User talk:Ravensfire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Wikipedia is misleading!

Yes, I did make an edit to a page that did'nt exactly fit into the info that Wikipedia is giving out. And yes, this is a problem. Why don't the people of Wikipedia solve it? It was so easy to insert that irrelevant comment! What's stopping other individuals from leaving far more inappropriate comments on pages that the world over can see? Or, even worse, what's stopping sly wrong-doers from adding subtle, entirely misleading information to pages that young, learning students, get into their mind? By editing that page, I hoped to raise feeling of wrong in people who have used this learning base with out a knowledge of the risk it holds. -Nathan Humiston, 15

72.220.72.132 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It still is used too seriously

No they won't, but that does'nt mean that students won't still use it! It's at about the top of the list for a whole lot of searches! You say that vandalism is quickly corrected, but how do you tell what is sincere knowledge given by someone who really understands the subject, and what is concealed racism, illiteracay, and hatred? Just 20 minutes ago I found a short paragraph on the Martin Luther page that said that he said that "Jewish homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed." I don't know what uninformed person said this, but if anyone read a classic on him, they would find that he while he was moving forward a passive revolution against the corrupt national religion of the time, he quickly revoked any forms of violence against enemies of their cause, just as Gandhi did in India, and Martin Luther King Jr. did in America. How many people have been deceived by this lie already? -Nathan Humiston

72.220.72.132 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:

So you have redirected the focus from my main point, but so well. I have learned about Martin Luther for several weeks and read documents and a classic from 1950 on him (my class, mentors, and I believe it is best to read the closest to the original, rather than someone else's understanding of a subject, such as a textbook) and yes I do remember that he did lose some sanity later in life, but this implied that during his movement he ordered violent acts against Jews. He had to stop his followers from destroying property of the corrupted church leaders. That kind of work was nearly opposite of his mission. I know exactly what you mean about people becoming mass brainwashed. I am learning how to fight against it. -Nathan Humiston

72.220.72.132 (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring - Quantitative Easing comparison of QE to monetizing debt

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Quantitative Easing regarding the comparison of QE to monetizing debt. All of the statements are verifiable and referenced from reputable sources BBC, St. Louis Fed (research.stlouisfed.org) and Dallas Fed (dallasfed.org). The points are informative and neither OR or POV. It is my intention to revert your reversion so please leave comments on the QE discussion page as to why you think the comment should not be included so we can discuss it, I've started a new section there for it. --Caparn (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

gauge choice

Bering Strait Tunnel should choose broad gauge at least Russian gauge. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for new subpages for tax project

Would you be so kind as to create some new subpages for the Tax in the US project? I can work on one for Tax administration . Oldtaxguy (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Executive Order 11110

Can you expand the Conspiracy theory section of the Executive Order 11110 article by summarizing Flaherty's key arguments in his essay? Please reply on the Talk:Executive Order 11110 page. --Loremaster (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources

I believe you wrote about my site http://nosuchthingasanopinion.blogspot.com:

"Please don't add information to articles that is not backed by reliable sources. Your blog is NOT a reliable source, and information sourced to it will be removed. "

That's a strange comment, considering that I have one of the highest IQ's in the country, and considering that my site provides evidence of this, and considering that my site uses foolproof logic (and often many links and research to support points). I can guarantee that the logic behind my articles is almost foolproof, and is leaps above anything in the mainstream media. Blogs shouldn't be assumed to be less credible, information is credible based only on the logic supporting the information, regardless of source. A "credible" source canot overcome faulty logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyoumind111 (talk • contribs) 17:56, January 16, 2011

LOL! -- œ^™ 14:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't put this picture on the internet

I promise .) Cheers. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On Taxation

The whole section is unsourced as it is just an exposition of a theoretical argument that is widely used. The logic deployed is straight forward but incomplete as it neglects the opposing effects to the ones stated when money raised through taxation is spent in the economy by the government. Therefore the conclusions reached are biased and partial. My additional sentence was added in an attempt to make the section less biased. Do you have any suggestions as to how this might be better achieved?

Kind regards - Paul Paul Hield (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The best way is to bring this to the article talk page, especially given you've had two editors object to your changes. I'm not disagreeing that sections of that section are bad, but adding unsourced, original research (OR) to the article to "Eliminate bias" is not good. You need to have a source to back up your statements. Existing material is a totally separate (albiet valid) issue, but this focuses only on your edit. Hopefully, you'll bring this up on the Tax talk page for discussion. Please though - you're close to an edit war over this, and that's not good. Ravensfire (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Taxation Incidence

I have started a new section in Tax Talk, I would welcome your views on how to improve this section.

Pirating of Wikipedia content for profit

I have encountered a publication being sold for $65 that contains content apparently all from Wikipedia. This sort of this tends to discourage editors like me. See User talk:Oldtaxguy#Pirating of Wikipedia content for profit. Can we do anything? Oldtaxguy (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fiorina photo

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

Sorry about the long gap of time between the response and your notification. Aaaccc (talk), 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Taxation

I've been working on the taxation in the US project, and made some progress. Hope you don't mind, but I've also solicited comments/edits/help from some other users constructively active in the tax area. I'm nearly done with what I have enough knowledge to do. Thoughts? When should we go live? Thanks for your help.Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raven, thank you for your response - even though I do leave the 3,4 and 5 ~ - it still gets wikibot to sign for me aswell, thats why I always appear double signed. I think it may be a glitch - but if you have any advise that would be great! Thanks Giselle 04:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Merediths page

I wanted to personally Thank you for your post :) If you could please reply on my talk page it is easiest for me. You don't have to reply if you don't want to but Thank you so kindly :)--Truth Mom (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess

You are working for them too? Right? TheIsraelite777 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2011

Section headings

Hi there, I just read your message. No problem. I have to admit it's a bit confusing to me. I'm new here. I want to start a new section. Do you mind telling me how to suggest a new section. Michellesings (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Michelle Moore

I'm starting to go off fruit juice...

Regarding this: not a problem. I understand that the tone is rather acerbic, and have struck-through the less constructive parts of the comment. Immediately before writing the comment, I'd copied-and-pasted the talk page section into a Word document and found that this one discussion about fruit juice had already amassed about 2,000 words of commentary - this goes some way to explaining my exasperation, although I could certainly have used some less provocative phrasing. SuperMarioMan 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for patrolling Wikipedia! LK (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your draft page User:Ravensfire/Giuliano Mignini

Hi,

I got asked to look at this page.

As I commented to them), it looks like valid notes and workings for a valid potential article, on an individual who would probably be considered notable (eg not BLP1E) in their own right. I have tagged the article to let anyone else in future know this. If you don't like the header please do feel free to remove it. I've also upgraded the "noindex" note to a proper userspace draft template which looks better and includes the same NOINDEX token.

My main request is that this draft does contain negative material about multiple living people, though apparently being worked on and sourcing being checked, and being NOINDEXED. Even so, it hasn't been touched since creation on 19 April 2011 (it's 19 May now). I'm not that comfortable with such material lingering in low-scrutiny userspace indefinitely. Would it be possible to work on this, and develop it to the point a proper article can be made and the userspace draft deleted or moved within (say) a couple of weeks?

Hope this is ok - thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to do something. This started from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article which I've now totally pulled away from. The hostility on that page is so rampant it's not worth touching anymore. I do want to finish this one though - right now it's trying to find some good biography sources of him as most of the recent information is about the controversies around him. Ravensfire (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps enclose in {{collapse top}} - {{collapse bottom}} for now, to make it easy to edit when you return to it, but have the effect of blanking. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - I've done that, plus actually started the outline of the article (with references). Now to see if I can find the extra info I'm looking for and avoid it being hammered into a hatchet job by some strident editors. Ravensfire (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

MoMK, Guede section and criminal record

Hi there Ravenstein. Since you just made an edit today to this section you might want to take a look at this new talkpage entry. TMCk (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I see that you've put your money where other editor's mouth is with drafting a Mignini article. Kudos. TMCk (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On that note, may I say that it's great to see you back at MoMK? Regards, SuperMarioMan 01:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - the break was nice, and I actually got a bit hacked off that some editors were chasing me from an article by what I considered reprehensible behavior enabled by several other editors. Plus, I keep spotting odd details or missing information. It's becoming tough to research aspects of this case on the internet because of the sheer amount of "noise" from forums, comments, etc. Mignini is a great example. In the US, if there's a controversial figure, I would expect to see several articles given the background of that person. Education, career path, etc. Finding something like that for Mignini is proving tough because of the massive bashing (albiet justified to some extent) on the various pro-Knox sites and publications. Still, nice to be back and even better to see solid improvements being made to the article. Ravensfire (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I echo SuperMario's welcome back. :) Your presence was missed.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mignini

Hello Ravensfire, there is a request for material on Mignini on the MoMK page. This thread is where I mention your work. Things are moving on that page which is encouraging. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! I go on vacation for a bit, get hammered at work and see something that almost looks like progress there. I found a couple of articles that I need to figure out where I put the links and review them again. There were some allegations that at least one of the defense lawyers "encouraged" the testimony of some of the convicts that testified about Guede. Potentially interesting info and oddly nothing along those lines suggested by the more active talk-page proposers. Whew - I've gotta take a day or two to review the talk page stuff! Looks like a fair amount has happened.

I think the Mig article is viable after some cleanup, but will need aggressive watching. I have no doubts that various people will hammer it with negative material far in excess of WP:UNDUE, which has been my major concern from the start. It's going to be a shortish article, as I can't find any decent background information on him. A couple of lines explaining the two main trials (Monster and Kercher) and the controveries around each is about all that will be viable. Ravensfire (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment to Bentheadvocate about vandalism

"Wikipedia has a very specific definition of what constitutes vandalism and it's surpisingly broad compared what you'll find in many forums." Did you perhaps mean to say "narrow" instead of "broad"? Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bleh - yeah, I did. Need to correct that. Appreciate the heads up! Ravensfire (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks

I agree with your edits but I wonder if the article is salvageable. It has had a strong POV since creation, and originally was called "Chinese stock frauds]]. The only thing that has kept me from nominating it for deletion is that I think the overall subject is a valid and worthy one. I think a top-to-bottom rewrite and reconfiguration is necessary, but unfortunately I don't have the time or background. Do you think an AfD is warranted? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think that's the right approach and I'll help if I can. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for America Invents Act Cont.

Please join me here for a discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#America Invents Act Cont.. -Cntras (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy - LadyArguer isn't quite living up to her name, just putting it in without any discussion, or arguing! Ravensfire (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Barney Glaser

Why do you continue censoring the small edit I have made to the Barney Glaser page? I have included the source, and this source is from public records of the state of California. There is no ad homimen attack, only an objective summary of what has been determined in the California bankruptcy court.

You should know, although I have *not* included it in the article, that Dr. Glaser essentially stole $100 million dollars from investors who trusted him. That is what led to the bankruptcy trial. All of the information I posted is from public records. To deny page visitors the right to see it is censorship.

Unbelievable. I damn near bend over backwards to help you out, and your response is to crap all over me. You didn't read a damn word I wrote about what you wanted to add. Or if you did, you didn't get it. So here's the blunt version. Your version was poorly written and reliabled on sourcing that is NOT acceptable on Wikipedia. Go read WP:BLPPRIMARY - or to save you the time here's a quote: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Your version simply cannot be used on Wikipedia. In a blog or forum? Go for it. Here? Nope. I rewrote it to cover everything I could based on the secondary source I found. Feel free to find a good secondary source to back up the fraud by conveyance quote. In fact, I hope you do. But this crap post of your will not get you anything further from me. Your edits will be held to the same standard as everyone else's. I help those that ask for it and offer at least a bare minimum of thanks and/or respect. But this crap? Yeah. Right. Ravensfire (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And no, I'm not looking for you to do anything. I don't want you to say anything. Aside from the IP, nobody around here is trying to censor you. Call it out all you want, it's wrong. Wikipedia is NOT a free-for-all, post anything you want with any source you want. The editors as a group determine the policies, including the ones I've linked to, and apply them to everyone. That's not censorship, that's making sure the information is verifiable. That's what an encyclopedia does. For living people, we set the bar even higher. You have to meet the expectations of the sites you post on - it's that simple. And your diatribes do not help you with that. Ravensfire (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Barney Glaser 2

Hello Ravensfire,

I never heard of Barney Glaser until I saw the matter on WP:BLPN. I know nothing about his real estate investments though I just learned he's done deals in the Napa Valley where I live. Also I am a Sierra Club member and I learned that they opposed the Bakersfield project he backed. I don't know why and don't care. I am just disclosing a hypothetical COI in order to deny that I have any interest here.

The newspaper coverage I've read doesn't support any accusations of personal wrongdoing against Glaser. The Bakersfield developers defaulted on the loans Glaser gave them, driving Glaser's investment company into bankruptcy. There may well have been other factors. I don't see any accusations of "fraud" against Glaser in reliable sources. We've got the worst real estate downturn in 80 years. Countless real estate investment firms have failed. In my opinion, we would need much more solid allegations reported in reliable, secondary sources before including such accusatory material in a BLP.

In conclusion, I commend you and support you 100% for the firm approach you took with the editor who wants to comb through bankruptcy court records to imply that Glaser is guilty of fraud. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Barney Glaser

I thank you for not allowing the demonizing being conducted by fearful ignorant people trying to destroy when they are referring to an unproven case of false allegations. This does not belong on Wikipedia and I thank you for bringing it to an end. I apologize for constantly erasing what was written but I don't know how to navigate around Wikipedia and as I know Dr. Glaser very well, it was very upsetting to see this person air all this unproven ugliness. There is only few corrections in your writing and that is Cascade Acceptance Corp. was founded and incorporated in 1968, not 2000, and operated successfully by Dr. Glaser for 40 years until the economic depression, insolvency is an issue to be proven and conversion to chapter 7 was voluntary not ordered by the court. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.201.99 (talk) 21:48, August 14, 2011

Oh yes and to the person who wrote just above me, thank you for your excellent perception. It is refreshing and so true I believe it's Cullen 328. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.201.99 (talk) 21:51, August 14, 2011

Disruptive technology

Wanted to leave a comment about you pulling the nosql from disruptive technologies. What criteria are you using for the crystal ball tag. A significant portion of the traffic on the internet originates from NoSql databases. Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Digg and Netflix are just a few who use NoSql databases. Since Netflix alone accounts for more than 30% of total internet traffic, I would say that NoSql is a major player here and now. One could even argue that Microsoft SharePoint is a NoSql solution running on top of SQL server, given that most of the data is stored as xml vs normalized data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricGhent (talk • contribs) 13:51, August 15, 2011

NoSql is an interesting technology, but it's far, far too early to determine if it's a "disruptive technology". SQL-based databases still have tremendous market share in the overall database market. Using "internet traffic" to measure database use is a really odd metric that doesn't really apply measuring this. It's a potentially disruptive technology, but right now it's too early to call either way. That's the WP:CRYSTAL aspect of it. Ravensfire (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edit of my edit

Thank you for your message. I'm just learning about Wikipedia, so I appreciate your help.

MAConnelly (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Re your messages

Thank you for pointing out this Wiki intro to me. I am fully aware of how Wikipedia works.

Many sites are listed on Wikipedia promoting their paid services.

My site has more free information than most about this subject and, I see no reason at all, why someone searching for information should not be allowed to educate themselves by offering them all sides of the matter?

If that is your view to stop people to have full access to all available information which can be found online or elsewhere, compare and be able to create their own individual view, then you need to be more active in removing links posted on Wiki where the linked information is strictly promotional!

Regards Dennis

DennisDeWitt (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_.28aircraft.29.2C_Witteman-Lewis_XNBL-1

You may want to clarify in the discussion whether you are a party to the dispute or were just trying to fix the discussion - I suspect it is the latter, but it is not entirely clear.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you're correct, I was only there trying to fix the discussion. I added a comment to that effect. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias Reporting

Why is Savive's book not on the list of books? This is very bias reporting on your part. Savive is a reputable forensic scientist with a large following. He is a main poster on www.truejustice,org and has over 60,000 views to his blog since Oct. 2010. Moreover, Savive is one of the only people to have written a book detailing the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. Particularly, Savive is the only one to write a book on the Knox case with a background and expertise in the field. This is something that will surely bring your site, particularly your coverage of the case, negative attention. You need to leave the book as listed or there will be further action taken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbird75 (talk • contribs)

If I may? A further reading section should be limited to the most notable published books which the one you tried to include again is certainly not. Besides that we don't include self-published books. This is the reason that Bruce Fisher's book didn't make it into the article either. BTW, good luck with your "further action" whatever they might be.TMCk (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do, and thanks! TMCk is exactly correct. If you go back into the article talk page archives (32 or 33), you'll find a discussion exactly about the book you added. Everyone in the discussion agreed to remove self-published books from the lists, which should tell you a fair amount. If you would like to add the book back, feel free to start a discussion on the article talk page about it, but I will predict the outcome already. Also Jbird75, please read the WP:NLT page on legal threats. I don't take your last sentence seriously, but be aware if you continue posting along those lines you can end up blocked. Ravensfire (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Good solution. I felt it was a pity to lose a ref (don't know how good it is), it is an added value and someone's hard work, so, glad you saw a way of salvaging it. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Best alternative to a negotiated agreement

Thanks for your intervention on this article. It may be premature for the dispute noticeboard, but is there a better way to get some neutral editors to look into the article? --Macrakis (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. We've got a lot of noticeboards now and sometimes that can backfire. I think the NPOV noticeboard would work pretty well, that's at WP:NPOVN. There's two problems I've got with the section as it is right now. First, it's totally unsourced, meaning it's considered original research. I don't doubt it's sourceable though. My main issues are NPOV and that the section is what's called a WP:COATRACK. Editors are using that article to make points on something totally different. The NPOV noticeboard is pretty good about helping with those scenarios. I've got the BATNA article watched, and I'm planning on going into it this weekend and gutting most of that section at a minimum. Unfortunately, I'm expecting the SPA's to not take that too well, so we'll see what happens. We may end up back at the DRN board over this! Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is WP:Coatrack -- I think I mentioned this in my comments on the Talk page. If you look at the history, you'll see that I tried the 'pruning' approach, but was quickly reverted by one of the SPAs. And that left about 1/2 the content of the section. At this point, I think the whole section needs to go (not just 1/2). But I can't do that unilaterally. That's why I need more uninvolved editors to look into it. --Macrakis (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

In this posting. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh goodie! Such fun happenings this day! </sarcasm> Thanks for the heads upthough, appreciate it. And doubly thanks for the kind words. Ravensfire (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Mad max

Yea, I know, but he really gets my back up! Paul B (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

MedCab Sri Lanka

We've been named as parties. You might want to see my response there. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Be fair and consistant.

Please be fair and consistent you seem to have undid by changes due to it being disputed source even tho its the only possible source. Nonetheless how come you did not undid revision for this dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka#Official_language

If you read the bottom it says "Not done: Request declined" However go to the sri lanka page, and check the official language. You see someone undid the revision and replaced Tamil back there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 21:38, September 18, 2011

'Tis a pity that you can read that section, but fail to do so for the section just two below it. You don't seem to worry about your own edits going against a similar notice, now do you? Ravensfire (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's the notice? my edits was inconclusive, even tho I believe their is no need for further discussion but reinstate my edit. Whats shameful is, you took this time to write something against me, yet didn't revert the edit on the page. Please revert the edit, I'll let you do the honor, since you reverted my inconclusive edit yet failed revert a conclusive one Distributor108 (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think not. The notice that you somehow can't find is in the exact same spot in the religion thread as the one you referenced in your comment to me above, at the end of the thread. It uses the same wording. It means the same thing. Yet you casually ignore it in one case and demand it be followed in a different case. Care to explain that? Ravensfire (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not my performance review, I'm not here to evaluate that.Distributor108 (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you would. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You removed an opinion poll conducted by a UK national radio station.

The poll was a radio poll not an online poll Talksport is the UK's leading national talk radio station so the poll is a respected source — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcAlmond (talk • contribs) 20:05, September 19, 2011

It's usually easier to give someone a clue about which edit, or at least which article you're talking about. There is absolutely no evidence that the poll was anything but a self-selecting poll. And yes, it is an on-line poll. Do a bit of digging (like, ohhh, looking at their current poll which is (SHOCK!) an on-line poll. Polls of that type are not reliable sources for anything. Ravensfire (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Perlow

Are you a Perlow sock, or do you have some financial connection to him? Because the citations were appropriate and reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkzin (talk • contribs) 22:37, September 20, 2011

Sorry, but the sources you are using aren't usable on an [[WP:BLP|article about a living person}}. Please read through WP:RS and WP:BLPSPS. You're using a forum post and a blog post as sources, neither of which are acceptable on BLP articles. If the controversy is truly notable, there will be something about it in reliable sources. If there isn't, it's a good sign that probably it's not too notable. Ravensfire (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Political positions

Hello. I thought you might be interested to contribute to a thread I started at Wikipedia:NPOVN#Political_positions_of... Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you did not respond due to potential canvassing concerns, I posted at the talk page of all five people who commented under Wikipedia:NPOVN#Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul. I am arguing that all Political positions of... articles violate NPOV through a non-neutral article title which does not encourage multiple viewpoints. I am suggesting we move all of these articles to Politics of... articles. This would end the current problem all these articles have: they encourage editors to find only political positions of the said politician (one viewpoint) even if no notable person or organization has commented on that position. If you have a recommendation about how I can move this conversation along, (am I not in the right venue?) please assist. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

== Are None Legal Scholars? ==

It is too bad that the inquiry could not be addressed.

Are there any discussion groups on wikipedia which might be able to address the question?

It should be considered a matter of significant relevance as it is a necessary provision for liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_jury&oldid=455089157#Petition_for_an_Answer_to_an_Open_Legal_Question_-_On_Behalf_of_the_People.27s_Wright_to_Circumvent_Political_Corruption

GeMiJa (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, so there really isn't. And honestly, the LAST place you want to go for legal advice is a forum. Talk to an actual attorney or an advocacy group of attorneys. And the function of grand juries is dramatically different from the 18th and 19th century. Ravensfire (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Giuliano Mignini

The Giuliano Mignini article was recently created. Your help & contributions that you've been working on may be needed there. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh - I was afraid of this. I've stopped following the MoMK a while ago, and taking a quick look it's far better than I thought. I was "shocked" when some of the self-proclaimed "neutrals" managed to ignore Bruce's comments, only the "pro-guilt" would dare suggest his comments went over the line. (All labels as assigned by SPA's on that page). The Mignini article will almost certainly need to be semi'd as the pro-Knox people hammer it far beyond WP:UNDUE over his conviction and appeal. Main reason I've done most of my work off-line on that article as I just kept seeing it turned into an attack page.

Thank for the update though! I'll transfer some of what I've got over to the article and hope for the best. Good luck on the MoMK (and how the other related) article. Ravensfire (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I forgot to get back around to this. Yeah, it hasn't been that bad...of course, I haven't checked what's going on today if anything. :)

I see that you are on top the Mignini article and doing a good job. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ravensfire. You have new messages at Petiatil's talk page.
Message added 14:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Petiatil ^»Talk 14:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, diff - more talkback. Petiatil ^»Talk 14:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

once more diff - Petiatil ^»Talk 15:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the assistance on the Jason Motte matter! I really appreciated it! Kicksav29 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Kicksav29

No problem! Ravensfire (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ra.One

Hey thanks a lot for adopting Ra.One. Was worried how it' possible to work single-handed, hope to work with you together. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind information. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive on Ra.One

Erm, I hope you read here that you need consensus to archive a talk page. Of course, I'm sure you'd have got the consensus, but I'm just saying. Also, you set the counter to 35, and as a result, the archive is beginning at Archive35, and not Archive1, as it should have. Please fix it. Lynch7 16:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I thought my template I use for creating these was set to 1. Gotta fix that next time I'm at work. The counter is now fixed and the erroneous archive moved to 1. I also added a search dialog to the archive header and tweaked the retention days to 30 for slightly longer retention. I honestly didn't ask before setting up the archive, mostly because I don't think I've ever seen that done before. There's nothing in WP:ARCHIVE and I probably haven't looked at the MiszaBot instructions in quite a long time. I'll start asking before-hand. The Ra.One talk page was getting pretty big, which is usually what I've seen as the reasoning. Just before the first archive there were 73 talk section - the first archive at 21 days was some 18 threads and > 32k. It's also moving many of the development and pre-release threads out which helps keep discussion more focused. We're still at > 50 sections which is a lot. Ravensfire (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you ask me, I think its better to remove the auto archive and manually archive it. This is because its a movie article, and though its getting a lot of hits now, after a while the interest will wane, and discussions will stop. We just don't want to give Miszabot more work do we ;) Lynch7 17:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about archives, your talk page could use some archiving! :P Lynch7 18:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, it is getting a bit long. I rarely get many posts, so tend to skip to the end a lot. Time for the 2011 archive! For the article, I think the main reason I did the auto was I don't plan on spending much time following it, and since it hadn't been archived yet, it's easier to just setup the auto archive. Also, on contentious pages, manual archiving can some times lead to really lame arguments while auto is accepted. Contrary editors will sometimes complain about any little thing. It's not a bad point though. Maybe let the auto-archiving run through the end of November then take it off? By then, hopefully most of the main article sections will be nailed down and we'll be looking at only sections for awards and the home releases. We'll let Misza take care of figuring out which talk sections are stale while there are a lot of them, then let the regular editors go from there. Ravensfire (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine. Lets do that then. Lynch7 18:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to help close RSN dispute

May I request you to please participate in closing this reliable sources dispute. I request that the arguments be considered on its merits alone. AshLin (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Place warning template when reverting vandalism

Based on your revert of User:Lilmon10233 at Internal Revenue Service, I placed the warning template on User talk:Lilmon10233. Senator2029║talk 00:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed: The United States dollar is the official currency of the United States of America

[Citation Needed: The United States dollar is the official currency of the United States of America] Hi. How come the reference to citation needed was reverted? Mizerydearia (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tell ya what, you find something about anything else being the official currency of the US, and I won't change it. Until then, we're not playing that game. Ravensfire (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I want a cite for things falling when you drop them. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Gravity sucks! *grin* Ravensfire (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's just Earth. ;p At the top of the Earth's gravity well, it ain't so bad. Life here really is the pits. :D (WP makes it bearable. :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ra.One Issue

Hello. Please comment here and put up your opinion regarding this issue. Your help will be much appreciated. Thank You. AnkitBhatt^WDF 15:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That was the exact same feeling I had when I read those comments: sheer laughter at her nonsense. And you should see what she posted at my talk page after your comment. I hope you have enough time to put up your consensus as well; Scieberking is doing flip-flops on policies and is inconsistent in applying them everywhere. From my perspective, he seems totally hell-bent on giving Ra.One a lesser gross, and does not want it to be a GA. Most surprising. Cheers. AnkitBhatt^WDF 05:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate if you stop discussing me everywhere (and making accusations) and carry on with the dicussion which I've quit a few days ago. Thanks in advance for your favor. Scieberking (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh! So now its called accusations. Really Scieberking? What about that wonderful discussion you had regarding Ready? Care to explain exactly why you were so hell-bent on taking a non-BOI vedict for that? Totally inconsistent wiht this stance is the fact that you have strongly insisted only BOI for Ra.One. Why my friend? Why? And quitting just because some amount of truth has been revealed is certainly not what I expected form you. AnkitBhatt^WDF 12:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You're getting it all wrong, bud. All I said about Ready was to use both Taran and BOI, and that only for the verdict, not box office collections. Actually, we'd reached a consensus on RSN to continue using Taran's work. Like the same way we use both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for an aggregated review score. And there was no early talk page consensus on that article to use BOI's verdict only. Regarding the critical response thing, I was the one who changed it back to "mixed"; 1. It's really interesting to know that you think some amount of truth has been revealed about me. There are a thousand more facts, but I don't want to get into it again (you may have read my reason here). I'm sorry if you still feel bad about me, but I hope you respect my decision. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well there won't be any need. I doubt I will see any editbox again, so I hope to keep my last conversations peaceful. Cheers, and good luck with whatever you do. AnkitBhatt^WDF 14:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wanna help over?

Hey! After seeing all this rubbish regarding Ra.One gross, I hit upon a brilliant plan. I intend to publish a new WikiComedy which will help all stressed and overworked Wikipedia editors unwind after a long day. The title of it is The Seeta Mayya Saga. But I can't do this alone. I'll need some help. What say you??? :D.

bolly business

Someone else is now using this site, including here, saying that their info is derived from a good source: FilmInformation Magazine. I don't know if it's good or not. Could you take a look? BollyJeff || talk

Good call on the revert (and I see Meryam90 also reverted them). Ouch ... that looks like a potential problem editor. No talk page edits. Something Laliteis mentioned in their edit comment may be helpful there. They said that the blog post referred to another source, if someone can find THAT source, pull information from it and use that as the reference, it should work okay (assuming that new source is RS, of course). I'll see if I can help out w/ the editor. Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)