failed miserably because it makes it too difficult to make minor changes. I hate to think what would happen if I tried to make a major one in the physics article. You have probably already lost me and the long list of articles in physics, history, computer science, and mathematics will continue to be uncorrected by needed experts. You begged for help but you don't really seem to want it. Have a good day.
- The interesting thing about your comment on the infinity of the universe and human stupidity is that you obviously don't understand what you quoted. Also it should have quotation marks around it. You certainly didn't invent it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyphysics (talk • contribs) 02:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nowhere did it state that your edits were vandalism. The warnings stated that your edits were deemed unconstructive and "appeared to constitute vandalism" (emphasis added by me).
Speedy deletion
Hi, for the "Anime sub-licensed and released by Odex" category, you can delete it. I wanna use it for a subcaegory at 1st but then on 2nd thought I think is better to use a main category. Sorry for all the inconvenience caused... I'm still new here and don't know how to delete it...--Vaktug (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- No problem! You did exactly what you are supposed to do if you want a page you created to be deleted. Under G7 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD) an author of a page may request deletion of a page by blanking it and waiting for another user to add the {{db-g7}} template, or deleting the content of the page and adding the template themselves. Thanks for taking an interest in constructively contributing to Wikipedia. Regards, RA0808 talkcontribs 02:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)