User talk:Ravensfire/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Happy New Year!

Happy 2012 !!!
Dear Ravensfire,

May the Year to Come Bring You Great Happiness.

Very Best Wishes,

SuperMarioMan 02:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Louis McFadden article

Thanks for the info, I assumed any printed reference is considered a reliable source. I will review the guidelines and make sure I stick the rules, thanks WikiSAF (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. SilverserenC 01:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your warning

warnings to other editors that they are engaging in unacceptable practices is part of what the talk page is all about.71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Leave it then

That's about as bold a front as I can put up for an edit. I stand by my argument, but I also know what's required to win out an edit dispute and I'll spare us both all that noise. Just remember, the general public treats this wiki as authoritative. Don't abuse them. And you can delete this after reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.184.114 (talk) 12:07, January 17, 2012‎

If you don't want to use the article talk page to discuss this, that's fine. You've been pointed to it multiple times and invited to discuss it. Wikipedia isn't a place to list all the various crazy theories that anyone has had about everything. Fringe theories that get noticed and mentioned in mainstream sources ARE covered and mentioned here, because that's the standard of inclusion. There has to be some way to determine what should and shouldn't be covered, and that's the standard used. Ravensfire (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ica stones

Hello. In your edit you suggest I should take it to talk. If you take a look at Talk:Ica stones#Taken to Spain? and follow the links you will see that I have already done that at great length, but with, in the end, no useful result. If you are willing to take part yourself in the discussion on the talk page, I will happily join in. If not, could I respectfully suggest that you don't edit the article either. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

regarding the FED

Hello Ravensfire! You have said:

"The nature of the Federal Reserve System is correctly noted in the article. It's a hybrid system, with public and private aspects. The individual Federal Reserve Banks are clearly noted in the article as being private institutions. Ravensfire (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)"

You seem to accept my definition in the TALK post but you overwright it in the READ version.

1. I wonder if you feel that my defition(words I choose) are to strongly stated in the READ version or is it because you have evidence or definitions that proves otherwise?

2. I wonder why you are not OK with my definition and the court law decision in Ellen Browns book that stated FED as an privately driven entity? Since a court of law made that decision I would like if you could come with a reference that over rules that decision amd also in what way FED is contributing to the general public with the debt based monetary system. So to speak what and how does the public benefit economicaly. FED is also not responsible to no goverment so there is no transparancy on how they do business or who they loan to. IF it where for the public interest then it would of have been a transparent entity which it is NOT. It is only private driven entities that protect their buniness. Could you please reflect on these issues and come back with your argument, thank you. /C

Lewis is specific to the Federal Reserve BANK, not the Federal Reserve SYSTEM. Please review some of the previous discussions on the FRS talk page and archives about this. As I said, the article does say exactly that - each FRB is a private institution. The rest is just forum stuff basically, debate it elsewhere, not here, please. Ravensfire (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

When you commented on the article talk page I didnt understand what you were talking about. Thanks for writing me on my talk page and enlightening me. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Samanta Institute

Thank you for touching up this page. There are still a lot of problems though. As I am directly involved with this school as one of the writers countering the slanderous claims, I noticed you have removed all the links to actual court documents. If you read through the links to news articles you left up, almost all of them are allegations with no backing evidence. There are 3-4 people that keep going to the news media, claiming abuse, etc, but absolutely NO court evidence, etc to back them up. The local news stations have taken their stories and run with them. It is word against word. If you are going to give their side a platform to speak from, then it is only fair that you give the other side a platform as well and source to their news sites. After all, not a SINGLE PERSON from ANY of the news agencies in the area have even so much as requested an interview with any of the current board members of SIST.

Please remove all links to slanderous articles against SIST which include the following:

Anything related to Rick Ross, as that source speaks for itself. It is a hate-filled website with slanderous news against almost every minority group in the country. The name change documents to here and here, since you took down all other links to court documents at Hidden World News, it's only fair. Shawano Leader is one of the worst, in fact here is a picture of Tim Ryan, the editor, in an actual court room with one of the previous board members. Anything Tim Ryan says cannot be used as a nonPOV source. Almost all of the videos/articles on this site are slanted and biased....none of them interview anybody who works for SIST, nor do they source to the school in India. Every single article was intended to intimidate and create animosity. Go through them for yourself and see if you can find any hard evidence, etc... They are filled with allegations and slander. They are filled with comments such as "spiritual leader," "cult", etc, proving themselves to be unreliable. And then last, but not least, is this link you left up. First page of it claims SIST is a "secretive organization"....a simple google search proves that to be quite untrue. There is so much stuff out there on SIST that people even make stuff up just to keep the drama going. Obviously they are not an unbiased pov as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerev HaEmet (talk • contribs) 12:27, March 2, 2012‎Sorry, forgot to sign. ThanksKerev HaEmet (talk)

One last thing I'd like to add, due to the lack of unbiased resources in this case, it is probably good that this is coming down. All allegations of it being a 'cult' 'religious group' etc can be traced back to people who claim to have been involved in some sort of religious group, but supply no hard evidence of SIST being a religious group. That is why it is such a hot topic. In fact, almost all of the allegers claim to not be involved in SIST since the 1980's, but SIST was formed in 1993. There allegations would be laughable if not for the damage they have caused this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerev HaEmet (talk • contribs) 12:51, March 2, 2012‎

Thank you for your message, it's good to see some discussion on this. Please read through the Wikipedia policies on original research and reliable sources when you can. They are important policy that controls what information goes in an article and what can be used as a source. For the most part, newspapers are considered de facto reliable sources. The RickRoss site is more of a collection of articles - I'm not using it as a reference but as a convenience link for some of the articles he has copied. The references themselves specifically point to the actual article / author. I'll look at the court documents, but care has to be taken using them. They are considered primary sources and absolutely no conclusions can be drawn from them, directly or indirectly, without a secondary sources that makes that conclusion. Court documents are usually only good to source specific phrases or that event X happened (for example, a decision being appealed).
Another core WP policy, NPOV works on keeping articles as neutral as possible, using available sources as the determinant of what that means. Basically, the article must reflect the views in reliable secondary sources in relation to the relative weight of each view in those articles. To be honest, this article is going to be challenging as there are SPA's from both sides involved in the article and having a conflict of interest as you and several others do makes that even more difficult.
What secondary, reliable sources do you think will be helpful to include in the article, especially for the statements in the article currently flagged as needing citations? Please note that the Hidden World News site does NOT meet the criteria for a reliable source and will not be used in the article. Likewise, most blog sites, unless by an acknowledged expert in the field, are not acceptable either. But finding more sources to back up existing information is always a good thing.
Right now my goal is to remove much of the badly/poor information in the article and the pure POV spin that's been added, then work on finding sources for what's left without references. Mostly, that's to give the AFD some chance of a decent view of the article. There's a lot of information that I'm sure both sides would like to see added that won't for various reasons (WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, etc). Ultimately, the existance of the article, and if it stays the information in the article will be driven solely by what in reliable sources based on how Wikipedia defines that term. Ravensfire (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the edits. I checked out the sources that you have up there right now. If you won't go to Hidden World News, that's too bad. They are the best sourced news site on this topic, containing 14,000 pics, hundreds of hours of video, surveillance, etc, and hundreds of legal documents. They are the only people I know brave enough to publish information on this topic. A simple message to them would get you all the info you need. The local news site wouldn't dare...their editors and reporters would lose their jobs. You should see how people get attacked for daring to side with Dr Cohen, SIST, or any other non-white non-Christian in that area. I don't know any other way to say this than it has got to be the MOST biggoted narrow-minded location in the United States. Here is an article that came out in Russia Today that should give you a hint that the President of SIST isn't the only racially and culturally persecuted human being in the area. From Schoolgirl banned from playing basketball for speaking Native American language

I have not been able to find any NPOV articles, but 7 of the 9 you have cannot stay. Dr Cohen is not SIST, and vice versa, and this isn't a bio, so the whole name paragraph and everything linking to it should probably get cut.

The only sources that are written NPOV are 1 and 2. The next 4 link to articles about Dr Cohen. Is this a bio? If so, then it should be renamed Dr Avraham Cohen and treated as a bio. SIST has 12 board members. Not a single news reporter has interviewed any of the board members, so cannot be treated as experts. They are rumor and gossip experts, but that is about all they are good for.

This is the worst one of all the links. SIST loses bankruptcy protection at link 8. Check out the first line "The secretive organization in Shawano that was tied to an implied threat list last November, has lost...." Lets put this in perspective: They say "secretive", yet according to link 1 somehow even got financial records, etc about the company. If I dig up all of your financial records for no reason other than curiosity and to give them out to everyone just to harass you, would you not find that a little creepy? Would you not feel a little violated? Like being raped of your privacy? Then to be called secretive! The irony never ends! Nevertheless, obviously they aren't to secretive with their information if a tiny newspaper company the size of my garage can find it. Secondly, the implied threat list went like this: SIST was notified through the news media that they had been implicated in an alleged list of implied threats. A Canadian named Bob Cameron went to the mayor claiming that SIST put a hit out on 60 people. FBI investigated, no arrests were made, in fact, nobody from SIST was even questioned about the matter. Yet, the every news media in the area ran the story for months claiming SIST was going to kill somebody. How about if I turn this whole thing around. How would you feel if I did that to you? I could go to youtube and other sites doing the same thing to you, possibly generating millions of hits in a matter of a month. Would you like your name drug through the mud on Wikipedia over it? That wouldn't be very fair nor in the interest of humanity, would it. That is why this article and the whole news source should be discredited.

Please try to remember I am not trying to attack you in any way, I am just trying to put it in a personal perspective to you so you understand what they are going through. Hopefully that link to Russia Today from todays article proves to you how twisted this whole area is. The racial and religious intolerance is not just against SIST and its board of directors, it even happens to little kids in school in that town. It is HELL....I can't stress that enough.

Thank you for your time and effort, it is much appreciated. Kerev HaEmet (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. Until there is a concensus otherwise, the sources used in the article do meet the criteria for being reliable sources for Wikipedia. You need to get concensus on the article talk page or on the Reliable Source Noticeboard before discarding them. You'll note that there are several stories around SIST that I have intentionally left out of the article, in particular that entire hit list story you just brought up. Arguably, that's something that should be included because it did get national media attention. At best, it's probably 2-3 lines though to keep it as NPOV. With regards to the Russia Today article, if it's not directly related to SIST, I frankly don't care. Trying to hint at things or draw conclusions not specifically made in a secondary source is beyond what Wikipedia does. There's a lot of critical information about SIST out there and you've quite obviously got a strong conflict of interest as a supporter of the group. That's going to make working on the article difficult for you as our article MUST reflect the views represented in secondary sources. The recent stuff from the bankruptcy probably will need to be added some as the controversy about the legal filing remarks, sanctions from the judge and arrests is fairly notable.
At times, Wikipedia can be a harsh mirror to look into, but it's supposed to be a mirror of the information that's out there. You need to understand that - we don't do our own research. We summarize the information in sources that meet our criteria. That's it. Hidden World News absolutely does not meet that criteria. I'm being blunt about things because you need to understand how WP works and functions. Ravensfire (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your points are well-taken, and I questioned the whole issue as well until I saw what Hidden World News has in their stash of docs in this case. I saw for myself the 10,000+ pictures of damage to SIST's properties, went through attorney reviews on close to 2000 legal documents, and started tracing sources of the information being given to the public. SIST has never gotten a fair shake at an interview from the local news media. If you read the articles online, you get a very slandered picture of the real people. I spent almost two weeks reviewing docs and doing interviews with a number of people. All of them very distinguished, and definitely more educated than me, and probably you as well. Dr Cohen came here to study Nuclear Physics. Naomi Isaacson is an attorney. Roger Sindt is an electrical engineer. The list goes on and on, I don't remember the rest on the list and don't have my notes in front of me, but I know there was at least one more lawyer and two doctors. These are not "cult members" as the media plays them out to be. They are more intelligent than 90% of the population of Shawano. That is when I started tracing sources and goals of those propagating the news....obviously that is what Hidden World News does.

What are your reasons for not linking to Hidden World News? I am freelance, so maybe I can hit up some different sources, but what exactly makes WLUK or Shawano Leader more knowledgeable than HWN? After all, unless I was mislead somehow, none of the other news places have the docs HWN has. That clearly makes them a pretty well-versed source. Also, I talked to another writer who has actually received death threats over this stuff, which tells me the city is definitely not on the up and up like they claim they are....but that's not surprising. I've gotten them myself in other issues like the Genocide in Guatemala.

You need to review the WP:RS web page - that's how Wikipedia determines what is and is not a reliable source. I've pointed you multiple times to that page. Since you apparently haven't, let's take a deeper look at HWN, focusing in on the RS requirements. HWN is obviously a blog site, so we look at the WP:SPS section. There is no obvious editorial oversight of the information on that page. Everything on the site is anonymous which is a huge red flag. A brief read of the current blog post shows an amazing lack of verification, especially the references towards me. An administrator? Really? Hardly - you can fairly easily discover that I am, in fact, just an editor like you are. There's a WP:List of administrators page that contains the full list of administrators or simply asking me (or most other editors) if I was an admin would have gotten you or whoever posts on HWN that information. I also told you above that the site doesn't meet our criteria for being an RS, but that was never looked into or asked. A reliable site that did adequate fact checking would have dug into that, asking questions and researching. Indeed, someone who was truly trying to get to the bottom would probably have posted something on RP:RSN (which I pointed you to above) to get a second opinion about the site. The innuendos directed towards me don't really help things that much either.
If you've got solid research and information, get it published some where that meets Wikipedia's RS criteria. Something self-published, anonymous or not, is rarely acceptable. Note that RickRoss.com is considered self-published, but I'm not using that as a source for anything, just as a courtesy link to articles that aren't fully available on-line. Ross has a reputation for a certain POV, but he also has a reputation for maintaining accurate copies of articles. So the site to the original article with a courtesy link to there is acceptable. I avoid that when possible.
Your friends efforts to deface the article are obviously going to fail and after several of their attempts to vandalize the article it was put under semi-protection to stop them. The intent is to push new editors to use the talk page to politely discuss changes. Attacks will be removed from the talk page. I did get a chuckle out of the usernames, but names like that usually end up blocked until they request a new name. It's difficult to work with someone that's trying to insult and demean you. Ultimately, it's your choice how you want to edit on Wikipedia. Understand that, as with any large enough group, there are rules and policies to prevent total anarchy and chaos and those that go against those policies will find their welcome worn out. Please pass that along to those responsible for the vandalism. Ravensfire (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is to inform you that there is currently a peer review going on for the article Ra.One here. Your participation is most welcome. Regards, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll take a look. Ravensfire (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ra.One

Could you take a look here, go down to the bottom and see the problems regarding the critical reception section? I'd be much obliged. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Obama Birth Certificate

Stop removing my edits. You accept sources like the Arizona Free Press to support your arguments but not the actual footage from youtube? Wow. Your Liberal is showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starmanres (talk • contribs) 10:51, March 14, 2012

Hmmm, let me think ... stop removing edits that push an obviously fringe POV, using terrible sources ... I think not. First, YouTube is generally a terrible source. At best. I'd explain further, but your mind is so closed it's not worth the effort. Read about what Wikipedia considers good sources at the reliable source article. None of your sources would be considered reliable. Ravensfire (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh so lets see... Actual video of the release is NOT a reliable source, but a Free weekly newspaper from Arizona is?!?! And Factcheck.org is a reliable source? Why not the DailyKos or Huffington Post?!? Oh wow! It only is because it tells the story you want to fool everyone into believing. It is obvious that Liberal Bias is all over this page. The entire thing stinks of it! It may be time for my conservative friends to enjoy a few hours on Wikipedia working against Liberal lies. It is obvious you have had full reign for too long.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starmanres (talk • contribs) 11:03, March 14, 2012‎
First, please sign your posts when leaving a comment. It's as simple as typing ~~~~, or clicking on the signature button in the editor.
Second, read the RS article, please. It's obvious you haven't. Wikipedia isn't about spreading WP:THETRUTH, but what can be reliably sourced and verified. Arpaio's investigation is good for his opinion of the matter - that's it. Oddly, you've apparently missed that we've got a section about it in the article already. Shockingly, it's got flaws. And sorry, I'm not a liberal by any stretch. More of a libertarian than a conservative, but liberal? If you'd like to continue talking about your edit to the article, please use the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2012

(UTC)I don't wish to sound unappreciative for your help. I obviusly am new to editing Wikipedia so I do appreciate you providing direction. But even as a Libertarian you have to read through this article and go WTF? I wasn't a "Birther" until Obama released his Birth Certificate. I am a Photoshop Power User and when I pulled it up, it is obvious that it has 9 separate layers. The Mainstream Media has Photoshop so they already know what I do. I just don't understand how "opinion" statements like "fringe" can be used to define someone that obviously knows the truth but "Mainstream" can be used to define something that is proven false. I posted the USA Today poll that showed that 47% of the public did not believe that Obama was definitely born in the United States. That is from a major U.S. Publication, why would that not be considered a "reliable source"? Starmanres (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Huge swaths of the human race believe in astrology, feng shui, auras and indigo children. That does not obligate us to report such beliefs as if they proved anything. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The Gallup poll (discussed in the USA Today article) is already noted in the article: [1] --Weazie (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
While astrology, feng shui, auras and indigo children are a belief, Photoshop is a constant. The layers are present, undeniable and easy to prove. I'm not saying Obama wasn't born in the U.S., I'm saying the Birth Certificate is 100%, without a doubt, altered. Starmanres (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There were several articles talking about this when it came out. Depending on the scanner and software used, layers can be an entirely normal artifact of the process. To some extent, it can also be taken as a sign of accuracy. If someone was really using layers to create a forgery, they'd flatten the image out before releasing it to create a pristine copy. When scanning a real copy, they wouldn't care. No, I don't have the links at hand, but I suspect you can google for it fairly easily. Ravensfire (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
And never mind - here's a link to a National Review editorial on exactly this. [2] In other words, layers are a normal artifact of the scanning process. You cannot use their existence to prove a forgery (or lack thereof). People that are using the mere presence of layers to claim forgery are showing signs of shoddy investigation work. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
A scanned document shows up as individual "snapshots" linked together, not layers. I use Photoshop everyday for my work and see scanned documents. Any "merged" document can be "unmerged" and each layer identified. The Birth Certificate released by Obama has 9 separate layers. The Text is a solid layer typed and pasted on a transparent background. The Green Paper background is a separate layer and is completely blank except for the headers. Each signature is a separate layer and, if you zoom in on the edges of some signatures, it is obvious that they were copied from documents that had a white background. While the creator of the document was obviously experienced at using the software, it would be easy for someone who understands the way Photoshop works to see what was done. I'm not some conspiracy addict, I just know the facts. The facts are that the document is not a scanned document and that the signatures and background are not orginal to the typed areas of the form. I didn't release the document, Obama did. So shouldn't this be something he should have to answer for? Starmanres (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you want. But personal beliefs is exactly the sort of originial research that wikipedia prohibits. Youtube videos are not reliable sources. Arpaio's press conference is a primary source; wikipedia relies on secondary sources. The article also mentions Arpaio's press conference.
Blanking the three WP:3RR edit war notices that you received (from three different editors) will have no effect; the report on your edit warring notes that you were warned. --Weazie (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah so Wikipedia is not about accuracy, it's about who can blank out the other person's information? What I posted is not "what I believe", it is fact and the way it is. Period. You can therefor believe whatever fiction you wish to believe but facts are facts and cannot be blanked out or called inaccurate. That's the really cool thing about facts - They're never inaccurate. I do find it highly interesting that this page is so heavily watched to remove anything deemed not properly sourced by the source police. There has to be a huge reason for that. Could it be protecting these thinly sourced comments currently on the page? I'll look through the rules and get the proper sourcing for my posts. I'm sure there is some fly by night rag to source my point as you have already posted. Thank you for your help.Starmanres (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
As you say, facts are facts, but you're ignoring any facts not supporting your view. That's bad. Go and read WP:V - Wikipedia is about verifiable information, not WP:THETRUTH. What's gets put in articles is information as it's portrayed in independent sources. An editor here has a comment that if WP was around in Christopher Columbus's time, it would have a lot of information about the earth being flat because that was a strong view back then. I'm surprised at your "highly interesting" comment - this was something getting a fair amount of attention for a couple of short periods of time. Why WOULDN'T it be watched? There's a lot of crap floating around that people try to shove into articles all the time (see all of the Tax Protestor articles) that does need to be removed. The sources used in your original edit are not up to WP standards. It's that simple. The Arpaio video? One, you sourced to a copyright violation. Don't like that? Too bad. It is. Two, it shows Joe's view, and only his view. That's it. We already cover his view. That view is rejected by just about every independent secondary source out there. Could it be that we're preventing highly fringe views from being shoved into the article far in excess of their actual WP:WEIGHT? You betcha. Ravensfire (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Some other wikipedia rules that you might want to "look through": assume good faith, be civil, and that wikipedia is not a forum. --Weazie (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Starmanres was blocked indefinitely. --Weazie (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Reliable sources

If you have the time, would you mind offering an opinion regarding reliable sources and the attribution of opinions and statements provided by Warren Commission critics? Thanks! Location (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Leave Reid Jackson page alone

Reid Jackson page should be about the entrepreneur. There is a lot of press surrounding him at the moment in the UK and in the Teenage Republicans party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.128.219 (talk) 15:57, March 16, 2012‎

Not how things work here - you're removing an existing page. Create a new page for the entrepreneur Jackson. Ravensfire (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

How can this problem be reviewed by qualified Stewards and Administrators?

Please see User:Healthnet11/dispute for the problem I tried to resolve with the dispute resolution board. Quickly discussion closed by the cited Steward, Administrator, and Editor. They operate freely in Wikipedia and display severe conflicts of interest. How can I get a wider posting of the problem?Healthnet11 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

United States Virgin Islands Republican caucuses, 2012

Why do you keep reverting my edits? Please be specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemoliberestquicorporiservit (talk • contribs) 21:41, March 16, 2012‎

Use. The. Article. Talk. Page. That's what it's there for. Start the discussion, I'll reply. How many times do I need to point you that way? Ravensfire (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Samanta

if you need anything userified to rewrite, let me know on my talk p. . I appreciate the work you've done on it so far, & I hope you do rewrite it--we ought to have an article, but the existing one & its history really had to go. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Now at User:Ravensfire/Samanta Institute of Science and Technology. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

WHy do you hate Ron Paul so much?

Why do you seem to hate ron paul so much, admitedlly i dont know much about US politics (as am not from US), but he seems the least insane of the republican candidates, and definately less of a war mongerer than all the rest, especially ayotollah santoroum and newt gingrich. isnt that supposed to be a good thing, please help me understand, because am finding it difficult to decipher US politics and Americans in general--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you'd be quite wrong. Paul's got a lot of good idea but also quite a few really bad ones. He's probably the best person, but ultimately I think he's totally unelectable because he is up-front about his views towards things. Ravensfire (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thats interesting to here. can you give examples of why he is un electable, is it because the media said so? he probably has most delegates already (from caucuses). whats his really bad ideas --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
lol - you really think he's got the most delegates? Sorry, not even close. He has some, but way, way behind. And honestly, not going to discuss my views on him beyond what I've said. You've got an extremely shallow viewpoint of people based on the assumptions you continue to make and frankly, it's not worth my time or effort to educate you. Ravensfire (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
its true, what do you expect , am not from USA so dont know much about its politics. i see it on face value. ron paul=good, not a war mognerer, everyone else=bad. i got interested in US politics after my brother died in iraq, so am hoping america doesnt elect another war mongerer who decides to "liberate" a country in the middle east. i wanted obama to win in 2008, now i want ron paul to win, as it seems obama is also a war mongerer and liar like all your presidents. are you a republican or democrat by the way?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Joe Belicek

The changes i.e. deletions of my input to Wikipedia are dubious to say the least. For example, the resurection of the name vaulalbum (Denes & Schifermueller, 1775)entry (Nymphalis) are patently wrong as the name vaualbum is a nomen nudum (i.e. published without a description) and according to The Internationational Code of Zoological Nomenclaturesuch a name is invalid. Who ever makes these decissions is either unaware of these facts or ignorant of the science of taxonomy. It does not help the genaral public to be mislead.

I offered my best professional advice. I will be glad to work wit you to get the facts right. I have studied butterfly taxonomy for over 40 years. Wikipedia is a wonderfull tool, only if it can contain the current state of knowledge. My best regards.

Joe Belicek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Belicek (talk • contribs) 02:22, April 4, 2012

Will reply on the editor's talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ra.One nominated for Featured Article

This notice is to inform you that I have nominated the article Ra.One for a featured article promotion. The nomination can be viewed here. Any comments are welcome at the article's or my talk page. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

why delete the 11th Circuit opinion?

Why are you deleting an 11th Circuit opinion? Do you just not like the opinion? Sammy131 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you like quoting a decision that has been vacated? I pointed this out on the talk page before your comment above, hoping you'd take the hint. You hadn't, so I explicitly pointed this out on the page. The decision you are quoted was vacated. By the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals itself. That took just a few moments in google to find out. If you want to quote court cases, you MUST do more research! So why do you quote opinions that are vacated? Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Your suggestion for posting qeustions, suggestions for debate is a good one but I am afraid that this is not the right venue. Thanks anyway. A s for future editing, if and when I have the time, I may do so. I feel that Wikipedia is a very powerfull resource. If I can contribute to the cause, I will be glad to help. I am learning how to use the tools. --Joe Belicek (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse - possible sock

That User:Researcher47 is a possible sock did cross my mind when I answered the question, especially when i had a look at their contribution history but AGF and innocent until proven guilty etc. And if they are a sock, it cost me nothing but a few minutes typing. NtheP (talk)

That's what I was guessing from the comments in your post, but I wanted to make sure you (or anyone else) knew that the user is suspected of being a sock. Great response to her question, btw! Ravensfire (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka arb request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sri Lanka Demographics Distributor108 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Saw it, laughed at it. ArbCom is for conduct, not content disputes. Having multiple editors disagree with you about sources is content. Having multiple noticeboard disagree with your and ignoring that is pushing conduct which is where you're starting to head. ArbCom WILL NOT make a call on one source or the other. They don't do that. They ONLY review editor conduct. Frankly, you just tossed out a WP:BOOMERANG that won't end well if this gets accepted. Ravensfire (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
And given everything, I went with the approach that it's best kept as a content dispute meaning the case is declined and did not comment. You are pushing the WP:Tenditious editing line in my view. Ravensfire (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

FOSWIKI

Hi I see that you prodded this article. Prod isn't valid for articles that have been through AFD and a G4 CSD might have been more appropriate if a deleted article had been deleted. In the case of a redirect, its simpler to just restore it, which I did. Spartaz Humbug! 03:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ravensfire, the AFD flag is old and the arguments changed, we are not talking about which one is the fork. Both softwares deserves to have its pages. Spartaz, I'm reverting to Ravensfire version with the warning. Ravensfire, how should I proceed to revert the AFD decision (so people stop just deleting the article)? Jonas Fagundes (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Come to my talkpage to discuss this. Spartaz Humbug! 13:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

doing things right here on wikipedia

You added a big "welcome" prefab to my Talk page that I didn't realize was done by you. Indeed, you did sort of say "Hi, I'm here to help." Apologies for my first edit.

You then asked me not to edit Talk pages in the manner which I had done earlier. I'm still kind of perplexed on HOW I can effectively address particular issues buried deep within other people's writing without interjecting comments.

I don't see how I can communicate just as effectively about each of the issues I needed to address without interjecting.

How can I get my comment to be taken IN SITU in text that I don't edit?

Hey, not a problem. WP gets confusing for everyone, not just new editors. You are correct, it can be tough to respond to people's comments when you want to comment on multiple points. The problem is that when you intersperse your comments in the middle of a previous comment, it starts to get difficult to know who said what. You comment, then I reply, then someone else jots in the middle of your comment, then you reply to that, I interject, etc. When you leave a talk page post, you can add 4 tildes (~~~~) that will automatically add your username and timestamp (a signature). When comments are left in the middle, that breaks down quickly. Signatures are at the end, so with just a couple of comments in the middle, it's suddenly difficult to follow who said what.
As with most large sites, Wikipedia has developed conventions for using talk pages. In general, commenting after someone else's post and using indentions is seen as the best of bad alternatives. When I'm responding to someone else's post that has multiple points, my approach will vary. Often, I'll just make my points, using different paragraphs for each one. If I think that another reader won't know what I'm commenting about, I'll put a quick summary in front. "With regard to point A, I believe X, Y and Z". Yeah, it's wordy, and more than a few times it drives me nuts. There is a page that might help for using talk pages effectively - WP:TALK. Hope that helps explain a bit! Ravensfire (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
What'd really rock would be if I could figure out how to do that "Examplebox" style formatting. That'd ensure my words are attributed to me, and others words stay attributed to others. Thoughts? PaulReiber (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way - on the edits in question - I was the person who created that whole section, so I did feel a bit more free to rework the content and intersperse things than I would have on a page/section that I hadn't initially created. On a TWiki wiki, that's a common mentality. ...Is that wrong-thinking on Wikipedia, or does the original author of a section have some say with regards to edits? PaulReiber (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Foswiki

Ravensfire - just wondering - what's next in the process for the Foswiki page? What more will be necessary to get that "Page nominated for deletion" banner off of the top, and get the page left in place, independent of the TWiki page? This process stuff is frustrating!

  • A week after opening the AFD will be reviewed by an admin. Non policy based decisions will be ignored and the discussion will either be relisted or closed depending on whether the admin sees a clear consensus. If there is no sourcing than the consensus will either be delete or redirect back to where it was. This is the way it works and when you come to another wiki you have to accept their rules for determining content. Spartaz Humbug! 07:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
OK I'm new here so I'm guessing you're pals, and you often answer questions people direct to Ravensfire? I would find it disconcerting if someone answered for me.
Spartaz, what does this mean: "Non policy based decisions will be ignored" - what's a policy-based-decision vs. a non-policy-based-decision?
...next... "and the discussion will either be relisted or..." ...do you mean, "the topic page will either be"? What's a "relisted discussion"?
Also, what does this mean: "If there is no sourcing than the consensus will either be" - what do you mean by "sourcing"?
Thanks in advance for your answers!
Lastly, re: rules for determining content - I think you misinterpreted me - I'm not rejecting the WP rules, only frustrated that they're not clearer. For example, on the header for a page that's a candidate for deletion, it'd rock for there to be a direct link that explains clearly what the process will be, what the next steps are, how to vote on the matter, and where that page is in terms of progress with the process. PaulReiber (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Good Advice Paul. If I can remember, I'll do something about that. Its usual for anyone to answer questions on anyone's page. We have them watchlisted and I could answer the question. And, no we are not pals, my only previous interaction was to advise Ravensfire that a semi-speedy deletion tag that had placed was incorrectly used. Now to answer your questions as best I can, inclusion is determined by the Wikipedia understanding of the term notability. The relevant overarchiong guideline is the general notability guideline and there is also a sub guideline for web pages. Essentially, to be notable a subject should have been written about by secondary reliable sources. Deletion discussions run 7 days but if an admin thinks the consensus isn't clear they can relist it for further comments. In closing we only take account of vote that reflect our polices so 60 users saying its great have no value against a vote that says I checked, here here here and here and no sources so this should be deleted. On the other hand 60 delete votes for no sources wouldn't count if someone then produced a few decent sources. Its the value of the argument against the determining policy that wins the day. Please give me a shout on my talk page if you would like me to expand on this a bit more. Spartaz Humbug! 02:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, like so many good ideas, this has already been looked at. The AFD tag clearly links the guide to deletion which in turn very clearly at the top shows precisely the page you were asking about. I hope that you were able to find the pages and find some useful advice. If you have any ideas on how to improve these pages you are welcome to improve them and if the change is reverted, you can discuss them on the talk page and see whether other users agree with your ideas. I see someone is makeing a real effort to source this page. I'm going to give them time to finish and will then review them to see whether the reason for nomination has been satisifed. Spartaz Humbug! 17:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

TSA

These are relevant since they involve people who are making intimate contact with passengers. In some cases, such as the attempted rape of a minor in ATL, the incident occurred at the airport while the screener was on duty.

These incidents speak to the vetting of the agencies personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisher1949 (talk • contribs) 14:19, May 5, 2012‎

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for your help,oversight,advice and kindness. Now I only have to keep myself from responding to certain MMAFanboys.Newmanoconnor (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U notice

As you have worked with User:Agent00f, I wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f. I know it's moving backwards, but I'd like to have all previous attempts at least tried before going for the final solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As an outsider who has looked at this RfC/U, I see Agent00f has indicated that you have not sufficiently tried and failed to resolve the dispute concerning his conduct. Could you please supply evidence (in the form of diffs) to indicate otherwise? Alternatively, if you move your name down to the next list 'users who endorse this cause for concern', that will ensure people do not get distracted with the conduct concerning Agent00f. Diffs are easier to work through for outsiders than links of lengthy discussions alone - and it may attract more input too. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A Bunny for You

A Bunny for You
I see seven or so experienced, thoughtful Wikipedias who all see eye to eye. That sounds like the community speaking. I trust the community more than I trust my own view. You are all probably right and I am wrong.
I hope you find a lasting solution, as wasted keystrokes on back pages is one of the great tragedies at Wikipedia.
I look forward to working with you one day when we are both paddling in the same direction.
Much respect and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo
Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Interlibertarians.... again

It's returned... Would you help me to clean the mess?--Louisbeta (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Such a pain. Sorry for really just getting to this, got some nasty e-mails a few months back that, combined with some other things, kept me from getting near this place for a while. I'll comment on the AFD probably this weekend. Appreciate the heads up. Ravensfire (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you remove my wikipedia addition?

Hi. I thought I was talking to VQuakr but then your username showed up afterwards, so that must mean you want to be my contact for this factual addition. Regarding your opinion that I was drawing conclusions from data... I have only added facts, not conclusions to the page, which after all is why people join wikipedia. Anyone can use the data supplied from the 100% reliable sources and taken from NASA's own records, to prove the facts that I am merely showing, in the same way that you can use a calculator to add 2 + 2 and see the answer is 4. As I mentioned previously, if you do not believe the facts or figures, please take it up with the sources of the information. Once you have disproven the edit, then you are welcome to remove it. If you want to deny me the freedom to add facts to a wiki page then I suggest you have some legal reason for doing so. I'm sure the Human Rights Council, of which I am a member, would love to hear your side of things. Torah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uktorah (talk • contribs) 21:49, August 8, 2012‎

Please read the original research page. You've sourced the basic facts, but there is nothing in those sources about the conclusions you are reaching. THAT'S called original research and it will be removed from the article until you find a source for it. As I said on your page, please discuss this on the article's talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I am merely stating facts that can be proven using figures provided by NASA and the reliable written sources. If you can disprove the facts, then as I said, please remove my factual addition. If not, then surely Freedom Of Speech gives me the right to express my findings in writing?
I await your reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uktorah (talk • contribs) 22:06, August 8, 2012‎
Two comments. First, I've pointed you a couple of times to the original research page. Read it. Seriously. You MUST have reliable, secondary sources that say the conclusions you are trying to add. It's that simple. Second, Free Speech applies to the government, not private entities. Your rights on Wikipedia are governed by the policies of Wikipedia, one of which is the original research page. Free speech means the government can't pass a law preventing you from saying your theory, but here you've got to have a reliable, secondary source backing it before it can be added to an article. Ravensfire (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help me, but VQuakr has finally replied. By the way, Freedom Of Speech is a Human Right and is not restricted to governments. I think there's a page on Wikipedia about that.
Thank you.
Torah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uktorah (talk • contribs) 22:21, August 8, 2012
No problem, glad to help as I could. As you find sources, feel free to post on the article talk page if you're not sure if they would be considered good reliable, secondary sources by Wikipedia standards or if you need help formatting the information. And mostly true about the free speech, but consider that you've got the right to say something doesn't mean that someone else has to publish it. Just a thought ... Ravensfire (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Foswiki again

Hello! You've made several statements on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki (3rd nomination) but didn't !vote explicitly. May be you could do that, so the rest of us would no your position on this? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I'm trying to go with a fairly clean view and going through some of the extra references to see if there's something there that might help. I'm at a weak delete right now but want to give it as good of a review as I can. Ravensfire (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you come to any conclusion you can share in this deletion discussion? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

McFadden

a single entity citing itself is not encyclopedic. you have to acknowledge that anti semitism as inferred in the articles was alive and well in the USA in the 1930's. please look no further than the 1939 MS St. Louis. Here you have the us and Canadian governments clearly participating.

the edits to this on-line encyclopedia in the case of McFadden were done in an obviously biased attempt to hang a label on McFadden in an attempt to diminish his point of view on matters of finance. the edits I removed were clearly inserted into the article with prejudice and malice by a self citing source and cannot be considered encyclopedic. The label is an attempt to invalidate any idea or statement made by McFadden and that is not an objective point of view. the individual that stated that McFadden supported hitler was was renowned for making unsubstantiated claims and this claim is unproven and does not deserve a place in this encyclopedia because it comes from a notoriously and renowned unreliable, unsubstantiated source. It should not be cited in the biography of an individual, it is non-encyclopedic. a person's biography should not contain gossip or hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.86.112 (talk • contribs) 00:23, August 21, 2012‎

Your attempts to white-wash McFadden's article are quite simply reprehensible. You don't like it, so it's got to be removed. Sorry, doesn't work that way. It's an aspect of McFadden's life, right or wrong. Ravensfire (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
the only bucket of reprehensible white wash is in the hands of wikipedia in this case. wikipedia citing the Drew Pearson comment from 'merry go round' is propagating blatant hearsay from a source renowned for outright lies and extreme political hyperbole as encyclopedic content http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-bpSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EH0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7218,6594224&dq=drew+pearson&hl=en - wikipedia itself sez pearson was known for unsubstantiated statements - and when all is done wikipedia considers it seems that the words of a known liar are worthy of encyclopedic notation. and further, ravensfire will deem that content from a self citing source non-biased, non affiliated source called the Jewish Telegraphic can carry the day. - I'm sure Limbaugh must be in negotiations with wikipedia for his deep thoughts which can later be interpreted as encyclopedic by wikipedia. the edits made with the JTA source are done with malice and prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpoisson (talk • contribs) 23:43, August 21, 2012‎
One. Use the talk page. Two. If you're that sure about the source not being reliable, take it to WP:RSN. Stop white-washing McFadden. Ravensfire (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
i thought this was your talkpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpoisson (talk • contribs) 23:11, August 22, 2012‎
It is, but we're talking about the article so it's probably best to discuss this on the article talk page. Also, please take a moment to read WP:TALK. There's a couple of conventions on Wikipedia that help make talk pages easier to follow, particularly signing your posts with ~~~~ to add the timestamp and your user name and using colons to indent posts. Ravensfire (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul Talk Page

I've submitted a notice to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard Naapple (Talk) 22:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you - I've given it just the amount of attention it deserves. Ravensfire (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome! I'm just glad it got all sorted out. Have a nice day! Naapple (Talk) 00:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You too! Hopefully next time you'll consider the views of other people and help do the right thing! Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the right thing. I doubt it, but I hope you learned something out of all of this. Naapple (Talk) 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed - it is foolish to assume people would do the right thing. Alas, you have proved that so true in this. But don't worry, I'll get over my disappointment quickly. Ravensfire (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Might I suggest a mirror next time? When one person is being reverted by multiple editors, it's probably time to examine if the concensus is against you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I only got involved after you guys were reverting other editors who changed this. It wouldn't have occured to me that this even needed attention until I saw the edit by Bielsko which was actually a continuation of a slow edit war, which initially began with the problematic edit by Con Rev Null here.
While I understand why some of you have insisted upon this change, you guys also seem to confuse the idea of primaries with the entirely separate action of a national convention. The primaries and caucuses are part of state-level processes that create slates of delegates from each state. In some cases these delegates are 'bound', in other cases they are 'unbound'. Without these state-level processes, we would not have certified and credentialled delegates at the national convention.
Once these delegates are credentialed in the national convention, their subsequent actions make up a separate process from the primary process. It seems that some of you are claiming this is the conclusion of the primary process, and others seem to be claiming that the primary process is still ongoing in the person of Mitt Romney. This is incorrect. In my state, we were given a slate of delegates to vote on. Some states go delegate by delegate. Either way, you are choosing delegates to represent each state at the national convention. Some delegates are not even chosen via these state-level processes and are simply appointed by the RNC or by virtue of political privilege or through virtue of holding a party office or political office. These appointed delegates participate in the choosing of a political nominee.
But this national convention is not a primary. It is a 'secondary' thing. Some of the delegates that vote have not even been chosen by a primary, caucus, or state convention. I've asked you guys to provide sourcing, and none has been produced. I have provided sourcing demonstrating why a person who competed in the race for president throughout the primaries and continued to compete during the RNC was not 'out' in the primaries. Do yourself a favor and actually read the sources, produce an argument in line with those sources, and work this out. This isn't really a big deal of an edit, but it should be accurate. Ron Paul wasn't 'out' until the national convention. And that isn't a primary. -- Avanu (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter
Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

  • This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
  • It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
  • If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
  • The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
  • Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
  • Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
  • Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

TSA incidents

Hi Ravensfire, I noticed you commented two years back on the growing list of incidents at the Transportation Security Administration article. That list has continued to grow for the past two years. I've made a proposal there to WP:SPINOFF that section into its own article to avoid overweighting the main article. Would you care to comment? Thanks for all your work, -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Printing Money" section of Quantitative Easing

In quantitative easing, I had removed a sentence stating "printing money usually implies that the newly minted money is used to directly finance government deficits" which adds nothing but opinion. I saw that you reverted my edit. I started a section in the Talk area. Don't you think it should be discussed instead of just reverting my change?

Why should we keep uninformative opinion in place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.252.224 (talk • contribs) 19:16, December 18, 2012‎

The preference is always to keep sourced information from a reliable source over unsourced personal opinion, which you added. Ravensfire (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I never added an opinion. I added nothing but fact. Regardless, I'm willing to add nothing, but I still think we should remove the following: "Quantitative easing has been nicknamed "printing money" by some members of the media, central bankers, and financial analysts. However, central banks state that the use of the newly created money is different in QE." That is a ridiculous sentence that is pure opinion. There is absolutely no citations. Why should this opinion stay up there?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatrandy13 (talk • contribs) 19:48, December 18, 2012‎

Huh - look what's at the end of the section you deleted to put your personal opinion - a reference. And what was missing from your personal opinion - a reference. Please read through WP:RS to know what Wikipedia considers a reliable source and WP:OR on original research which is what you added. Removing information that you don't like is not a good thing. Find a source that disagrees with the few and add the reason for the disagreement. Ravensfire (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
At this point I am specifically referencing two sentences that I think should be removed. This first sentence has no reference at all. It is a terrible argument, "However, central banks state that the use of the newly created money is different in QE." How is this allowed? The criticism is about the creation of the money, not how it's spent. It is completely irrelevant. The second sentence I am referring to is "printing money usually implies that the newly minted money is used to directly finance government deficits". Again, this sentence is about how the printed money is used. That is irrelevant to the criticism. The source that is listed doesn't even back this up. It is an opinionated sentence about how the money is spent after it is printed. How can you defend such ridiculous sentences? I'm well aware of what WP expects, and I'm not talking about removing something I don't like. I'm talking about removing opinion and irrelevant sentences. Can you please respond regarding the exact sentences I am referencing in this comment?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravensfire/Archive_4&oldid=1143255741"