User talk:E. Ripley/archive5

__NOINDEX__ Talk page archive: 1-2-3-4

---PLEASE ADD NEW COMMENTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.

Reply
Thank you for your suggestions. I do accept your offer and I thank you for your help. As I mentioned in the Wikiquette page, I don't believe the tags were warranted because there was no COI involved. So I think they should be removed. Llambert (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs)

Edit war over HSL and HSV
Since you at least tried to provide input on HSL and HSV in the past I was wondering if you would be willing to read over [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ownership of HSL and HSV] and determine if you'd like to leave a comment. Regards. SharkD  Talk  02:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oi, don't come the raw prawn mate!
What's all this then? UGG Australia’s creative footwear designs, substantial marketing efforts and expenditures have resulted in the international consumer recognition that the UGG brand currently enjoys (my emphasis). Who are nobodies like you or me to stand in the way of substantial marketing efforts for international consumer recognition aka the Free Market, the Invisible Hand, blah blah blah yawn. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Far be it from us humble editors to stand in front of the juggernaut, considering that it probably cost big bikkies. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 02:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

''Also, you should know that creating a new account to circumvent an account ban is itself a blockable offense. The proper thing for you to do is to go back to your other account and use the unblock template, as it states on your talk page.'' Which user talk page is this? And who is this "Erehwon36"? He looks like "Factchk" to me -- but "Factchk" isn't blocked, and neither is "Middlemarch2256". -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Erehwon37. On Talk:Ugg boots, he said he created a new account because Erehwon37 was blocked. I'll see if I can find the diff. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 02:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it is.  "I did some editing on the subject a few days ago and had my username "erehwon37" suspended." &mdash; e. ripley\talk 02:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter
As you may recall, last month you reviewed The Wizarding World of Harry Potter article for Good Article status. I was wondering if you could advise me on what you believe would be necessary to get it to Feature Article status before I nominated it. Thanks Themeparkgc (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinions
I read your edit summary: "removing irrelevant fluff; why should we include the opinions of one news anchor and one random flight attendant? not appropriate for an encyclopedia article"

Here's the answer, those "opinions" are published by major news media organizations, because opinions and analysis are indicators of notability.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to include opinions of parties, including news anchors (they are not "random") and flight attendants (by being published in the media, her opinion becomes important). Of course, as per WP:NPOV, we must label opinions as such. But it is not against policy to describe points of view. Essentially when someone's opinion is published in an op/ed or another section of a newspaper (in most cases reader letters are not included), it becomes an important, notable opinion.

A news event is simply described in the news (even in 106 articles at once) and then is never mentioned again. A notable news event has analysis and coverage continues. The indicator of whether an opinion or a concept is important is how often it is dissected and how often people share that point of view. As we find more analysis, the "implications" and lead sections will be further and further refined.

As the article has progressed currently, it is more than justifiable to include the views and opinions of the news anchor and the flight attendant. If you want to demonstrate that they are insignificant, you must find more op/eds and other news sources and build the aspects to give a bigger picture. For now, they must be included as they prove notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually I start discussions with individual users on their talk pages, especially if I have the expectation that it will only involve two users and that the discussion will be quickly resolved. It's particularly because the user talk pages are easy ways to notify users that a discussion is happening, and when it is one on one I prefer the user talk pages.
 * I am happy to move this discussion to the article talk page, and I am happy to move such discussions to talk pages especially when it appears that such discussions are not quickly resolved and/or may need third, fourth, or fifth opinions.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:JetBlue_Flight_1052 is the new location WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :) - I put the reply to that point to the article discussion page. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Flapper
Nice addition to this article! Anything more you have along those lines would be great. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

actually there was, kinda
another user inserted that phrasing with a summary something like: "real objectivists" dont find much in her blog and philosophies that actually match Rand's. Active Banana   ( bananaphone
 * here is the insertion Active  Banana   ( bananaphone  20:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If Flatterworld or anyone else objects we can discuss it as a group. I just wanted to give you context. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you....
... for the barnstar. I shall wear it with pride. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not even an administrator, frankly"
Have you thought about changing that? You seem to have your head screwed on OK. You've got enough edits and time served to satisfy bean counters, a clean block log and use of rollback and reviewer status without mishap, a Good article under your belt (to satisfy those who require baubles), 3O work, anti-vandal patrolling but still plenty of article writing, and you're generally thoughtful and polite. If you think you might be able to put the tools to good use, I'd be happy to write a nomination. It doesn't have to be straight away, I ummed and ahhed over whether to go through RfA for a few months myself. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my response too! There are a lot of policies and guidelines to become familiar with, and a whole host of other procedures. If and when you feel suitably steeled to face 'Hell Week', let me know if you'd like a nomination. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WQA filing
You stated that you sympathized, but I was just curious as to what you thought of the post that prompted my remark on the banned user. (This diff from bottom of this thread.) The "advice" the banned user gives is so flagrantly disruptive, he could probably have a policy page dedicated to this stuff. Your thoughts? BigK HeX (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. And yep, another editor and I decided a while ago to follow an WP:RBI strategy for his edits.  Unfortunately, I wasn't sure what to do about his edits to a User's page, so I erred on the side of discretion and left the user to decide what to do about them.  Hopefully the disruption won't last much longer as the banned editor's Internet Provider has been contacted about the problem.  Thanks for the input! BigK HeX (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review
Since you passed this article GA, I wanted to make you aware of the commentary at Featured article candidates/The Wizarding World of Harry Potter/archive1. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)