User talk:Ra2007: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:39, 21 December 2007

Welcome

Hello, Ra2007, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!Woody (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation

Recommendations from well meaning wikipedians

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I strongly suggest that you use Wikipedia for what it is intended to be: an encyclopedia. I see that you are frequently nominating articles for deletion; subjects that you had no prior knowledge of before coming to this website. This type of conduct is frowned upon at Wikipedia. I suggest you only nominate articles for deletion that are clear examples of policy violations, and use Wikipedia as a resource, which is its intention. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to back up Ra's comments to an extent. You are not endearing yourself to other users by nominating articles for deletion, and seemingly seeing it as some sort of competition. Brigantine Yankee for example was by no means eligible for deletion, yet it did need a lot of work, which is what the tags indicate. Why don't you try to expand and improve such an article instead of nominating it for deletion? I would be glad to offer any assistance that I can. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recommendations. Of course, removing articles that do not belong furthers the goal of making an encyclopedia. I am not hear to endear myself, but to build an enclopedia. I am truly glad the article was able to be wikified. We will have to agree to disagree. I hope if you run into any other articles I recommend for deletion that you evaluate based on the article and not on my disagreement regarding your recommendations. Tally ho. Ra2007 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no-one is here to "endear" themselves to other editors, but a productive working environment is needed to avoid problems in the future. Nominating things for deletion that only need some cleanup work is not creating a productive environment. It goes without saying that this shouldn't affect any future judgements, I take every article as it comes. Tally ho indeed. Woody (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)(amended Woody (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In the interest of building an encyclopaedia, I would like to suggest that picking fights with people is really the wrong way to start, as is engaging in long discussions in the Wikipedia namespace. I noticed your edits to User talk:Filll (which is on my watchlist), and from there, some of your other contributions. I would ask that you reconsider the way in which you have chosen to begin your contributions to Wikipedia. Start with something that isn't controversial. Familiarise yourself with some of the links provided in the welcome message. And pay special attention to Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need sourced content that can be verified from reliable sources. And above all, avoid picking fights. Guettarda (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF. Ra2007 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda asks about sources

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do you have a reliable source for your assertion that Google employees are upping the page rank of Wikipedia articles? Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted some sources on the talk page, but I have not evaluated their reliableness. Other than that, it was more logical speculation than something I wanted included. The speculation turned out to be backed up by the sources...whether or not said sources are reliable per wiki standards I do not yet know. Ra2007 (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

WLU expresses thanks

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks for the tweak on the essay, I believe you're correct that it more clearly shows what talk page spacing is/should look like. WLU (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and you're welcome. Ra2007 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totient

Michael Hardy calls me crazy and a lunatic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In this discussion you wrote:

"Next observe that" and "we get" and "as we saw earlier."

You disagreed. In order that I can judge your comments, can you elaborate on your experience editing mathematics articles on Wikipedia and/or reading or writing articles published in mathematics research journals? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias do not have mathematical proofs, do they?

What??? Your're crazy. You're a lunatic. Do you want to delete ALL Wikipedia articles devoted primarily to mathematical proofs? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at List of mathematical proofs. Tell me which of the articles listed there you want to delete. Be specific. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the AfD discussion:

Michael Hardy copies uncivil comments from Afd to my talk page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The behavior of the nominator, and "TableManners" and "SimpleParadox" is offensive. This is not good-faith participation in discussions. I do not contribute content to articles on how to do open heart surgery because I do not know anything about that. (I might fix a typo in such an article, or find the famous surgeon John Smith mentioned with no link to the article about him and add the link, etc., but I don't explain to the reader how to do surgery.) But those named here differ from me in that respect. Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, written in about 300 BC, is much celebrated, comprehensible to 15-year-olds, and very beautiful, and it would be strange to find an encyclopedia considering it unworthy of inclusion. Cantor's diagonal argument was a very unexpected advance, and considering it unworthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia would be profoundly weird. We have conventions on Wikipedia, long discussed by those knowledgeable in the subject concerning how to write and how to organize and how to title, articles on mathematical proofs. We have hundreds of articles devoted mainly to proofs. We have many thousands of articles containing mathematical proofs. People not familiar with those facts and who've never given them half a second's thought should not step in and lecture us condescendingly about these things as if we've never thought of them. Why was THIS particular "proofs" article chosen, rather than a policy discussion proposing deletion of ALL of them? People think I'm being rude by calling "illiterate" a person who thinks the only way to include a proof that has appeared in the literature is by copying it verbatim. That one could adapt such a proof to the level of the audience or background, while it remains the same proof, seems alien to this person. Could any fact be more obvious? To explain these things is to do remedial tutoring for weak undergraduates. They shouldn't be using this page to demand such tutoring. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About good faith

Observations and conversations about good faith

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think most of the messages on your talkpage have indeed presumed that you are acting in good faith. It is precisely because of which they are suggesting you change your *behaviour*.

Whatever the quality of your faith, you really should take the advice given to you, on board, and adjust your behaviour accordingly. None of the advice given to you, would make your efforts here less useful, but would all enchance them. This is the reason why you should embrace the changes in your behaviour suggested. Note that acting in good faith, though the presumption we make as a default, is not a *defence* of disruptive behaviour.

No matter how in goof faith someone happens to act, disruptiveness isn't usually tolerated for too long. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you're talking about. Could you be more specific? Ra2007 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cimon Avaro was talking about acting in good faith. That means listening, attempting to understand, and showing that you are trying to learn. If you are unsure, then lurk on the article and try to see who knows what. That means understanding who 'leads' the article. If you are still not sure, then keep lurking until you have figured that out. As you can see, precipitate behavior can be perilous to your reputation. But courtesy goes a long way to restoring your reputation, if you have screwed up. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit vague. You really need to be more specific. I am reading policies. I am doing quite well in my article delete. Without specifics, this all sounds like sour grapes here. Ra2007 (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you know some mathematics, you obviously did not understand the importance of Michael Hardy. Blind adherence to policy is no excuse. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By blind adherence, do you mean that technically, proofs do not belong on wikipedia? I never heard of Michael Hardy until the Afd. Ra2007 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check

Hello Ra2007, and thanks for your work on WP. I have rewritten the article on Reality Check NY which you nominated for deletion. Additionally, I removed a great deal of extraneous information and added more than a dozen citations. I hope that you will consider withdrawing your AfD. Thanks for your consideration. • Freechild'sup? 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. I just "voted" keep. Not sure I can withdraw. Ra2007 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks. I just leave them in my watchlist after I found an archive full of vandalism a while back. Given that it was slashdotted, I suspect we will see a bit more of it. I might get someone else to fully protect it if it continues (I can't do it because of COI). I would also like to thank you for keeping an open mind. Changing !votes is an encouraging sign of Good Faith. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not a problem, I don't want to delete content that should remain! Never did. Ra2007 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note

I left a comment on the appropriate page. Cheers. --Simple Paradox 17:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're welcome, and you are teaching me by example...:) Ra2007 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can get heated about discussions, as well. I'm just trying to defuse the situation, but make it clear that I will not abide by the behavior. Sometimes you just need to stop feeding the trolls and they will go away. You have documented very well that an editor was being uncivil and attacking you personally in this case. I suggest you just walk away for now, let users like Guettarda get in the last word they so desperately need to feel adequate, and continue doing what you were doing. From what I can tell your contributions have been largely positive and you should not waste your time with dealing with editors who are so protective of their pet issues that they WP:BITE instead of have rational discussions. Cheers! --Simple Paradox 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if another last words is submitted there, I will do as you suggest. I appreciate the support. Ra2007 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Hi there. I agree with your comment on Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. This article is being used as a soapbox against ID. Unfortunately, simply leaving one comment will not be enough to fix the situation, because there are multiple editors who are intent on pushing their POV there. I could use your help in trying to improve this article. Make sure you've read the Wikipedia policies before jumping in, because these editors are adept at using them to shout down other editors and further their agenda. Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn. Which policies are they most apt to use? I would hate to be shouted down on policy instead of rational discourse. Ra2007 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV is a biggie, especially its subsection on undue weight. Verifiability is a must. Also, be sure to remain civil, avoid personal attacks, and try to assume good faith on the part of other editors, no matter how much they provoke you (passive aggression is common among POV-pushing editors, so make sure you don't respond with active aggression). These guidelines will serve you well in dealing with editors who are pushing an agenda. Regards, Eseymour (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced tag in The X-Family

You added Unreferenced tag to the synopsis of The X-Family. I'm not sure what reference/source are you asking for. It's basically a summarization of what I watched. Please advise. --WaterOB (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 :Hmn.  Which policies are they most apt to use?  I would hate to be shouted down on policy instead of rational discourse.  [[User:Ra2007|Ra2007]] ([[User talk:Ra2007#top|talk]]) 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 ::[[WP:NPOV]] is a biggie, especially its subsection on [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]].  [[WP:V|Verifiability]] is a must.  Also, be sure to remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]], avoid [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], and try to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on the part of other editors, no matter how much they provoke you (passive aggression is common among POV-pushing editors, so make sure you don't respond with active aggression). These guidelines will serve you well in dealing with editors who are pushing an agenda.  Regards, [[User:Eseymour|Eseymour]] ([[User talk:Eseymour|talk]]) 19:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
+== Unreferenced tag in [[The X-Family]] ==
+You added Unreferenced tag to the synopsis of [[The X-Family]]. I'm not sure what reference/source are you asking for. It's basically a summarization of what I watched. Please advise. --[[User:WaterOB|WaterOB]] ([[User talk:WaterOB|talk]]) 02:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)