User talk:RaseaC/Archive 3

Speedy deletion declined: Noah Tepperberg

Hello RaseaC, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Noah Tepperberg - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake Wartenberg 05:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming

Hi, I notice you have been indiscriminately welcoming new users. While it is great to be friendly, it is best to wait until the user makes constructive edits. That way we avoid wasting server space and you don't end up warning potential vandals like User talk:Shithead5555 and spammers like User talk:Splash Back Records. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wondered if there was any argument against indisciminently welcoming but figured that the template I'm using is helpful even for those that haven't made an edit. I'm keeping an eye on Splash Back, as soon as he does something stupid I'll put him forward for a block. RaseaC (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...

this is a quick 'yeah I know' to whoever is here to tell me about my language/arguing with vandals. Sorry. RaseaC (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to! I know how you feel. They can be very frustrating. But we all appreciate your hard work. Try not to let them bug you too much. And keep up the good work! Makeemlighter (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A whole 5 minutes? Poor show! Thanks, just got HG so they all come out of the woodwork! Regards, RaseaC (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Uhh...

Looks like you re-reverted my vandalism revert on Maurice Wilkins. Kcowolf (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thanks to you also for your counter-vandalism work. Kcowolf (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Götterdämmerung

Concerning your reversion here and the subsequent warning to the editor (User talk:207.237.1.119). He was editing the synopsis (plot) of an opera. His changes appear to be made in good faith, and are not inaccurate, although one could quibble about the writing style. I would suggest you look more carefully at the written context in which changes are made before marking them as vandalism. One of the disadvantages of Huggle is that's so fast that it discourages diligent scrutiny. I also think you should remove the vandalism warning from the user's page, or indicate there that it wasn't valid. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the time stamp it's clear what happened there! I'll adjust user's talk accordingly. RaseaC (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent van den Berg

I noticed that you reverted my edit to the article Vincent van den Berg. I don't see what is wrong with my edit. A sentence like "Unfortunately, the injury curse struck again as his opportunity to impress lasted just 15minutes..." is not the proper style for Wiki. "Unfortunately" is listed as a Word to avoid and the "injury curse" is too poetic. I turned it into "but was again injured", which is much more NPOV. The following sentence, "It looks to have ended any hopes of Sparta taking their interest any further", is crystalballing and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If they don't take him on, we'll write that instead (which is what I did); if they had taken him on, this sentence would have become meaningless. Either way, it's not suitable for Wikipedia. I don't see why what I wrote should have been reverted. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sure I had a good reason at the time but for the life of me can't see what it might of been, your edits are good. Sorry. RaseaC (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camborne Science and Community College

I'm afraid that all I have to go on is the sign on his office door and the title on the name badge he wears. It's a new thing and the school's website is rather behind... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brains351 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The titles 'Principal' and 'Vice Principal' are used in the on page two of the following document taken from the school's website: http://cambornescience.co.uk/docs/1_septcommunitynews09.pdf Brains351 (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk.RaseaC (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They've probably only done it because it sounds more important and college-like. I'd personally have thought the title 'Headmaster' would suit the megalomania a bit more, but who am I to judge? Thanks for the edit, Brains351 (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Excuse me, but in what whay was my edit unconstructive? I added the category: Category:19th-century Austrian people to a 19th-century Austrian person. In what way was that unconstructive? --85.226.46.178 (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please let the additions that I made in the Daylight saving time around the world stay. Thank you.

Please let the additions that I made in the Daylight saving time around the world stay. Thank you.

There was already a list (though not mentioned in the title) with Asian Countries which do not DST. I just added Georgia (if it is counted in Asia).

I also created a list with African Countries which do not DST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.27.237 (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also Turkey plans to abolish daylight saving time in 2011. 08/19/2008, Turkey - "Turkey to abandon daylight saving time in 2011", Turkish Daily News81.215.27.237 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.27.237 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in this article, sorry, but well done on your contributions, they look good. RaseaC (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Power

Enjoy your temporary "power" in acting as thought police and "enforcing" your opinion on others, fairly soon you will have to return to what is no doubt a frustrated life as Wikipedia moves more and more to a profesionally edited encyclopedia worthy of it's promise.193.130.122.254 (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bare that in mind and savour it for now then. While I'm doing that, go look up the meaning of 'wiki'. RaseaC (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great...your incorrect usage of the word "bare" is in keeping with your edits which always show a lack of English comprehension.
Your borderlining talkpage content violations here, and you understood what I meant so why question spelling? Please add comments to the relevant section and sign with four ~s, I can't keep doing your work for you! RaseaC (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should concern yourself less with tryingg to do others people's work for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.77.79 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When an uneducated (in the sense of WP) editor re-formats my talk page I have no other option than to format it correctly for them. Thank you for adding your thoughts in the correct section, but you should remember to sign four ~s after your posts. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you...

Thank you for informing me of an oversight in a lack explanation for removing the data on the page titled List of songs recorded by Morgana King. Your reaction to vandalism activity prompted my email to "info@wikipedia.org" and a response from Maggie Dennis at Wikipedia.org was received ("if you have encountered a vandalism patroller who is over-zealous in his or her efforts - you may be doing the project a great service in cordially reminding him or her not to label good-faith edits as vandalism..."). I am not vandalizing the Morgana King article (which I have greatly contributed to over the past few weeks) and its lateral pages, I am changing the self-created lateral pages in an effort to build a solid article for the latter artist. Again, thank you for the response to your misunderstanding and my oversight.Imoya (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The user continued to remove the tag. End of story. I will not remove the warnings. –túrianpatois 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user clearly made a mistake, and now that a third editor stepped in where I was going to the tag is magically staying put. I hate vandals as much as you, but cool down and assume a bit of good faith. I would also suggest you check out wp:etiquette and apply it like I do, which is to say the more established the editor the more they get. When I get someone brining a mistake to my attention I like to leave it on my talk, and I certainly don't remove it from there with a rude edit summary. You're doing a good job, don't ruin it. RaseaC (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see any issue. And I can do whatever I want to with my talk page. I disagreed with your comment, as with your last one as well. Removing content without explanation is revertable, regardless of its validity. –túrianpatois 22:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even an issue. They removed content without saying why. That should be reverted. If it shouldn't have, then why would there be multiple warning templates on the issue? Stop making a mountain out of a molehill; you are doing nothing but causing pointless trouble. –túrianpatois 23:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

They both got released today. Eagles24/7 22:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=18627 Eagles24/7 22:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasoncward

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasoncward. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - I had wondered, because the edit summaries were quite similar, but your detective work beats mine! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 08:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For this]. I saw it but I just get weary edit warring on my own talk page. Thanks for taking up my slack. Tiderolls 23:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RaseaC. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Sneakers o toole

Hello RaseaC, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Sneakers o toole) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion.

I removed much of that message per WP:DTTR. That article's about a fictional character; A7 applies to real persons, etc., only. Tim Song (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since it's a plausible redirect - see Sneakers O'Toole, I'll just redirect the page instead of prod. Tim Song (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaya Jones

Thanks for your recent reversion at Kaya Jones. As you may have read on the talk page, it appears that both Jones herself, and her manager have been editing the article.--Design (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Just so you know I removed the sentence from the potential superpowers page because there was the exact same sentence in the column below, probably just some kind of typo. Swedish pirate (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk page guidelines

please see wp:talk. I know the guidelines, do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.131.174 (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I do and it is acceptable to remove disruptive or offensive comments, such as yours. It is clear from your edit history that you are only interested in causing trouble on the corriander talk and therefore I will not hesitate to revert any more offensive or inappropriate comments you make. May I suggest archiving instead of blanking your talk page? Regards, RaseaC (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please assume good faith. I am not user:96.237.59.92, who made the original offensive comment in question. I've made another comment, but not the one reverted in question. please stop crapping up my talk page, we can keep this thread here since I have you watchlisted now, thanks 75.83.131.174 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are the user I was referring to when I said 'offensive' (in light of your previous comments) and you were 'disruptive' by re-adding content that was removed for legitimate reasons. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you say disruptive, i say being bold. I'm not violating any policies by allowing everyones voice to be heard. 75.83.131.174 (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, and that of another (somewhat) established editor you were being disruptive and given that the comment in question was posted on a discussion that has been over for more than two years I don't think the OP was contributing anything constructive. If you disagree with myself or another editor might I suggest going through dispute resolution rather than reverting? Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

point taken, I appreciate your feedback. I wasn't intentionally trying to be disruptive, but censorship rubs me the wrong way, no matter how quote-unquote offensive something may be. this project would be a complete a nanny state if it wasn't for the disruptive ones who keep things interesting 75.83.131.174 (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but above all else WP:NOTCENSORED but that doesn't extend to users disrupting otherwise constuctive talk pages. People that raise a valid point do not want you calling them 'defective' and users constructively discussing a subject do not want profanity for the sake of it. I can't stand censorship either, hence why I am quite active on patrolling Muhammad articles at the moment given the situation there, but I don't go about adding cuss words willy-nilly. Keep contributing to WP and keep fighting censorship, but do it properly. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:Basingwerk, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or shared IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the sentiment, there really is no need to restore removed messages. Any blocking admin is going to check the page history regardless, so reverting an editor who blanks his or her own talk page is just wasting your time and potentially aggravating the other editor. We want the vandalizing editor to disengage from their disruptive edits rather than get into a "revert war game." If you are not familiar with it, WP:DENY might be an informative read. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, that is fine, however WP:RPA offers the best guidance on the issue. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

You recently reverted an edit to First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Phoenix Arizona for no apparent reason. The page had been nominated for speedy deletion, but that does not preclude the author from adding more material to the page. It might have been that the author felt that the material enhanced the article and might have swayed an admin away from deleting the page. Good faith edits such as those should not be reverted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Deletion?

Why are my edits not constructive? Everything I have placed is truth and can be verified by court documents. So will please give me the information I need to make my edit constructive.Stogies87 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My edits are not a personal vendetta, they are truth. Since, WP is the free encylopedia, the public has the right to know the truth. If I place my court docket number will that be good enough to leave the edit. That is proof of everything so it isn't liable or slander. So it should be allowed to stay on that page.Stogies87 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on user's talk.RaseaC (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an explanation of why the truth is not allowed, when it can be verified. This is not a personal vendetta b/c all I want is for the internet community to know the truth and not get suckered into having what happened to myself and 20 other individuals to happen again. So, if you wouldn't mind let me know if my docket number will work.Stogies87 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk.RaseaC (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not posting these edits for a personal vendetta. I am wondering if my question of the court docket being the citation that I need to prove the outcome of my court case. Yes you are more experience at editing, but your opinion is not truth and I have truth from my court case.Stogies87 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talkRaseaC (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations are false statements, but everything I have posted has been truth and court documents back them up. I understand the notability, so I will not post anything else, but to get this corrected a neutral person can post the information, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stogies87 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talkRaseaC (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, does the court docket number, more and likely make it noteable, and I am not going to just have someone post my information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stogies87 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what has happened to my account and why. Msy2fla (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP vandalism?

WHY!? :o( They say they aren't racist or white supremist. I dont get why I put was wrong. Please explain. 92.15.41.187 (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk.RaseaC (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I, Jeff G., hereby award RaseaC with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Zoo

A7 doesn't apply to buildings, but also this house is notable, as it's had several newspaper articles about it and a TV programme too. Fences&Windows 03:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol

I've had a couple tonight.... (mistakes with huggle that is - only the one beer!) Quantpole (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me, you and Quantpole

Absolutely no worries, its great that people are so quick off the mark with checking out vandalism - I am impressed. However I get slightly worried everytime I see I have a new message! :D Starlemusique (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I could try, but I'm too scared of you guys! I'll stick with my attempts to help :D Starlemusique (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that would be great - I will use you as my own personal sandbox. There have been plenty of times today where I've wondered how to go about something. Especially the savvy vandals that make several changes in quick succession so you can't just undo. Then I read about Huggle and Twinkle, got confused and dazedly backed away.... So, backwards Caesar, I will speak to you soon. Happy devandalising. Starlemusique (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi

Hello, but I have been on here for a few days, and I have contributed to some of the articles. I\They are true and you have been deleting them. I have been wondering why? What am I doing wrong that is getting them deleted? The facts I put on the French Culture were very true.--Gethigher811 (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.241.218.107

NB: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:71.241.218.107 — hard-core PoV-pushing anon. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to edit revert.

Shortly, concisely, and plainly:

You reverted an edit of mine, posting a short template to my talk page calling it "unconstructive". (I'm familiar with this template.) My edit was clearly not vandalism. I spent much too much time writing a complete argument for my teeny, minimally significant edit on my talk page at User_talk:71.242.6.231#September_2009 below your reversion template. Yes, I'm unregistered, and I see from your user page that you support universal registration. I don't know much about that debate, but I commented about my unregistered-by-choice (for now) status in my response. I wrote the response before looking at your user page (not my most brilliant move this year, but not very negatively consequential either). Please disregard the intensity in the first paragraph of my response on my talk page; I was quite shocked and taken aback in the moment. Now that's over. Please read or skim my response and explain your position. We're only talking about a dull edit of one sentence, but now that I've taken all the time to reconstruct and analyze my thought process when I was making the edit in question and to meticulously encode those thoughts into language, as intellectuals are inclined to do (for better or worse), I'd like something to come of it.

Even more shortly and frankly (with intentional humor):
You reverted an edit of mine that I think is perfectly good. Now I'm disinclined to like you, but I'm willfully suspending judgment until I know why you did it and how you respond to a civil challenge. To that end, like an idiot I've spent probably over an hour writing a long treatise on my talk page explaining why I made the edit, what I do on Wikipedia, and how much I like Colby-jack cheese and hope the moon is made of it (not really the part about the cheese). (/Like/ an idiot, but not /as/ an idiot.) Having spent all that time, I'm not going spend any more to edit my response down, so please work with it as it is. What the heck, let's fix this and finish it.

By the way, I note that my edited version of the sentence would have been better with "and so" rather than just "and" starting the last clause. Was this causal detail your concern?

71.242.6.231 (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You responded on my talk page and said that you think the reverted version reads more clearly. I strongly disagree. Can you explain why you hold your position? You said you do not read long posts, but in mine I did explain down to the grammatical clauses why I think the original and as-reverted version is misleading, unclear, and grammatically defective. Are you familiar with the material being discussed? I hope you are not giving the original text preference simply because as an unregistered user you judge me less reliable, rather than basing your editing judgement solely on the content in question.
Also, I realize that you don't have much time to review each case of vandalism, since there are so many, as you say, but perhaps then it would be better for vandalism-watchers to confine themselves to reverting cases of obvious clear-cut vandalism. That is, while time is not available for careful analysis of questionable cases.
71.242.6.231 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your follow-up edit is an improvement over the original (that I edited and you had restored), but what the sentence says still isn't quite correct. Do you have knowledge of mechanical engineering? What you wrote is a technically true statement, but I think the prior author's intent was to explain that once the post-and-lintel structure is assembled, these forces, stresses, and deformations are statically and continuously present. That is, this is the case as long as the lintel is supported at its ends by the posts. Under its own weight (and the added the weight of any load pushing down on it between the posts), the lintel will have tension at the underside and compression at the topside, and so it will deform. This is what the phrase "deformation of self-weight" in the first sentence is referring to. The tension and compression along its length (horizontally) are the result of the internal forces that keep the lintel from bending like a cooked noodle or a rubber sheet.
By saying "The lintel will deform . . . when the underside is under tension and . . ." (my emphasis), you are implying that the lengthwise tension and compression in the lintel are not always there. However, as long as the lintel experiences a downward force between the posts due to at least its own weight, the tension and compression will be there.
Do you see what I mean? The "when" needs to become "because". If that simple word substitution is made, I think a comma is needed before "because" as well. Then the sentence will be clear and correct.
71.242.6.231 (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion

How important is it to leave vandalism template warnings on users talk? For example, I've reverted plenty of minor vandalism, particularly through reverting one and then going to that users contribs and checking for others. I haven't been leaving warnings, mainly because I don't want the comeback and would prefer to quietly go about my business, but I am aware that if that user has vandalised before and already has warnings, I am not contributing evidence towards a possibly necessary block. I would value your opinion. Starlemusique (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I'm probably worrying about it too much. I've left a couple, but only where there have been quite a few reverted edits where no warning has been left. So far so good... The ones I've done didn't carry on messing about so that's good. Thanks for your help! Starlemusique (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your recent reversion with the Naomi Clark article. I'd appreciate any further assistance in the future (if you could keep an eye on it now and then) as there are, unfortunately, people who keep trying to insert unverified fancruft or remove verified material. Thanks again. -- James26 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More new knowledge please

Bet you wish you hadn't offered to help now. What's the protocol on users removing whois templates from their IP's talk page? One has come back to revert again after a 3RR block. Just came across it in passing and wanted to find out. Starlemusique (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page?! You're still great, don't be sorry!! Starlemusique (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, big 'ed Starlemusique (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, RaseaC. You have new messages at Starlemusique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dont threat me....

RASEAC C

what do you think...????by threating me i will stop..?? and who are you to tell me..to stop..!! what i have posted there was a fact and you dont want muslim world to see the fact because you have a mission to provoke muslims....that is why....i was telling muslims to stop asking for the removal of images nothing more than that....but you've even deleted that thread...it was a clear reason why we muslims should not visit these pages as its not for muslims...but you want something which can lead towards useless countless threads/discussions.....i know your game plan...and if you are man enuff than let that thread be there which will clearly shows muslims not to visit this page & not to ask you to remove images..... you only know the abuse of power......you have nothing to prove your self that is why ....abusing your admin powers....by blocking we can have 1000000's of accoutns...RASEAC C we are in 21st century not like you living with ceasers....

I had wondered where the loons migrated to in the Fall. Now I see they apparently settle on Rasea's page....Doc Tropics 13:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Dean's Cove Boat Launch

Hello RaseaC, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Dean's Cove Boat Launch - a page you tagged - because: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wokkiball

Hi, maybe 'hoax' was the wrong speedy category but proposed deletion is certainly the wrong way to go. THe contributor obviosuly drunkenly made up a game with his mate and decided to write an article about it, your request for 'improvement' is pointless given that, because the 'sport' doesn't actually exist, the article can't be improved! If there is a better speedy category then use that, otherwise this is a hoax in the sense that the contributor is trying to mnake out that this is an actual sport. Please address. Regards, RaseaC (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It is indeed pretty senseless to wait for improvement, as it simply cannot be improved. However, the WP:NOT based rules are explicitly not included in the CSD based deletion criteria. Overtime i came to notice that some admins take that part of WP:NOT quite serious and therefore deny speedy deletion templates placed on such article's.
At most this article could be shoved under the A7 as it is a non notable activity. But certainy not under hoax; If i claim that i'm the world champion skiing and create an article about it that is a hoax, as i'm clearly not telling the truth. Yet this article doesn't claim anything that isn't true - im certain the game actually excists but it is just completely not notable. Careful with over tagging pages for CSD. The article was certainly created with good faith; so a PROD with a small explanation is much better for PR then smashing it with a CSD. The end results are the same anyway. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that aspects of it are clearly a hoax (I for one won't be looking out for it in the olympics, as suggested) and also that it clearly is not made in good faith (unless the contributor is incredibly stupid he knows what he's doing is wrong), in the same way that an article stating 'Johnny is cool' is not created with good faith either. I doubt there's a PR issue involved here, all this is going to do is give the guy a kick for half an hour and that's it. I would suggest tagging it with A7 on the basis explained above. Keeping it hanging around for a week just makes the project look stupid. RaseaC (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article was created with the thought "Wow, i made up a cool new game, i wanna share it!"; Keep in mind that while we may think it is stupid to even create such an article, some people have no experience whatsoever creating an article and assume that we just include everything (Some people reason that we would otherwise never have had 3 million+ pages). The same goes for all the 11, 12 and 13 year old creating article's about themselves stating they are "Add a load of positive words". I doubt they do it with bad intent, because they simply don't think about it. The only pages i really assume bad faith on are attack and spam pages.
If you wish to tag it as an A7, go right ahead. I generally don't have a quarrel with these kind of pages sticking around for a week; After all they are not linked anywhere and as they are made up, who is going to read them in the first place? :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PRCS

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Palestine Red Crescent Society, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. RaseaC (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that the WHO is not a reliable source?--209.213.220.227 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlstone Conference & Retreat Center article deletion

Hello RaseaC,

My intentions were not to create an inapproriate page on Wikipedia in any way! I love this site and have found it both useful and resourceful. Please don't block me from editing. I apologize.

Looking forward to your reply, Calm123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calm123 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argleton

I see you removed the image in question, so presumably you agree with the point I was making. Please think twice before making sarcastic comments like this one, though. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Laurie L. Patton

Thank you for your feedback. I have the concerns and as a new editor wanted to see how the tone and style of Laurie L. Patton differed from that in Hans Henrich Hock? Buzzdad (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of other established editors have reviewed that page and deemed it notable, I usually trust that sort of judgement so will not be reviewing any page suggestions for deletion. Furthermore, if the content has been on WP for a while then it is probably not copied and pasted from another source, which has been the case on the article in question. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Personal Attack

you stink of shit and piss i fuked your mother all night long—Preceding unsigned comment added by The gunner00 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(n.b. the editor obviosuly put a lot of effort into this articulate contribution so it seems a shame to delete it, plus it's very useful to know when one's personal hygeine is lagging,RaseaC (talk))

You templated the wrong editor

Please take a look at your speedy deletion warning [1] and direct it to the correct editor. Thanks. Edison (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argleton

I've already responded on the article talk page: two comments against one does not constitute a concensus. Since your initial removal of the category has been disputed, it should remain until you have a clear concensus to remove. Small-town hero (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Concensus" at Talk:Argleton. Small-town hero (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put forward my views on the situation. RaseaC (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:ANI mess

Apologies for the belated response RaseaC, but I m supposed to be on a Wikibreak and this mess came at a very bad time. Regarding your post, if I got it right, you're asking me if he should be blocked or if he should be given a "third chance". Well, almost from the second he got here he began trying to get me banned from this website. Instead of discussing his edits he started "reporting" me for all sorts of nonsense demanding I be banned on practically every single admin noticeboard there is. He has since continued to do so, and every now and again I am called names in one of his "reports" (all of which have practically been ignored). I hold, due to these reasons, that he may well be a sock on an agenda to get rid of me by any means necessary (as you can see there's a lot of people that got banned because I reported them for socking and such and they do not like me at all).

Should he be blocked for OUTING? RaseaC, I'm getting threats and he's repeatedly revealing my personal information - despite warnings. If a user does not get blocked in this case, then half the people that got blocked for OUTING should've been given a "third chance" as well. And considering his agenda against me I have little sympathy for the fellow as you can understand. Finally, if I did not want help from the admins I wouldn't have posted on AN/I in the first place. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B&Q

Sorry I didn't see the talk messages you left for me which is why I ignored them.

Could you tell me what part of my edits to the B&Q page were vandalism? What citation do I need to include other than to scan in the redundancy pack that I have in front of me stating and listing the thirty-seven stores with employees to be made redundant? Or would it be to scan my Q12 gallup survey invitation with the opening and closing dates included on the card to show that the questions were asked less than 10 days before the redundancies were announced.

I really don't know what is wrong with including mass redundancies in the section titled B&Q as an employer as that must be exactly what the section is there fore would you not agree?

I also find it offensive that you continually used the word vandalise despite wikipedia's own guidelines specifically telling you not to do so. Very childish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.16.19 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to this message depending on the result of the recently-opened vandalism complaint against you. RaseaC (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not willing to have the common decency to tell me yourself why YOU considered it vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.16.19 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your explanation nor with the way you are conducting yourself on this talkpage and as such will wait and see what action admin decide to take on this matter. It would appear that another established editor agrees with my view that your edits are unconstructive (see B&Q history) and I urge you to refrain from re-adding the content. RaseaC (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast Cereal

Hi, re the edit i recently made (without logging in) to breakfast cereal, what was unconstructive about. The previous info is almost certainly wrong at least partially, since most Europeans would barely have been able to afford meat at all in the 17th century.Nwe (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence as it stands is uncited, a simple fact of history that every historian will tell you is not OR, and it is not opinion.Nwe (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but this if WP:IAR and WP:CRAT apply in any cases they apply in cases like this.Nwe (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sourceable information on 17th century dietary habits is not "easy", no matter how corect the stated fact. If you think its easy why not be constructive and find it yourself, instead of just deleting.86.43.167.135 (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note: ip is User:Nwe)

And incidentally above mentioned policies apply, even if it is "easy" to find sources, if its easy the correct response is to do it yourself.Nwe (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you only edit sites because you want to revert people's edits, even though you have no interest in the subject. That's a fairly petty way to go about. I have little interest in the subject either, I just like to improve accuracies where I see it can easily to be done. Clearly you prefer to be petty and bureaucratic and don't care about improving accuracies. No prob, no skin off my nose, just means people will be given an inaccurate picture of the 17th century.Nwe (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of how Huggle works, I simply strongly disagree with your approach, which seems to be to revert an edit without checking the context at all. I have no more interest in breakfast cereal than you do. Who DOES have a significant interest in breakfast cereal. But would it hurt you to make sure of the context of edits you're reverting? It should take you 2 seconds to have another look to make sure an edit is clearly unconstructive.Nwe (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Ball AKA Specular Sphere

You wrote "The recent edit that you made to the page Disco ball has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive." ... I added "Specular Sphere" as another name. How is that not constructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.240.7 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Media City

You were probably technically correct in your tagging of Digital Media City, it does need a fundamental rewrite. However, given that this doesn't appear to be a "drive by spamvertisement" and my personal "when in doubt, don't speedy unless you have to," I removed the tag, slapped on {{advertisement}}, and alerted the author he needs to get the article re-done or it's likely to go down in flames at WP:AFD. If he doesn't improve it in the coming days send it to AfD and let me know so I can add my opinion to the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. RaseaC (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The process worked - the article has been fundamentally rewritten by the author. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your recent interfere

You have just interfered on the page which I just did edit, and you blocked the edit that I did why ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.219.1 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User is referring to some reverted vandalism and has since been blocked. RaseaC (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]