User talk:ShadowRangerRIT/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Email

I would like to contact you by Email. Do you have, or could you create an account, to link to your Wikipedia account? Thanks! Edison (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was an option. I assume the e-mail is protected/invisible; that the WP software sends the e-mail instead of publishing it? If the e-mail is exposed at all publicly, I'd rather wait until I get home and can set up a forwarding account, but if you can assure me that it won't lead to spam due to page scrapers and the like, I'll see about registering one immediately. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. Looks like I set up a forwarding account already, just never enabled e-mails from other users. That has been done. The forwarding address forwards to my home e-mail though, so I likely won't see or respond to it for another four hours or so. This isn't urgent is it? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter has some time value, but is not urgent. I created a dedicated Gmail account (pretty quick and easy) for Wikipedia communications, to try and preserve the secrecy of real world identity. On my talk page you will see a link on the left "toolbox" which allows you to "E-mail this user" (me). If you email me, the email address you used will appear in my email, but not publicly otherwise. Then the person you emailed can reply directly to you. Edison (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki

I believe we could profit from your input on Talk:RationalWiki#Disputed.

Nobs wishes to either revert the article back to the version that claimed Lipson is the founder or to hang a COI tag on the current version. The discussion seems to be running in tight circles.

You are one of the neutral editors alerted through the NPOV Noticeboard, and you originally restored the article, so I believe it would help if you could weigh in on this. A similar notice has also been sent to Hipocrite, who weighed in on the COI/BLP issue.

Thank you kindly in advance. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Lindsey McFly

Sorry to be a butt about this one, but I wanted to be sure there was no way it could come back to bite me/us that it was speedied too quickly. There was a tiny suggestion of notability, but I couldn't verify it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:48, March 29, 2010

Actually, my original speedy was intended to be applied to the article, not the redirect, you just moved it a second before Twinkle did its thing. That said, capitalization typos don't need to keep the redirect around, and the article creator was notified of the speedy nom when I nominated the target (which has since been deleted). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes... by me! (See the delete record.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Reply

Alright, thanks for the tip. I will keep in mind to do that. I was actually thinking about starting at 2 or 3 for the obvious vandalism, but I did not want to break any rules that I may not be aware about. Once again, thanks! --seahorseruler |Talk Yoshi! 20:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I warn you?

Don't make any edits on the User talk:Giggs for Temporary, as you did the same with Seahorseruler. I could not receive any message on that talk page. Contact User:KyleRGiggs instead. Any edits on the talk page of Giggs for Temporary would be seemed as vandalism. Thank you. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The misbehaving account is the one that gets warned. It's not vandalism to warn the actively misbehaving account. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree - Ron Paul related line.

Thank you. My intention was never to cause any problem, you see I am a normal person with ZERO extremism or violence in myself. I must tell you that I actually wasn't disruptive, I didn't destroy or corrupt anything in the article, I just repeatedly removed what someone else reverted (repeatedly). It wasn't an (edit) war at all. I would like to know why was the act of removing the Ron Paul related line a negative behavior but putting it back (or writing it in the first place) a positive behavior? If I was disruptive, so was the other side.

I am a man who read about 100-120 books a year, I have the most respect to any source of knowledge and information, especially encyclopedias and especially Wikipedia (which is btw based on the ideas of F.A.Hayek a man who influenced Ron Paul significantly), so you must know that knowledge and science is "sacred" for me and the most important task is to protect it from corruption. My opinion was that the line in question was actually a corruption of this article, a malignant piece of information which has nothing to do with the extremist group (Hutaree) but everything to do to hurt (intentional or not that doesn't' matter) congressman Ron Paul who are absolutely against any kind of violence and anti-government ideas. He is simply a constitutionalists who strictly obey the law. It is very sad that some nut-job idiot extremists, militants and people who actually can't and don't understand the real meaning of his work become "fanatics" but who are actually the most dangerous enemies of the free market and free environment Ron Paul advocates.

Anyway I don't want to make a political issue out of this, and I don't want to be in "edit wars" (not even if I won't be blocked from editing, because that is not important to me), what is important is to help you and any other editor out there to keep Wikipedia articles without corruption, without malignant and unimportant information. I hope that is something worth to try.

Sincerelly,

Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.209.61 (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. When you're approaching the edit war threshold, you need to use the dispute resolution guidelines (as linked in the warning). My personal opinion is that being a Ron Paul fanatic is informative as to the beliefs of the person in question without being a reflection on Paul himself. We don't blame the Pope if a serial killer happens to be a devout Catholic, but the fact that he is a devout Catholic is relevant to his mindset, and if he idolizes the Pope we might mention that, without casting aspersions on the Pope. Similarly, being a Paulite is relevant to the mindset of the person in question, without in reflecting on Paul. As the other person reverting your edits has noted, a more appropriate way to balance this might be to note that Paul has disavowed the individual in question, with a link to said source, but if he hasn't explicitly disavowed him, it's not really important. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Woman in Ottoman Imperium

is an Ottoman princess, and the other category in the Ottoman people. why should only be deleted Fehim sultan? the others do not? what's it ... then erase everything but everything about Ottoman women. I think your problem is, that is they are muslims, can it be?

Zibi Fer ✍ —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

Userpage sprot

OK, its semi'ed indef. Just let any admin know if you ever want it unprotected. Syrthiss (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, just to let you know you've been "mentioned" at Talk:Fehime Sultan, in case you're interested. --BelovedFreak 10:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, looking at User talk:Zibi Fer, it looks like there is a history of personal attacks. I haven't formally warned the editor for their comment about you at Talk:Fehime Sultan, because I made a more general response. You may want to.--BelovedFreak 10:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually care about the personal attacks. Zibi has demonstrated their incredible obtuseness so many times that I just don't care any more. The articles have been nothing but original research since the day they were created (deletion was rejected on some others only because someone found a single link proving they existed, but no real information). I've asked for reliable sources, but Zibi has not provided any for over six months (or even understood what I'm asking it seems, since the only responses I get are personal attacks, insults and whining about how unfair it is). I realize I'm being relatively uncivil by commenting on the apparent intelligence of Zibi, but given the mostly incoherent articles and complete inability to understand any feedback from other editors, Zibi either has an incredibly poor grasp of English (though the articles make just enough sense that they should be able to understand comments from others), is dead stupid, or is trolling. Even in the good faith case of poor English, that doesn't mean we let them violate WP:OR because they want to; and the paucity of sources and relative lack of notability of many of the articles on specific family members makes research a pain, and frankly, since I don't consider the notability of royalty transitive, I don't feel like encouraging it by contributing large amounts of my time researching for the article. I've fine with unverified stubs (because deletion has been rejected), but he's putting in biographical details that are completely unjustified without sources. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 12:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. I don't know about the other articles, but deletion would have been declined for this one because it asserts importance. It doesn't have to meet notability guidelines to avoid being speedily deleted; the threshold is much lower. If there are no sources available, you could take i tto AFD as unverifiable. I don't know if you've tried that with this particular article, I know you have with others... Anyway, I can understand you being frustrated, just thought I'd let you know about the conversation! Regards, --BelovedFreak 13:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The A7 speedy criterion does not apply to schools

You recently incorrectly tagged Protpittayapayat School for A7 speedy deletions. You should be aware that schools are specifically excluded from an A7 speedy, to quote the criterion, it applies to "An article about ... an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools)" (my emphasis). Dpmuk (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Missed that. I was looking for notability criteria that applied to schools, and the WikiProject pointed me to the general notability and org specific notability guidelines, so I assumed the org guidelines applied. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree

Your restoration of the Hutaree passage was done without even considering the full context of why I removed the socalled "context" section.

The fact of the matter is that growth of extremists groups since 2008 is not the context for a group that organized at the beganing of 2008 and appears to have existed at some level earlier to that. Such information should be placed in a general article about militia movements, it has zero relevance to Hutaree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This should be discussed at the article talk page. I'm not the only person who feels it is relevant. In fact, I'm not 100% convinced it is relevant (as my comments on the talk page noted), but no one has bothered to make much of an argument on those grounds. That said, the founding of the group does coincide with the period in which the Obama campaign proved its mettle, so to speak. Even if it wasn't related to Obama, the economic turmoil blamed for the rise in these groups was already beginning at that point; we were losing ~100K jobs per month for the first few months of the year, with the rate of loss accelerating in August-September. I'm more than willing to accept rebuttals on these point (on the talk page, not here); for instance, if the numbers are from the end of each year, then the time period wouldn't cover this group, and extending back one more year would be a good idea. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting an accidental page

For the future, you can request deletion of your own page with {{db-g7}}. I've changed it for you on the page I noticed. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! Tisane (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your revert doesn't make sense.

You've reverted my edit to something that isn't scoured either, your action is illogical, either delete the info entirely or let my edit stand. I'm Dutch and I know Dutch law but I'm not going to spit through law books for such a minor edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.E.Zonderland (talk • contribs)

Claiming that a constitutional monarchy still invests that kind of power in a figurehead requires evidence. "Being Dutch" is not sufficient to justify that edit. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Searching on my own, I see two sites that claims it's 16 with parental and Queen's consent, several that say it requires no consent from either if the bride is pregnant or has given birth and several others than claim mere parental consent. None of the sources are reliable though. Thus my inclination to keep the less extreme claim until a reliable source is provided. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

senator article

The reason I added "honorable" to only Republicans was because the Democrats already had "honorable" in their box at the time of my editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CTUnick (talk • contribs) 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that. Shouldn't be on any of them for the same reason it shouldn't be on the Republican Senator pages. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 12:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

What I did was correct something. As I explained on Bioshoch 2's talk page, for Bioshock and Bioshock 2 to use UnrealEngine version 2.5 would be next to impossible. Unless you can show me another source that explains how a company "hacked" a 5 year old engine for use with modern hardware, please refrain from fanatically protecting mundane and unimportant pieces of information and flaming random people's talk pages for making corrections for, quite obvious, oversights. 70.41.204.97 (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think the information is wrong, find a source that supports it. Wikipedia requires verifiability, not just "truth." The existing source clearly states that they use a modified version of Unreal 2.5. Nothing prevents an old engine from running on modern hardware (I run games from the mid-90s on my computer without issue), so your "common sense" complaint is frankly moronic. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your mid 90's games don't have deprecated engines that have allegedly been hacked to support the latest and greatest hardware acceleration from the chip makers and software from microsoft. As I've said, I've run the Swat 4 expansion Pack and Killing Floor on the same windows 7 computer I have Bioshock 2, Mass Effect 1 & 2, and Borderlands on. If you really want to get into running old games, I have Sun Virtualbox with numerous win32 VM's able to run stuff like Janes' Flight Simulator. This is just silly. Every time I try to edit Wikipedia, someone takes it the complete wrong way and has a tizzy. I'm not trying to vandalize anything. I happen to know a little about 3D computer games and this just didn't makes sense to me. Hell, maybe they found out a way to modify the Unreal engine better than the killing floor team could do, a whole 2 years sooner, and if they did, more power to them. And to you, and your source. I'm just telling you what I've experienced as a PC gamer, and hopefully the source that I spent a sum total of 2 minutes googling to refute this, sticks. If not, I don't care, edit the page how you want. It's obviously been chosen as a starred article the way it was written. More power to you, have Wikipedia reflect the wants of the powerful, as veteran users continue to chip away at what every-day readers are trying to do to improve it, in their own little, trivial, minuscule way that apparently resembles blatant vandalism worthy of actually flaming an unregistered user's talk page, twice. That's all I have to say, I really don't care what you do with either page from now on. And just to let everyone who visits this talk page know, this veteran user has dissuaded yet another common, every-day reader from even attempting to further this great cause again. You win, fighting with the people in power isn't worth this. 70.41.204.97 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a second. You complain that I reverted your edits. I explain that you need a source to change the page. You provide a source, and I remove my objection to changing the page. The only objection I had was to accepting the word of a single user that the source was wrong and the facts should be changed without a source to support the correct facts. I wasn't flaming your talk page. I was warning you that you should not be introducing unsourced factual changes; the warnings explain precisely what you needed to do to make the edit. As long as you find sources for your edits in the future, those warnings will age to obsolescence and never make a difference (you're free to remove them you know; it just means you have received and acknowledged them).

Basically, you did something against the verifiability policy, did it again despite being warned (the first warning acknowledged that you might not understand the rules, the second was more severe only because you persisted in violating the rules). After the second warning, you did it the right way around. You got your edit, Wikipedia got verifiable information, and everyone wins. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a source, please look into it, it's on the Bioshock 2 talk page, I'll be citing it with the engine edits I'll hopefully finally have stay. (but here it is just for continuity, it's just as credible as yours: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/08/29/bioshocks-helping-hand-to-unreal-engine-3s-image/ ) 70.41.204.97 (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It was never *my* source though; just *a* source (I have made no substantive content edits to the page). I'm inclined to believe a source that directly discusses the engine more directly. Feel free to make the change. The problem was removing cited information without another source of at least equal reliability supporting the change. Since you have a source that supports it, go ahead. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Increase Width?

Please explain. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding extra info to a specific column causes the column to grow wider, or the text to wrap. Which means either the table spills off the right hand side, or the table becomes even longer top to bottom. Obviously if the information is necessary, then we include it, but the dates weren't necessary, thus my objection. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You said "extra width" you said nothing about extra lenght. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

People are already adding things in random places.

Thanks 203.35.82.133 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

See comment above and on discussion page. Thanks 203.35.82.133 (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Geez, man, let it go already. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

proposed deletion of my article (reply)

hello.keserman here.SORRY IF THIS GETS A LITTLE LONG.it has been a long time,and now i finally figured to respond.yes,i have been active,working at my articles,fighting to keep them from getting deleted,mostly by building them if i can,making them more notable,adding information.TO THE POINT.you have,no short while back,left me a message,in regards that my page,newharbour island,which i have kept up,has been proposed for deletion,and I will,as fast as I think gets a sensible message with you,go over my reasons to oppose this,and your reasons in your message.1:yes,it may be a small article,but that is because there is not much to tell,but if i can build on it,it should be fairly noteworthy,and I am trying to build it.one of my aims on wikipedia is to expand on my home town area,and this is something that the information is narrow on,and fairly noteworthy on.this may be because it is not a famous and widely-known region,but notable on information on wikipedia.2:you said that you have no proof of the island's existance.again,this is not a widely-known region.it has little information on wikipedia,what I am out to change.MY proof and knowlege:I am from this area,and familiar with it,and knowlegeable about it.I have seen this island up close.this is proof to me,and i can see how a person in a complete different region with little to no information would lok at it as a no evidence,article that may be lies.my proof of knowlege could be lies,but trust me, its not.those are my reasons for anti-deletion.my main article,that of its community,newharbour,newfoundland and labrador,has,plainly,more to tell,and is considerably longer,and I am still building it up.the others are small,but I am trying to put more of the pretty noteable,but pretty little,information.SORRY THIS IS SO LONG!thanks,keserman.Keserman (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry,I SEEN YOUR THING ABOUT RESPONDING on my own page AFTER I left you a message on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keserman (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

i may be able t shut the new harbour island page down,redirecting the information elswher,to my biggest article,as i ams still building it up,and trying to increase its size,and this would add to the notability of one article,while removing a short,less notable article,I probably will do it,Keserman (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I proposed deletion because I could not find evidence for its existence. A later editor discovered some evidence, so my WP:PROD was removed (and I agree with the removal). The fault with the article was lack of verifiability and once that was corrected, it was perfectly fine. It might not be all that notable, but geographical locations are usually assumed to have notability by default, as long as they actually exist. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this,and I have redirected the information to new harbour,newfoundland and labrador,I seen fit to do this ANYWAY,as it isw a small island that is just that,no more than an island.It is a part of new harbour,and I realized that it probably belongs in new harbour's article,anyway,which is unreferenced,another thing I plan to soon change.I did this with my article russel's point,the titular point is in blaketown,new harbour's neighbor,which was a one-setence article,so I redirected information,and added other information,as well,thanks,though.Keserman (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

question

I see a "new section" tab on the discussion pages,and know how to use it,but do not see it on the actual articles,would you be able to explain creating new sections on articles?Keserman (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)DON'T,I FIGURED IT OUT!

honorific senators

the reason i added it to GOP senators is because the title was already added to dem senators. i was just leveling the playing field. but now there is no title for any senator. just thought id explain CTUnick (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)ctunickCTUnick (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

you seem to be a nice person, perhaps you can help me.

I wonder how to get a biography of my uncle on wiki. i've posted some of the information so far and I wonder if you know of people who can help with the formatting. Your notes are helpful (teh user talk page) and I respect the time you put in reducing the vandalism and keeping the encyclopedia looking like an encyclopedia.

could there be an article listing the promtion sites for bone marrow donation? maybe that would be noteworthy... how many sites tehre are to promote marrow donations.

thanks fo ryour time.

steve mccrea fort lauderdlae TLASteve@gmail.com theebookman theebookman@gmail.com Theebookman (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC) theebookman

Apologies, I've not been actively participating much for a few years; I'm not checking in often enough to be of much help (as the long delay in my response attests). I mostly just fix minor typos at this point. I no longer have access to Wikipedia at work, so my regular lunch time contributions are a thing of the past. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Titoist POV

You know the matter and can explain it in Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Manipulated and mystified sources or in talk:Josip Broz Tito#DisputeTeo Pitta (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)