I will generally respond on this page inside the section which has been added unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you leave me a message, and remember to sign your post with ~~~~. Thanks!
- 1 Welcome!
- 2 MMAwiki
- 3 MMA results templates - format question
- 4 Re: templates
- 5 MMA tables
- 6 List of MMA event articles categorized on presentation format is available.
- 7 Thank you for the advice
- 8 In response to Jung Myung Seok article
- 9 Civil Government source in Jung Myung seok article
- 10 MMABot and event article reformatting progress
- 11 help?
- 12 CFB North Bay
- 13 A Barnstar For You!
- 14 High noon
- 15 Reply to Your 17:40, 9 July, about CFB North Bay
- 16 edits on BKWSU page
- 17 Reference CFB North Bay "This Needs Serious Trimming"
- 18 Regarding "Tightening the Lead", CFB North Bay article
- 19 Zeitgeist: The Movie
- 20 Re: Warning
- 21 Gait 1906 in WP:RSN
- 22 MMR Controversy Article
- 23 Many is...
- 24 Selective rule enforcement
- 25 Jim Bell patent
- 26 Meatpuppet allegation
- 27 common.css (minor)
- 28 Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
- 29 Independent opinion
- 30 Phyllis Schlafly
Thanks for your reply, and don't worry, I'm not discouraged! That didn't come across at all from your reply on the talk page. I know that Bulbapedia is allowed to be linked from Wikipedia, with almost 23,000 articles, roughly what sort of number of articles, or number of active users would Wikipedia begin to consider it?
The vast majority of the pages so far have been more or less copied directly from Wikipedia, but we are aiming to expand each article considerably. Foolishly, I haven't added any sort of Creative Commons notice on each of the copied pages, I will absolutely get to that though. I'll add a notice on each of the talk pages as per WP:REUSE.
MMA results templates - format question
Hey! I checked out your adjustments and they look great. The only thing I would suggest is also centering the "vs" in the Semerzer/Peralta match. A no contest result won't happen with much frequency, but it makes it look better (like how you centered the rounds). Keep up the great work! Udar55 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Whatever we do with the table, we need to keep them short and to the point and easy to read. MMA fans aren't coming to wikipedia to get some detailed biography of a fighter or event. They want something quick and easy to follow. They want to be able to tell who fought, what event, who won, and how they won. There isn't any need to fluff it up with anything extra.
The other issue I have is repecting all diciplines and what they call submissions. If somebody wins by a Keylock, then there shouldn't be any issue putting Keylock/DWL if the person who won the fight is a catch wrestler. Willdawg111 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly won't disagree with you on keeping tables succinct - the goal of Wikipedia is to present a summary of a topic with links, via references, to where people can get the full details. How that information should be resented can differ from person to person. As for the what terms to use, ultimately we need to leave that up to how it's described by secondary sources or we run afoul of WP:OR. If everyone agrees with a particular term, great. When there's a dispute, we've got to go with secondary sources. Even in scenarios where you know it's something, another person with a different background may know it's something else. Hence the need to use secondary sources. It makes it hard at times when you see what you consider the wrong term used, but that's how it has to work in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not necessarily a wrong term. The Americana and Keylock are exactly the same submission. The DWL is the exact same submission except the CACC guys pull the elbow in toward the body to increase more pressue. I understand we don't want to use original research which is why I think there shouldn't be a problem with putting the name used by the source and putting an alternate name next to it. Its basically a compromise of not using original research with properly respecting the arts.
One of them I ran accross this weekend at the Strikeforce fight was a fight that was finished by Keylock. The fighter didn't tap right away and his arm was bent way over. They mistakingly called it a Kimura, but a Kimura uses opposite hand positions and goes underneath and not over top like a Keylock. Respecting original research I entered it as a shoulder lock. Keylocks and Kimuras are both types of shoulder locks, so it wouldn't be original research but it would allow us to me more accurate. I had somebody changing my work on me. I'm not going to try to give a JuJitsu lesson on Wikipedia, but personally I don't see what the issue with using a more appropriate name (as long as we are preserving the actual results of the sources). Willdawg111 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
List of MMA event articles categorized on presentation format is available.
Thank you for the advice
I thankyou for the advice you offered. Appreciated. But, i shall do my utmost to make the article as good and correct as possible bearing in mind the actual series of events which would be, obviously, different from the DoD's version since as we know they have a tendency to cover their faults on the expense of innocent people's lives.... Codetruth (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
IN RESPONSE TO JUNG MYUNG SEOK ARTICLE (sorry about placement under wrong subject)
The references I could not track or I found dubious were enumerated previously in the talk page under inadequate citations and fictitious citations. Up about 3-4 paragraphs. My references were by citation number to Shii version of the article. They were articles in radio australia, australia news, fox news and a few others but this is from memory. Please note that some or most of these articles have no listed author and are poorly written. Others were almost identical with a cut and paste effect. I hope this helpsMrTownCar (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
another point about Shii sources.... they are written almost exclusively on May 15, 2008 and many of the articles have no authors....while the links do have the appearance of authenticity they clearly are not. This is why I stated we need to go to the sources directly and search the archives. I did this extensively citation by citation in October 2012 when I first edited this article. My changes were not made without extensive due diligenceMrTownCar (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
In response to Jung Myung Seok article
Civil Government source in Jung Myung seok article
The issue in question is dated February 15,2010. Civil government is the translated title. It is a bonafide media source in S. Korea but it is not circulated in English .Any internet searches regarding this would likely be most fruitful if done in Korean.14:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
MMABot and event article reformatting progress
Some side projects have delayed my progress on MMABot, but I'm almost done with it. I have one more case of event formats to handle which I should be able to take care of tomorrow night or on Saturday. I'll then start prepping the WP:BRFA and submit another notice on the MMA WikiProject talk page this weekend. I don't want to submit the WP:BRFA until after the templates in your user space have been moved. That would remove one source of problems/questions. So I wanted to check in with you and see if you had a timeline on moving the templates, or if you were waiting on me. I took a quick glance at them and it looks like you've written some good docs for them. Anyhow, when you have a chance let me know. I'll keep an eye on your talk page. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- FYI, I've taken the liberty of moving most of the templates from your sandbox over to template-space. There is a hangup with the MMAevent template as there already exists a template with the same name so I wasn't able to simply move it. I've requested deletion of the existing template to make room for the move of your template. We'll see how that goes. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I need your help please. I'm trying to get the citing right on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater As you might imagine... it's kind of crucial this be right. I mean.. we're talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs here, right?
Here's the reference: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6120/655.summary
I added one sentence about it, right up front, and want that to cite the reference above. Somehow I've botched that... can you help resolve my syntactic idiocy?
Thanks in advance, -Paul Reiber
CFB North Bay
Apologies for not advising you of my re-swapping of the first paras of the article, earlier today. I hit the Save Page before remembering I hadn't included explanation why I re-swapped. Been busy since, am getting caught up now. For the record, no complaint about your swapping the paras; I've been waffling about swapping the paras for some time, but elected to leave it as, as an introductory line into the subject of Canadian Forces Base North Bay. 22WHERO (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
A Barnstar For You!
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|You did a good job spotting and removing out of pace material on the Usury article Yster76 (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)|
Hey, I've better to do than fighting against the windmills by tryng to change the opinions of people who think that factual information (such as that the sun is yellow) is mere interpretation. But if you prefer this behavior, there let be so.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the problem - YOU think it's factual and correct but we have no idea who you are. Someone else might come up with a different date and call it a fact. There are some things that are allowed in articles without sourcing but these are statements that are attributable, meaning if someone challenged it a source could be readily provided. The example in the OR page is "Paris is the capital of France". If you really, really wanted to challenge that statement, a source proving it could be quickly provided. Wikipedia decided long, long ago that it can't maintain even a hint of respectability allowing anyone and everyone to up their interpretation into article so it create the reliable source policy which naturally forbids original research. Someone that did the same analysis but published it in a reliable source (and no, blogs don't count nor do self-published books) would allow this to possibly be included in the article. We cannot, however, include it just on your say-so. It's not just you, it's not just this article, it's every editor on every article. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but when it does it should be removed from the article. Thanks for your understanding. Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Reply to Your 17:40, 9 July, about CFB North Bay
Been away for a few days, getting caught up. In response to the specifics of your post:
1. Your point about editing is noted. I only became involved, on behalf of CFB North Bay, when contributors in the first few years of the article showed that none had the slightest clue about the subject matter. The article was a shambles of mistakes, inaccuracies and omissions. Few contributors had visited the base. None had at least carried out research of the base's historical archives, the Library & Archives of Canada, or the Canadian Department of National Defence's Directorate of History & Heritage to gather data and check their work. The article was a dog's breakfast; everyone who visited the article was met with a wellspring of incorrect information. The base commander and senior staff of CFB North Bay finally had enough of the article. As the Wing Heritage Officer, in essence the base's history/heritage public affairs officer, I was assigned to fix it. They laid down three criteria:
a. all contributions had to be facts only, no op-ed or embellishment;
b. everything contributed had to come from a reliable, hard copy source--reputable books, newspaper articles, and, most important, original base and base unit documents and Government of Canada documents--the latter three the horse's mouth, as it were, where all primary, secondary and tertiary researchers had to go to get their information about the base-- sources don't get any more verifiable than this; and
c. every source used has to be completely open and available to the public, for public research, scrutiny, etc.
It was added, later, that I could take material off the Internet, as long as the material could stand up to fine-toothed inspection.
All contributions by me to the CFB North Bay article have been inserted under these guidelines, and citations given.
Meantime, neither I nor the base have any qualms about others contributing or editing. It is welcomed with open arms, as it makes the article better. But based on past unpleasant experiences reference the article, we have kept a close eye on the contributions and editing to ensure the previous mess does not return. Which raises a tendency to be proprietary about the article. That said, I shall ensure to take a more relaxed approach to the article.
2. More than happy to participate in the discussion you propose. Please note I am away on business until 24 July.
I ask that you and others keep a couple of things in mind, regarding the article and CFB North Bay. Unlike other military bases, North Bay has a problem in that, outside of its archives and Government of Canada files, there is next to nothing in the public domain about the base--first, because very few books have been published about Canada's post-Second World War air force, and, second, because of RCAF Station/CFB North Bay's critical front-line role in defence of North America against nuclear attack et al the base has kept a low profile, thus is seldom mentioned in the few published books. Example: the British book "Cold War Secret Nuclear Bunkers", by N.J. McCamley, published by Pen & Sword Books in 2002, describes NORAD and Canada, but fails to include CFB North Bay's NORAD Underground Complex although the complex had been in operation for 39 years. The same goes for magazine and newspaper articles. As a result of this state of affairs, there are next to no primary, secondary or tertiary sources out in the public sphere about the base. Therefore one of our goals towards the Wikipedia article, through my contributions, is to give the public a decent, informed, reputable, verifiable description of the air force base, what it does, and its history. We'll be taking the same measure on our web site, but from Judas Iscariot to the hula hoop, Wikipedia is the first place people go for information, ergo the extra effort I have invested in this article.
And as for COI, there is none. Neither I nor the base have anything to gain by my contributions to the article. We're not a corporation trying to use Wikipedia to promote our wares, for example, or a political organization trying to twist the public to our point of view. Ours is a NORAD base. We watch the skies and take action when something extraordinary happens, period.
Am more than happy to do what's necessary for the betterment of the article.
edits on BKWSU page
Apologies for ticking the wrong box. There are a number of statements that are more so opinions/judgements, are quite defamatory and although appear referenced, when you look into them, they are either blank or false, ie the link takes you to the research document written, but the quote is not in the paper, or the link takes you to another place of opinion and it kind of gets carried away, as if someone has gone off the deep end, and with no accountability with the statements they are posting on the page. Powerofkindness (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Reference CFB North Bay "This Needs Serious Trimming"
All, repeat, all of the information provided by me in the article comes from verifiable, reputable sources. Books such as Carl Christie's "Ocean Bridge", newspapers like the North Bay Nugget, Internet sources that can stand up to inspection, and most important, as I explain in earlier remarks to you, base, base unit and Government of Canada historical records. The books, newspaper articles and Internet items are obviously openly available to the public. Library & Archives of Canada and Department of National Defence Directorate of History & Heritage documents are naturally available as well. The base and base unit records are open to the public as well.
Example: the CFB North Bay Wikipedia article states that the NORAD Underground Complex was designed to withstand a 4-megaton nuclear strike. While there are no public books on the subject, there is an 80-page engineering document in our historical archives, "Report on Hardening of SAGE, SCC, North Bay for A.D. Margison & Associates Ltd, Consulting Engineers, March 1960" by D.F. Coates, P.Eng, Ottawa, Canada, that details the engineering data and lays out the mathematical computations for the Underground Complex withstanding a nuclear strike. Formerly classified Secret, now anyone can review it.
For obvious reasons, no security classified documents were used in contributions to the Wikipedia page.
The bit about asking people to contact me before edits was recommended to those contributors who made changes to the article, who inserted incorrect information. This has been a chronic problem, people who haven't the slightest idea about the base or its history making changes. Where were Wikipedia editors when these people were contributing the article without the slightest verifiable source to there contributions? I (honestly) don't mind being placed into the spotlight to explain myself, as now--but for years not a single Wikipedia editor bothered to check the quality, verifiability or reputability of contributors before I began work on the page, and since I began only I have been put into the spotlight.
North Bay being rattled by a jar of pennies. You can't make sense of this? The full, relevant passage about the Underground Complex's design to survive a nuclear blast reads:
"In fact, the three-storey Main Installation is mounted off the ground on specially designed pillars (not springs) to reduce seismic shock—on 1 January 2000, North Bay was rattled like a jar of pennies by an earthquake registering 5.2 on the Richter scale, yet occupants in the Main Installation did not feel a thing."
What is so difficult about this understand? Why do you need a full week to make sense of this?
The other passage, about quality of personnel:
"During the Cold War, personnel who failed an evaluation by a marginal degree were placed on 30 days' probation; if they failed their subsequent test they were removed from NORAD. Personnel who failed a no-notice evaluation by more than a marginal degree were removed from NORAD at once. With nuclear extermination hanging over the continent, liable to spring at any instant, there was no room in the Cold War NORAD for anything less than the best trained, most able personnel."
I say again: What is so difficult about this understand? Why do you need a full week to make sense of this? Because NORAD was the primary defence force against nuclear attack by the Soviet Union against North America, stringent quality-assurance methods were applied to its personnel. NORAD personnel were trained hard; those who could not handle the stress were removed from NORAD. It's like any high-intensity job--can't handle the heat, you're removed from the proverbial kitchen.
Regarding, your 16:54, 9 July 2013 comments in the same piece: we (the base, via my office since my office holds base archives) regularly supply data to everyone from schoolchildren to the media, who have questions about some aspect of the base. You want what we have on BOMARC, we'll give you what we can. The seismic shock engineering document I mentioned above is an example--you have doubts about the veracity of my statement in the article about our subterranean complex's design versus a 4-megaton strike, I can send you a copy of the document.
That said, you are right; it is difficult for a researcher to ask for something from us if he/she is not sure of what we have. I understand this. Therefore all that any Wikipedia visitor has to do is contact me via Talk about a subject, and I will supply the person with copies of everything I can, related to the subject. (Within sensible reason of course: I am not going to photocopy my entire North Bay air base archives, for instance.) If upon receipt of the material he or she is looking for more, then contact me again. If I do not have the information, I can usually point out likely sources. For example, there are historical files regarding RCAF Station/Canadian Forces Base North Bay at the Library & Archives of Canada, in Ottawa, that I haven't seen yet (it's a matter of the base arranging time and money to make the trips to Ottawa to review the files)--the person may find more material on the subject in question in the Archives files. The Library & Archives also holds a wealth of photographs.
Ironically, while I stand by my claims, I genuinely do not expect anyone to trust me. I have learned first-hand while going through historical files on many subjects that there are a lot of mistakes, misinformation and misconceptions. Be skeptical! In fact, an anecdote, this spring I had a gentleman question me about the article regarding one of the tunnels from our Underground Complex. Examining an engineering document from the era, together with walking over to the part of the tunnel he was talking about, actually proved he was correct. I have absolutely no problem being corrected; I'm useless at my job if I cannot adapt. The same goes for the Wikipedia article. If I cannot back up an assertion I put in the article, then the assertion is useless.
However, as mentioned above, I will suggest to a person to contact me before making a change, when the change they just made to the article is wrong.
- Briefly read your comment - need to think about this a bit. WP:V is an absolute requirement for sources used on WP articles, but it's not required that the sources be on-line or available at every public library, just available. I think what you've got in there works in general, it's just the details. Wonder if there's anything on the reliable sources noticeboard or original research noticeboard about how best to cite and give contact information for sources like this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding "Tightening the Lead", CFB North Bay article
I have to depart the office now. Will reply to this ASAP. Incidentally, talk is cheap, proof is in the action. You got a question/curiosity/skepticism about anything I have contributed to the CFB North Bay Wikipedia article, ask for copies of the docs. See for yourself.
- Not too worried, to be honest. I think the article itself is pretty solid, it just needs some tightening up. I don't think anything specific to CFB North Bay should be removed but some of the explanatory information can be replaced with a shorter (or much shorter in a few cases) summary and a wikilink to the other article. Ravensfire (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit with the summary, "Can't use ABOUTSELF as this is making a claim about a third party (interview did not accurately translate words)"; The paragraph that you removed is currently under discussion at the article's talk page, where your input would be appreciated. To summarize the current majority view, the only claim being made in that paragraph is that Peter Joseph made a statement (which he most definitely did). The article itself does not make any claims about a third party. nagualdesign (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just left a comment about exactly that. The line "Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words" is a claim against a third party. Joseph is saying the author mis-represented or lied. I can't see how that's NOT a claim against a third party. This is a type of situation where SPS does (and should) be blocking material. If Joseph is sure things are wrong, he should be contacting the editorial staff of the TheMarker. Getting into a spat where interviewee and interviewer trade barbs back and forth via blogs (and for Joseph, that's essentially what his website is for him) is not something WP should be including in articles, hence the SPS restriction on claims about third parties. Ravensfire (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not know the appropriate syntax for strikethrough - would you please tell me what it is? Thanks. sabine antelope 04:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's <s>some text</s>, producing this:
some textRavensfire (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank You. Also the date-time thing on top of your page is broken; it says Tuesday 31 July. Regards. sabine antelope 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, busy weekend. I'll try to take a look later today though. Ravensfire (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
MMR Controversy Article
Ravensfire, thank you for the pointers. They are very helpful. What is frustrating is that the current article is in no way neutral. It is beyond biased. Could the wording of the current article at least be changed? It is clear that the writers had an obvious bias, drawing their own conclusions for the reader. Have you seen the CNN and CBS coverage I listed on the talk page? Is it a legitimate source to include?
|Somewhere there is a tree ...|
I beg to differ...
You said: "See the many previous discussion on this on the talk page - these are called conspiracy theories and it's certainly not "many", its fringe"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/many Definition of MANY 1
http://blog.reidreport.com/2009/07/so-how-many-birthers-are-there-anyway/ "A whopping 58 percent of Republicans either think Barack Obama wasn’t born in the US (28 percent) or aren’t sure (30 percent). A mere 42 percent think he was."
Hah! You just proved my point. Someone tried to use Wikipedia in a discussion, I said: "It was edited by Obama supporters and couldn't be trusted." They challenged me to change it. Your insistence on using biased name calling in the article (and in your response) instead of neutral language proves it. You ignore my proof that "many" people don't believe the evidence put forth, and revert to citing the name calling from that source instead of facts presented. Until you clean up that article by removing the biased language, Conspiracy theorist, birthers, racist, etc., Wikipedia will remain the joke that it is.126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Selective rule enforcement
You ignore the undocumented claims that support the free trade view in this article yet censor the documented statistical information from a scholar who has been quoted in multiple books. For a perfect example of an undocumented claim in this article that you turn a blind eye to - "Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses." Mr. Eckes documents the truth that both Smoot and Hawley being defeated in their reelection bids as having nothing to do with the tariff. The tariff was never raised in their contests. Yet you allow this undocumented myth to stay in the article while my quote from Mr. Eckes' book is censored. This is why Wikipedia is partly responsible for perpetuating a highly politicized position to the exclusion of documented evidence to the contrary. And there are numerous other claims in error to which I wish to show the supporting evidence. I NEVER remove material. I add documented evidence and allow the reader to decide which is true.
- That's nice. USE THE TALK PAGE. Seriously. You've got one person's view, which is fine but that's liable to illustrate a fringe view when it's not shared by others. You MUST be accurate in your statements. And use the talk page. The article talk page. Right now, I frankly view you as someone pushing a fringe viewpoint because that's how you've come across. Read WP:THETRUTH. Right now, that's you. Think about it. Ravensfire (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
"One person's view"? How many quotes from other scholars do you need while you allow undocumented statements go unchallenged? I have them if you need them. Speaking of "that's you", I find that insulting. If it is your habit to insult someone who presents documented staistical evidence and does not censor an opposing view, and label them as "fringe" without challenging the evidence - that is a working definition of "shoot the messenger and avoid the message".
Jim Bell patent
Jim asked me to see why his patent entry was removed. If a secondary source is needed I will ask Jim how to get one for you.
- Is there a problem with this?
- It's a registered patent and it seems to have taken a large chunk out of the subjects life.
- Please restore the patent section - thanks in advance
- See the discussion on the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- My suspicions were correct, "The fact that I am not 'yet' notable for the patent doesn't change a thing". I've hatted the discussion per WP:BAN. --NeilN talk to me 20:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not terribly surprised but disappointed. A summary of the patent and the potential is now in the article with a decent source plus Bell's startup will forward to his page. The extreme detail Bell and Pro2rat want to add is far beyond the summary style and rightly reverted. I added some comments to the SPI noting the similar tone as well but the self-reveal should make that SPI a simple one. Nice job spotting that in their remark! Ravensfire (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- My suspicions were correct, "The fact that I am not 'yet' notable for the patent doesn't change a thing". I've hatted the discussion per WP:BAN. --NeilN talk to me 20:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- See the discussion on the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- When you post on a talk page, please sign your posts with ~~~~, that will add your name to the end of your comment along with a timestamp. As for the meatpuppet, that was from your second post. Given the past history, I'm rather leery of even the hint of something like that but acting on behalf of a banned editor tends to be frowned upon. Are you? I don't think completely but there's a hint of it hence my concern. Ravensfire (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dear R
- At the time I wrote that I had no idea Jim was a banned editor. So there is no basis for your belief apart from suspicion.
- Now you are asking and saying ' don't think completely' but before you were saying ' almost certain'.
- Anyway I deny it and can supply heaps of evidence to show numerous things I disagree with Jim about.
- If there is a problem with too much detail in the patent entry then I might agree to prune it back.
- I'm certainly more interested in getting a succinct entry than hacking around on pages like this.
- Finally I'd appreciate a retraction of the meatpuppet accusation if that's possible.
- Thank you.
- Matt Pro2rat (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll gladly strikethrough the meatpuppet comments.
- On the patent entry, remember that Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopedia and the preference is to provide a summary of the information, highlighting the key information without getting bogged down in the details. If the reader wants to know more of the details, we've got the reference listed that they can then go to for the full details. I think some of your recent changes will be helpful to keep but I'm not sure about everything. I need to review it some more before any copyediting. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I don't mean to bother you with something so trivial, but on your common.css page, you have the statement
/* Make Lua-based cite errors visible, see [[Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax]] */ which is listing your common.css page in Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax. Even though it is commented, it still appears in the category. I'm trying to clean out these backlog pages, so if it is not a bother, would you add a ':' to the front of the link, such as [[:Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax]]? This will still link to the page, but not include your common.css in the category. Thanks, — JJJ (say hello) 15:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh @#$%!#$%#$%@#$ (and many other bad words directed at me). I'm terribly sorry about that, I usually try to watch for that. I will immediately make that change you suggested. Again, my sincere apologies for adding any extra work on your list. Ravensfire (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- And it's done, sorry for the trouble and thank you very much for the reminder about it! Ravensfire (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Hi there Ravensfire, I was putting some content into the BK article about Meditation retreats and was thinking that I can make each of the locations mentioned in the introduction into a hyperlink where there is a webpage for those particular retreat centres. It gives the whole list more credibility if people can go and see photo's of the different places, but I thought I should get some independent views on this - I thought it could also get criticised as 'advertising' (though everything is NFP). What are your thoughts? Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
All that collection of jerks do is threaten me. I tried to come and suggest improvements and I get them calling me names, claiming I misrepresent sources (I DO NOT) and threatening me if I "misrepresent sources" again meaning if I speak and I'm not agreeing with them. This whole place is fucking corrupt.