User talk:RaseaC/Archive 2

RaseaC, what is your problem with the Only Fools and Horses episode summaries? FlapjackStantz (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if it would be worth adding {{fact}} tags to the particular parts of these articles that are potentially disputable - have tried to do this on The Sky's the Limit. Have to admit when I see these top-of-page tags I find it helpful to have some indication of which parts need particular attention (although I reserve maximum irritation for the tags that should have supporting discussion... and have none!). It could be argued that a large part of these articles (the synopsis) is referenced by the episode itself with just a few bits that are more difficult to verify so there would be some benefit in highlighting these. Halsteadk (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Light Camera

I added some references. Now, it sounds better--Larno Man (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

B&Q Products

Care to tell me why a list of the products the DIY store sells is not needed?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.14.197 (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page.RaseaC (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

IP "vandal"

No, it indeed had to be said; thanks. I'll get back to you later. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Threatening users with a block.

Please don't do it - especially when you are incorrect about policy.[1]

Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. Thanks the_undertow ^talk 22:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of threatening them with a block, so as to not scare of new editors, maybe you could link them to the policy page about removal of tags? That might teach them something, and encourage them to stay. the_undertow ^talk 22:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. When I started, all I did was vandalfighting, at it gets tough. Thank God for VP, right? the_undertow ^talk 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There were complaints

that the lead focused too much on the financial success of Harry Potter and not enough on JK Rowling. So I shifted the balance a little. Serendi^podous 11:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sudan flight 109

Hi, no probs. Article needs much work re citing, will have a go at it later today and try to bash it into some sort of shape. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application

Dear RaseaC,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

_Gb^T/c 12:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Very inappropriate deletion nomination on Beoseon

I feel that your nomination for deletion on the Korea traditional type of socks is very inappropriate with the absurd rationale. What has the article to do with your rationale; This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an empty article, or one that consists only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images.? I strongly urge you to retract the speedy.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Response

1. No source
2. Speculation
3. Demonstration sports are not disallowed, they just haven't been used.

-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. RaseaC (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

You said on the Feb snowfall talk page that "we're going to have another Muhammad on our hands". What's a Muhammad? I thought I'd ask here, as it's not usefull on the article's talk page. Jolly Ω Janner 22:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering this as well since I appear to be the Muhammad, whatever that may be, for wondering whether or not a snow storm is notable. Spinach Monster (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Refers to the current fiasco surrounding our article on Muhammad and, more specifically, current discussions whereby the same thing gets said over and over and over and over and .... RaseaC (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what fiasco you're talking about, i've never been to the Muhammad article. I also was unaware that the notability regarding the amount of snow fall was already discussed, there was a large talk page section prior with many notability issues that seemed like white noise before I got there. However, I'd ask you to remove your comment as it seemed to not to be in good faith. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just went to the Muhammad article, and it appears you're talking about discussions on images. Regardless of any Consensus issues, you should probably take a look at WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in regards to newcomers. Even if they don't share your expertise, they're still entitled to courtesy. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• To be fair, the whole "this much snow isn't notable, we get lots more here and it doesn't cause any disruption" thing is a recurring theme. Many people fail to recognise that is is uncommon for this much snow to settle across the south of England (London especialy). Jolly Ω Janner 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, i'm from the United States, and I had no idea that the United Kingdom was so unaccustomed to snow fall. I knew they got less than us due to the Gulf Stream, but I didn't know it was THAT much less. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the image discussions, as previously stated on this talk. I am farmiliar with the various policies WP has and feel that my comment was in keeping with them so I will respectfully decline your request to remove it. In my opinion one of the major issues at WP is the way we treat new contributors as if they're stupid. I assume that anyone capable of contributing is also capable of:

• a) realising vandalism is unacceptable, and so I have very little time for vandals (see my contributions if you wish). N.b. I am not accusing you of vandalism
• b) reading what others have posted regarding their views, and so I also have very little time for those that repeat obvious discussions.

RaseaC (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

stupidness

It was just a joke, hope there are not any hard feelings. Nableezy (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

Assuming bad faith of other users, and other manifestations of incivility, are not acceptable and will not be tolerated. WilyD 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk. RaseaC (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it is customary to warn users about their misbehaviour before seeking other solutions, so I felt it appropriate to give you a warning about your behaviour. Cheers, WilyD 22:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk.RaseaC (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Then don't interact with them. No one is forcing you to. WilyD 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I know this has been discussed with u above and there is no need but I want to make one point here regarding repeated requests to remove image of Mohammad(pbuh). This image thing is spread among muslims worldwide and everyone want that image to be removed (you might have heard about the petition and all) I am not here to comment on the removal of pic. but as we know wiki is accessed by billions world wide and many among them are many muslims and some among them are those who dont read the discussion but as soon as the see the image they just make the edit with request to remove the image. They are already angry with this image thing and I request you not to irate them more with you comments. I have been following this image talk page for a long time now and I myself feel irritated with the comments you make. Please assume the good faith while replying.. We know WP is not going to remove the images... and take this in a good faith too... Bye.. Oniongas (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess u missed the point ... I m not talking about images or petition. I too dont give a damn about them. I know my religion very well and I too know these images make no importance at all. All I wanted to say was try to be nice while replying to new user. and try to adhere the policy of wiki (Wikipedia:Civility), Which say;

Which I guess you have forgotten. and if you dont understand the meaning of assuming good faith and following policy, then dont reply to any comments...Oniongas (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong you will never know what assuming good faith is... You know what Jesus(PBUH) said "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand " Mark 4:12; ....Bye ... Oniongas (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed your comments on this talk page. If you cannot respond without resorting to personal attacks, I recommend you don't respond at all. Resolute 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

re your question Is it possible to ban annon IPs? RaseaC (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC),

of course we can block the IPs. We can even block entire IP ranges. The problem is just that there is the risk of collateral damage, in the case of shared IPs, innocent people trying to make an edit from an IP blocked for a vandalistic edit. --dab (𒁳) 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We also frown on long-term blocks on IPs for the same reason. We had one admin who would apply indef blocks. Eventually he left the project, and it took a lot of work to re-evaluate all his work. The IP you noted in the images article stated he had been previously banned. I'm pretty sure he was simply referencing my previous block. His IP is not banned. In fact, if his IP started making useful edits after the block expires, we'd have to shorten subsequent blocks so as not to overly interfere with the good edits. We'd also encourage the editor making good edits to create an account instead. We generally don't block IPs to the degree that an individual can't use the IP to access his or her own account, though even that is possible. Interesting stuff, at least to us wiki-geeks. Rklawton (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Erin Wallace

Hi, this article was previously nominated for speedy deletion under A7 and declined by a different administrator. A quick search showed a few minor sources out there that discuss the person. I don't think it is a particularly good claim to notability, but the threshold for speedy deletion under A7 is low itself. Feel free to renominate if you disagree and I won't object, but I think a proposed deletion would be the way to go. Camw (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR - Qusay Hussein

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:)

Lol thanks The Source of Wiki Power (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Michael Gashaj

Hi RaseaC! Firstly, thanks for helping out in CSD areas. I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Michael Gashaj- because: page is not nonsense. Nonsense applies to a seemingly random string of characters or letters, where no sense can be made. There is clearly sense to this article; I can tell he's a kid, who lives in Troy, i (whereever that is), who is cool. Please read WP:CSD and WP:PN. If you have any questions or other message, please contact me. Thanks Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please slow down with NPWatcher, make sure the article actually meets the criteria before tagging. Marking as G1 can be much more BITEy then A7. So yeah, slow down, review CSD. But don't get put off CSD work :). Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your message, could you clarify? Are you saying I have no common sense? Or the page creator? Thanks again - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dynastes Satanas

Could you please help me out with this article its quite complicated, but please I need help. (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2009 (utc -4 )

Speedy Deletion of Sk padang terap declined

I have declined your request to speedy delete this article. The article is not gibberish, it is written in the Malay language. Articles not in English are specifically exempted from G1 speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not 100% accurate Beeble, if the content of an article is nonsense in a different language, its still nonsense and can still be speedied under G1, as long as the deleting admin is aware its non-english nonsense. Not saying that's the case here, just saying--Jac16888^Talk 21:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course nonsense is nonsense in any language, but that was not at all the case here, and RaseacC obviously did not investigate the matter. FYI: This website [2] is very good at identifying languages, and Google has a fairly decent machine translation feature. These tools can be useful in determining if an article meets the inclusion criteria regardless of the language. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I know (check PNT history), unfortunately malay is a language that's not currently machine translatable, or at least not with any program I've found so far. However, this one was also on malays 'pedia, so could be deleted--Jac16888^Talk 22:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately this is English Wikipedia, and I stand by the fact that anything not in English is, by definition, nonsense on this particular version. I did as much research as was necessary; I am English, I speak, read and write English very well and I didn't understand it, that's a good enough reason for deletion as far as I'm concerned. RaseaC (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. well that's not how it works I'm afraid. If an article is not in English, that doesn't mean its not useful to us, so the best thing anybody can do is list at WP:PNT, where we can usually determine if it is actually useful, and translate things that are. We don't delete purely because its not in english, at least, not right away--Jac16888^Talk 22:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I do. And I think it works fine that way. If the article is important enough for inclusion, it's important enough for the editor to translate it. RaseaC (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I actually sort of agree with you. It's annoying that someone would post a foreign language article here without making any attempt to make it understandable to users here, and in this case it turned out to be a copy/paste from the Malay Wikipedia, so it did qualify under that criteria. However, regardless of your personal feelings, or mine, or even Jimbo's, the current consensus and the explicit wording of the csd criteria specifically exempt foreign language articles that are not nonsense in their original language from being speedy deleted as nonsense. So, there is no point in nominating them for speedy deletion as they will just be declined. One editor's opinion does not override policy. If you feel strongly about this, I would suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Steven Altiere Page

I have checked the notability guidelines and it seems that this page is within the parameters. Unless I am mistaken, it is not a COI if the notability guidelines are met. This page is not for self-promotion, it is simply created to provide a page people can view after they click links on other Wikipedia pages. There are "Steven Altiere" links on several other wikipedia pages that currently go to a deleted page. As I was not the one who created these links in the first place, I am just trying to fix this error. In addition, other links that prove notability will be provided shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevealtiere (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)