User talk:Raymondc0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikiproject Page[edit]

Hi, Your edits [1] to the Wikiproject proposal page hid all of the projects after your project. Please be more careful with your edits. YaanchSpeak! 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry i sent this to the wrong person. Maybe i should be more careful with my edits! YaanchSpeak! 20:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page The Office (US TV series) on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. BlackBear 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

that is unethical and idiotic how could one propose to move all quotes to Wikiqoute when the quote is relevent to the actual show and or page. think twice and use your brain. --Jkskater4ever 19:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Scott edit[edit]

What was the point of this edit? - Shaheenjim 03:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That even the producers of the show don't consider Michael Scott's license plate to be notable. -- Raymondc0 04:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops. I got that. I meant, what was the point of removing the section title "Hair" in that edit? - Shaheenjim 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Accident. Didn't even notice, sorry. -- Raymondc0 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. No problem. Seems like a weird thing to do on accident. But that hair title had just been added. Maybe you were working from a version of the page that hadn't yet recognized that update. - Shaheenjim 19:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding The Office[edit]

Thanks for finding a happy medium about the character Karen leaving the office. Hopefully this will stop the constant reverts! Yavoh 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Office (U.S. TV series) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.


Do you have any comment on my comment at Talk:Money_(The_Office_episode)#Plot_synopsis_length? It seems like the sort of thing that'd be right up your alley. - Shaheenjim 04:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, you shouldn't expect the typical user to delete something when they add something to a plot synopsis that is near the word limit. The typical user isn't sophisticated enough to know that and/or they don't care about the word limit as much as you do. - Shaheenjim 22:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize that. The remark is there so that when the user says "Why did they delete my contribution?" they know what they need to do to make it acceptable. -- Raymondc0 00:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ahh. Makes sense. Although, if you leave it just under the limit, people are going to keep adding things. And if you want to keep it under the limit, you're going to keep having to retrim it. If you really want to keep it under the limit, I suggest you trim it until it's significantly below the limit, so that you won't have to trim it again every time people add a little bit more. - Shaheenjim 02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Office: "Performance Review" smoking gun[edit]

Hi Raymond,

You removed what I wrote about there being smoke coming off of Phyllis' thumb when she pantomimes shooting herself during the conference scene of this episode. I can understand you amending the post because I speculated in it, but if you actually watch the scene, you will see that there is smoke there. It is a quick puff, right above her thumb. I'm watching it on a regular definition television set and I can see it. Please review the DVD and you will see the smoke there.

In the meantime, I am reversing the change you made, but I am also removing the speculation in question. If you'd like to contact me, you can reach me at

Thanks, John Musco —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

10/Minute Rule[edit]

Hello Raymond,

You reverted what I wrote about an article on the Office for the fact of the 10 words/minute rule. While I see your reasoning on that, please remember that it is a "rough" rule. All articles of that nature aren't technically limited to a 200 word limit. When the nature of the episode merits further explanation, there isn't any reason to delete it. Furthermore, the runtime of that episode was closer to 22 minutes, therefore, the article would allow for 220 words. Thank you for your help in that nature, but a revert on that wasn't neccessary. Instead of completely reverting, next time try to trim what I have written. Remember that information poorly presented is better than not being presented at all. Cheers! -Mastrchf91- 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see what you mean by that, but I don't see how we can limit the word count when it prevents improving the article (Ignore All Rules. As long as we keep the article at a manageable length (<500-600 words), keep it well formatted, and well referenced, I see no reason why it couldn't possibly be over the limit. I understand the importance of having rules, but we're here to improve an encyclopedia, not limit it because of a rule. Furthermore, articles with trivia sections are encourage to integrate these sections into the articles. By not using a word cap, we could improve the article by integrating the trivia section into it.Cheers!-Mastrchf91- 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:EPISODE actually says there's a preferable limit, but don't limit yourself to it if the summary becomes useless. Will (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
200 words has always been more than sufficient to cover the essential points of an episode. Indeed, if pressed, I bet it can be done in 50 words. The overages are caused by people adding nonessential detail. -- Raymondc0 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Office Wikiproject[edit]

Hey Raymond, I see you do a ton of great work with episodes relating to The Office, and I just wanted to inform you of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US). We're looking for people who have good knowledge of the show, and can help improve the articles relating to it. If you're interested at all, you can either list your name under the "Membership Reconfirmation" heading (we're under going a reconfirmation period, but are still interested in new members), or reply to me either here or at my talk page, whichever you choose. But if you choose not to join, I would just like to tell you that you do great work on Office articles, and keep it up! Happy editing, Mastrchf91 (t/c) 22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
Thanks Raymondc0 for helping to promote Cocktails (The Office) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)