User talk:ShadowRangerRIT/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello, ShadowRangerRIT! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Lhasa Oxygen

Hi, this is Bruce responding to your question about Lhasa.

I don't recall the exact reference, but exact it was.

As for all gases being reduced and the percentage of oxygen being resultantly constant, let us think back to elementary chemistry. At standard temperature and pressure (STP), a mole of gas occupies 22.4 liters. Oh, geez, here I am shooting myself in the foot, as Lhasa is so high up that we aren't dealing with STANDARD temperature and pressure, so the pressure is lower and the volume is up. Recall that PV = nRT. So, the lungs have to take in that much more volume of air to obtain an equivalent amount of oxygen. Yes, you could be right. But the 14% figure still comes from somewhere, and I shall hunt it down for you. What you're saying is that there is just X% less gas overall in the atmosphere at that elevation--viz., that everything is sparser--but that the percentage composition shouldn't change. That's certainly a defensible thesis, but is it correct? Stand by.

I found the reference for it, which confirms my suspicion. See altitude.org. I've already fixed the article. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

70% (Yūgure no Uta)

Hi, I was just wondering about your delete template on the article 70% (Yūgure no Uta).

Of the three songs you mentioned:
  1. Glamorous went double Platinum
  2. Wild/Dr. hit #1 on multiple charts
  3. Forever Love hit #1 on a secondary chart (though I'm a little skeptical of the notability in this case)
By contrast 70% (Yūgure no Uta) never got higher than the 30s (and that was it's debut position, it dropped from there), and barely sold. It's a matter of degree. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Additional note: I'd take the criteria regarding ranking on a national music chart with a grain of salt. It doesn't just have to rank, it has to rank relatively high, in a relatively large country (though Japan meets the latter criteria). Many of these charts have rankings going over 100 songs; you have to draw the line somewhere, or we'd have well over a million individual songs documented. I'm not 100% sure this is a bad article, thus the Proposed Deletion instead of Speedy Deletion. If you can provide more information regarding the notability of this song, please do. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
How about that? Ranked on three different charts, one an airplay chart at #7. --Prosperosity (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems acceptable by WP:MUS standards. Now whether I think even popular singles deserve their own article is a different matter, but that's a whole different discussion and not related to the deletion of this specific article. I won't readd the proposed deletion tag. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

what is going on here?

To Whom It May Concern, 

 You say I am promoting something that I should not? What about "Life in a Jar". What about the movie "Couragous Heart of Irena Sendler"? Are they not promoting their contributions to Irena Sendler? Why is "Sleeping With The Angles",  not contributing to Irena Sendler? I thought this is devoted to the memory of Irena Sendler, and what her life represented? What good is the encyclopedia about a subject that excludes actual facts that pertain to the subject? Your explaination defies your reason for including other inclusions, and excluding my contribution. This is not fair at all, and obviously is suspect to the valididity of any inclusions you have for all subjects. Perhaps it should be known about your "bias" to include what you feel to be "worthy" according to your prejudice?

Paul Millar~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulMillar (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for pointing this out. Dismas|(talk) 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Geoff B started

Why don't you warn him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.139.254 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your edit histories, it looks like you fired the first salvo (even if not a personal attack, making edit comments like "i love reverting your edits" is not appropriate), and there has been slow but steady escalation. It doesn't excuse Geoff; both of you need to restrain yourselves before this escalates any further.
On a side note, please sign your posts on talk pages; the SineBot doesn't always fix it up for you. Just type ~~~~ after your post and it will fill in the signature for you.
Finally, constantly adding and removing material for no reason is generally disruptive; if the edit shouldn't be made, don't make it in the first place. I notice a *lot* of activity where you make multiple edits in a row with no net effect. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually did leave a note on his talk page. Template warnings are generally frowned upon for established editors, so I was writing it out by hand. Have some patience. And stop deleting talk page history please. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you for giving him a warning. That's all I asked.

Years for start dates

Per WP:AIRPORTS guidelines, the year is not needed for start dates unless it is 13 or more months from the current date. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about those guidelines. My problem has been that innumerable start/end dates are given, and noone is tracking which year they are in. So when they are added, it may be within the next 13 months and obvious, but what happens if no one removes it on schedule? Come late January, people may not know if "ends January 3rd" means this past January 3rd, or the coming January 3rd, and it requires some good Samaritan to go through and doggedly scrape the history to figure out whether the listing should have already been removed. I won't continue adding years, but it seems like the guidelines are an invitation for pages with minimal maintainers to quickly lapse into inaccuracy. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I would bring this matter up to WP:AIRPORTS and discuss it there. Snoozlepet (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. Posted to the talk page, and added an RFC style tag. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello ShadowRangerRIT, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 21:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning my edits to Comparison of vampire traits

In the Twilight series Vampires are slowed down or otherwise adversely effect by sunlight past simply sparkling. Please explain why you don't wish to include something to that effect on the wiki page concerning these types of traits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.37.44 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, please provide a source, and avoid the word "retarded", as it has multiple meanings and without clarification is liable to produce misunderstandings. The page is currently being relentlessly vandalized, and I'm being understandably cautious about suspicious looking edits. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ammubhave

Well, i am new i don't have much knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammubhave (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. You can't be expected to learn every rule on Wikipedia in a week (or a month, or a year). As long as you're trying and not being blatantly counterproductive, it's a live and learn scenarion. By the way, when writing on talk pages, remember to use ~~~~ to sign your posts. It makes it easier to track who said what. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

stilltitled

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate the spirit of your intervention, but I would submit that there are three points that might encourage you to see otherwise in this case.

Three points: --First, the quotes linking back are relevant. For example, the backstory with taxes to modify Christie, et al. The link-back to the response to Demint and Hatch's op-ed against net neutrality. I think the bungee one is perhaps a bit of a stretch, but the others are not. --Second, the quotes linking back are interesting. The quotes cited in those outside references are substantiated with links back to primary sources. Google books, articles, et al --Third, there is no advertising on that site, so I'm not sure how it could be deemed advertising

Let me know what you think. 070time070 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The story in the linked reference talks entirely about Christine Whitman, with only a throwaway opening line saying how Christie is like her.
2. Interesting isn't enough. References exist to verify statements in the article. If they are relevant and necessary to verify information, link to the primary source.
3. Violating advertising doesn't require that the site has advertising, it means that you are advertising *for* the site. Just because you aren't making money off the site doesn't mean it isn't advertising.
Finally, the problem remains that the site itself is not reliable. Reliable sources do not include blogs, personal websites, etc. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Chris Ball

Hello ShadowRangerRIT, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Chris Ball - a page you tagged - because: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 20:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I didn't make the speedy deletion report. I just restored it after it was deleted by the article author in violation of policy. You should probably notify the original speedy deleter. I've posted as much to your talk page. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not worth it to keep fighting.

The whole page will just get locked again. At least the whole "Wesker is dead" thing was finally solved a few months ago. Anyway, thanks for not letting me get blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.200.19 (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The page will get locked if the "discussion" between you two is confined to edit wars. Taking it to the talk page is perfectly acceptable (and you don't have the edit summary character limit to deal with).
As for getting blocked, the only thing you did potentially worthy of it was violating 3RR, and you weren't aware of that rule. You motives for the changes appear to be good; I didn't want you to get tripped up on a technicality. Don't get frustrated or discouraged by this; it happens every once in a while. 99% (okay, 95%) of the people that participate in edit wars are willing to discuss the matter with an open mind (or let it drop if they don't feel strongly about it). That's what talk page discussions are for. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

I have seen the minor edit box before, but for some reason it wasn't present this time. You are, nevertheless, right that I could had been more explicit. I will try and improve that. I will review to see how it looks now. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.95.65 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Incarceration in the United States

Shadow, I see some problems with this statement. I think it can be improved: "Many underdeveloped or authoritarian countries, e.g. China, may release intentionally low statistics or may have inadequate measures to fully account for all prisoners."

  • (1) We are still using "Many", but listing a single one (China)
  • (2) The use of "undeveloped" is debatable as "There is no single internationally-recognized definition of developed country" (see Here.
  • (3) Likewise for "authoritarian countries" altogether and in particular as applied specifically to China. Nothing about being generally recognized that China is an authoritarian country (these thus qualify them as weasel words).
  • (4) And finally, the Straight Dope citation provided, when carefully read, does not say anywhere that they (Chinese gov) releases "intentionally low statistics or may have inadequate measures to fully account for all prisoners". The information in SD about China comes from what I would consider a dubious source, as it comes (a) from a single source -- with no other source to back it up, (b) a single individual -- Harry Wu, (c) an activist -- not exactly an authority in the subject matter, (d) someone who was the result of Chinese govt oppression -- this criticism is precisely what you would expect from someone who spent 19 years in Chinese labor camps to say about China (activist or not)
  • (5)Wu provides no documentation to back up his allegations (which, btw, the article clearly labels his "estimates").
  • (6) Wu includes "involuntary job placements", what does that mean? There are tens of millions of people in the U.S. working in jobs they don't like -- yet they are not officially reported as incarcerated by the U.S. govt. Thus the comparison with China wouldn't have been fair to begin with anyway.
  • (7) Even Cecil Adams himself doesn't appear that convinced of Wu's estimate: Adams makes his comparison with the U.S. by first halving the 20 million estimate from Wu to 10 million.

I have reworded the section in a way that more accurately reflects the citation provided. 67.83.95.65 (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of your changes make sense to me. I think providing a full list of countries with unreported or under-reported prisoner populations would be extreme, thus my providing an example of one of these countries (specifically, the one given in the citation), and allowing people to fill in the obvious blanks (Myanmar, North Korea, dictatorial former USSR countries, etc.). A few others are listed later in the article; the fact that a specific country might be worse than the U.S. is not the point, so much as the fact that comparisons are difficult when the presumed competition for "most people incarcerated per capita" opts out or fudges reporting of information.
Involuntary job placement is different from poor opportunities. I'm a little wary of trying to excuse government imposed forced relocation and work assignment as being equivalent to a bad job market. If I decide to quit my job, I'm within my rights to go hide out in the Appalachians and live off the land (there are a few people in the foothills of the Rockies doing exactly that). If your job and living space is assigned and there are sanctions imposed for leaving it (beyond giving up your salary), it's a form of incarceration; if you didn't commit a crime justifying the forfeiture of your rights, it's a form of slavery. --ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Christie

In no way is my edit in any way against Christie. Far from it. It is NOT permitted on Wikipedia to delete talk page comments because you don't like the comment. Save your censoring for the articles. 68.224.206.168 (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because you are doing it on someone else's talk page doesn't mean it's appropriate. Talk pages are for improving the quality of the article. They're not a forum, and they're not a soapbox. --ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 18:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am going to chime in here, though I've not been invited. Your MO seems to be using talk pages are forums for your extreme opinions, and that is not what talk pages are for. I have left two warnings on your talk page for this, and I hope that will dissuade you in future. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Neither one of you have the supervsory power to completely delete talk page comments. If you feel my talk page comments need censoring file the appropriate Wikipedia documents. The willy-nilly deletion of talk contributions is itself cause for sanction. The stalking of every one of my contributions censoring them is most definitely cause for sanction. 68.224.206.168 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Clearly, you do not understand WP policy on this matter. Comments that are inappropriate, amount to general discussion, or, as in your case, are soapboxing, may be removed by any editor. You are free to take this to any administrator you choose, I am confident we will be vindicated. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you change sigs?

I saw that you changed your signature. How do you do that? I usually sign with a hyphen and four tildes, but I'd love to be able to skip the hyphen. -Lisa (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In the upper right hand corner, click "my preferences". Scroll down to signature, and enter whatever you want to use as your sig. If you don't check the box, it will just use the text provided to format your name link. If you check the "Sign my name exactly as shown" box, you can fully format your signature, including the talk link (and adding any other links you like, like my "stalk" link). As an example, my signature was created by checking the box and entering the following in the text field:
&mdash;[[User:ShadowRangerRIT|ShadowRanger]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:ShadowRangerRIT|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ShadowRangerRIT|stalk]])</sup>
Hope it helps. I haven't done much with it, but I got so annoyed with the roundabout process for looking at a user's contributions that I decided to be nice to others by providing them the link. It also lets me trim off the "RIT" part of my user name (damn Power Rangers made it really hard to get my original online alias once they introduced the "Shadow Ranger". I was using it first dammit! And it had nothing to do with that show!</endrant>) —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some other useful tools that can be found in "my preferences" by the way. I highly recommend Twinkle for basic vandalism patrolling; it can be enabled by checkbox in the Gadgets tab of "my preferences" and it works on most browsers and OSes, with minimal privileges (unlike Huggle, which is basically Windows only and requires rollback). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! -Lisa (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad

I was just jokking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.251.169 (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Kit Bond

Thanks for contacting me about that. I have additional sources for his stance but decided to add only the one most readily located and if necessary I can add the others to validate it. As far as relevance racial and sexual discrimination are both interrelated albeit for different reasons and while he has politically acted contrarily to one group's civil rights he worked in support of another group. Both political positions help to zero in on his politics and in my opinion contribute to the article. I could point out the significance of the "recognition bill" as it has contributed to continued support of the group despite external antagonism by others including the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. What do you think could be done to use this information correctly in the article?Charles F Ross (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with combining Civil rights relating to race and sexuality in one section; they're sufficiently related to warrant it. I just think the standard for what constitutes civil rights ought to be a bit higher than "I acknowledge your existence." Perhaps a subsection on Indian Affairs, with a little detail on the conflict with the Cherokee of Oklahoma (which I'm assuming is related to the info you added) to flesh it out? I'm leery of subsection explosion, but I'm even more bothered by classing "acknowledgment" as civil rights. As for the source, I'm not horribly put off by it, though adding one of your additional sources to provide a level of reliability matching the detail of the first source might not be a bad idea. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, personal acknowlegment is not a particularly strong argument, but I'll get to work on that and you can tell me what you think.Charles F Ross (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and added the information regarding his repealing of the laws ordering the extermination/expulsion of Mormons, the original law led to the murder and rape of a large number of religious adherents.Charles F Ross (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Fahim

Thanks for your reply...

The biggest issue with this page is that it was not at all neutral. I cited the NY Times article that had an on the record statement from Al fahim's lawyer. this is the same source used previously to accuse Al Fahim of "controversy" and claiming he had PhD. the article in fact did not cite that. If anything it had a statement from a lawyer discussing 2 MBA's and on the record did not claim a PhD: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/business/global/09property.html

Also, in this posting it said that Al Fahim and his wife "claimed to have launched a charity in Kenya" under the Charity headline. However, the source referenced did not say anything about the charity being "alleged". If anything the source claims that it was true fact (http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=18494).

I am attempting to neutralize the tone and provide accurate info. Any help you could give me on this is much appreciated.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica hoy (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edits tend to exhibit bias in the opposite direction. There needs to be a happy medium. I made some edits to the section addressing his use of the title "Dr." which are about as neutral as it gets. Using "Dr." without a Ph.D. or M.D. is extremely controversial in much of the world. In Germany, it's a prosecutable offense to use it without such a degree. In the U.S., there is no law regarding the matter, but there is a cultural bias against those who use "Dr." without an M.D. (even those with Ph.D.s are viewed as being snobby for insisting on "Dr." if they aren't a practicing medical doctor).
In that case, and others, your edits tend to follow the pattern of a rhetorical argument rather than an encyclopedic entry:
  1. Introduce your position (often omitted)
  2. Introduce opponent's position
  3. Tear down opponent's position
  4. Conclude that your position is correct
Problem is, at stage three, you are frequently stating opinions in biased ways (his lawyer says he only claims M.B.A.'s, but he does not address his use of the title "Dr.", or previous public statements that he earned a Ph.D.), and by cherry picking from your source, you convey a completely different impression from that of the source. I'm sure some of this is unintentional, but you need to make more of an effort to maintain an objective view. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The original article was pulling negatively biased information and making assumptions "such as referring to his Kenyan charity as "alleged" even when it was stated as so int he article cited.

Sections such as "controversy" and "charity work and further controversy" are not accurate subject headings. They should be limited to actual subject categories such as his "education" and "charity work" where the controversy can then be discussed. Just as you can cite and show where there was controversy mentioned in an article, I believe there should be counter information on other reputable sources by registered and fully employed reporters that can refute the allegations otherwise it just reads as a full on attack.

If there is a mention in an article of his lawyer going on record saying he does not have a PhD, isn't that good for both sides of the argument?

Additionally, he is no longer the CEO of hydra and his title and occupation were consistently incorrect.

There is also a lot of charity work and involvement that was not mentioned at all and I would like to make the piece as accurate and full of info as possible.

I believe this conversation is meant for talk pages and I am willing to report your edits as well if my voice is not heard and the article does not remain neutral. Something like the Arabian Business source listing Sulaiman Al Fahim as the 4th most influential Arab of 2009 is extremely reputable and should be cited. Why do you keep removing it? I am absolutely willing to work within your edits if you are with mine but I have yet to see any give on your end concerning the issues i have now raised a second time. Perhaps this dialogue is the beginning of getting us there.

Additionally there is a Roll Call article release today that i will be adding. This is the most reputable and well read publication for the political world in Washington, DC. Sources such as this should not be ignored.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica hoy (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not the one removing your changes at this point. Check the history. It's been two IPs and another editor that have reverted it. My most recent revert only re-added my changes that had been tacked on to your own (as opposed to restoring the state of the page before you began editing it). And my edits didn't remove the information relating to the lawyer addressing the "Dr." controversy, and in fact, did not relabel the section as controversy.
As for reporting my edits, you're free to do so (it's a free wiki), but like I said, I think you are mistaken as to the source of the edits you disagree with. I have been trying to work with your edits for the past couple days, and it's been nearly a week since I did a full revert on your edits. I do recommend starting a talk page discussion to address specific points of contention and make your argument to the other editors. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't think you should be reporting the other editors in any event. Your edits have been sufficiently tainted by POV that they are acting reasonably in reverting them. The way to stop these sorts of problems is to make sure your edits read more like an encyclopedia entry, and less like a PR puff piece. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I revert things that they are writing and are negatively biased? Why isn't the other side of the argument held accountable for spinning sources negatively? I'm not sure I understand why it's not working both ways...

I appreciate your input and advice but am trying to keep both sides included. Could you please give me some advise on some changes you think should be made?

What's to stop someone from reverting continuously back to slanderous/negative input even after you've evened the playing field? Should i then revert back to the last edits you have made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica hoy (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Relentlessly reverting back to your changes or mine is liable to either:
  1. Get you blocked for violation of the three revert rule
  2. Get the whole article locked for edit warring
You need to start a discussion on the article talk page and work out your differences with the other editors. Remember to assume good faith. 95%+ of the time, people aren't trying to attack you or damage the article, they're trying to improve the article.
As to spinning the article, either negatively or positively, I think many of the other editors see the relentlessly positive spin you are introducing as problematic, and are reverting not because they want the article spun negatively (I doubt many of them care all that much about the Al-Fahim himself), but because, when given two bad choices (too positive or too negative) they prefer to be conservative and keep the older version of an article. You should remember that negative information is not a violation of WP:NPOV if it's true and presented with reliable sources and without rancor, though it's equally acceptable to counter it with your own sources, as long as it is presented with an equally dispassionate style. Offer to engage other editors on the talk page, and get comments on your edits. Listen to the criticism and either adjust your style or explain why you feel your original phrasing is correct, in keeping with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. I'll continue occasionally checking in and trying to rephrase the article to a more neutral phrasing; as noted before, I suggest looking at some of my previous changes to the Education section as a guide to presenting both the positive and negative elements of a situation without getting carried away with a particular POV. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

i am the one asking about validity

in school we are not allowed to cite an article unless it gets a certain "grade" i dont know the scale or how to see the grades, but i need to get to it, thank you for trying to help, but the re is a specific page that shows the validity of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.46.154 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, articles with a grade are the exception, not the rule. If the article has been given a grade, it will usually be noted on the talk page of the article (click the talk tab near the top left corner of the page). I'm surprised your school allows Wikipedia as a source at all; even perfect articles are frequently disrupted by temporary vandalism, and the sentence you cite may not be there next week. It's usually better to use the article as a starting point: visit the references to find out more about the subject and use the references themselves as your own references.
If you are talking about featured articles (not exactly a grade, but a form of quality measurement), those can be found here WP:Featured articles. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A little something

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For keeping watch over the Mickey Mouse article you convinced me to unprotected =) –xenotalk 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I hate to admit it, but it's been mostly luck. I've checked my watchlist three separate times today (though I refreshed a few times the second go around), and by sheer coincidence I checked it less than a minute after two vandalisms, and within 15 minutes of the third. Still, thanks! My first barnstar. Nifty. :-) —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Well you're keeping up your end of the bargain so you deserved it! Cheers, –xenotalk 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

62.140.210.158

IP blocked per your report to WP:AIV; if a rangeblock, sockpuppet investigation or article protection are needed, it might be worth taking the issue to WP:ANI for a more thorough investigation. EyeSerenetalk 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:We have concensus on the lede in Judaism?

Consensus was already achieved before. If the issue is being brought up again we can discuss it. However, I don't think I need to change it back as I changed it to "religion" before and it was agreed it would be left that way while we are discussing it anyways. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When was consensus achieved? The article was locked a few days ago, and when it was unlocked the phrasing was beliefs and practices, which we agreed to leave in place for the time being. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you're already talking to Lisa on this, so my response was unnecessary. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

rochester?!

I live in wny too! Thought i'd share that little detail lol A8UDI 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I went to school at RIT, but I don't live in Rochester any longer. Graduated a few years ago and have been moving every couple of years since. Currently in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah cool. love nyc A8UDI 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

TSS ref

I now added the ref I expected to see. Hope that fits wikiwise. —j.eng (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. It's a little odd (from a layperson's perspective it seems to contradict the point, when in fact it is reinforcing it). It doesn't reinforce the central point though; saying that TSS is used in one way isn't actually proving that it isn't used another way. It might make more sense to add that as a reference to the TSS article itself, in an appropriate location explaining how elements of TSS are used in Linux, but not for full hardware context switching. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism.

I am actually a student from the Sturgis Charter Public school, and Pastafarian is actually the major religion at the school. This is not a disruptive edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.180.233 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The information is highly suspicious (where exactly do you get 75% and 3%?), and without sources, constitutes a form of original research. Beyond that, the religious makeup of a school is rarely notable except in the case of schools sponsored by a particular religious organization. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Blaft Publications

Hi there; you have {{speedy}} flagged an article created by this user, as being an article created by a banned user. As far as I can see this user is blocked, not banned, it is only username block, and he created the article in question before being blocked. The article is clearly speediable, but not for the reason you quote. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the first time I used that template from Twinkle and didn't realize exactly what it meant. I was conferring with the admin who blocked the user to determine what the appropriate course of action was in this circumstance. Apparently I need to look up the exact difference between a ban and a block. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've switched it to CSD:A7. Again, thanks. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem; we all make minor errors on occasion, and certainly no harm done here. There are links at BLOCK and BAN. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Huh. Interesting. If you don't mind my asking, how common are bans? And how are they tracked? They seem to be a very ad-hoc sort of mechanism. The page describes them as "non-technical" but then turns around and indicates that they can be imposed by technical means, at least in the site-ban case. It's very confusing to say the least. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A ban is fairly unusual. I could not suggest any sort of figure, but certainly bans are very much less common than are blocks. As to their being ad-hoc, then to some extent that is so. Whereas it is possible to create a list of specific offences which lead to the blocking of an editor - although even there some discrimination has to be exercised - a ban is only imposed as a result of serious and sustained poor behaviour; whether the behaviour of an editor deserves a ban can be decided only by the Arbitration Committee, by community consensus, by Jimmy Wales or by the Wikimedia Foundation, though this last is a very rare event indeed. A ban can be partial - just one topic - or complete, and while the software does not enforce compliance, so that a banned editor can physically edit, doing so can lead to the sanction of the offending editor being totally denied access to the encyclopedia. See BAN. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

No problem. Just doing my bit :P ElemeshTalk 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Messina Hof

Hey, thanks for the cleanup, lack of sleep and increased work load should probably result in my not creating articles...but it doesn't, it just reduces my coherency...Cheers! --kelapstick (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

John Ensign

Hey, this has been interesting:

No one has ever refuted my Wikipedia edits before.

While I certainly appreciate your adherence to the rules and to the social contract that *should* govern Wikipedia, your adherence to those rules versus an obvious truth is distressing.

It would be refreshing if one of Ensign's sycophants clicked on a link to Jungian concepts, as self-awareness is surely the ultimate truth. Truth is the ultimate goal of Wikipedia, correct?

Before you do the obvious and cite the rules that you suppose encourage neutrality on Wikipedia (a concept that is laughable at best), could you please answer as to why Sen. Ensign would so condemn President Clinton in such a vitriolic and absolute fashion, then commit sins of an equal order?

You could have merely looked the other way, as my contribution was neither slander nor harmful.

I don't blame you for being naive. Virtue ultimately becomes it's own vice, as Sen. Ensign no doubt has discovered. Good luck, and carry on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.6.228 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean John Ensign (I fixed the section title on that basis). I actually liked your edit from a personal perspective; it made laugh as soon as I read it (and I generally agree with the sentiment, I just don't let personal biases get in the way). And yes, I recognize that Wikipedia's guidelines are aspirational; it will never fully comply with every rule and guideline (if only because some of them are mutually contradictory or open to a wide range of valid interpretations). That said, I agree with the general thrust of the aspirational goals (to create an informative, unbiased and useful encyclopedia), and unfortunately, your edit, however amusing, takes the article in the opposite direction. If everyone posted their own psychological analysis of political figures, the whole encyclopedia would degenerate into a flame war, and that's really not a place I want to go. I wish there was some way to make your addition, but I'm afraid even with a reliable source (say, a psychology journal analyzing philandering, hypocritical politicians), there would be WP:BLP issues. On the other hand, if you actually found sources like that, I'd support a more general separate article on the subject, so long as it didn't dwell on particular politicians or parties. :-) —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Spooner

Hi! I deleted your speedy nom because the article does assert notability. I did, however, turn right around and PROD it since the subject does not meet WP:ATH (per your notes). If you'd like, feel free to support the PROD using the {{prod2}} template. Cheers! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 21:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time of the nom, it was even less fleshed out, thus the CSD. I agree that it has reached a point where it may not qualify for speedy. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Marcia Rosa

Hello ShadowRangerRIT, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Marcia Rosa) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW (Talk) 21:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think in the case of this particular article, pure vandalism was appropriate, if somewhat less specific. I sometimes go for less specific rationales when I'm unsure of the appropriate bin, but I'll admit that in this case a BLP attack page tag would have been appropriate. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Ireland

Hi, I didn't realise that the above article fell within copyright restrictions - I was under the misapprehension that paraphrasing and would suffice. Is there a general WP guide on copyright that would help me avoid this in future? I'll try to err more on the side of caution in future. My apologies for any problems caused.Autarch (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT is probably the place to look. Your paraphrasing was limited, and in many cases the changes weren't supported by the reference, making it a form of original research. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice - I don't know how I'd missed WP:COPYRIGHT. Anyway, I'll keep your advice in mind and make sure to avoid both problems in future.Autarch (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cristinabelmontelabado

I've unblocked her now. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does every Beijing subway station have an article?

{{helpme}}

I was on new page patrol recently (looking at the end of the backlog) and noticed an enormous number of articles created by Bus88MRT (Contribs) for various stations on the Beijing subway. The links given are only a sampling, I count at least 16 unreviewed, and I assume there are more that have been reviewed (I haven't scoured his edit history). Every single one is a stub indicating trivial information like the line that goes through it. I'd go through and tag them all for speedy deletion, but there are dozens and I'd rather confirm my initial intuition that they are not notable. Can anyone help determine if they are notable, and if they are not, give tips on how to mass nominate articles (possibly grouping by a particular user) for deletion? —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By comparison, every station of the Toronto Transit Commission has an article, and some of them are a fairly interesting read. And I'm sure that most of them started as a stub. So I would say, let them be... Leaving the helpme up so you can gather other opinions on this. –xenotalk 19:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... I was comparing to the Washington, D.C. metro (I grew up there, but don't live there anymore), and my initial searches for a random station (Gallery Place) came up empty. I found it when I looked for a list of stations though, must have just made the search too narrow. The articles in that case do seem to have more useful information; I guess the Beijing articles could eventually be made interesting. I have to restrain my impulse to prune though; I know wikipedia is not paper, but thousands of articles for subway systems seems… excessive. Hell, NYC has over 400, and I guarantee that some of them have no interesting information whatsoever, yet they apparently all have articles. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ShadowRangerRIT, behavior like that can be frustrating, but there's nothing wrong with it - i.e., we can't block or ban them for breaking any policy. There was one other user that consistently created (or still does create) pages with little or no information, and enough people were bothered by it that they eventually requested a community ban. But it didn't go through, and he had created hundreds or thousands of pages. Certainly we can't ban this user for creating a few dozen. Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 20:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't believe he was acting in bad faith; blocks or bans would be wildly excessive in the circumstances (even if the articles had no claim to notability at all). I was trying to figure out if the creation of said pages was inappropriate in the first place, and how you deal with a scenario like that if it is. I'm inclined to go with xeno on the appropriateness of these pages, but I'm still curious how you handle this sort of thing in the cases where it *is* inappropriate. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, we have {{db-g3}}, and {{uw-create1}}, and WP:AIV. ;-] Repetetive creation of inappropriate articles is definitely considered vandalism, and we would treat it the same way we would treat any vandalism. Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm talking about cases where the violation is understandable, e.g. creating an enormous number of simple dictionary word definition articles. It's technically inappropriate if the word has no encyclopedic value, but understandable. If no one catches it for a while, the only reasonable course of action would be to warn the user (and explain why they should not be creating these articles), then delete all the inappropriate articles. Obviously if they disregard the warning then you go to WP:AIV, but the latter step was where my understanding breaks down. If someone creates an article for every word in the OED beginning with the letter 'A' before anyone notices and thinks to warn them, how do you undo it without filing a thousand CSDs? Even if it's an admin-only tool I'd be curious to know how it is dealt with. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Special:Nuke (mw:Extension:Nuke). –xenotalk 20:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, these should never be tagged for speedy deletion at all because they do not meet any CSD. The only notability-related criterion, A7, is limited to real people or groups of people, individual animals, organizations and companies, and web content. The only criterion that could possibly apply is A3 but these have too much content for that. Anyway, for a multi-article AfD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion. The only way these could become CSD fodder is if there was consensus that the user should not create these articles and then he violated that community decision. Then G3 could apply to further creations after warnings failed. If it was truly an every-letter-under-"A"-in-the-OED situation, thousands of articles, then I'd do a mass AfD of a representative sample, say twenty articles, and expressly set the parameters of the AfD discussion as being on the question of deletion of all similar articles created by the particular user and where no other user had made non-trivial additions to the articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. Like I said, I didn't know what deletion rationale, if any, applied to them. Referring to CSD in particular was a mistake on my part; I was mostly asking what to do to make an "all or none" type of deletion nomination (if any of those articles survived, they should all survive, but manual per article deletion tagging runs the risk of inconsistent deletion depending on who shows up to the discussion page. Your post answered that question perfectly. Thank you very much for the information! —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)