User talk:Ruby Murray

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Judgejoker (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 8 December 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Ruby Murray, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Women LEAD

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Women LEAD, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Women LEAD for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Women LEAD 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/Women LEAD 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 template from the top of the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Murray, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi Ruby Murray! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Women LEAD for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Women LEAD 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/Women LEAD (2nd nomination) 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. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Monroe

I'm wondering, if we work on it can Jack Monroe get featured in the, "Did you know" section on the Main Page? Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article's much too old to meet the eligibility criteria. Ruby Murray (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Janese Swanson

Hi Ruby Murray. Thank you for starting the article for Janese Swanson. I've nominated it for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Janese Swanson. If you have ideas for alternative hooks, please feel free to add them. Gobōnobō + c 19:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you. I'll have a think (and a read) about that, as I don't know much about how DYK works yet. Ruby Murray (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Janese Swanson

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human–animal marriage

I think making a new article called "Animal sexual abuse" would be better, or you can suggest me a title.

Also the Snake incident[1], was proved to be fake, so why we are still keeping it? OccultZone (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophilia, or possibly Cruelty to animals would probably the best place for writing about animal sexual abuse, but human–animal marriage implies mutual consent, rather than abuse.
The snake incident hasn't been proven to be a hoax from the references there so far, but is asserted to have been fake by one reference which now appears to be offline. If you can find better references proving it was a hoax, then it should be described as such in the article. Ruby Murray (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cruelty to animals and Zoophilia are different types of articles, they don't talk about the incidents, but they talk the theories . OccultZone (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't think that incidents belong in either of those two articles, then you can always start a new article about notable incidents of animal sexual abuse. But that's still something separate to marriage, which is not intentional abuse or cruelty. Ruby Murray (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, new article. Just 2 incidents won't make a whole page, so now i am trying to check, if there are more. OccultZone (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Animal Sexual abuse. OccultZone (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Redskins

Can you help me out again? Al.dobyns reverted the Redskins article yet again and I think I may have inadvertently violated WP:3RR myself in trying to clean it up, so I'm reluctant to keep doing it. It's clear he's not willing to listen to anyone, so I've requested administrator help. 1995hoo (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did the right thing by noting your inadvertent error at the Admin noticeboard. The editor in question feels victimized by Redskins fans: I've never even watched them play, so I have no axe to grind there. Ruby Murray 18:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully the matter is over with. Al.dobyns is just assuming that anyone who doesn't attack the Redskin name must be a fan, and frankly I don't think the user was being sincere at all in the attacks. I did grow up rooting for the Redskins, but I don't really watch any football all that often these days. I prefer the NHL. Thanks again for helping with the reverting prior to the administrators resolving it.

Thanks

Thanks for the introduction to WP:REFLINKS by your example usage. Alatari (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Handy, isn't it. I've also tried out ProveIt, and that's very good too, but for now I've been using Reflinks, especially for chipping away at Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. Ruby Murray 09:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gladys Anderson Emerson

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Leroy Griffith

You did not read the reference in question thoroughly; 1961 refers to the year he began in South Florida. The paragraph immediately following states: "He estimates he has owned and managed more than 40 such businesses over more than five decades from Portland to New York." Those businesses are not limited to Miami, Portland, and New York alone but range from Portland to New York. When accounting for the fact that he began in the industry in the late '40s, this would correctly count as the 7th decade. Thank you for your interest.--Nuitetjour (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no reference for the exact year, then let's please at least write in the formal tone of an encyclopedia, rather than copy the splashy language of a magazine over verbatim. The article also only mentions three cities where he operated. How about: "He has owned and managed more than 40 such businesses since the 1940s, in cities including Portland, Miami and New York."? Ruby Murray 12:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My error -- I meant the '50s, not the '40s. The referenced article was published in 2006 and is slightly inaccurate in stating it as the 5th decade. It should read the 6th decade. Today -- 2013 -- means that it now should be the 7th decade. I do not appreciate being counseled on how to write in the tone of an encyclopedia as I have been a contributor here longer than you. You would do best to take care that the quality of your own contributions is above reproach before seeking to upbraid others on the quality of theirs. Take that as the constructive criticism it was meant as. --Nuitetjour (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How long we've both been editing is really not to do with it: the point is to make sure articles stick to Wikipedia's policy, which has been around here longer than either of us. Please help me to improve the article. Thanks, Ruby Murray 12:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Among those policies of which you speak is that which encapsulates Wikipedia's goal to showcase "valid information" over "misinformation." I have no objection to you editing my pages; however, you have already supplied erroneous information to two of my created pages. I doubt you thoroughly read each article before making substantial edits to them.

Re: SunPost, the text box at top of page clearly shows the front page of a 2012 issue. Further, the link below it to the paper's website clearly proves the paper is not defunct. How you could then hastily and misleadingly proceed to declare the paper died in 2009 is puzzling.

Re: Griffith, you originally misnumbered his theaters at 30, before correcting to 40. You also limited the cities to 3 when the body of the article clearly lists many more cities than that. You don't seem to have read the rest of the article, nor read in totality the cited reference which you added to your edit and which has been cited throughout the article. Had you done so, you would see that you had essential information wrong, mistakes I had to correct.

As you have noted, I have edited some of your well-written articles, too. But far from changing substantive material about the subjects themselves (about which you are more of an expert than I), I have merely made stylistic and punctuational edits. I would never attempt to change material in any article on which I am not an expert or can offer little or no illumination. And I certainly would not dare do so if one of my edits might be less than accurate or based on a lack of thorough research. I am disappointed that you don't seem to practice that philosophy in your own edits to the pages of others on this site.

I have noted that you have also made edits to others' pages that seem inordinately excessive and "stalkish," if I may say so, as if you may have an axe to grind. There is a temptation to advise you to "get a life." In my edits on this site these last 2 years, I have taken great care to illuminate and elucidate where I can, but to respect others' created pages and not pretend to be more of an expert on their subjects than they are. I genuinely wish that was a philosophy more contributors would subscribe to.Nuitetjour (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back here to talk this through. I do appreciate it. I'll try to address your main points one by one:
  • there are no "my articles" and "your articles" on Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for more information on this.
  • On Wikipedia, valid information has to be verified. Relying on our claimed first-hand expertise isn't enough, it has to be verifiable from reliable sources. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research for more information.
  • We're both made errors on pages we've edited together: as you noted above on Leroy Griffith, "My error -- I meant the '50s, not the '40s". And I corrected my typo of "30" versus "40" less than one minute after I made it. Not a problem: "many eyes fix all bugs" as they say, but this time I fixed my own immediately. That's not "misinformation".
  • Yes, the text box at the top of page clearly shows the front page of a 2012 issue, but we have no way of knowing whether that's a print issue or the digital edition that is currently all that's offered for subscription on the paper's own "print edition" page.
  • Do please "dare" to change material that I've edited, if something genuinely needs citation. I see you've added citation tags to a couple of edits I made: that's fine, and I've added the missing citation before removing the {citation needed} tag. If you had found references to show something substantive about an article that I'd overlooked, then you'd be right to change the content too, citing the references to support what you were adding.
I hope that clears a few things up. Thanks again, Ruby Murray 08:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: you've really got to stop removing maintenance templates like {citation needed} from unsourced statements, and reverting my edits repeatedly, even if you're absolutely sure that you're right. As I noted on your talk page, the admins take a very dim view of edit-warring, and will block you if you continue. I don't want that to happen, and I want to help you source the article properly to improve it. Please, help me to help you. Ruby Murray 09:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
—When I referred to "my" and "your" articles, I was referring to the ones we each created.
—As for the citation you request for the paper's coverage area, it is listed in the print version masthead, but I cannot find it on the digital. When I stated in an edit summary that "newspaper coverage areas do not require citations," that is because I deferred to (as I always do when in doubt) other newspaper entries for the Wiki standard for newspapers. I list these as but a few examples (from both small-town and big-city papers) to substantiate my claim that a citation is not required: Philadelphia Inquirer, Florida Keys Keynoter, Washington Post, The Garden Island, San Francisco Examiner, Rock Island Argus, OC Weekly, The Holland Sentinel. I understand your point of view, but I must defer to Wiki standards on page elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuitetjour (talk • contribs) 10:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Policy has to be our guide rather than other articles for this sort of thing, as there are huge numbers of badly-referenced articles on Wikipedia. Florida Keys Keynoter, for example, is quite poorly referenced. All of the others you mention above, apart from Rock Island Argus, have references for their circulation numbers in the infobox. I haven't checked yet if those references are current, so if they're outdated then that should be noted on those articles too. Unlike the other articles, however, Miami SunPost does contain references showing it ceased print in 2009, and there's nothing on its website noting that it's back in print, so we need to find a reference that it is. If you know anyone at the paper, then perhaps you could ask them to put something on the website about that. Otherwise, if you have a paper copy, then it can be scanned and uploaded to some free photo archive (Flickr, Facebook, etc.) and used as a reference. Ruby Murray 10:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miami SunPost

The paper is NOT defunct and I don't know where you see any reference that so states. The paper is still published, I am holding a copy of last week's issue in my hands. If you persist in hacking that page with further inaccurate and false edits, I will report your activities to Wiki administrators.--Nuitetjour (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the paper is still in print, that's great: all we need is to add a reference showing what happened after 2009, but in 2009 it ceased printing for some time, as shown in the references cited. I'm not "hacking", and I've added nothing that's not referenced from reliable sources. Please let's settle this by talking it through. Thanks, Ruby Murray 12:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles needing link rot cleanup

Hooray! We blew through December 2011! Should I start on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup from January 2012 from the bottom of the list so we don't have colliding edits? Kjtobo (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hooray! But editor Derek R. Bullamore also did a lot of these: just going through his edits is a real education in reference cleanup. I wonder if there's some way we could coordinate informally as an ad-hoc team? Ruby Murray 20:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see from your user page that there's a Wikiproject for exactly this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup. Great - I've just joined. See you at the talk page... Ruby Murray 10:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from TayLass

Hello Ruby Murray,

I see you have been making edits to the Brian Souter page, just thought I'd introduce myself and say hello. I am the daughter of a friend of the Souter family, I help with Mr Souter's website and have been asked update the Wikipedia Bio Page to more accurately reflect his life. I accept your edits of my updates, and will try to keep the tone neutral going forward.

Kindest Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by TayLass (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TayLass, and if I can be of help, please ask. Ruby Murray 11:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TwentyThree Skiddoo

Hello Ruby Murray,

I see that you have reverted the text of Bahá'í Faith and Native Americans. Thank you. I am new to editing in Wikipedia. How do I go about asking that a text be modified based upon reasoned argument? For example, the reasons for altering that section are, IMO, valid; however, I am willing to defend them to other editors if I have a venue to do so. Should I go into the section and simply delete everything that is untrue or misleading (little will be left)? If I do that, how do I indicate to other editors my rationale? Thank you. TwentyThreeSkiddoo (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TwentyThree Skiddoo. Wikipedia isn't a forum for reasoned argument and critique of what someone's written, as that's considered original research. But we can include what someone else notable has said about what that person's written, or in contradition of it, if that addition is backed up by reliable sources. You might find Wikipedia:No original research useful to learn more about this. If something isn't supported by reliable sources, then we should first try to find sources to support it, and if they can be found, then we should delete it. However, if it's going to be a contentious deletion then we should first try to get consensus for the deletion at the article's talk page. Please let me know if you have any more questions about this. Ruby Murray 11:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate.

That was an accidental edit. Sohambanerjee1998 10:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for letting me know. Ruby Murray 10:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was going to revert an IP but instead I pressed the wrong diff from my watchlist. Did'nt even got a twitch that I was reverting a wrong one! Sohambanerjee1998 10:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easily done! Especially when working at speed to keep up with all the bored kids on school IPs... Ruby Murray 10:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For the above. Sohambanerjee1998 10:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for contrib [2] - Take a look at Wikipedia:Bot requests#New_REFBot and support please. Frze > talk 13:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Magdalene Asylums

I've never used a talk page, so i don't exactly know if i'm doing this correctly... But the information on the Magdalene page that i'm trying to edit is part of a college class and all my information and material is researched and accurate. I removed informatoin that is inaccurate and biased. Please let me finish editing it (Monday the 4th) before making any more changes to my changes. Thanks. And i don't know where tildes are on my keyboard so i can sign this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marygmu (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try not to edit that article while you're editing it. Ruby Murray 02:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marygmu (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Plisetskaya

Actually I have never used the talk pages so I am nor very confident about it.. but I will try... The problem is that I edited the article about Maya Plisetskaya according to her biography which she wrote by herself and I am sure about the information that I've corrected. For example, she has never been a member of the Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public - never! And the words about Robert Kennedy and Maya Plisetskay can't be anything than a slander, I really have no idea where this author Katherine Eaton took this information, I am sure that Maya Plisetskaya herself would be offended if she read this. And so on, and so on. I would like to ask you not to delete my corrections on this page. Thank you very much. Entelian —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough for us to be "sure" about something on Wikipedia: we need references to verify what's written, so please get consensus on the article's talk page before removing referenced information from an article. Thanks, Ruby Murray 16:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but how can I get consensus on the article's talk page? Should I just wrote the same there? I can give the reference to the book, but the book is in Russian so I am quite sure that almost nobody there can understand me :) I would be infinitely grateful if you can explain me what should I do in this situation. Entelian
Please go ahead and list the citations you have on the talk page in a new section. Russian language citations will be fine. But it's difficult to prove a negative: if I understand you correctly, you're disputing some assertions because they weren't made in her autobiography? Ruby Murray 16:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because they weren't made in her autobiography and other books about her which were written by Russian authors. I understand that it's disputable but for me it's quite logical to believe more the ballerina herself than some unknown authors from other countries, do you agree? Entelian —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, on Wikipedia secondary, independent sources are given more weight than primary sources like an autobiography. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Ruby Murray 17:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Ravishyam Bangalore

Thanks for your help on Aadhaar article. Being a new writer I am learning from you how to keep article neutral and away from confrontations.

Thanks once again.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Thanks for making such an excellent start on Aadhaar. Ruby Murray 19:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ruby Murray,

I need help on making Table of Aadhaar Generated (state-wise) under para Status of enrollment and generation of Aadhaar page. The data source is from UIDAI url: [3]. The row #2 should be sortable and data should be INDIA. Percentage should be automatically calculated in the last column as per formula. Please help.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravishyam Bangalore thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia but the source your using can't be cited as a reference because its a WP:PRIMARY source. As for the table see Help:Table there you'll get the how-tos regarding a table. If you need any help you can contact me also on my talk page and I too like you come from India. Sohambanerjee1998 11:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read the links I gave you above. Sohambanerjee1998 11:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly secondary sources are given more weight than primary sources, but primary sources aren't banned altogether. Ravishyam, what change do you want to make to the table? Perhaps you can create one in your user sandbox, and then copy it over when it's finished. Ruby Murray 11:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to know of your India roots, hence you can understand the spirit & context of the writing easily. Well, I found a secondary source on excel-data verifiable with primary data (UIDAI). After learning of wiki tables, I will upload that. If required, I will seek your help.

Thanks, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On obstacles para, I wrote of Bureaucracy and just saved. Then I wanted to add Citations, but I could not do because it was 'undone' by you, and I could not get even 5 minutes to add Citations. What shall I do? Or the issue is contentious enough to better avoid it despite enough citations? Please suggest. Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for editing so soon after you made that edit. But even with references, that whole section was written in the highly promotional, cheerleading tone that I and other editors have had to remove continually from that article. If you're going to write about how Aadhaar is reducing bureaucracy, please use very specific examples, rather than grand, sweeping statements, and please write about the examples from a neutral point of view. Thanks. Ruby Murray 10:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ravishyam Bangalore the link to your sandbox is this - Special:MyPage/Sandbox. The changes you make there will not be reverted by any user irrespective of what you add there other than few exceptions like Personal attacks, etc. After you complete editing the table there along with using appropriate citations contact me and I'll look over it and will ensure that it does not get reverted. As for primary source be extremely cautious and write in a Neutral tone without any bias. As for citation you should add them right away in the same edit where your adding content otherwise editors might undo it citing WP:UNSOURCED or WP:OR. You can use WP:PROVEit GT for this purpose which is used by me also.

For references go to this page Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sohambanerjee1998 10:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips of info. I have made the table. The data is fine but it is not sortable. I want the second row 'INDIA' to be grey and sort buttons in this row, with Rank column changing logically. Please do it or let me know. Thanks. Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the table I will convert it into sortable but I could not understand what you meant by Rank column changing logically is it a MS Excel term? If not that what? and did you submit it in Articles for Creation? If yes then I am sorry to say that it has too less content to be qualified logically though it might be a stub but in regard to a stand-alone article it does not have enough resources to be one. Its better off with the parent article, Aadhar. Sohambanerjee1998 14:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ravishyam Bangalore don't make any further edits on the article and stop editing because you might be Sockpuppeting, Edit Warring etc. Sohambanerjee1998 15:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am re-phrasing. I converted from my excel-sheet to wiki table format by the app given in Help:Table page as per your suggestion. Then I pasted the source code on Aadhaar page. Although I had provided filter buttons on 'INDIA' row for right 4 clolums (i.e. xecept Serial) yet the filter-code did not appear in the converted source code. Therefore, I need filter on these 4 columns.

Similar table existed till 22-Oct-2013 on the UIDAI page till it got removed by someone. I was frequesnt visitor to that table. This table used to be updated on monthly / weekly basis by user BHUTES (not sure whether editor from your team or an independent writer). I had put a request to BHUTES about 10 days ago to construct a similar table here but I received no response yet. Therefore I request you to put filter functionality.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

masks article

you are quicker than me! I realized I made a mistake with the brackets and when I tried to save the corrections... you had done it already! Thank you! Thelmadatter (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! :-) What a fascinating article. I never knew anything about that. I love this place. :-) Ruby Murray 19:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hans_Asperger#Franz_.22Hamburger.22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.29.71 (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling promotions redirect

Just to explain the redirect, it was established years ago that none of the current promotions are notable and some had been removed via AfD for this reason. This is the present consensus, an the redirect of both the main page and the talk page is therefore consistent with WP rules. If they want to change that they should be going to the redirect target's talk page and arguing to change the consensus there. I will argue that simply putting non notable promotions on a page willy nilly is advertising and against WP rules. Notable defunct promotions number three off the top of my head which is not enough to maintain a seperate page. 121.214.29.71 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for letting me know. Ruby Murray 21:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined - Xorenism

I have declined your speedy deletion, because the new WP:CSD#A11 requires that the article "plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally", and I do not see evidence of that. (I would have accepted it, for instance, if the creator's username had been "Xoren"). I have PRODded it instead. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not quite plain enough. Thanks for the PROD. Ruby Murray 18:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Primaries

Umm no I left an explanation when I edited the Republican Primaries but my browser like gave out after I hit submit but I thought it didn't make it through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidGwakebake (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unapologetic/R&B

OK, I'll meet you half way and ask you how do I go forward to get R&B confirmed? 86.142.54.250 (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you User:H.Mandem? Your edits are identical to those of that editor. Ruby Murray 12:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I saw last year it originally had R&B as a genre and several websites say it is R&B so why's it not on here as R&B? 86.142.54.250 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose it at the talk page, and if the consensus there is that references from reliable sources support your proposed change to the genre, then it can be changed. Ruby Murray 12:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed it, I'm happy with it, I've re-added it, I've placed it in the middle of EDM and dubstep. D to the ina, R to the ae☻ 'My Talk Page 17:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:ALBUM/SOURCE#Sources_to_avoid. Please don't re-add contentious changes until there's consensus at the talk page. Now other editors are going to jump right back in and revert the re-addition. Ruby Murray 20:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unapologetic/Singles

Loveeeeeee Song was not released as an official single, Please remove this information from wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeardley (talk • contribs)

The references all show that it was: why do you think they're wrong? Ruby Murray 21:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maria Fish Co.

Hi. Would you consider taking this subject to AfD? Notability is based on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and there are article about this subject based upon which the article was written. Thank you for your consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been making a lot of short articles: may I recommend that you re-create this one in your user sandbox, and then create an article out of the result when it's ready? Ruby Murray 02:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll be kind enough to move it into my userspace I will be happy to take a look at it and see to expanding it. However, there is no requirement that articles be long. Many good articles start out short. It's unfortunate that short articles that are well constructed are discriminated against in favor of bulked up shoddiness. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem wasn't that the article was short, but that it didn't say why it was notable: there are countless companies in America, and they're not all notable. And several of your articles have not been well-constructed: I've been cleaning up several you started with broken references, missing categories, etc. Please slow down, and create fewer, better articles, rather than lots of small broken ones. I'm not an administrator, so I can't undelete it for you. The deleting administrator was Bbb23: you could ask at User talk:Bbb23 for it to be undeleted to your sandbox. Ruby Murray 03:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable because it has received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. It should never have been speedily deleted and it should be restored as soon as practicable. See for example New York Times coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Be sure to add those to your draft. But your felllow editors aren't mind readers: the article was a few days old, and all it said was that it was a fish supplier, and that it was founded by a governor's son, and the only reference you added was a vague mention of a Florida lifestyle magazine, with no link. If you don't want your articles to get deleted, then be sure to say why their subject is notable, rather than flying off to create more stub articles with an "under construction" tag at the top. I notice you haven't asked BB23 at his talk page yet to undelete the article: you've only posted at your own talk page. If you want it to be undeleted, then you need to ask an admin. If you want me to ask for you, I will. Ruby Murray 11:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the extent of coverage the business has received, maybe it is you who needs to slow down? It is particularly unhelpful to speedy delete articles created by experienced good faith contributors. Next time you have a concern I suggest you simply drop a note on the appropraite editor's talk page. You might also want to see wp:before and think about how common courtesy might improve the editing environment at Wikipedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE and its linked pages clearly outline the rationale for speedy deletion, and as I've said I didn't delete the article, I nominated it for deletion. Another admin has weighed in at BB23's talk page, and after viewing what was deleted has clearly come to the same conclusion as I did. It's simply unrealistic for you, regardless of your level of experience and contribution, to expect a tiny article about a company with no assertion of notability to be left in place for days, while you move on to creating new ones. Good luck with the new, improved article. Ruby Murray 14:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BEFORE:
"B. Carry out these checks
1.Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep.
(Redacted) (huge copy & paste of guidelines and templates redacted by Ruby Murray)
For a more complete list see WP:CTT." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candleabracadabra (talk • contribs)
That's right: step 1, confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It did. Ruby Murray 16:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For letting me know. A persistent puppetmaster. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


you did a mistake

on the golden dawn political party you re inserted "euroscepticism" without reading my edit summary of "euroscepticism is not an "ideology" its just criticism, read the article on euroscepticism", please revert your edit or "Fix broken reference name" without including the term 83.180.167.146 (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your edit-summary, and then reverted your breakage of the reference. I've now moved both from the infobox to the body of the article. Ruby Murray 18:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your correction but is including "euroscepticism" really nessesary? can you please revome it from the article altogether 83.180.167.146 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But their euro-scepticism is supported by references, e.g. the Guardian reference at 149. Why do you want to remove it? Ruby Murray 18:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well...

What you just did in reverting the F1 records article was destroying hours of work on an update according to the last GP (the page wasn't fully updated yet). Now you can do the math(s) on your own. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.22.40 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The math needs references. If you've got some, I can undo the revert for you, or you can do it yourself if you click on "view history". Thanks, Ruby Murray 17:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Welcome!

Hello, Ruby! Thank you for your message. I've been editing for a while in the Spanish Wikipedia, and a few weeks ago I decided to collaborate also in the English one, so if something's not correct please tell me. Thank you again!--Ideator 2.0 (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Robbo

Hi Ruby, I'm not sure if you know anything about King Robbo or graffiti in general. Your changes are factually inaccurate and offensive.

Please watch this documentary before making any further comments/changes to the article:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulOiB3xEkzM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Rameth (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" This video is not available in your country."
You've deleted referenced content. How do you know it's factually inaccurate, if the references support it? And to whom is it offensive? Ruby Murray 14:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

alternative links:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoh2d0_graffiti-wars-2011-king-robbo-vs-banksy_creation

http://www.streetartnews.net/2011/08/robbo-vs-banksy-graffiti-wars-full.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Rameth (talk • contribs) 14:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in here Ruby, but Rameth, if you wouldn't mind taking a read of Wikipedias policy on article ownership, as well as remembering that Wikipedia is a project that ANYONE can edit, that would be great. Thanks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Skamecrazy123, I have read the ownership article and I completely agree that nobody OWNS an article. Please take the time to view any of the 3 links I have provided on this page and then feel free to change/remove anything I have added if you feel it is factually inaccurate or incorrect in any way, shape or form. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Rameth (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would also agree that phrases such as "Please watch this documentary before making any further comments/changes to the article" seem to imply that you own the article, right? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time you posted the comment "Your changes are factually inaccurate and offensive.", I hadn't introduced any changes, User:Lord Rameth - I only reverted your unexplained replacement of referenced content with unreferenced. But I've now removed some of the more subjective, unsourced additions, and tagged the article for more references. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which notes that:

Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Since you're a new editor, I'll give it a day before I remove the remaining unreferenced claims. Ruby Murray 17:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Science

Philip Coppens did not work within the scientific method and framework as described here [4]. Dickie birdie (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we need to add references to support that assertion, rather than just delete the references that say he did. Thanks. Ruby Murray 16:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Author Jason Colavito writes about this form of alternative thought here [5] Dickie birdie (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Core article

Hi Ruby. I'm concerned about the edits by Btwachiever to the Common Core article. All that I looked at were unsourced opinion. I proposed on the Talk page that we go back to an earlier version of the article prior to his edits. What do you think? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll have a look, and reply at the article talk page. Thanks. Ruby Murray 15:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for fixing it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Thanks for flagging it up - I'd had a nagging feeling about it, and then forgot about it. :-) Ruby Murray 11:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that the "calculate life expectancy" section of "life expectancy" is terribly written

I seldom spend time on editing any wiki articles, even when I found the contents unsatisfactory.

But the contents of this section are completely dis-organized. It gives no information about the physical meanings of the calculations at all.

Worse still, quite a lot of the formulas are wrong. They seem to be related to life-expectancy mathematics. But indeed they cannot lead to the final results of the calculations. The formulas are irrelevant!

The situation is so serious so that I decided to spend some time to organize them into simple, yet relevant contents. --Puekai (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about more than one problem. If the formulas are wrong, then please correct them (with references). If the prose lacks information, then add it. But you've made a sweeping deletion of nearly all the explanatory prose in that section, which has broken references cited elsewhere. The equations might be crystal clear to you, but non-mathematicians will also want to read and understand the article. Ruby Murray 13:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref fixing on Argentina page

Hello Ruby Murray,
Like you I sometimes try to fix reference errors on WP pages. Unfortunately your 03:10, 23 November 2013 fix to Argentina doesn't appear to have worked, there were still a lot of red error messages at the bottom of the page. :-( I have now reverted to the version by Fercho85 (talk · contribs) just before the large edit by Paradissi (talk · contribs) that caused the problem. :-\ Just letting you know why your good work has been undone. :-)

There were more edits after yours so I'll try to restore them too, if required. 220 of Borg 12:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I could see it was only a partial fix, but thanks anyway for saying so. I didn't want to revert the mega-addition of old refs that caused the breakage, but please do fix away, and revert where you think necessary. Thanks, Ruby Murray 20:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Holland

Whoa for real?

IF that is the case I will thank you not to vandalize Biographys you know little about. You call Holland an Amature despite his PHD. Thats disrespectful and untolerable given the merit of his acedemic acheivement. You called him an amature with out basis. Words have power and you sought to use words to diminish his highly technical work. Were you even qualified to judge him as an amature? Years of electrical enginerring and musical compisiotion under your belt? Do you know all their is to know about plasma field emmisions? Got a PHD of your own? No? Then maybe focus on telling people more about Holland the actor and leave Holland the composer to people that understand the subject matter better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.104.253 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "vandalism" to point out that the highly qualified musician is also an amateur scientist. It's also nothing to do with my qualifications or my respect for him: it's about references from reliable sources, and the references in the article clearly show that he is an amateur scientist. As far as I'm concerned that makes his work even more interesting. I'll add some more references to clarify that. Ruby Murray 20:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


You need to stop with your repeated attempts of intimidation. And you need to stop using the surname junk to justify your petty edits. The link redirects and shows that you are not adhering to the concesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.208.230 (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis

I think the user that deleted the rest of the article may have done it inadvertently as he tried to edit a single section. I think the caution on his talk page should be reverted with a help on how to edit sections. Greatpopcorn (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a huge chunk of text deleted, with the "web" template in one reference changed to "oweb". What makes you think it was inadvertent? Ruby Murray 17:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That user's last edit also makes me think that the tennis edit wasn't inadvertent. Ruby Murray 17:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

RM:

Thanks a bunch for reviewing my article on PAMAM! If you have time, I would love to hear your thoughts on how I could improve it or what you think is missing. Best wishes!

Ben Blaboo10 (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to add a few links, but can't improve on it much - I think it's excellent as it is. Great first article, and what a fascinating area of research! Thanks, Ruby Murray 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Hi Murray, thanks for that message. I didn't intend to remove the Dan Brown's early life, it was a mistake. I have tried to restore it back, but I couldn't. I was actually trying if I could edit mine like his. Because am an author, and Dan Brown is my role model. Please Murray, how can I upload my picture like that of Dan Brown on my wikipedia page. Once againb, I really appreciate what you did by helping me to restore back the page. Thanks. ALLOY FRANCIS (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks Murray, it was a mistake. ALLOY FRANCIS (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning! That's three cups of coffee for me already. :-) That's OK about the deletion - it did look like it was accidental. To answer your question, you can find out more information about uploading images at Help:Introduction to uploading images. If you get stuck, then you can always ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk or the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cheers, Ruby Murray 09:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande

Hi, the reference was citeted, and all is here and here], digital holidays and holiday 100. Connie (A.K) (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't the references you used, this time or last time. Last time the working ref was about Big Time Rush, this time it's about Kanye West. Neither mentions Ariana Grande. The other references in the table were broken both times. Also, the holiday 100 reference you've linked above doesnt mention her. Please don't re-add unreferenced content. Ruby Murray 09:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but you know it's true and the references are in the notes, look here. You are not respecting This. The information is referenced. Thanks. Connie (A.K) (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in the notes, then please add it with references, and please stop re-adding unreferenced info, and fake references pasted in from other articles. It's up to the person adding information to an article to reference it, not chuck it in and expect other editors to sort out the mess. Ruby Murray 20:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notes are referenced, check well. Thanks. Connie (A.K) (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've only added back the same broken references you added before, along with the same fake Big Time Rush reference you pasted in earlier. Ruby Murray 21:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
reference number 60, about love is everything. Connie (A.K) (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now fixed the table to reference what was note 60 for the Holiday 100. It doesn't mention Holiday Digital Songs or the general US chart, so I've flagged those with {{cn}}. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks C.Fred. I'll give that section a day or two before I remove the unreferenced additions. Ruby Murray 21:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say im disruptive editing...who are you to tell me that....?? you know nothing about the enfield poltergeist case.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruby_Murray&oldid=585191392"