User talk:RCraig09

Hello, RCraig09, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing

Help:Wiki markup

Help:HTML in wikitext

Template:Cite_url

{{cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |archiveurl= |archivedate= }}

Talk to RCraig09 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC) on this page!

Talk to me!

"Watch this page" email notifications not working for me

Notice to all: for some reason, changes to pages that I am "watching" do not result in my receiving an email notification of the changes. I may therefore not know you have changed a page I am watching, unless I happen to go to it specifically. RCraig09 (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to make the email notification feature work, please tell me (or direct me to the right page). Thanks.

Re Lisa Lavie article

Hi, Thank you for contacting me; I appreciate the courtesy. Sorry for the delay in responding-it has been a busy week. Please give me another day or so. I will look at your article in the meantime and contact you again on the possibility of collaboration, replacement, etc. I must say that what I've seen of it so far is rather impressive. Regards, Tonymartin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

• Addendum My email address is: antony.ivan.martin@gmail.com At least one article on Lisa Lavie had been posted previously and was taken down at administrator discretion, ultimately resulting in a prohibition on posting another article under that name. I was able to work with a Wikipedia administrator and have the prohibition lifted. I am disclosing this information in case you weren't aware.Tonymartin (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello RCraig09, Good job. Feel free to move forward with the replacement. You have my blessing.Tonymartin (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the order of comments to be chronologically correct. (without changing content). RCraig09 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in awe of the comprehensive replacement pieces that you put together for two articles I initiated - Iman Crosson and Lisa Lavie. Exceptional. My hat is off to you.Tonymartin (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. RCraig09 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

=== Lisa Lavie defautsort question ===

Hi RCraig09, I replied to your question on my talk page, short answer no changes to article wording. XLerate (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexa Ray Joel photo

Hey Craig,

If you want a current photo of Alexa Ray Joel I am her manager and you can find my email on her website and i will forward you a photo that will have no clearance problems.. you were nice enough to put up the first photo so if you would like to upload the the new image let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.121.13 (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Email sent 11pm ET Saturday June 12 by RCraig09 (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

Second email sent 2:07pm ET Saturday June 26 by RCraig09 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC).

Photo was uploaded to Alexa Ray Joel article, with OTRS permission, on 28 June 2010. OTRS pending as of following date: RCraig09 (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC).

Email sent, requesting/suggesting additional photo(s). RCraig09 (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Two additional photos received 2010-11-17. OTRS permission obtained 2010-11-21. Posted to Alexa Ray Joel on 2010-11-24. (Dates here reflect U.S. time zones.) RCraig09 (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition)

The article We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a web host

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Morenooso (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed PFD template. Does not make sense to call article "web hosting" but I'm assuming good faith. I wrote reasons on article's discussion page. RCraig09 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD for We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition)

This article has been nominated for an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition). --Morenooso (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not how to vote in an AFD

Unless you have participated in an AfD, you just made a slight boo-boo. Concise paragraphs of three lines or less (usually less) are prefered. The format is:

• Keep - Text reason.

• Delete - as per nom.

There is no malice involved and asking me to close the nom is in bad form. --Morenooso (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was my first submission concerning proposed deletion of an article. However, limiting reasoning to three lines is impractical. I am presuming additional reasoning should be presented at length on the article's Discussion/Talk Page... Is that the practical solution here? RCraig09 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That will be okay but try to be dispassionate about it. You don't want to display WP:OWN. The best way to argue in an AfD debate is as if your Dad has you dead to rights and he doesn't take prisoners. That's the way I would do it too on a talkpage. Too long and people tune out and possibly blow you off.

Hey wait, what I am doing here? Oh yeah that's right, I'm showing you that I don't have a dog in this fight and it's not about I can't live if Wikipedia keeps this article. Either way, Wikipedia wins. --Morenooso (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Most people or good editors would have thanked me for the education I gave you here. And, in an AfD, the greater ones would have mentioned where they learned how to vote. --Morenooso (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your knowledge, Morenooso. I had thought my words on the argument page itself would have been taken as an acknowledgment of your assistance, which has been of a much-appreciated constructive tone. I was frankly distracted by navigating the various article-talk pages and argument pages and user-talk pages. And I have been trying to see the argument from both sides. RCraig09 (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

KEEP "We Are the World..."

The following paragraphs (a) through (j) are my detailed reasons responding to and opposing the request for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition)

It was impossible to respond in one paragraph to each claim and insinuation by the nominator, so I have pasted them here instead. I did not realize at the time that lengthy arguments were not conventional on such pages. RCraig09 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(a) I strongly oppose deletion of We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition). Because some reasoning has been presented in support of this PfD (proposal for deletion), I am assuming good faith from the PfD submitter, but I think this article neither (1) violates articulated Wikipedia standards nor (2) even fits the demeaning characterization made by Morenooso (talk) in the first place. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(b) In effect, the PfD constitutes an attempt to fashion a new Wikipedia standard generically prohibiting articles covering viral videos or perhaps YouTube videos (unclear which). Thankfully, the bias against videos that have become viral, is a personal attitude, not a Wikipedia standard. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(c) The article is clearly not, as the PfD insinuates, an "indiscriminate collection of information." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information lists 1. Plot-only description of fictional works. 2. Lyrics databases. 3. Excessive listing of statistics. 4. News reports. 5. Who's who 6. FAQs. None of these listed items, except possibly #4 (News reports) apply to this article; and concerning #4: "News reports" are included as some of the references, but the article as a whole does not constitute or rely on "news reports." RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(d) Categorically, the subject of this article is not merely a viral video (though Wikipedia standards do not expressly or by implication prohibit viral video articles, in any event). No version of the article has ever contained a reference to it being a viral video. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(e) To appreciate how the article is not merely about a viral video, before considering deletion, editors should first thoroughly familiarize themselves with the substantive content of the article that establishes its notability. It is not (as implied by the PfD) merely "hits" and "media coverage" (though a dozen exemplary worldwide references have been provided). The article is about an artistic creation whose contributors were called "Persons of the Week" by Diane Sawyer on a primetime national news program, which was featured multiple times on CNN, and which was the subject of a link from the official YouTube channel of the celebrity video (itself the subject of a Wikipedia article We Are the World 25 for Haiti). The subject article is about 57 people from around the world using the Internet to collaborate and create that work of art. It is about the power of non-celebrity individuals to use technology to create works that are reported as being "better than" the celebrity equivalent. The subject of the article happens to be in the format of a video, which, presumably because of its quality, became viral. Part of the notability of the article is that it could become so recognized even though it was "only" posted on YouTube. Read the article, read the references, to appreciate the subject of the article. Yes, that takes time. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(f) The PfD even admits that this video "may be a notch above," undercutting the insinuation that We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition) is just another viral video. Clearly, the subject video cannot be compared to Morenooso's example of a Roker Face parody on a show starring Al Roker (not established that it has even become "viral"). RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(g) The PfD refers to "a myriad of videos like this one." (unclear if he's referring to Roker Face or the subject video). If he is referring to the subject video We Are the World 25 for Haiti, then I ask that he cite that "myriad" of videos that compare with the subject video, in substance, quality and notability (see part (d), above). If there are other videos "like this one" then I think they should be in Wikipedia. If a reader personally has a negative attitude toward such videos in general, then he does not have to read articles about them. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(h) Morenooso's previous reasoning for deletion (see article's discussion page) was that "Wikipedia is not a web host." Obviously, this article is not being used as a web host. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(i) The Google search result of Morenooso's own "find sources" link above yielded 259,000 results for "We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition)" -wikipedia." Having a quarter million Google hits--less than five weeks after the subject video was posted--show it to be more than a just another viral video. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(j) Closing: In view of the foregoing, I urge Morenooso to immediately remove the PfD template to put this matter to rest. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: Keep RCraig09 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Result: Keep RCraig09 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Amber lee ettinger article

Hi RCraig09 - you removed all my uptades on the amber lee ettinger page. You said those lines were porn vandalism. All i said is true. I have all the sources (photos and videos). I don't know how to link them. Could you do it? I'm mad to see Ettinger lie about her past. I'm mad to see nobody know about that.Thank you for your time!-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Google820 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

At the outset, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia because you are "mad." If you know objective facts from reliable sources, then:

• First, get to know the safeguards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (obviously, asserting a porn background is particularly sensitive)
• Second, be sure your sources are "reliable" by studying Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• If your information and sources pass these requirements, then you can present objective encyclopedic information and cite inline sources per the guidance in Wikipedia:Citing sources

No one should use Wikipedia to "expose" someone. It's an encyclopedia.

I'll copy these paragraphs to your talk page. RCraig09 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I wanted to thank you for the excellent work you recently did on expanding the lead section for Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. I'm looking forward to more of your work in the coming days and weeks. Thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Aw shucks. 'Twas you who motivated it and polished it into a positive collaborative outcome. RCraig09 (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Related discussion that may interest you

Please see: Talk:Iatrogenesis#Introversion. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Adding that discussion would take some research. RCraig09 (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Lisa Lavie, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Refactoring existing comments and altering, even in minor ways, statements to which others have responded, particularly to incorporate them into a later-created RFC is plainly appropriate. Please restore the original structure and content of the talk page and reframe the jerry-rigged RFC to reflect the actual sequence of user statements ASAP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Done ✔ RCraig09 (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

New Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to RCraig09 for exceptional and tireless contributions to Wikipedia and great improvement to the article Yanni. Nice work! Thanks for all you do! ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to the maximum amount. I notice you've done a lot yourself! RCraig09 (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I admit, I have done a lot in the past. I think this was my first edit to the Yanni article in 2006. As you can see it needed a lot of help, and I was a newbie. And I concentrated more on creating his album articles and creating articles for his band/orchestra musicians. But I haven't been able to get back in the swing of things for a number of years now so I and I'm sure so many other fans appreciate the incredible improvements you have made. Many kudos! I would venture to say it is about ready for GA nom, hopefully FA in the future. I am a better copyeditor than writer, so I will be sure to help go through with fine tooth comb for grammar/spelling but it looks great and shouldn't need much. If you do go for a nom, please ping me either on my talk page or probably better yet through email on my talk page as I don't pop in as regularly as I used to. I would be happy to help. Cheers! ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Everything or Nothing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Everything or Nothing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything or Nothing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up

The following sections are deleted, but viewable in full in this old version. ● File copyright problem with File:AlexaRayJoelsigning20090824.jpg ● TUSC token ● Disambiguation link notification for February 12 ● Disambiguation link notification for March 8 ● Disambiguation link notification for March 20 ● Misha B article - consensus request ● Non-free rationale for File:WATWforAfrica1985.ogg ● Non-free rationale for File:WATW25forHaitiClip.ogg ● Website hatnote ● Yanni (added a reference... but didn't attach the ref to any of the text)

Orphaned non-free images File:ForAllMyDaysSingle250x250.jpg File:SketchesAlexaRayJoel20100819.png File:WATWYE ABCWorldNews 20100319.jpg File:FallingForYou1m05s250px.jpg File:LisaLavieCantSleepatNight230.ogg File:LisaLavieMapleLeafs100.ogg File:LisaLavieEverythingorNothing055.ogg File:LisaLavieFallingforYou145.ogg File:LisaLavieAngel118.ogg File:LisaLavieSaveYourBreath015.ogg File:AllICanDoIsLoveClip.ogg File:BlameItClip.ogg File:DeadAndGoneClip.ogg File:ForAllMyDaysClip.ogg File:NoticeMeClip.ogg File:SingleLadiesOath.ogg File:TheHeartofMeClip.ogg File:ThrillerClip.ogg File:WATW25forHaitiClip.ogg File:WATWforAfrica1985.ogg File:WATWYEcollage400x.jpg File:WATWYEstartingat2m30.ogg File:WePrayForYouThumbnail.jpg File:WhateverILikeClip.ogg (full notifications here).

Questions

Background: In my first year on Wikipedia (2009) I received constructive comments about "tone" of an article to which I had contributed, and as a result I tried to make the language more objective, not editorialize, and except for published reviews, to remove opinion statements or value judgments.

My nature and training make me thorough, comprehensive and detail oriented, more so than even most Wikipedians. As events occurred over four years, I added numerous details to articles based on my perception of what a reader of the article would find pertinent in a biography, supported by what I believe are references that were WP:RS#Context matters "reliable for the statement being made." Unfortunately, the accumulating details led to charges of "puffery/promotion," and the references supporting the details led to charges of WP:BOMBARDMENT.

So the following questions arose:
Mini-RfC: Please insert specific constructive comments or explanations inline below. Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Notability. Concerning threshold WP:notability needed to create an article ("sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time"), I'm wondering how someone could conclude the following is insufficiently significant: ● 2006: solo vocalist tracks on soundtracks of two major motion pictures, ● 2007-2008: several distinctions on the WP:OTHERCRAP-maligned YouTube website, ● five national television features (not passing mentions)--in 2007 (2x, for vocals) and 2010 (for vocals) and 2010 (2x, for coverage of viral video subject produced), ● Sept. 2010-present: lead vocalist on all tours with arguably the most notable New Age musician in history, and two duet tracks on his Billboard #1 New Age album and on his 2012 DVD. RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Triviality. Keeping in mind WP:N's "notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article..." Assuming overall notability is established: are there any specific guidelines that distinguish which details are "trivial" and which can be included? Or is it simply up to individual editors eyeballing it? Examples: Is it trivial to be named among ABC News Persons of the Week for producing a viral charity video? Or trivial to chart #20 on iTunes? Or trivial to be finalist in a contest across all YouTube musicians? RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Subject Interviews. Cognizant of WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:ABOUTSELF issues, Is there actually a WP:RS problem including statements made by the subject to explain things such as: her own musical influences, the story "behind" songs in her album, her own reasons for going independent of major labels? (generally, things that have to originate with the subject herself anyway) RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
4. YouTube. Avoiding WP:OTHERCRAP-like reasoning: Is there really a WP:RS sourcing problem citing YouTube...
   

• as a primary source for objective statistics, achievements, or (in the old days) front-page features? RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• to WP:Verify what was said in an interview (esp. if not published by the person being interviewed), openly labeled as subject's words and not as a statement of fact? RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• citing the "official" YouTube channel of an independent organization? RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not People (magazine). The main problem with several of the articles that you have been the main contributer is the style of the writing is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. IIRC, in the Lavie article there was a section called Creating her own buzz. That just won't do. Articles should be written in a netural fashion; In other words they should not sound like it was written by a PR department. I'm not accusing you or anyone else to have a COI with the subjects at hand, though that has certainly been known to happen in the past.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Though I was hoping for more specific comments to individual issues raised above, thanks for your comment. RCraig09 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As you can imagine we deal with any number of issues like that ones you encountered on any given day. The best advice I can give you is this: The notability of a subject should be simple to establish, in the vast majority of cases. If you start with something like "Jane XYZ is an Merovingian singer known for her 1573 hit "O ye in the moat", which reached #2 in the Franconian charts", everything else beyond that is easy. But you have to establish notability before you do anything else, because that's what every article's merits for inclusion are evaluated upon. YouTube is not a problem, for example, as long as you don't try to use it as the primary backing source for notability. When we look at an article like the one that was brought to AFD and we see this absolute overload of sources and trivial information, it's not hard to tell immediately that what's going on there is a likely attempt at masking the lack of real notability. And once at AFD, there tends to be a much stricter interpretation of WP:N, and that's where things start to break down. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Though I was hoping for more specific comments to individual issues raised above, thanks for your explanation. RCraig09 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EverythingOrNothing20090508.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EverythingOrNothing20090508.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Repost of Lisa Lavie

A tag has been placed on Lisa Lavie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, RCraig09. You have new messages at Spinningspark's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

your edit at Prostate cancer

Hi,

I have reverted your edit to Prostate cancer because I found that its referencing was not compliant with WP:MEDRS. You might or might not be aware that medical articles have more strict sourcing requirements than other articles. I would be happy to discuss those with you myself, or please also feel free to ask for help at WT:MED. Thanks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy. I initially thought the popular source might be considered secondary & reliable but I see WP:MEDRS is tricky in that regard. It seems hard for a regular guy to run across review journals etc. in everyday reading! — RCraig09 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

AR5

You asked "Will the IPCC Assessment be a RS when finalized?"

Of course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Thought so. :-) RCraig09 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Reversion in UAV article

You reverted a change I had made to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle page without letting me know on my talk page or discussing it in the article's talk page. Please show me the courtesy of complying with WP policy when you make reversions in the future. You stated in your edit summary that WP should be cited to WP:Reliable source, but I think you failed to see that the material I added was to a properly cited BBC News article. The addition I made was in the "Civilian casualty" section, and it is a description of civilian casualties from the point of view of one of the civilians. I therefore added it back since it is properly cited RS material, relevant to the topic. Thank you. Jgui (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)