User talk:Ravensfire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
My local time:
November 2014
23
Saturday
6:29 pm CST
00:29 UTC

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!


Welcome![edit]

Discussion at WP:ANI#disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ANI#disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page. Sam Sailor Sing 22:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI#Content manipulation on 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ANI#Content manipulation on 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Never should have been at ANI. It's a content dispute - you should be looking at the dispute resolution page. Ravensfire (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sincerely have tried very patiently to explain and clarify every concern, the Italian users are bent upon shaping that article as they have schemed on the Italian talk page. Also, as you can see the discussions are going nowhere and also my attempts to get non-involved contributors to weigh-in with experience in dealing with similar content-related disputes has come to naught. I opened the ANI because of the repeated/multiple content deletions and tweaking which were all part of the discussion and which was being removed/replaced.
I will look at the dispute resolution page but in the short-term what to do about the redaction of the content ? Should I move this from ANI to elsewhere where admins can weigh-in on the content ?
Kindly advise because I have no prior experience in dealing with this kind of coordinated content/article shaping. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, the article is about 60% decent, 40% crap. The POV shoving is from BOTH sides. If you can't admit that, just stop now. Look at the change I recently made. There was zero reason for the quote. None. Zilch. Unless, of course, you wanted to push a POV. Read that dispute resolution page I linked above. This isn't the first time people from various sides came to an impass. Here's a hint - edit warring happens with both sides are reverting. It cannot be just one side. So here's some advice. 1 - If you want to start using the various noticeboards, you need to focus very specific aspects. Take a section or paragraph at a time and focus discussion on the talk page specifically on that. 2 - Stop with the nationalist crap. Seriously. Stop. You want to make sure folks want to argue with you, keep it up. You'll end up getting nowhere. The three of you involved in this are textbook single purpose authors. A lot of admins won't care about blocking any of you if things continue.
Remember what this is - it's an encyclopedia which summarizes information. It's not a blow-by-blow, every detail thing. When sections have daily breakdowns, it's probably something that needs to be rewritten.
So what to do in the short-term? First, focus on specific changes. Start talk page sections (with neutral titles) about each section and express concerns focusing on the information, the sources and Wikipedia policies (see WP:RS and WP:NPOV in particular). You will not win every battle. You shouldn't - that article is anything but perfect. Realize that some of their changes do improve the article. Some don't. Get all editors involved to explain why they made the change. Focus on the edits. Focus on the edits. Focus on the edits. (See a theme here? Stop with the nationalist stuff). Ravensfire (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your inputs. I concur with your assessment that the article has scope for improvement. My point was that most of the article's incident investigations related content came from Indian court documents because in Italy the authorities are not divulging anything. That is why I found it far stretching to bring in speculations into the article.
The quote (if you are referring to the LRIT data) IMHO is relevant because it could have given the positional information about what happened, where and when. That is all. It is surprising how many systems that should have been able to give positional information were voluntarily or involuntarily unavailable. My impression was that the casual reader will do well to be informed that a system called LRIT exists and that LRIT data was not available for this incident. I am certainly not going to defend this LRIT statement for other reasons than this.
Last point if you will permit me. I think that the wikipedia article should avoid speculative content which can only serve nationalist causes and create unnecessary divisions. I have no inclination to defend/support the Indian narrative. Only, I must admit that I find Indian court documents more relevant when compared to journalistic speculations and conspiracy theories. We don't need countries creating more trouble here in Europe by fanning nationalist flames than we already have right now because this is only making the Indians dig-in even deeper with their own nationalist rhetoric fuelled by upcoming electoral concerns. That is why I have questioned the speculative content that is being introduced.
That said, I am going to stop and leave this thing alone because I think that some rest will hopefully make everyone see straighter ;-)

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

RE the quote, the full quote is quite simply not needed. Period. What is needed, and what I did in this edit, is to summarize the information - that the LRIT data isn't available on that day because the server was off. That's it - the information is summarized without an inflamatory and POV quote. The use of actual quotes in an article should be kept to a minimum and really only used when the power of the words is obvious. Ravensfire (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reported for 3RR[edit]

You have been reported for 3RR since it is you who started the edit war on the CT page. More info on our conversation on my talk page.Csp0316 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Two things. One, please learn to count. I'm not past 3RR as you are. Second, the edit war was started by you when you continued to revert the MULTIPLE editors who have objected to your list. But thanks for noticing our efforts. Ravensfire (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah - I also fixed the template on the EWN page for you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Shockingly, said editor was blocked for edit-warring and then subsequently blocked indefinitely for sockpuppets. Ravensfire (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion regarding Providence (religious movement)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. Sam Sailor Sing 11:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ra.One's language edit[edit]

Good morning. Sir, i edited a small chunk of Ra.One specially the language. Sir, the film has use of English language as film is shot in London too. Sir, i have done numerous edit but this edit reverts everytime. Sir a small request please save my edit for the latter page. Thank you. TekkenJinKazama (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

TekkenJinKazama, Please use the RA.One talk page to discuss and get consensus for your edit. Multiple editors have objected to your change and you've already been blocked over this. Use the article talk page. Use the article talk page. Just in case you didn't get the specific advice I'm giving to you, use the article talk page to discuss adding English as a language for the film. Generally though, only the main language should be listed which is clearly Hindi. Ravensfire (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Sir, first and foremost i discussed about it but they are not willing to keep the secondary language. As per you said this film is Hindi, i totally agree sir. But always my edit gets reverted for it. Specially Hindi films Taare Zameen Par, My Name Is Khan, Jogger's Park 2003 film these are all Hindi films but they have liberal sir liberal but use of English. And only one user kept reverting despite i explained that these films language must be kept only Hindi. And sir one more thing i am not a blacklisted Wikipedian as i have contributed much. I respect each user sir. But the following user User:Kailash29792 reverted edits though i explained him. And for which i blocked. Sir please understand me i am not vandalising the page . Thank you
TekkenJinKazama (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You aren't vandalizing the page, but you ARE editing against consensus. I understand you have a view on this, but others disagree. Wikipedia is based on WP:CONSENSUS and you MUST work to get that here. I frankly don't care one way or the other about this. What I care about is that multiple editors have reverted you and you don't care about that. You need to use the talk page to get consensus (and that means active agreement by other editors that English should be added as a language for the film). Ravensfire (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
As per your suggestion i will appeal on Ra.One talk page. Will they keep my edit change? Sir i know that its not vandalism but still sir secondary language must be put up there. Sir why do they disagree?. Had i edited something vulgar? No sir so. Sir please i have a small request can you put up the secondary language of Ra.One. I will be highly obliged. Thanks again so much sir. TekkenJinKazama (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I won't. That field is for the primary language of the film. English is not the primary language of the film which is why you keep getting reverted. You MUST get consensus on the talk page BEFORE making your edit again. Ravensfire (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Sir, Since today i edited the language part today and it was not reverted. I had requested for Consensus for language. You can check talkpage of Ra.One. Still i do not understand why this revert goes on. Ok sir, Taare Zameen Par that film has too Hindi. When i edited and removed English part they reverted. So do Hindi films not using English as secondary language? Sir, You can check English Language Indian Films list. Have a look and say they too should be reverted. If no so why only mine edits revert? TekkenJinKazama (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
First, please just indent your posts when replying on a talk page. Don't create new sections unless it's a new topic. See the PW:INDENT page for how it works. I noticed you only just created the talk page post. That's good, but disappointing considering you took the time earlier to revert (again) despite multiple objections. And you even said you were going to use the talk page, but you didn't when you left that post. Only just now did you bother. Ravensfire (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello-

I just made edits to the page SolarReserve and received a conflict of interest message. How do I send you my edits to proofread so that the information will not be removed?

Thank you!

207.114.153.126 (talk)JocelynnY

Ra.One[edit]

Hello. Can i ask you something? You again reverted my edit. And that too i referenced with a link. So how come you do this sir? Since 24 hours i did not done a single edit war to the page and i did not got the Consensus (Agreement). So tell me one thing Raven sir, i did not indulged in edit war. Kailash and you reverted much. I just wrote secondary language. Nothing sir Nothing more than that. Please sir i did not vandalized. And please sir note it check IMDB page. They added Chinese, Tamil and Telugu (dubbed) but i just added its English the next language. So do IMDB is wrong too? Sir i just want its secondary language thats it TekkenJinKazama (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Did I say it was vandalism? No. Are you edit-warring? Oh yeah. Read the WP:EDITWAR page. For everything else, use the article talk page, not my talk page. This is a content dispute. Ravensfire (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, when you do go to the Ra.One talk page discussion, note the references that I put for the primary language of the film. That's what this is about after all. Not the secondary languages. Not the translated language. The primary language. Please though, use the Ra.One talk page to discuss this further. Ravensfire (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the Whistleblower article and on the duplicate articles for the Company USIS.

Template creation[edit]

First of all welcome back. The reason for which i created the template is to represent Hindi TV stars. Basically sir, there are several templates of scientist, comedians, actors, singers so i made one of Hindi TV actors respectively. I love to create new ideas and thanks to you guys for inspiration TekkenJinKazama (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all this template has meaningful modules. See article Karanvir Bohra he won 3 awards in his Television career. So i did represent the 3 awards section respectively

TekkenJinKazama (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Jin's block evasion[edit]

Ever since User Tekken Jin Kazama was blocked indefinitely today, I think he has shifted to making edits on an IP address. I can say so because of his habitual characteristics. I am really confused over his intentions: does he call these Hindi films set abroad as English films to make them look more " Hollywood-esque", does he do so bcos a few English dialogues "must" make it an English film, or were the Hindi films dubbed in English? The third is extremely unlikely. Even the Cantonese film Ip Man was dubbed in English, but the Infobox does not mention the same. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the IP socking, and it's annoying. I think his intention is to put any language used in a film in the infobox, even if it's not used too much. That parameter is supposed to indicate the primary language of the film and that's it. The template documentation even gives a couple of good places to source that from (bbfk.co.uk and bollywoodhungama.com) so it's not difficult to check. If we go with "any language used", think of all the films where a foreign language is used and subtitled for effect. Or the various phrases that get borrowed from other languages. Terminator 2 would have to mention Spanish for "Hasta la vista, baby." Tekken won't stop and doesn't care about anything except himself, unfortunately. He's at revert and ignore for me. Ravensfire (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Since I just noticed it, the category edits I thought were borderline, but okay. The category says it's for "Films made in India or by Non-Resident Indians with themes related to India, in which Indian English and/or English is wholly or partially spoken." That's really, really broad category but it's been described like that for a long time. Up to you, but I don't think it would hurt to leave them. Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please report all of TekkenJinKazama's block evasion activities here. - Areaseven (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Curious case of Jin Kazama[edit]

Been since a long time, Kazama's edit is going worst. I really feel pity for that user. I think Kazama's habit of being block still does not realising his actions. He just wanted Ra.One's second language to be edited. Does really that film has English much? For which Kazama wanted his edits to be saved? This user is blocked now for image copyrights violation. Again a new block for him. mall (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

And he has been blocked indefinitely. As for Ra.One, it is not an English film. Just because it was set in London (that too only the first half) and there was little English in the film, does not make it officially an English language film. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement[edit]

Excuse me but why did you revert my changes on The Zeitgeist Movement without any explanation why? I was only posting correct, sourced information and removing incorrect and hence no longer relevant info. --Melarish (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. You don't get to decide what is 'incorrect' - we go by published sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
But why did you also remove what I added? If you believe the existing sources are still relevant, fair enough, but so was mine.
One, it's your personal opinion and the opinion of the article's subject. We only use primary sources for basic information. Anything like this must come from independent secondary sources. Two, this should be on the article's talk page. It's much easier to get a wider view than on an individual user's talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Notifying about an abusive edit[edit]

I am not kinda of any sockpuppet. Stop assuming this. Even for contribution you posted me a Sockpuppet. For user Kailash i edited that parts and he even thanked me. Though, You are not a Hindi speaking person so please do not assume me for any sockpuppetry! R★S★S (Your Precious Reply) 14:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh bullshit. You can reply to the SPI page and offer your defense there. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Raven, he removed "English" from the Hindi film Taare Zameen Par, and I thanked him for that edit. I had no idea he is Tekken Jin. But now based on circumstantial evidence, I am convinced that Rajan Singh is the same user. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Totally understand about the thanking, and to be honest, if a sock does something useful I'd probably thank them as well. But ... TekkenJinKazama is blocked and getting around that by creating a new account isn't correct. They need to address the problems that caused them to be blocked and get their main account unblocked. They have a very distinctive editing style and interests (Indian films and Tekken characters - odd combination there!). Ravensfire (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Obliged[edit]

Though, Raven if i edited that part its a good thing for you both. And those films which falls in English Language Indian films would be converted in Hindi. The list Kailash gave i won't even see them as their language is English. Agree . Well even Bombay Boys had a pure amalgamation of Hinglish i entered Hindi with respect. And yes, The films which has less Hindi too as Bombay Boys will be billed too as Hindi films. I contributed and not broken any rules of Wikipedia. And Gandhi is based in India but directed by Richard Attenborough is fully English. Its a tribute to Kailash for removing English as second language (And for you too) R★S★S (Your Precious Reply) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Bare discussion[edit]

As if the talk page will help to post my language. I think you are not understanding me. Raven stop and listen. Your brother Kailash told me that Ra.One do not target Foreign countries. So tell me the sources that have been edited by me why they say Ra.One Got Thumbs Up From Hollywood ? Coz Raven we all know Americans do not speak any Hindi nor Hollywood is situated in Mumbai. Read the sources respectively. And i have strong feeling that you and Kailash are sockpuppeters coz actually you a non-Hindi person genuinely supports him though you cannot speak Hindi. No other user except you and Kailash only these are reverters of Ra.One! History of the pages are proof Either Kailash or You revert in this whole Wikipedia. Read the sources. Respectively R★S★S (Your Precious Reply) 15:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Read TJK's talk page as Kailash wrote "If the film targets English viewers then you can apply source to prove". I gave 2 references despite he didnt understand. R★S★S (Your Precious Reply) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Rajan, the references you added do not state that RA.One was dubbed or released in English. And even if it was, you still cannot add English to the Infobox as a film's primary language (ie the language it was shot in) can only be added. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Rajan, READ the discussion on the Ra.One talk page. We're not looking for something that says that English was used in the film. That is not contested and it's why it has the English language Indian film category. But it's not the primary language of the film. Your sources don't support that at all. And that's what the language parameter in the Infobox is for - what is the primary language of the film. So tell me, do you really think English is a primary language of the film? Ravensfire (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Full and Final[edit]

Kailash and Raven this is my concern that if English is added to Infobox so why, so why don't you do not agreeing? And hey, both of you Lust, Caution (film) has 6 languages. Though barely used, how its been there since 2007? And i do not say English is primary language for it but if been posted there would police or Cyber crime will investigate? As if i posted a vulgar thing R★S★S (Your Precious Reply) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

TekkenJinKazama, please read the documentation on {{Infobox film}}. After you've read it, please reply here with how it says to use the language parameter. Also, please include what language(s) the source mentioned on that documentation page says for the language. Ravensfire (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Raven, I have decided not to involve in this matter anymore. No, I have not surrendered to Rajan, but I know that we have still won. Because you have opened a SPI case against him, and he and his socks will certainly be blocked in the coming days, precluding him from ever editing again... until he creates a new account to evade his punishment. But an intelligent and sensible editor would give a proper unblock request rather than evade his block, which he is unlikely to do. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Good call - I'm about there myself. Appreciate the help and advice you've given to me and to TekkenJinKazama (even if they ignored it). Ravensfire (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

TFD Indian TV actor[edit]

Raven, since the time i've seen that you aren't happy with contribs i made. Why this template Template:Infobox Indian TV actor is stabbing you? One more thing i am representing Indian soap opera actors through the infobox but still you consider as a Vandalised template. And just listen that infobox has meaningful awards modules in respect to actors who contributed services to Hindi entertainment. Awards like Zee Gold Awards, Sab Ke Anokhe Awards, Indian Telly Awards are given. And consensus for what. Wikipedia states every user has rights to contribute meaningful articles. So you say that infobox is worst? Did our actors didn't contribute to Hindi TV media? So what's the problem R★S★S (Your Precious Reply) 02:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary template. Look at the some FA actor articles and what do you NOT see? Awards in the infobox. There was a discussion about this on the WP:ACTOR talk page - no awards in the infobox. You, however, don't care about anyone else. You delete other peoples views on things. You create sock pupppets. You use IP addresses when you are blocked. You will be blocked again. Until you start showing some basic understanding of Wikipedia and working with others, it won't matter how many accounts you try to create. You will end up blocked again. And again. And again. Ravensfire (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And by the way - stop creating new talk page sections. Use existing talk page sections. Here's a hint - click on that little edit button. Indent your comments with colons. Read WP:TALK. I know you won't, because you don't give a fuck about anyone else. So here's the deal, if you want to comment here again, you will. Or it will be reverted unread as more useless drivel. Ravensfire (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Raven i said stop using curse words. Ok so what about this Template:Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor does this infobox is valid? It does have award parameters. Only Chinese stars represented like this? Chow Sing-Chi's infobox shows many awards and if Indian actor is represented like this it will be unneccesary. On the contrary, this template got semi protected! I have to talk about it and i'll make sure this template unlike Cantonese actors will be safe. R★S★S (Your Precious Reply) 03:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry - you don't give a shit about what other people say and you have the nerve to tell me, on my talk page, what I can and cannot say? You think I fucking care about your opinion after the crap you've pulled? Yeah, good luck. You haven't responded civilly - you have ignored, begged and pleaded everywhere but where you should be discussing edits. Where you've been nudged, pointed and flat out told to discuss things. It's far, far too late for you to even think about telling me how to act. As for the other template - WP:TFD. Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
We both worked together tirelessly to put an end to Tekken Jin Kazama and his sock's illegal activities, which have successfully paid off. But most of the credit to stop him goes to you, so congratulations! Kailash29792 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Woohoo! Thank YOU for your help and patience with this. The worst part about this entire situation is that TekkenJimKazama has the potential and energy to be a good editor who could really contribute to Wikipedia. They need to change how they handle disagreements and understand that a wider consensus can (and must!) override their personal preferences. I hope they will think about this and work to get unblocked with some conditions that would let them focus on what they do well. Again, thank you for trying to work with TJK and remaining cool. Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

He's Back![edit]

TekkenJinKazama is back in a new account named MainZindaHoon (I wish he were not :P) He has opened a SPI case where he thinks you and me are the same editor using two different accounts. Please try to prove him wrong, and let the block instead fall on him (because I have already opened a SPI case against him). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the SPI filed. We'll probably get a few of these, just revert his edits as WP:BAN, add to the SPI case and ignore them otherwise. They will eventually run out of energy and quit. For new pages, you can request a G5 Speedy Deletion as they are an obvious sock of a blocked/banned editor. Ravensfire (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
And now "Mr. I am the best" has returned in a new account, you won't believe what this sock's name is: Ravensfire1. He is totally off his rocker. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hahaha - that's just awesome! Ravensfire (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

Thank You for your input, I am new to this,, (Lesa88 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

Your message[edit]

I will not be editing any further on Wikipedia. You are apparently not interested in balance. In the Bundy article, you say it is written like an opinion and you wanted edits to improve that. Then you tell me infowars is not a reliable source. You didn't say what they wrote was untrue. You say I drew my own conclusions on original research. All that I wrote was based on multiple sources, many of which came from local newspaper articles in Nevada. While what is there is mostly true, the "facts" are selective and therefore have a significant bias towards those who focus only on the court cases perspective. Without the knowledge of Whittemore's Coyote Springs development and the favors he was granted as well as the solar energy plans of Rory Reid, a significant context is left out. Without the knowledge that Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Harry Reid, the selective enforcement of the laws against Bundy get missed. Without the knowledge that the BLM at the time of the raid was run by Reid's former advisor who was criticized for being wet behind the ears and unqualified to run the agency before he was confirmed, the bad judgment to send in the military style SWAT team is attributed to the government and not the Reid cabal. It reminds me of a western movie where the sheriff is owned by the crooks and he is used to selectively enforce the law against the honest folks. Without the knowledge of the casual enforcement of the desert tortoise by the BLM, the choice to enforce it so strictly against the last rancher being forced out is unseen. Without the knowledge that many cases of BLM seizing land from ranchers and/or driving them out of business, the abusive behavior of an all powerful agency is lost. Without the knowledge of how Texas handled a similar attempt by the BLM in Texas, the illegal behavior of the BLM and the use of local law enforcement as a way to handle such situations without arousing a nation is overlooked. The treatment of the truth in the Wikipedia covering of the Bunkerville Incident doesn't contribute to the truth and further divides an already divided nation and enflames those who believe one side is the only side fairly represented into fighting back in a last ditch manner. ```` Without the knowledge that Texas handled their similar issue— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtLaramee (talkcontribs) 04:29, May 3, 2014

Whatever. Obviously you're here to push an agenda and right great wrongs and that doesn't go over well. Ravensfire (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

For your attempt at evenhandedness, alongside Liz and Bushranger, in the matter of the block of 71.239.82.39 (Le Prof). I thank you for the underlying open-mindedness, and the interrogatory approach you brought to the issues at the table.Though it did this particular process little good, and my plans for departure are still certain, your involvement was one little ray of hope (even if the sensible thinkers, you, Liz, etc., did not prevail in this case). Feel free to read the text at my User page before I leave—it is masked, but readable by choosing Edit. I will mark your Talk page, and would offer myself to help in any situation where comparable objectivity is needed. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Raven, i have did not attacked any one but why you disabled me? Idiot i have made that account for contribs and i have didnt touch Ra.One (the page you love) or any one. I had done just contribs neither than attack or vandalised. And if you think contribs is wrong thing then this bullshit site must be banned. Because you guys have ego of this. Egoistic users. Just i made a page of Feng Wei and just block. Shitful site a must say this site must be ban. Just promoting Pornography in name of Information. Hell this site hell this crap bloody racial discriminator you i will edit and keep this to you. Fuckin site fuckin users crap 42.104.3.43 (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

TekkenJinKazama, if you refer to Wikipedia as "this bullshit site" which you feel "must be banned", then kindly leave Wikipedia. We Wikipedians have done nothing morally wrong. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
TJK - you have been blocked. Period. As you have repeatedly demonstrated, you don't care about Wikipedia, so why should Wikipedia care about you? There is an egotistical user here, but you need to look in a mirror to find them. If you want to return to editing, you will need to get your main account unblocked but that won't just simply happen with a wave of the hand. See WP:OFFER and also realize that any unblock will have conditions on it to prevent you from repeating what got you blocked in the first place - edit warring, ignoring consensus, creating non-notable articles and repeated copyright infringements. That is your only path forward. Read WP:OFFER. Otherwise, I suggest you find a Tekken Wikia site and edit there. Ravensfire (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Raven, I undid his attack on your talkpage three times, but he just undid my edits. I decided to stop to avoid WP:3RR. I think we can bring more editors to convince him to stop, so that he feels helpless against a bunch of editors rather than just two. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about his ranting here - it's usually worth a laugh. There are a few other editors that will revert and report when he hits a particular article. Ravensfire (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this a TJK sock?[edit]

Is 少林足球 a TJK sockpuppet to you? There's a lot of similar traits which feel like your typical obvious TJK sock, even the username is "Shaolin Soccer" in Chinese but I don't have much experience with tracking his edits for flags so would like a second opinion. Only reason I'm following this up at all was because of a request at RFPP which seemed like his usual MO. tutterMouse (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@TutterMouse:Yeah, that's almost certainly a TJK sock. Odd combination of a chinese character name and interest with Bollywood film and TV topics. This edit kinda seals the deal for me - TJK has a fascination with Hari Om Entertainment and Grazing Goat. I can't imagine another editor making the link. *sigh* Nice job spotting the sock. I'll work on the SPI report but it will be a few hours at least. Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
See @G S Palmer: already got to this, good job by him especially gathering all those IP addresses. Anyway, remember to speedy anything he creates as G5, it doesn't require any AfDs given he's blocked and it cuts down how much he creates. tutterMouse (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Atama already hit the history eraser button, plus reverted many of their edits. Alas, Atama has much experience with TJK socks. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of important matter[edit]

Raven, look, i want to discuss something to you. Though i am blacklisted in the Wikipedia, but brother i want to tell you something. Please evade my Tekken Block. I promise n swear of my God i wont repeat disruptive works. Raven, atleast you help me in this. And swear i m serious this time. Ra.One is was & will be a Hindi film. And for my edits i have contributed but as sock. But i want to edit again as Tekken. This is my request to you. I swear i wont misuse my id to any Wikipedian. Grazing Goat Pictures was notable article. But socking made it to delete. Viraj Dobriyal too was notable tv character. For the last time remove my block. At least Raven i will never harass any one. Please. 42.104.2.204 (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

TJK, please give this unblock request via your original account. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: they wont unblock me. I want to be a good editor like you all. And im sorry i have caused you all troubles. 42.104.2.204 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Jin, I have almost no faith that you'd actually follow through with anything you promise. You have not shown that you will respect the views of others, the policies of this site or consensus decisions that you don't like. Instead, you do as you want and ignore anything contrary. You KNOW that blocks are for the person, not the account. You KNOW that the consensus is against you with regards to the van Gogh article. Do you care about that? No, you don't. You create sock after sock to do it your way. You want to start changing your ways? You want to be a good editor, you have to learn to accept that you can't get everything your way. Right now, you have shown no evidence that you can do that.
How to get unblocked? Read WP:OFFER and state, on your main account's talk page, that you will follow it. That means NO edits from IP addresses. No edits from socks. Put together a list of restrictions that will help you avoid the problems you've had and promise to follow them. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Brother Raven, i had made pages that were notable Viraj Dobriyal (character played by Karanvir Bohra) , Grazing Goat Pictures (a notable production house) and more. As of Gogh, brother Raven, Gogh's assassination was a worldwide issue as Gogh was killed by Muslim terrorists. And please have faith in me I wont repeat mistake. But i cannot live without edits in Wikipedia. Yaar i have just contributed just contributed. As of unblock no one will unblock me. Please from that day (the vandalistic work on Ra.One) i didnt even edited it. I m really apologising for it already. And brother Wikipedia is meant for good editing. I just done that. 42.104.2.204 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You are blocked. Not the account. You. You created those pages while evading that block. Once again, an example that you just don't care about the policies. They don't apply to you. You will do what you want. Guess what, that doesn't work out too well. You say you won't repeat mistakes but you keep repeating the same mistake over and over - you don't respect others. You gotta learn that to edit Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You want a concrete example of that? Let's take your "notable" Viraj Dobriyal article. Remember the AFD discussion on that article? Here's a link to it, just in case. The result, the consensus, was that it was not notable. Did you respect that? No. You recreated the article using sockpuppet accounts. In other words, only your opinion matters. Nobody else's. Just yours. That attitude DOES NOT WORK here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: : Brother i have appealed my block. And after that i will not harass any one just will contribute and leave this site. You are like my brother and Goodluck. And heartily sorry for troubles. 107.167.102.128 (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion with blocked editor TJK[edit]

Well you didnt liked my edits coz i'm a sock na? But do adding English will destroy anyone's dignity. Look since 2 days i'm just roamin' in Atama 's Talk Page. Ra.One has English use. Hey Allah my power of explaination is destroyed. My inner strength has given up. Bhaiyya, Brother or Bhai (Hindi term for brother) please please dude i m not misleading or misguiding! Just for one edit i'm roaming here (despite my Prison time) just for English addition. I didnt touched Ra.One for any change except language! My Name Is Khan too was Hindi / English. Khan stated he didnt want to make in English. Does that statement had a citing source? BBFC too said Hindi and English. BBFC is reliable source and too if reliability fails, i will applaud you all. Im happy that i'm arrested. When IMDB was added (Albeit it was unreliable. I saw in reliable source guidelines) and when BBFC updated their DB you claimed it unreliable. My friend, my begging is breaking my self respect & even if i got unblocked i wont come here. For just one edit reliable becomes unreliable! 107.167.103.17 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you would actually search on the Ra.One article, you'd find that quote AND the source for it. It's not that hard, really. Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
TJK, I have seen Ra.One and can conclude that it is mainly a Hindi film with little-to-no English dialogues. I also did not find any sources which describe it as even a slightly English film. I have even explained this to you so many times, yet why didn't you ever learn? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Here's what I don't get, Jin. You want me to seriously believe that Ra.One is mostly in English. Now, let's look at the BBFC stuff. So this page has English, but read the insight section. "RA.ONE is a Hindi language film subtitled in English." Oops, that doesn't help your case at all. BBFC lists all of the different versions of the film, including the release date. If we go with the oldest, it's this page which lists Hindi as the main language. Everything I've seen, including some of the sourcees you point out, say Hindi as the main language of the original film with a small amount of English. Yes, the parameter in the template is occasionally used wrong - I cannot help that. I can correct it when I see it though and try to explain how it should be used. I've even pointed you to places to try and change it. Alas, you don't listen to any contrary arguments. You won't even consider them. Ultimately, that's why you are blocked right now. Ravensfire (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Kailash29792 / Ravensfire BBFC SITE SAYS ENGLISH (2ND LANGUAGE)! [1] BHAIYYA ITS A SOURCE! READ IT!! READ IT!! PLEASE. GOD PLEASE ALMOST DEAD FOR THIS MATTER. Click on details 107.167.103.17 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I checked under "details" where it lists English under "other languages". Still, that does not make Ra.One a part English film, and Hindi is the only language allowed in the infobox. And talking in capital letters signifies "shouting", so please avoid it. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Ravensfire lets seal the deal. Hindi is was and will be For Ra.One. Can you help me for a matter. And by the way its not for Ra.One now?? 42.104.0.6 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't tell if you acceded because you finally understand the points we've been making or just giving up. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. As for your request, you can always ask but I'll not make any decisions until I see your request. Ravensfire (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
After the latest sock proves you still don't care about Wikipedia policies, I will decline to help you any further, Jin. Truly sad, if you just could have learned, somehow, to work within Wikipedia policies. But you have failed at every turn. Ravensfire (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ravensfire i am not in socking anymore (as promised to sir Atama) neither i wont make. And which sock i made prior since 3 days? And one more thing, my ip is on a track. I have a question for you and Atama sir, as a sock though, i had cited a number of reliable source for Hindi television actor Karanvir Bohra so my query is bhai that as of now that article just relied on 3 sources (which can be marked as a Stub) though i added 23 equivalent to 25. But the users ChanderForYou had diligently violated copyright which led to protection. So i want to ask Atama basically to protect the page and revive the citing sources! 42.104.3.181 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm quite familiar with both IP ranges you tend to use. And since Aliewiilearn (talk · contribs) is blocked, it's not worth further attention. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
As for the article, that may be possible. Not everything was sourced so I would not add it and the controversy section is just WP:TABLOID cruft. We don't put stuff like that in articles. I don't know when I'll be able to do this, it could be a few days as I'll need to review everything before adding it. Since I'm adding it, I'm responsible for the material. Ravensfire (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Tsk, tsk, tsk - you are blocked, remember, Jin? This is you evading the block again. You are blocked. Period. You have proven you cannot work with the Wikipedia community and you have been asked to leave. You ask for favors, then ignore any comments contrary. Do not ask for my help again. Ravensfire (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Whistleblower[edit]

I will be reposting your DELETE. I see Edit everywhere. If you had a problem, Edit. Reliable sources where there.Seanpboileau (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

enough CREDIBLE SOURCES for you now? You going to DELETE again? if so then I guess wikipedia is not credible as I used a Wikipedia in a couple REF. JUST SOME FYI... you get more bees with sugar than vinegar.Seanpboileau (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Seanpboileau: More bees with sugar than honey ... huh, and you posted the rant. And the lovely edit summary of "bull ravensomething". I did NOT remove your edit but rather left a message trying to help you. And get this rant in return. Lovely. Such a warm fuzzy feeling I get from trying to help out a bit. Ravensfire (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my Talk page a week ago; I thought there was a lot to agree with. People who conduct outreach like that are a cut above in my opinion. If you ever do an RfA, you'll have my vote. Being a low-volume editor, I wonder if 1 or 2 classic film synopses per year will convince antagonists that I'm making a substantial contribution here. You said "Six edits saying support for no reasons might lose to a single editor opposing who raises good, policy based views". From my perspective, it's only about who will stick around and revert, for whatever reason good or bad. I had planned on tackling some articles that need it, but I don't feel like bothering anymore. But thanks again for your comments. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

hello[edit]

The sources are provided. Even if few sources aren't independant, he is studying at Soas. Why we don't include it? Thanks AHLM13 talk 12:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include that he's studying at SOAS and have a good source it, that's fine. But your edit was not reverted for that reason. If you want the SOAS information added, put it, and only that, in an edit on it's own. The "famous scholar" stuff is an exceptional claim and needs exceptional sourcing. The sources you've provided haven't even come close. A major article from a periodical totally unconnected with religion or a truly independent biography is really whats needed. A 3 sentence blurb on an advovacy website promoting him? No, that's not remotely enough. Ravensfire (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Endless Love (Indian album)[edit]

Hello Ravensfire. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Endless Love (Indian album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not created by a banned user, or the page does not violate the user's ban. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC) @Malik Shabazz:, SPI isn't always the fasted - they have confirmed the page's author as a sock, but a clerk/admin hasn't come along to block the user yet. Up to you though. Ravensfire (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for the link to the SPI. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Ravensfire (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit is supported by fact[edit]

The edit is supported by fact and meets all journalistic criteria. As to multiple posts, the other user agreed to mediation and I simply will not be bullied into removing a factual post. If you want to ban someone ban the bully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.143.89 (talk) 11:34, July 6, 2014

@98.113.143.89: As I've pointed out to you, we've got very strict policies about living persons called the WP:BLP policy (page linked). Part of that is that primary sources can't be used to support claims made about other people. Keen's post can be used to support claims made about him only, no mention of Lira in any way (hinted or otherwise) and only in Keen's article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira article[edit]

Anonymous IP user 98.113.143.89 keeps re-inserting material that violates BLP (using self-published sources). I keep reverting, but s/he keeps coming back! Help!MILH (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, you've been so helpful. MILH (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The information provided is accurate, factual, verifiable, and neutral. The other party agreed to mediation and he needs to leave the post in place until such time as it is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.143.89 (talk) 14:25, July 6, 2014
Sorry, but you are quite wrong. Problem one - it's using a self-published source in a BLP article that is not from that subject. Problem two - the editing cycle here is WP:BRD - Boldly make the change, if it gets Reverted, Discuss it on the talk page. You haven't bothered discussing it at all and instead keep forcing your version into the article. You are WAY past the 3RR limit. It's obvious that you have zero intention of actually discussing the issues raised and will simple keep trying to force your edit into the article. It's time to take this to the edit war noticeboard. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
And now at the EWN for your massive 3RR violation on this. There is no reason to discuss this further here. Ravensfire (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Another anonymous user, 173.68.144.130, keeps obsessively revising. It's possibly the same as the last person whom you eventually banned, as their IP addresses are from the same region.

I'm reverting his/her changes, as they hurt the article. His/Her changes obscure the profession and relevance of the subject.

Just a heads up, in case this gets ugly. Thanks!MILH (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@MILH: It's very possible this is the same user. Both IP's (98.113 and 173.68) are from New York and are for Verizon FIOS and contacted Sunray who's only connection was the mediation attempt. It's highly unlikely a random person would find that mediation. Even if it is, use the same standards as always as they may actually help improve the article. Thus far they haven't repeated the Keen stuff, which is a good thing. I'll keep an eye out though. Ravensfire (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it seems like the same guy/girl as over the Keen issue.
Query: Why did you edit out Lira's blog and page view numbers? As a blogger myself, I'm thrilled to get ten page views a day! So I figured that 6 million makes it substantial, thus noteworthy. (Also, I know that during Lira's blogging heyday, he was one of the top-ten econ bloggers.) So why eliminate that? I won't reinsert it, just curious. MILH (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, that's basically trivia backed by a stat counter that is easily abusable. If we've got a secondary source saying the blog was in the top ten at a point in time, that's something that might be viable for the article. But page views is just vanity. Ravensfire (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Understood. I sourced the blog info to a reputable econ directory; check it and see if it's kosher. Cheers, MILH (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

apply the warning equally.[edit]

My original post needs to stay intact. other user has no right to alter it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.143.89 (talk) 14:38, July 6, 2014‎

If you're talking about your edit on the article, you couldn't be more wrong. When you made that edit, you agreed that anyone can remove or change what you added. Ravensfire (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
But at this point, I'm not going to bother reverting you because, again, you don't care about anything other than pushing your POV over something that hasn't attracted any secondary noticed, based on an unacceptable source into the article. It's at EWN and after you've been blocked I'll remove the text noting again the BLPSPS violation. Ravensfire (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hey Ravensfire, I keep meaning to say 'thanks' for keeping a good eye the BK article. It does seem to attract a bit of rubbish from both proselytisers and dissenters ....your latest revision reminded me to thank you. The 'expansion' part needs a bit of work still, and there are a few missing ref's...that's kind of my fault as I ran out of steam....at some point I will get my nose back into the books. Anyhow, I digress.... Cheers Danh108 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the Federal Reserve[edit]

I continue to invite you to comment on how that material added was "massivly unsourced".

So far I only see you avoiding that action because you either acted without checking what the source actually said or because you are full of it.71.174.133.100 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

All I see, as here, is your usual insults, pettiness and refusal to read and understand comments by others. I've given you enough time thus far and you've continued to dither and duck. There are multiple issues with your section and you've not bothered to address those concerns in all the time you've been trying to add it. Perhaps you'll eventually start, but until you adequately source (hint - see WP:CITE), make the section specific to the FRS instead of a diatribe on central planning as a whole (hint - see WP:COATRACK), avoid unreliable sources (hint - see WP:RS) and reduce Stockman's material (hint - see WP:UNDUE), there's simply no reason to discuss this further. Your continued pettiness won't win you any friends either. Let me know when you decide to start discussing completely and politely. Ravensfire (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You deleted the material, because according to you it was "massively unsourced". I again invite you to do a comparison of the source language and the material added on the articles talk page. You can read and do a comparison right?71.174.133.100 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, does this meet the criteria I listed above? Nope. Ravensfire (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Something that may help you start to deal with the issues. Get rid of the duplicated material. Get rid of anything sourced to an unreliable source. Make sure everything is sourced using in-line references. Ravensfire (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Lets try this again. You deleted the material because according to you it was "massively unsourced". I have helpfully copied the source material and pasted it on the talk page of the article. Please compare the added material with the source material and advise on what is according to you "massively unsourced". 71.174.133.100 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Regarding your other concerns - I see no duplication. Perhaps you can point it out.
Regarding your objections to the sources - Why do you consider a maker of financial documentaries unreliable?
This is one of them http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-money-masters/
What is your objection to a statement made by Milton Friedman on a video?71.174.133.100 (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What is your objection to the opinions of David Stockman made on his own web site?71.174.133.100 (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist RfC[edit]

Please feel free to comment on the RfC regarding the Zeitgeist Movement material you were editing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I see you also were out canvassing other users you thought might be against my edits on The Zeitgeist movement The Devils Advocate. I really have to say your approach to editing and canvassing is pretty disgusting. You seem willing to do almost anything to have your pov edits on The Zeitgeist Movement article stick. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Youtube videos[edit]

Youtube videos can be used as a source? Is there a policy to support it? Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rameshnta909: That's a tough one to answer. First issue, most links people add are either copyright violations or not from a reliable source. Average joe youtuber puts up a full episode of a show and links to that - copyright vio. Average joe youtuber then puts up small clips from various topics and uses that to make a point - not a reliable source. If the source is an official youtube channel and it's use doesn't get into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, it's possible to use it. So no blanket prohibition. See WP:YOUTUBE. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I have removed trailers from some of the film pages. Is it OK to include official trailers in external links section in the article about that film. Is it not against WP:PROMO. Rameshnta909 (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@Rameshnta909: I read through the Film Wikiproject's guidelines and they talk about trailers there. From my read, trailers should be removed unless there is a secondary WP:RS that comments about the trailer, not just that the trailer was released. Readers can go to the other sites we commonly link to (Bollywood Hungama, etc) that will have trailers. I wish you luck though - while US films have a variety of editors that will make sure articles follow the guidelines and new editors generally will accept and follow the guidelines when shown, that doesn't happen as much with Bollywood films. Point editors to the WP:FILM project and do the best you can. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks..Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Singham Returns[edit]

Please take a look at the recent edits in the page Singham Returns by User:PacMan-2014 and User:Josephjames.me. They are changing the gross collection with different figures every day adding different sources. I told them to wait for some time but they are conducting an edit war with me. The budget is added my me with a valid source but that's also being changed frequently. Casting section is also written like a bollywood news site. I stopped reverting as I have to respect 3RR. I also initiated a discussion but not getting any response. Please see Talk:Singham_Returns#Gross Collection. Please look into this and take an appropriate decision regarding this. Rameshnta909 (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Come on, man! I am not in a war with anybody and I have done just one revert in the Singham Returns page. I just used the figures by a reputed box office source (Box Office India), the collection figures of which are used in even featured articles like Kahaani. Their estimate collections are used for Hindi films in general. You can even check recent examples like Kick. Thanks! Josephjames.me (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Commented on the talk page, advising patience and understanding the natural tendencies of editors. Sometimes it's best to bend with the wind rather than fight it. Ravensfire (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Whiskey reviews[edit]

Thank you for your tips on Whiskey reviews. I completely agree that they are too spammy, but will take your advice to add the exact referenced whiskey (year, proof, age, etc.). Many thanks.WellsWiggins (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Will Hayden and Sons of Guns topic ban proposal for User:9711CA[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for starting that. It may be a touch too early, but it's almost certainly where it would have ended up. I'm still working through my thoughts on my proposal, but will comment. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV and other Issues and Concerns with the Lira Biography.[edit]

There is need for a rewrite of this biography in total as the entry is clearly not neutral.

In the talk I am being harsh in the other direction to the biography intentionally. The end product needs to balance out to fact, neutrality, and relevance.

1) What is his profession with small chronologies in three fields? We have a single film, three books, various appearances on "fringe" platforms . 2) The reader needs to decide based on a chronology. I don't see anything that makes a living, and it would be too arrogant to make a determination as to fact. The listing of three professions is very misleading and intentionally so. (see 3). 3) What degree does this fellow have? The entry is intentionally misleading to suggest that Lira has both a Bachelors and Masters. St Georges College is a prep-high school and he has a Bachelors degree in fields unrelated to his three activities. 4) Jose Miguel Carrera is a "founding father or Chile." How relevant are genealogical relations that go several generations back. I know David D Eisenhower, and being a relation of Dwight D Eisenhower does not a credential or talking point of his biography make. (it is a btw) I also know Chaz Firestone, a close genealogical relation to firestone tire, there is nothing about his familiar relationships to be illustrate. CF's PHD. bio reads that he is a researcher within the Yale department of psychology. What this entry does is create a tone that follows on as anything but neutral. This entry needs to have self standing accomplishments and credentials that can be documented in fact by third party sources. At the least we need to know who JMC is and that the relationship is genealogical. The entry is irrelevant to the biography of a living person because it is not anything he has done, and he is not famous just like JMC. 5) Then we have a "fifteen minutes of fame" conspiracy theory accomplishment. An article in Zerohedge that was popular in 2010 was the basis for his "blogging." In 2014 he clearly reiterated the posits within his 2010 opinion piece. Because his posit cannot be disproved until an event occurs (if an event occurs) It would be factual to list the chronology of the prediction regarding the demise of the USD in 2010 and then in follow on in 2014. Something of this nature from 2010 is no longer "popular" with the track record speaking for itself. 6) This entry in total needs to speak for itself to provide NPOV. 7) Eponymous and pundit - would well be replaced by guest. 8) The representation that Lira is providing fact, would better be represented by "opinion." Lira provides opinion and he is entitled to do so. A reader needs an honest presentation of what this fellow provides as a sporadic guest on various blogs. 9) Even the picture would be better replaced to relevance with a picture from Russia Today (not under copyright)

The biography as product is highly biased and self service and needs to be corrected.


173.68.144.130 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)173.68.144.130173.68.144.130 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"List of Whistleblowers" Edits[edit]

Thanks for catching the vandalizing to the subject page. It was sad to see the Government reduced to petty name calling - and that they would be stupid enough to do it from a DoD IP.

Cheers!


You might look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ecological_Observatory_Network#Controversy too. I added information related to the audit issue, but someone edited it to look like NEON was not doing anything wrong, which is contrary to the thrust of the Wash Post article. Also, the way it's phrased suggests knowledge from inside the company as there is information in there not from the cited article. However, given that I might have a bit of a biased viewpoint since I wrote the original version, I would appreciate it if you would take a look.

Thanks!


Good morning. Looks like whoever vandalized the List of Whistleblowers entry has vandalized it again, this time by deleting the entry on Mr. McGill entirely but doing it from a registered user account. Just a heads up.


Thanks for cleaning up my List of Whistleblowers entry. I read the Biographies of Living Persons section you cited and will be more careful in future. I appreciate your assistance to a new Wikipedia poster like me.


Not a problem. The biggest thing with BLP is basically you've got to have a good source for anything related to a living person. Anywhere on Wikipedia. And with BLP's, the sourcing requirements are even tougher than normal, with self-published sources (blogs, etc) not usable for anything about another person. So even a blog verified to be authored by person A cannot be used to support material about person B. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the whistle-blower entry still needs some pruning and I'd really, really like to have a source that explicitly ties McGill to this. Technically, about half of the entry is unsourced and could be removed. I think there are, or will be sources for it and I don't think the claims are that controversial so I haven't pulled them out yet. But just be aware that it may happen by another editor. I did see the NEON article - that could use some copyediting as well, but that's true for about 90% of the articles on Wikipedia! Good luck! Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

COI declaration for OTRS edits[edit]

I have posted several places (VTRS, PUMP, FTNB) that I think a clear policy requiring disclosure of COI driven edits by OTRS team members is needed, please comment if you see fit. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

On a related note I have done some editing at Generation Rescue (with talk discussion and refs). - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira—again[edit]

Check out the talk page on Gonzalo Lira.

A user named Keithbob is removing everything from Lira, trying to have him declared non-notable.

Keithbob's strategy is to remove references to what Lira has done—by saying those references are "primary research"—and replacing those references with a "citation needed". Then when there's no citation, he removes what Lira has done.

Lira has written novels, made movies, had a huge audience as an econ blogger, was a television pundit. So far, Keithbob has removed the punditry and the filmmaking, and has seriously degraded the blogging.

Keithbob seems intent on removing Lira altogether from Wikipedia by having him declared "non-notable".

I am in Chile. Lately, Lira has been appearing on a radio program on Radio Agricultura talking about the Chilean economy (which is sliding into the doldrums, and no one is clear as to why).

So for me, as a Chilean, it's weird to have someone trying to erase him from Wikipedia, when here, he's having a tremendous amount of impact. Just weird.

Please help out by mediating. Thanks.

--MILH (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist RfC[edit]

A few users are talking about merging the Zeitgeist articles in an RfC.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia this is called canvassing users T.D.A. This is something that is forbidden more or less by guidelines. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Jordan Belfort[edit]

I noticed you took out the section on LF Rothschild from the Jordan Belfort article. Left as it currently stands, the article seems to agree with the impossible contention that Belfort worked at Rothschild before Black Monday. If you feel that the text that was there before went too far in some way, then surely there's a way to express this so we don't endorse the falsehood.

I had started a discussion about this, to let people comment, on the talk page a week before I made the change. Is it possible for you to respond to that discussion so we can discuss what to do about the page?

(When I take the time to explain a change on the talk page, invite comment, wait for people to have a chance to comment, and then implement the change, and its then undone without discussion or joining the talk page, its rather demoralizing and frankly undermines the idea that editors should be using the discussion pages to seek consensus for edits.)

Djcheburashka (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It was, simply put, pure WP:SYNTH. There's no discussion needed for that. You need a WP:RS that states the conclusions, not just some of the facts, that you are making. Until then, there is no reason for discussion - your edit was against policy. Ravensfire (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
If there is any WP:SYNTH issue, it seems to be one that can be fixed by careful wording. Did you look at the citation regarding the date of the founding of Stratton Oakmont?
What if we simply say "However, NASD records show that Stratton Oakmont was actually founded six months before Belfort claims to have been laid-off by Rothschild." Would that work?
WP:SYNTH is supposed to be quite flexible; a kind-of template-of-last-resort. Surely we don't need a WP:RS for the proposition that April, 1987, came before October, 1987, and therefore events that occurred in April, 1987 cannot have been caused by events that occurred in October, 1987. If you feel strongly that this is still WP:SYNTH, what's the right page to solicit additional views? Thanks. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. It's not a last resort. It's there to stop what you're doing - put a couple of points that are backed by references then make conclusions (or strongly hint at conclusions) that are NOT backed by a reference. Ravensfire (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not right. See WP:What Synth is Not, in particular Synth is not Obvious II. Unless Belfort invented a time machine sometime in late 1980s, the NASD document saying that SO was registered in April, 1987, verifiably establishes that SO was not registered after October, 1987. See also "Synth is not presumed" on the same page -- you need to be able to explain why the sources don't establish the point. I'm putting back in the watered-down version I posted here earlier. If you still object to that, then please join the talk page discussion. Djcheburashka (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The version you've got in there is really, really pushing the SYNTH limits. You MUST have a reliable source that makes the conclusion you are trying to make. You have a source and make a strong insinuation. That's where the WP:SYNTH comes in. Is it possible he founded the company before leaving? Perhaps. Hence the need for good sources that make the point you are trying to make, not relying on primary sources and your own logic. Go to the WP:ORN if you must. Ravensfire (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, there's a problem in your phrasing and the source you are using. The source does not support "founded", it says the firm joined the NASD on a particular date. In addition, the next section covers the questionable nature of the claim he founded, noting that others say he bought out the founders. Ravensfire (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
For future discussions on this, please use the article's talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Jordan Belfort shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha - been watching the count on the article. Discussion hasn't done too much on my talk page, the other editor seems to have a specific POV they are trying to insert and pushing OR/Synth limits. Ravensfire (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)