User talk:RayAYang/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

AfD for Orly Taitz

Looks like it was the right thing to do to go through a formal {{AfD}}. The community is really struggling with this one. Initially I thought it would end up as a keep, but now it appears that it will end up as a no-consensus. Dems on the move (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspected something like this might happen, actually, when you contested my PROD. I know you as a sensible editor, I regard myself as one, and yet I thought the article was an open-and-shut delete (so much so that I PRODed instead of AFDing on first sight), and you quite clearly thought it was a keeper. I admit, I'm a bit dismayed by the number of people who've come out of the woodwork with the "anybody on TV must have an article" style arguments, but I'm content to watch this play out. Ray^Talk 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices

The book "Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices" is a relatively new book, and generally for a book to be referenced in other books and papers/articles etc, it takes about 1-2 years. Similarly reviews of a book to appear in scholarly journals take -on an average- about a year or so. Thus the reasoning that "only references on Gscholar are by the author of the book" may not be a correct reasoning for removing this book from Wikipedia.

Overall, this is a good and informative book, published by a reputed publisher. The book gives good information about paraphilias and its legal aspects, and thus I feel that it should be retained in Wikipedia.

Feel free to take your opinion to the AfD page. However, as you are undoubtedly aware, Wikipedia has notability criteria for books at WP:BK which need to be satisfied for an article to survive the deletion process. Cheers, Ray^Talk 07:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Boxer Narciso "kid" Marinez

I boxed for many years and received many awards, and I feel this article should remain. Maybe I didn't format the article properly, but please do not delete the information. I am new at this and maybe you can help me write the article properly. Thank you, Narciso "Kid" MartinezNarcisoMartinez (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

what you need to keep the article around, is a reliable source confirming the facts listed in the article, to the point where the article meets the requirements for notability. This usually means a newspaper, or, for something of that age, a book, magazine article, etc. You need to cite it properly, but if you have the source, I can help with that. I should caution that writing your own biography on Wikipedia is highly discouraged as a conflict of interest. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote yourself. Best, Ray^Talk 08:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About prods

Although I agree with you regarding the Pascal Tosi (director) article, for future reference you should avoid prods for articles when an earlier prod has been denied. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah, my fault. I usually check the talk tab for oldprodfulls, but don't always remember to check the history. Ray^Talk 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Eugen Campu

Hi RayAYang! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Eugen Campu- because: Not a blatant hoax. He is a real mathematician, and has claimed to have solved the problem If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Um. Right. That doesn't make it less of a hoax in my opinion, but you're right, that moves it out of G3, and it's not a deliberate hoax on the part of the article author, assuming the author isn't Campu. Ray^Talk 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The "proof" seem to have been published around 2006, and our article on the Riemann hypothesis is still in Category:Unsolved problems in mathematics. decltype (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Your time reviewing Ruth Bader Ginsburg is much appreciated. I really learned a lot. And your time and contribution isn't unnoticed. --NickDupree (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. The article was fun to read and quite informative - just not quite there yet. Ray^Talk 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

Hi: You seem to be in an edit war over at Osama bin Laden. Please do not call fellow editors stupid, and discuss controversial changes on the Talk page instead of edit warring. Thanks, Ray^Talk 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no edit war, I did not call anyone stupid and the changes are far from controversial. The justification for my changes are in the opening section of the article and the other editor doesn't seem to understand what "last name", a term used in his edit summary, actually means. Please feel free to take a look for yourself. Cheers, Turkeyphan^t 16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Churchill

No worries about the consolidated citations -- because this sort of thing probably happens more often than either you or I imagine.

Will you please take a look at my short, one-sentence addition. As you may know, a pointed detail can help any subject come alive; but the one sentence I added about Churchill's 1937 purchase of a pet parrot may need to be tweaked, tightened up, or perhaps re-worded? I found this tidbit in a New York newspaper in January; and the clipping was mislaid until today. There is another element which encourages me to think this detail is a noteworthy enhancement. According to the article, "During the war, Churchill would delight visitors to his private chambers by getting Charlie to curse out the Germans -- and the bird has apparently kept up the tradition" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tenmei - I think that was a beautiful addition; unfortunately, it seems the old hands at the article recognized it as an old urban legend - see Benea's posting at Talk:Winston Churchill. Best, Ray^Talk 23:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, thanks -- this turns out to be much ado about a parrot canard. --Tenmei (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war warning

I'm trying to be more careful about this, having recently learned 3RR applies to a consensus as well as another editor. -MBHiii (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was just worried because things looked like they were getting heated. Ray^Talk 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

VPEC-T notability

Ray, I'm the author of the VPEC-T article and have seen your notability tag. As background, let me mention that I have used this business-oriented thinking framework for information systems analysis myself, and I think it's valuable, so I'd like to see it retained. Can I look to you for clarification on secondary sources, if I may? Yes, some of the external links are primary sources - the book's author's blog and so on, but I felt that Computerworld, Forbes.com and University of Greenwhich were reliable, secondary sources about the topic. Can you offer me some guidance as to why they are not, please?

Thanks, I'd appreciate it. Argey (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not the external links - the references are the problem. So far, there's one book, and lots of blogs. Ray^Talk 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, Looking at that now. Argey (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added secondary sources, and integrated some former external links as references (also improved these by using citation template). I hope this allows notability template to be removed now. Please advise. See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=VPEC-T&action=history Argey (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Good job! Ray^Talk 19:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. Argey (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mishavonna Henson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mishavonna Henson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aspects (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ray^Talk 02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ray Blunt

Thanks for the NPOV warning, I was busy re-sourcing the "Controversies" portion with more legitimate news sources than blogs, since the refs were broken anyway. I'll re-add it once I'm done. K thanks :) -Torax the lorax (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Can You Help Me

I'm trying to remove dicussions about my business, Four Paws Enterprise, as I find them slanderous. I don't appreciate what was writen and wish them to be removed. No one seems to understand that even though they are opinions, they are both hurtful and disrespectful. Please remove the discussions as I do not want them to be part of the talk pages.75.146.96.21 (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please contact info-en@wikimedia.org with any specific complaints you might have. They're better suited to resolve this sort of thing than a public forum. Best, Ray^Talk 03:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I plan on sueing wikimedia foundation after making multiple requests to remove slanderous content.75.146.96.21 (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Thanks for the barnstar. Joe Chill (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - it was long overdue. I keep seeing you around at AFD, and your effort is most impressive. Cheers, Ray^Talk 00:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

World Domination update

I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I know this may sound crazy but please check out the present status of the first article. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the spoilers of fun and strict citationists have gotten to the article. It's a shame. The old article had its issues, but I thought they could've been worked around, rather than excised wholesale. World domination as a cultural subject should've been approached with a sense of humor. As an aside, we now no longer have an article on the subject of universal states (in the sense of states that control all that they survey). Ray^Talk 15:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kori Schake

Hi Ray. Thanks for checking out the COI issue on the Kori Schake article. --When in doubt, eat potatoes (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. It looks to be a good and useful biography. Congratulations :) Ray^Talk 19:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

You have been very generous in offering me your help and a lot of manuals, if I have any questions, I´m sure to ask to you. I Give you thanks:--Danielesteban12 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free! Best, Ray^Talk 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Kagan

I wish to add the information that Kagan (like many journalists) was of the opinion that WMD's will be found - While respecting WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Will I be able to add this information - or is this information inherently foul of WP:NPOV? Ideally it would be great if you could edit my post to a sufficient standard or guide me. Thanks Chendy (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and write a section in narrative voice concerning his activities around the start of the Iraq War, remembering to cite your sources. It is settled fact that Kagan predicted that WMDs would be found, and that does belong in the bio. There's no need to run it by me first - Wikipedia encourages you to be bold. Believe me, if I have issues with your text, I will edit it when it appears. But you can't just stick a contextless quote in there - remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a scrapbook. Ray^Talk 16:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa Category

Hi: I notice you've been adding people to Category:Phi Beta Kappa Society. It would be very much appreciated if you could insert a brief (sourced and cited) sentence about these people's memberships into their biographies. Is that possible? Thanks, Ray^Talk 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I was relying on several sources and methods to verify and using more than one per bio, including: 1. the list by year of induction that is on wikipedia, 2. the phi beta kappa site lists, 3. the bios themselves which often include a mention of membership. 4. In addition, I would cross check college and year with other information in the bio.

It seemed to me that was sufficient verification per Wikipedia standards, but apparently you wish to require more?

I will probably have just a few specific questions based on your response. Regards, W E Hill (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your verification standards sound great. The particular problem is simply that, on the biography itself, often there's no reference to the phi beta kappa site lists, or that sort of thing. It'd be great if you could insert one where membership isn't previously sourced. Best, Ray^Talk 19:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Rico

In August, you place a notability tag on Johnny Rico. I've cleaned it up somewhat. Do you think it's ready to have the notability tag removed? Dincher (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. The article could still use improvement, but notability seems to be established, if barely. Ray^Talk 14:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on it. Dincher (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Minor barnstar

Your welcome! :D

btw, I noticed your userbox says you'd like to be an admin someday. I think you'd make a fine admin.. how do you feel about being listed at Wikipedia:Vetting process? -- œ^™ 04:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the compliment ... it sounds like it would be interesting. Let's go ahead? Ray^Talk 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok I added ya. Now we just wait and see.. -- œ^™ 05:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well it doesn't look like the vetting process is going anywhere.. the whole proposal doesn't seem to have taken off as an idea.. shall I formally nominate you for adminship then? -- œ^™ 19:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks! Um ... how does this go forward? I admit, despite reasonably regular attendance at RFA, I'm not too familiar with the process of being nominated. Ray^Talk 20:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I wrote up the nom at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RayAYang. Just sign the acceptance of nomination, answer the questions, then just transclude it when you're ready. Or just notify me when you're ready and i'll transclude it for you. -- œ^™ 20:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Have done. Ray^Talk 21:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA note

I am not looking for a recantation of your statements, and I respect that you are not sugar-coating your opinion just to skate through RFA. However I do find your views on the requirements for reliable sources w.r.t. redirects, to be incompatible with my understanding of our core policies. I don't intend to distract you any further from the RFA, and this good-faith disagreement aside, wish you the continue enjoying contributing to wikipedia as an editor or admin, as the case may be. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to be sure you weren't opposing b/c of a misunderstanding. Cheers, Ray^Talk 05:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Page Deletion

I have a page that has been nominated for deletion...any suggestions? User:Upgradejrrn 7:43pm Oct 12,2009

Your best bet is to study the relevant notability criteria, and see if you can find sufficient sources (or proof of other facts meeting the appropriate subject-specific criteria) to convince the editors at the deletion discussion that the article meets Wikipedia's requirements. If you would care to be more specific, I might be able to direct you further. Best, Ray^Talk 04:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

UniSoma

Hello Ray, I noticed you marked UniSoma page with the 'advert' and 'notability' tags. As for the advert, I will try my best to modify the content to a neutral point of view, although I do not think it could be considered a spam. As for notability, I originally added the page due to the 'Franz Edelman Award for Management Science Achievement' the company received in 1995. This award is highly praised in the operations research area and therefore should, imo, be a relevant and independent source of notability. Do you agree? Luisfdcp (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - Indeed, I don't think the article is spam, I just think it has seriously spammy parts. As for notability, if the award is significant, it shouldn't be difficult to find press describing the award and such achievements as the company has had to merit the award - including those articles in the references would easily satisfy any notability concerns. Ray^Talk 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ray. Thanks for the feedback. I made some changes to the page, adding in references and text editing, and I believe it is now adequate. I an new to wikipedia, how should I proceed to exclude the advert and notability tags? Can this me done by myself, or should I wait for an administrator? Cheers, Luisfdcp (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Your RfA

Hello. I am sorry to inform you that your recent RfA did not demonstrate that there was consensus in the wikipedia community for you to be able to access the janitorial tools at this time. I understand that this is disappointing, having been on the receiving end of failed requests myself. My unasked for advice to you would be to take a few days away from EnWiki and let the emotional roller coaster settle, and then return and read the opposition statements. Consistently and honestly addressing the issues raised in the opposition would be the most important step in gaining the community's trust. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This was yet another case where I really wish we had some kind of election for an alternative position where we could have talked about the same issues, without a failed RfA at the end of it. I agree with Avi ... take some time, do something fun, and come back to the issue later when you've got fresh eyes. Best of luck, and feel free to chat any time. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Avi and Dan: Thanks very much for your kind thoughts, and I think I will take your advice - if I can stand to stay away for that long! Best, Ray^Talk 02:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to that redirect that was the topic of so much discussion on your RfA, I found something that relates to that and thought you might find it interesting to read: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Precedents#Should insulting nickname redirects be kept?. -- œ^™ 02:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems very hit and miss indeed. Ray^Talk 03:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I do have a certain empathy of my own for the sentiment. Cheers, Ray^Talk 03:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Prod

I only prod recently created articles. I don't prod old articles because I don't like a possibly notable article to be deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Just wanted to be sure you knew of the option. :), Ray^Talk 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar, its nice to get some unexpected appreciation! --Milowent (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

UniSoma

Sorry to bother you again Ray, but I was looking forward to some feedback regarding my changes to the UniSoma page. I am also not sure how to proceed in removing the tags (notoriety and spam) that you had assigned it. Can I do this myself? Thanks for the help in advance. Luisfdcp (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can! Ray^Talk 20:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on my talk

While your edits, made in good faith, bring up valid points. It is considered "polite" to discuss changes on the talk page of controversial topics. If you would care to spell out the changes you would like to make as well as provide the references you have used, you may find a warmer reception. Also, accusing people of attempting to OWN an article is inappropriate. Please also consider the tone of the changes you wish to make. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's WP:BRD cycle is well established. There is no requirement for prior review, and changes are only discussed on the talk page if there are specific, substantive objections to changes. I have no objection to discussing any of my edits, and indeed invite you to open such a conversation, but a blanket requirement for prior review is a clearcut case of WP:OWN, and I will call a spade a spade. Ray^Talk 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though others disagree with the changes you have made, another user has reverted my changes. Therefore in order to avoid an edit war I am un involving myself from this topic and conversation. Cheers!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See you around. Best, Ray^Talk 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

re: da Vinci

Thanks for the star! Glad you find the bot's contribs useful. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA belated note

Hello! My editing for much of this month has been sporadic and when I edit, I frequently work on my posts in an off-wiki file first and then add them to Wikipedia. Anyway, one post I wrote earlier in the month but for which the discussion was closed is the following, which I have no idea if it does you any good or interest now, but I am posting it here for your interest anyway:

For RayAYang RfA: Weak support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. I had earlier evaluated this editor at Wikipedia:Editor review/RayAYang, where you can see some of the positives I identified in my first statement followed by some suggestions. Concerning the former, the candidate earned a second barnstar since the Editor review and still has a clean block log. With regards to the latter, as you can see, the editor and I do not really see eye to eye in AfDs, but for the RfA, I think in fairness I should focus on post editor review stuff. I think he responded to my review civilly, even if we still disagree on WP:PERNOM. Anyway, post-editor review, I found this comment reasonable (“worthless” may have been harsh, but the suggestions for improvement are sound). This comment I naturally disagree with, and right after the AfD closed, I even noticed additional sources of ships made into a real world cake, etc., but edit history was undeleted by closing admin after discussion, so no harm no foul, I guess. My main suggestion in such an instance as that is that as the AfD went on, new sources were brought to light, many new arguments advanced and so, it is a good idea to sometimes revisit discussions. I am not saying go back and forth with people as some of us did, but maybe make a comment noting that you have taken into account the new arguments and sources and are either still not persuaded or as I would have hoped and as most of those toward the end of the discussion tended to agree that maybe we do have something worth either developing further or merging. The candidate did make a couple of RfA votes that I think reflect poor judgment, but appear to be a case of WP:AGF, which is somewhat hard to knock someone for. So, it is somewhat mixed here and I see editors whose opinions I respect both supporting and opposing. I guess with it being my favorite time of the year and just general frame of mind, I don’t have it in me to oppose someone and heck, I think if Kww’s RfA is still open, maybe after this post, I’ll go there and strike my oppose. I don’t want to take the coward’s way out and all, but I have had enough unpleasant experiences on wiki; I’d rather enjoy it from here on out and I can probably make effective suggestions and constructive criticisms even in supports. I just want to be a positive person! I hope you understand.

I apologize for missing the actual discussion. I do not know what effect my post would have had, i.e. if it would have been enough to help you or not, but anyway here it is. All the best! --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)