Jump to content

User talk:Rrburke/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Salsburgh

I was brought up in and am a resident of the village and also a committee member of the local community council and sustainable group, plus I am the author of the Salsburgh wiki page, therefore I know about my vilage and what is going on and what is happening in my village. Hence why I know that this is what the village are calling the ill fated bridge with a as per usual sub par repair job courtesy of our absolutly terrific council <sarcasm> --Brett ~ KaraokeMac (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the COI|date=October 2009 on Richard Shaw Brown

We have only put useful information that are verifiable 3rd party published quotes. It is not my writing. I was told long ago that Wiki articles only want 3rd party published info. If you see the article there are 64 references cited, and the entire article is made of 3rd party published quotes with reference given. Isn't that correct? Can we please remove the COI|date=October 2009 from an article composed entirely of references of 3rd party published quotes? Thanks--Rickbrown9 (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Richard Shaw Brown --Rrburke(talk) 13:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was under the impression that I couldn't say anything about myself, only 3rd party published quotes were acceptable in my own case, or case of my 45 year old band. So if anything came up new that added to the value of the article I just put it in. If I put in all the 3rd party quotes it would fill 500 pages. So I've only used 66 references in my article. NOTHING by me. And when something is to be done, am I supposed to ask my wife or son to do it? So now what "3rd party quotes" do you want deleted? There are no bad quotes because you can search the web and you won't find even one bad rap. What should I do now, vandalize my article? I understand about original research, and that's why every single word is 3rd party published referenced information. Same is true with "The Misunderstood" - real published 3rd party info. I love rules and laws as much as the next guy. Please advise "what to do" about this terrible crime. I actually believe I'm helping Wikipedia.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Rick, I don't doubt that your edits were undertaken in good faith: I note that in the past when other editors have pointed out problems, you've tried to rectify them to bring your contributions more in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But when you ask whether your wife or son ought to be writing about you instead, I can't help but feel that, in spite of having been here for almost three years, you've somehow misunderstood what kind of an animal Wikipedia is, because the answer to your question is so emphatically no: people who know you personally shouldn't (by and large) be writing about you, and you (by and large) shouldn't be writing about people you know personally -- especially yourself. Wikipedia is not a place where people write profiles of themselves, even when they use third-party sources to do it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and people generally don't contribute to their own encyclopedia entries.
I don't know what you mean by "when something is to be done," because there's really nothing for you to do when an article is about you (or your relatives, friends, business associates or your company) except to steer clear of it. If you find something in it that's inaccurate, you go to the talk page, identify yourself as someone with a close association to the subject of the article, and tell other editors about the inaccuracy, asking them to correct it, and pointing to a reliable, third-party source where the correct information might be found, if you happen to know of one. If you find something defamatory in the article, remove it immediately, explaining who you are, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, and citing Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people as your justification. Other than that, you really don't have any proper role in any article about you, your close associates, your or their activities, businesses, or any organizations you or they might occupy prominent positions in. Discouraging people from writing about subjects to which they're closely connected is why the conflict of interest and autobiography guidelines exist. --Rrburke(talk) 12:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, Sir, I am just totally unqualified to write an article on something or somebody I know nothing about. And that holds true for anyone. If I can't have anything to do with the article then I shouldn't do anything. But obviously it should be there. You dudes can do it. But if you don't then who will? If I can't help, and you can't help, then what will happen? Best wishes.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I see the deal, but it's almost as if your policy is that articles can only be written by people who know nothing on or about the subject. It's like a catch 22. An expert on a subject can't write, but a person without a clue has to do it!? Whew!!! That sounds like a good idea for an Uncyclopedia article. In any case, notability is obvious with 66 references to delete from - you guys can edit as you please. If I'm not allowed to help then my hands are tied. Tell me what to do, if anything? Thanks--Rickbrown9 (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lyrical Rydar and Stephen Harper article

Wow. You move fast! I tried to revert and report user, and you had already been-there-done-that. :) Quick question, totally off topic: I have noticed that I no longer have the option, when clicking on "diff" to revert (vandalism) (or whatever the link was called). All I have is "edit" and "undo". Any ideas? Ccrashh (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Myton School

I was thinking of removing that as well, but you beat me to it. I looked through the school's website, but couldn't find any sort of motto... Until It Sleeps Talk • Contribs 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Shaw Brown

Hi Burke! I just noticed than another editor has cleaned up The Misunderstood, removing substantial material, in making it the correct standard. That editor was kindly requested to please apply his skills and edit this page too. I have not received any reply, but I hope he, her or you can do what needs to be done to make this notable article properly edited, which, do to the Wiki rules I'm not allowed to assist. I hope one of you can do what needs to be done to make this notable article properly edited. Thanks in advance!!!--Rickbrown9 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete

It's possible you missed this when you placed this. Please remove the speedy delete tag. ➜Redvers ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞ 14:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

IP Edits

Heads up that I reverted IP vandalism on your talk page. Regards, Justin talk 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

ACT Debating Union Entry

Please do not revert my changes. I will drag this entry, kicking and screaming if necessary, out of the control of user JJJ999. The edits made are sensible and bring the article into line with those similar organisations. The comments against the original edits state that the information which was deleted is better reflected on the organisations website.

Unfortunately, the edits have to be done anonymously to avoid the wrath of JJJ999 in the real world. Please read the history of edits and flame wars that this user has gotten involved in. Multiply that by 10 and you can understand what those of us trying to assert rationality into the organisation are up against.

Thank you for your policing efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.125.162 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for keeping that moron [1]off my user page. Guess I should check on my user page off and on as I found a legitimate edit there too.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my talk page User_talk:Qwrk. Highly appreciated. Qwrk (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Companies House

As it happens another editor tried to put a link into webcheck on the Acorn Computers entry. Such links don't work. (I don't know WHY companies house does it like that, that's UK Govt IT projects for you.) Does this render Companies House data inadmissible to wikipedia because it can't be verified on a direct link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.173.231 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears they use session tokens for security -- that's the string of numbers and letters in the of a url like this: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ff4fea581f6949063248bfada667c4ce/companysearch?disp=1&frfsh=1256044621#result. But no, that isn't what makes it inadmissible. The record could be cited like this:
<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/info | title=Companies House WebCHeck Record: Acorn Computers (Company #05690546)| date accessed=2009-10-20}}</ref>
There's enough information in the citation for anyone to verify it. See Wikipedia: Verifiability for the relevant policy and Wikipedia: Citing sources for more information on citing sources.
However, simply citing the source correctly does not make it acceptable in this case. The import of the information the record contains is not self-evident to the casual reader, but requires explanation. If the explanation can be found in a reliable, published source, it is acceptable. If, as in this case, the Wikipedia editor does the explaining, the explanation constitutes original research -- specifically, the interpretation of a primary source -- and is not permitted. Here is a portion of the policy on the use of primary sources

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

--Rrburke(talk) 13:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your reverts on my user talk. At a glance you don't seem to be a barnstar-type-person, so feel free to refactor this post as you see fit. I just want to express my gratitude. Tiderolls 02:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Userpage Shield
Many thanks for watching over my user talk. I also appreciate your efforts on recent changes Tiderolls 02:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not vandalize Krayzie's page

I'm sorry but I didn't vandalize the page. Krayzie deserved a picture and the only one I could find with no legal ties was a drawing. I I don't see what the big deal is, Tupac has a statue as his pic. I even left a message in the discussion section saying I was going to put a piece of artwork as the profile image and no one protested. I didn't vandalize anything. It's not like a added some information that was cruel or erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borinquen252 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I hereby reward you with…

The Minor Barnstar
For reverting vandalism on my user page. Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

For reverting that childish Vandalism on my user page, probably made by some nationalist troll.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


2000AD Online / BARNEY links

Why is is unconstructive to update a dead link to point to the same page's new location? The version of 2000AD Online that existed from 2001-2008 has moved to 2000ad.org. Most pages can be found simply by replacing 2000adonline.com with 2000ad.org in the URL. I happened to be looking at the Scarlet Traces page so thought I'd take the time to update that link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.106.185 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Scottish National Identity!

The reason I removed this articles content is because it is probably the biggest load of drivel I have ever read about my nation. If this was created by you,you ought to be ashamed of yourself and you should consider doing some genuine research on Scotland/Scottish History! I assume you're not actually Scottish since you have an Irish name! Thank You,Iain Macmillan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.77.141.195 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Buck

Unbiased was the reason for my post and you accuse me of being biased? Guess you would rather delete something rather than actually read it... October 2009 Joe Buck was extremely biased during his commentating the ALCS game. I was not some disgruntled Yankee Fan (they were winning most of the game and won the game outright so if anything I was a very happy Yankee fan), I was just putting out there that it was disgraceful to hear him speak so biased on a Nationaly Broadcasted show. I know him to be a Phillies hater as well so just watch the series and you will see how he will speak about both teams. It wasn't as if my post was uninteligent or just bashing, it was informative. Not only that, but I put it under the section of his page titled "Controversy" guess you feel you are better than everyone since you just delete... I was not using wiki as a forum to do sports rivaly bashing, was just stating the facts for a game which you obviously didn't watch and hear all his comments. So Mr./Ms. didn't want to see wiki used as a forum, what do you think wiki is? Get over yourself and deal with facts, not opinions which my post was filled with facts. Enjoy your twisted opinion that you are better than everyone and feel you need to be some sort of wiki cop... If commentators are biased but there is a differing opinion between the both of them then fine, but if you saw the broadcast you would have to agree that it was not that way. — Ragazjo (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 18:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Please watch the broadcast to gain your verification. So that statement is mute. 2. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view yourself as your deletion displays an un-neutral point of view. Anything in my addition was not to bash but to inform. If a fact is stated and can be verified as displayed above, you have no claim to your statments. Enjoy feeling the way you do because anyone that pompous and needs to feel some sort of self-gratification by up-ending others contributions will never gain respect from others. Ragazjo (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Contributions to Wikipedia articles need to be based not on the opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors, but on material previously published in reliable sources. Your contributions did not originate from reliable, published sources but were simply your own opinions, and as such are not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to make contributions that are based on reliable, published sources, please free to do so. Please remember to cite your sources. --Rrburke(talk) 20:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

*Applause*

Thanks for upholding BLP in an unfriendly atmosphere. The Squicks (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Shaw Brown

Dear Burke: conflict of interest noticeboard

As there was no action taken, I checked at the conflict of interest noticeboard. There were no results matching the query Richard Shaw Brown.

"You may create the page "Richard Shaw Brown prefix:Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard"

So as the necessary has been done in accordance, so I hope it alright if the COI flag is removed. Thanks--Rickbrown9 (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

Based on the below guidelines:

Non-controversial edits

Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: 

  1. Removing spam and reverting vandalism.
  2. Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.
  3. Fixing spelling and grammar errors.
  4. Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged.
  5. Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.
  6. Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them.
  7. Adding pointers to primary sources in archives, special collections or libraries in the Research resources section of an article. Also, adding External links to digitized or digital primary sources or finding aids. Editors working for such organizations are requested to review WP:EL (useful links to on-line, non-promotional material related to the article), WP:NPOV, WP:NOSHARE and WP:ORGNAME. The last two mean don't create a shared organizational account and don't include the name of the organization in the account name. It is recommended but not required for such editors to declare their affiliation on their user page.

Accordingly, as everyone is busy, I went ahead and removed all the COI and left bare bones. I did not delete any references numbers. I'm not sure which to delete, because they all support the same thing, my jewelry design career. But the text is bare bones. Based on the above bold line I hope this is OK and you can remove the COI flag from this article. Note: There was a lot of material deleted, maybe more than you would have deleted. So if you revert and then delete by yourselves you'll make a better article. But as is seems like what you wanted done is now done. Thanks--Rickbrown9 (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talento De Barrio mixtape

i tried to redirect it but some cluebot didn;t let me so you can go ahead and delete the article. Pope132 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Talento De Barrio Mundial Mixtape. Pope132 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

True But i'm pretty sure they won't know about before they go into daddy yankee's article.Pope132 (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the article meets it? Pope132 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If i were to put more resources and references would it make it better or worse? Pope132 (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So all i have to do is get an article where daddy yankee is saying that he made the mix tape or something like that right? Pope132 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I could do that to. But i thought you had to create a new article for every mixtap, album. Pope132 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I did already but ill just wait till some one responds to it. Someone already put it up for discussion i just added to it. Pope132 (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

VaughanDirect

Hi There,

I am new to using Wikipedia, and I would like to learn more about how to add a link to the Media Section in the Vaughan Information page. I can understand why the VaughanAdvertising.com link would be considered advertising (an I'm sorry I did not fully understand the guidelines pertaining to adding a link)... but our business, VaughanDirect.info is part of the Vaughan Community- and is not for advertising, but to make sense of the world wide web for the local lives of the users in the city of Vaughan and surrounding area.

We are quickly becoming the #1 source for information pertaining to the businesses in Vaughan. We work closely with Not for Profit businesses, and local businesses to keep our site up to date & accurate with information relevant to the members in this community. We are a big part of the Vaughan Community with over 10,000 businesses listed online & more added daily. Please let me know what more is needed to be considered a valuable resource for this page.

Regards, Ronda Jalbert VaughanDirect.info Office: (905) 266-0098

13-3120 Rutherford Road, Suite 314 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0B2 99.239.125.161 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Richard Shaw Brown

Hi, Rick. Sorry not to have gotten back you you sooner. Looks good.

I don't know if you have ever looked at WP:COMMONNAME, but it occurs to me that the article should probably be named Rick Brown (musician).

Have you ever considered lending your expertise to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry? --Rrburke(talk) 14:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks, Burke

I'm glad Richard Shaw Brown is suitable now. I'm sure you Wiki police have a thankless task with millions of non-notables putting up their own self opinions, without ref. or citations. I call Wikipedia the real "Ego busters".

I was musician in 1966 and again in 1984, but since 1986 I'm a jewelry designer in Bangkok, with my own designer brand, Astral Gemstone Talismans, as the most popular jewelry brand in Thailand. So it's more correct to call me a "jewelry designer" or "gemologist" is more accurate than Rick Brown (musician). So it's probably better to leave it alone as it...

I would love to help Wikipedia in any way I can. In the area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry I have already created an article on the subject of my 13 books Navaratna.

Please tell me how to help. I want to be involved, I mean, I am involved. And want to do things right.

NOTE: Because my brand (not company name), Astral Gemstone Talismans, is very extra-ordinarily popular with 6 stores in Bangkok. It has been mentioned hundreds of times in articles, TV, etc. In such a case is it alright to add the name of my notable brand, Astral Gemstone Talismans, along with citation, to the article (without transgressing "advertising" guidelines??) Thanks--Rickbrown9 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Userpage Shield
Thanks for defending my user page! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 16:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

sobibor

hello and good day! my name is yossi brauman and i've recognized my grandfather in the sobibor rebelians picture you've uploaded from 1944. do you know where this picture was taken or anything about the people in this picture? and especially the man sitting on bottom left. also, do you have some more pictures of that kind? my email is [email address removed] thank you so much, Yossi Brauman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.152.202 (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I won't...

...but I will. Just lowered the boom for six months and at least one of his BellSouth ranges has been blocked for the next six months. Damn the little brat. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful

Please be very careful to check the edit before reverting in future. You restored unsourced and libellous information into the article. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction

I don't have to cite any source, the source is the article! Please count the population in all countries as in the article, so you will get to the same total. I just talked with an administrator about it (he recognised that I am in right). Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankVonPedro (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not attack anyone personally.

I sent the guy a message just like this one. Get a grip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.205.76 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Got 'im.

I just shut down that IP for the next month and I'm tempted to block it for six instead. Check out that semi-literate, drooling rant on the talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What a freaking mess, too. I just reblocked the account since he/she was abusing the talk page and trying to justify rudeness because of the loss of a relative in a skydiving accident. My prayers are with this person, but that's no excuse for hanging around this site for the sole purpose of vandalizing articles on Disney Channel shows. Crazy world, man. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I still haven't activated the internet/landline/TV at my new home and I don't have the link to the mass reversion tool here at work. Hoping to be up and running next week. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • You noticed that too, eh? I tell you, it'll be nice to be away from this playpen for the next four days.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Working late here in PST.  :) There's a tool here (somewhere) which will allow you to pull up recent additions by blocked users, but now that I think about it, I think it only works with new articles. Happy Thanksgiving right back at you, even if yours was last month. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking "good idea." It's obvious this individual has been here before and someone with that big an axe to grind certainly wouldn't be above filling the sock drawer. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmm...I don't think it's Bambifan, but it sure is possible. He's edited from Road Runner Cable addresses before. He tends to attack Disney theatrical releases as opposed to Disney Channel presentations and the writing style doesn't seem to match. Yeah, I'd say to err on the side of caution and ask for a CU because I sure do smell socks, even if he isn't wearing them. PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I wound up blocking a legitimate user with a Disney-related username who happened to be editing Disney-related articles including some BF targets. Situations like this are what makes that little jerk such a menace and believe me when I say I felt awful about the mistake. The user was extremely gracious about the mix-up and we not only picked up a good editor, we also picked up someone who can blow the whistle on the real Bambifan. All of us switch to immediate red alert whenever a Disney article gets clobbered because of his shenanigans. Going to sign off for now, but please stay in touch. See you 'round the wiki! PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Gen. MacArthur's statement

I thought it was an interesting point of view that he actually admitted that Japan went into war for a security reason. May I know why this was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleak5 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My target was two statements:
  1. "This is another evidence that the IMTFE was not intended to pursuit the justice. -- for bias
  2. "Pal submitted 1235 pages dissenting opinion, but with other dissenting opinions, it was never read in the court, even though IMTFE Code states that it shall be." -- which did not provide a source to substantiate the claim
--Rrburke(talk) 04:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clarification. I added only the documented statement and deleted the biased opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleak5 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Leone crime family

FYI, The Leone crime family is a fictional family in the Grand Theft Auto (series) gaming franchise. The entire article is a description of an in-universe family.

While there may be reasons to discuss if this content belongs in the Wiki or in its own article, and there may be reasons to doubt the authenticity of the recent edits by 173.86.60.105 (talk · contribs), they have no more or no less credibility on their face than the edits by the primary author, Needausernamethathasntbeenused (talk · contribs). It will take someone familiar with the franchise to review the article for accuracy. As far as source material, treat it like any other content about a fictional universe: The entire canon of the series is implicit source material. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mario Biaggi

Thank you for contributing your time to patrol for vandalism. However, regarding reverts to Mario Biaggi warnings placed on User Talk:69.126.242.217, I think you will find the information already present and sourced in the later sections of the article. Please take a look. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tom. Thanks for your note. The edit in question was this one, which added unsourced negative information about a living person to the lede section of the article without citing a reliable source, and did not state forthrightly the import of the change in the edit summary. That a source may have been cited later in the article is not adequate: it ought to be cited where the information is first introduced. This edit was also problematic as it was completely unsourced: the cited source contains none of the details added in the edit.
The second issue is whether this information belongs in the lede at all. The introductory paragraph ought to preview the article for the reader by briefly summarizing what or who its subject is and what makes the subject noteworthy. It is highly suspect when an inexperienced editor with a habit of adding unreferenced material to biographical articles[2][3] (and others[4][5]) decides, without consulting any other contributor, that the principal thing readers arriving at this article ought to know is that its subject was convicted on corruption charges -- and emphasis not obviously justified by the body of the article. It would be more customary to seek other regular contributors' opinions to see if any consensus exists for such a major change.
Finally, the editor's hysterical outburst reveals that he did not even bother to review the details of the cautionary messages placed on his talk page: he (or she) was not "accused" of vandalism, but rather reminded to cite a reliable source -- a perfectly reasonable request the editor evidently elected neither to heed nor even read. The problem might easily have been avoided if the editor had observed this core policy to begin with. But having failed to do so, actually consulting the policy other editors are directing to his attention would've been a better alternative to ignorantly fulminating against those reminding him of his obligation to observe it. --Rrburke(talk) 04:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for revisiting this. I still believe the editor is attempting good-faith additions to the articles, and even if the edits have some flaws, I believe that selectively deleting or correcting the problem areas is preferable to rolling back all of the editor's work. (Unfortunately, Huggle makes it too easy to roll back a whole series of edits with a single click of the mouse – good for vandalism, but not for other content issues.) I also think any new or less experienced editor has potential for becoming a long-term positive contributor and would benefit from personal and constructive feedback from experienced editors such as yourself. Thank you for your contributions, and congratulations in-advance of your upcoming four-year mark. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're getting really obsessed with this user. He has done nothing wrong. His edits have all been in good faith. He has committed no vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackJackMulligan (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you've not bothered to actually consult the policy any better than the editor himself. If you had, you'd have realized by now that the issue is not vandalism: the issue is the editor's repeated failure to cite reliable sources when adding material to articles -- and, additionally, edit extends far beyond what is stated in the cited source. Here are some examples: [6][7][8][9][10][11]. Whether the contributions were made in good faith -- or, indeed, whether their content is true -- is immaterial: the sole question is whether the material added has been previously published in reliable sources. If it has, he or you are welcome to add it. If it hasn't, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia and you shouldn't add it. Editors who persist in adding unsourced material in spite of repeated cautions will eventually be blocked.
I have revisited this editor's contributions not because I am "getting obsessed" with him, but because, in my experience, when an editor responds with unmerited defensiveness to requests to observe core policies, that editor's contributions are nearly always rife with violations of the policy they resent being reminded of. See above for confirming examples. Unsourced or poorly-sourced material -- especially negative material about a living person -- ought to be removed, so I have removed it. If you insist on restoring such material without providing reliable sources, I'll request that an adminstrator intervene.
As for your advice to "Try using Google sometime," you seem to misunderstand whose obligation that is. This is the short version from Wikipedia:Verifiability:
It is not my responsibility, in other words, to search out sources for material you wish to add: if you have such sources, add them to the article. If there are no such sources or you're unable to provide them, the material shouldn't be added. This requirement should never present any difficulty, as the only content you should be adding to Wikipedia anyway is material gleaned from reliable sources on the topic you've read elsewhere: if you've read it elsewhere, it should be a simple enough matter to state where you read it and include that information in an inline citation. If you haven't read it elsewhere, don't add it. --Rrburke(talk) 05:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Your changes

The purpose of Wikipedia is to allow users to gradually expand articles, especially short or stub ones. All the additions have been made in good faith. Even when citations are supplied, you are still not satisfied.

You have shown yourself to be hypocritical. The Roy M. Goodman STILL article contains unsourced material such as that he is considered "the statesman of the Senate" and that he is a liberal Rockefeller Republican. Why didn't you take this out? The section about his role as NY County GOP Chairman contains links to other Wikipedia entries. Two NYT articles were cited that prove the Rolodex story, but your still not satisfied. If you're really interested in upholding Wikipedia's standards, then you should deleted more unsourced material in every article you check instead of one person's contributions.

The Hugh L. Carey still has unsourced material about him opposing the death penalty, among other things. Why didn't you take out more material?

Since you live in Canada and has no knowledge of local NYC politics, why are you preventing the good faith expansion of articles in those areas? I live NYC and have observed politics for a long time.

The entry for "The Legend of Billie Jean" (1985) contains NO citations at all. So shouldn't the whole article be scrapped?

What are you are doing is discouraging users from making small, good faith, and true additions to entries, which no doubt happens every minute.BlackJackMulligan (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition to Canaanite Pantheon

Hi, you asked me what i thought of an addition to the Canaanite religion article. I presume you were referring to:

  • Yahweh or Yah, for a short time, a son of El, somtimes consort to Asherah. Referred to as a cup=bearer.

First, there are a number of typos in that entry just calling out for correction.

Second, i have never seen a deity or assistant to a deity named Yahweh in Canaanite literature of any sort. I do recall mention of Yah, but not as a consort to Athirat. Asherah is not a Canaanite name, but the Hebrew version of Athirat. I'd have to track down Yah. If my memory serves, some scholars equated Yah and Yam, the god of the sea who battles Baal, as recounted in a long series of surviving tablets. While i suspect the deity sometimes known as Yahweh has his roots in Canaan, and may well be or be related to Yah, there is as yet no definitive evidence. So while i may speculate privately, or post my interpretations on my website, i would not go so far as to publish this in an encyclopedia.

I also feel this way about so-called Moloch, for whom there is ZERO evidence in the archaeological record or any surviving writings other than the Bible, which is far from accurate in its depiction of rival religions. An entry on Moloch would be perfectly reasonable. But putting this nonexistent fabrication, along with Biblical slanders about child sacrifice, for which again there is ZERO evidence in the Levant, into what is supposed to be a factual article on Canaanite religion seems not only inaccurate, but guaranteed to perpetuate lies begun 3000 years ago.

Would it be reasonable to present the falsehood that Jews use Christian blood in Passover matzot as a credible inclusion in a Wikipedia article about Jewish religion, other than to debunk it? Ellenois (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I note that very few of the entries are accompanied by citations. The article could benefit from a knowledgeable editor adding citations as well as pruning the list to eliminate entries which have no basis for inclusion. The presence of inline cites accompanying each entry would help to prevent future editors from making unsourced additions like the one in question. --Rrburke(talk) 14:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what i can add.Thanks for the encouragement.Ellenois (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave Clark Five

I keep altering Clarks date of vbirth to 1939 v because that is when he was born not 1942, please check ancestry,con and you'll see this is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.18.94 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Legend of Mir 2

I’m afraid I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve never even been to that page.

The only possible explanation I can think of is that I use a mobile modem that assigns itself a completely different IP address each time it connects, and whoever had it last did vandalise the page. It would also explain why I seemingly get banned from 4chan, for all I don’t post all that much, reboot the modem and router and can get in as per normal. If anything, I was about to add a piece about Alan Davies’ win percentage on QI, and how he has achieved his first back-to-back wins...

Conclusions, man. Biiiiiiiiiiiiig things to jump into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.72.181 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Rrburke, HappyInGeneral (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for fixing Twilight (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), now it is semi-protected. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please explain why it is inappropriate to add an external link about the subject at add?

There is nothing in the article reference about the nickname of the bomber (lap bomber and underwear bomber). I was trying to update these facts. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpbmp (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Blogs and other self-published content do not meet Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources. Wikipedia's guideline on external links lists blogs under Links normally to be avoided. Adding external links to one's own blog or website is considered linkspamming and repeat offenders may be blocked from editing. --RrburkeekrubrR 18:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

i wasnt its fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.181.119 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Generation Z page

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on the Generation Z page. Your contributions are much appreciated. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Birnbaum

Greetings. I have nominated the above article for deletion. I welcome your input on the articles for deletion page.THD3 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi Rrburke,

Thanks for your help in editing and removing some of the quotes from Christian Scott's wiki page. I realize now that the removed quotes came from blog sites which are not in compliance with wikipedia guidelines.

Please help me with how I can have the warning at the top of the page removed. Are there any other citations that are not good? I used Esperanza Spalding's wiki page as a guide and that page has no such citation warning although the artist's myspace page is used as a reference. Please, if you can, advise me on how to improve Christian Scott's page to get rid of the warning.

Thanks a million, C. Harrison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caraharrison01 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, just wanted to apologise for the warning before. That was done in genuine error, I think we edited at the same time and Huggle accidentally sent the warning to the wrong person! Sorry :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers! --RrburkeekrubrR 23:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandal on my page. BigDunc 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. --RrburkeekrubrR 15:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank Conroy edit...

Good morning. I am an instructor at a public high school and was using this page as a teaching example. The changes that were made were only used to demonstrate the potential problems of using Wikipedia as a reliable, reputable source of information (given the changes that can be made to most entries). There was no intent to present false information on a long term basis and had started the undoing of the change as soon as it had posted.

My apologies for any perceived intent on our part to deceive any reader.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.90.182.96 (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian Eriksen

In what way do you find the adding of place of birth unconstructive? If you had taken the time to click on Middelfart, you would have seen that it leads you to the page about this Danish town. Funny as the name may sound in English, it doesn't make the fact that Christian Eriksen was born there less right - or unconstructive. 80.198.105.120 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right: that was my mistake. There is so much childish vandalism on Wikipedia, it's easy to be misled. But I should have been more careful. Thanks for the notice. --RrburkeekrubrR 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
That's OK. I understand. 80.198.105.120 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rrburke. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
Message added 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nancy talk 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Special Election for Massachusetts.

In regards to the change I submitted, it is a FACT that a business can hire independent contractors to do work for them - this includes candidates running for political office. I have looked over the code on multiple occasions being an independent contractor in another business area - and have never found anything even eluding to this practice as being illegal in any way shape or form.

Due to the temporary nature of a campaign, the use of Independent Contractors is not only solid business judgment as no promise of permanency can be made to a person seeking permanent placement, but also prudent because no such promises can be made - whether expressed nor implied - because if the candidate should not be victorious, then the need for a contractor ceases to exist.

I am appalled that my post was termed as being unconstructive as it is based on fact not some personal biasness.

While I have been warned of this site is slanted and not always representing fact before but I never really put much stock into what I thought was rumor. Now, I can discount Wikipedia as a viable source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.237.169 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your additions were unconstructive because you were adding your own comments and analysis, as well as questions about the article's accuracy, to the body of the article. If you have a concern about accuracy, you can either correct it with material drawn from reliable sources or else express your concern on the article's talk page. --RrburkeekrubrR 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the revert you did yesterday.—Sandahl (♀) 21:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. --RrburkeekrubrR 02:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Whitegate vandalism

Hi Rrburke - thanks for fixing the vandalism on the Whitegate, Cheshire page. How can we stop this guy (I'm assuming it is the same guy) who loves his own sense of humour so much? Can I help in any way (it's on my watchlist)? Best Witchwooder (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There's probably not much you can do besides what you've been doing: revert it when you find it. It appears to be kids. One of the IPs is from a school, and the other two are from the same ISP in Oldham. They were doing similar things Utkinton & Audlem, if you wanted to add those to our watchlist. Cheers! --RrburkeekrubrR 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I'll add 'em. Best Witchwooder (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Inglourious Basterds

Hey, thank you for reverting all that vandalism that occurred on the Inglourious... article. I was editing the page and didn't notice that user, you were very quick!. Thanks for hanging around as well to remove that users follow up edits. Sorry to see they decided to vandalize your page. I think you deserve this; - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your great work on reverting vandalism! JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --RrburkeekrubrR 16:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that...

I was expecting some sort of retaliation, but you caught it first. Cheers! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I did any thing wrong. Please tell me which fact or figure that I changed without citing it, so that I can fix it.

Not a big problem: it was just a friendly reminder to cite sources. In particular, it was the claim that "These casinos are quite rare, and are always avoided by serious players." This is not a criticism of the accuracy of the claim, because I don't claim to have any knowledge about whether it's true or not. The issue is simply that when adding material to articles, it's important to cite a reliable source: things editors know from their own experience -- even when they're true -- run counter to Wikipedia's policy against original research. Happy editing! --RrburkeekrubrR 19:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I see what it was. Where then is the sourcing for the original comment. I dont see one. I can assure you that it is quite rare. And I can assure you that serious players would not play in a casino like that. i also noticed that it was YOUR first edit to that page; at least in some time. Instead of blindly editing my work, here's an idea: Look into the situation and get the information in question. I'll get a source, but why would you demand a source from me, and not the person who put bad information up there in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk5384 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right: a great many Wikipedia articles including this one already contain original research. However, that's not a rationale for adding more. I review recent changes to Wikipedia articles to remove things like original research as soon as possible after they're added. It's quite possible that if original research gets added to one of Wikipedia's several million articles while I am working, sleeping, eating or in general doing something more enjoyable than reviewing recent changes to Wikipedia articles, I may miss it. On the other hand, when I do notice original research being added, I don't feel obliged to search out references for an editor who's failed to provide them, because that's really their job.
Incidentally, in light of you knowledge in this area, have you considered participating in WikiProject Gambling --RrburkeekrubrR 20:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Northport Elementary School

what on earth of a reason do you have to delete my page i worked very hard on it and you just delete it you better have a good reason rrburke you wanna have an edit war fine youre on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohata2008 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, it's been a while since I've been blanked or abused, I can't be trying hard enough (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackjack

I would like to apologise if I was a bit curt in my response to you yesterday. I am relatively new to editing and do not wish to violate any protocol. Let me try to explain a bit better my position. I have logged close to 5000 hours playing blackjack in both casino and underground games in Atlantic City, Nevada, the islands, and Europe, among other places. I have never seen an instance of the variation mentioned in the blackjack article. As I felt it may have been inappropriate to delete the entire section, I added a line stating that this variation of blackjack was very rare. My gripe was that you deleted my edit for being unsourced, whilst allowing the original unsourced claim to stand. I am not sure how to get a source to show that something dosen't exist. As I have said, the original claim is unsourced, and not surprisingly. It is my view that the burden of proof should be on the person who made the claim to source his information. In any case, I'm sure that we can get this worked out. As far as your suggestion that I join the gambling project, I appreciate the compliment. However, whilst I do consider myself to be an expert on blackjack, I have only cursory knoweledge of other gambling games. Happy day!Mk5384 (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, the changes I made were minor and the context I used explains in the article itself, proof of what I have contended to be true. Furthermore, I went to the talkpage of my counterpart and extended an olive branch. I explained the differences between our two versions, and suggested we collaborate to improve the article, rather than have an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk5384 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon for the interruption. Mk5384, calling an editor a "clown" is not "extending an olive branch." And asking for the help of Mitted, who was barred after repeatedly blanking my Talk page, is not helpful. We are all voluteers here. Please be civil.WP:CIVObjective3000 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
That's commendable. You mentioned earlier that much of the article appears unsourced. Are there published materials you own or have access to that could be used to rectify that? Since you have expertise in the area, adding sources to the article would be a good way to help it along toward receiving good article status. --RrburkeekrubrR 16:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

why

I have just deleted the information on airport express (http://www.airportexpress.ru/) from this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulkovo_Airport and I have written an explaination why I did this.

Why did you place this information back - it's outdated! 77.241.45.133 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My intention was to remove the commercial link you added. Please see:
--RrburkeekrubrR 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree now that you had to delete the commercial link, but why did you replace that information about these shuttles which stopped operating almost a year ago? 77.241.45.133 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I have now removed the outdated entry. --RrburkeekrubrR 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 77.241.45.133 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For this revert. Cpl Syx [talk] 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. --RrburkeekrubrR 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks

will try it..--Np4 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC) And also please keep an eye on that article. You did the right thing for being vigilant. I however added some new sources. These sources(similar to them) were there before and then removed by vandals. Thank you.--Np4 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ponte de Lima

The new mayor of Ponte de Lima is Vitor Mendes, please see */ Autárquicas 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titannobilis (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The problem was that the change was made without citing a reliable source. Please consider adding a link to the reference you cited in order to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. --RrburkeekrubrR 20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Electric cigarette article

Okay, thanks for pointing me to the policies. I couldn't understand why my edits were disappearing any time I tried to add to an article. Was it that I put the company as a link? I think there should be a section for manufacturers in that article. It will help people know who makes them, then they can get history on each manufacturer so they don't buy from someone who is making dangerous products. -breedlma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breedlma (talk • contribs) 02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was the problem. I see your point, but the link would take users directly to a page that advertises the product and offers it for sale, which is a problem under WP:ELNO #5. Are there any independent sources with information on manufacturers that might help avoid this problem? --RrburkeekrubrR 03:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice it, there was a big orange bar across the top of your screen saying you had new messages. That means that someone has left a comment on your talk page, and you ought to check it out as soon as possible. I left a few warnings there, and since you continued to make the same kind of edits, it looked to me like you might have been ignoring the warnings; so don't forget about your talk page – it's how we communicate on here.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm gonna creep out on a limb here and guess that wasn't intended for me. --RrburkeekrubrR 03:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it wasn't – hence the indentation which puts it on the same level as your initial reply (since I'm replying to him as well).
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. --RrburkeekrubrR 03:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rrburke/Archive_5&oldid=1140206738"