User talk:EditorInTheRye/Archive 1

=Messages from actual people=

Do not delete important facts
Why do you delete my ref on Anton Abele being the youngest MP in the world? I find it strange that you call this repeat of data. This is not correct since this has not been mentioned before and is something significant for this MP. The source BBC is a very important. Suggest you change back or rephrase the sentence I took directly from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.28.81 (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What is your source for assessing the Fugelsang blog as fake? User:Pedant 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the way it works.
I used it as a source, with no evidence that it is not fake. Spelling errors in English are very common when a person writes in other than his native tongue. The blog was maintained during the mission at appropriate times, and all the other information was consistent.

You deleted content based on it being fake, without a source for its "fakeness". That's pretty precipitous action. Which seems to be your style, as you immediately went to vote on my adminship, without any evidence that I was up for adminship, and ignoring the text that plainly states it is an old RfA, and all the dates being from 2005.

I think you need to come up with something other than your original research to support calling the blog fake. User:Pedant 22:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that the user who you mention calls the blog a fake, is a former 'bad user' who has abandoned his user account after numerous Wikipedia policy violations. Not a reliable source. User:Pedant 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe 'bad user' is a bit too harsh, but look through his contribs. I personally don't trust users who make comments like "If it wasn't fake" in an edit but in the summary "Smells like a fake".


 * To me a 'good user' (besides being currently active) is someone who sources everything and doesn't make allegations without providing evidence. I don't have to 'trust' a source, but only reference it... if the source is bad then its easy to delete the relevant info.


 * The blog appears legit to me, at least on the surface. The point I'm trying to make is, maybe it is a fake, but where is the evidence, or the reference? 'Obli sez it smells fakey' isn't a reference.  He posted a fake looking video is a bit better, but still is original research unless there is some definitive proof that the vid is fake and in which case, I want to see it.


 * I am not trying to have an argument with you, you are relatively new and I am just trying to help you become a 'good user'. I have pretty high standards, but I'm sure you would want your actions to be unassailably correct.  I'm just pointing out that you speedied a redirect, and deleted information, without reliably sourced third party information.  Show me good evidence or third-party references and I will make efforts to have the blog itself deleted.


 * I hope you understand: this isn't about you deleting info I posted, just about the right process for deleting it. Neither of us, at this point, can say one way or the other whether the blog is fake.  If either of us can find a reliable source that answers that question, we should let the other know.


 * In future, please discuss changes, before making them, if the change is based on "smell". That's my recommendation.  You could be a good user, which I think is a higher calling than becoming an admin.

User:Pedant 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

More from the birdsong incident...

 * No, reliable sources are expected for making any edit in the article namespace. Note I am not disagreeing with you, I'm finding more that leads me to believe that 1)the blog is not genuine; and 2)that I was in error to rely on it as a source.  Nonetheless, some evidence that it was a fake would have been more appropriate than speedy-deleting the redirect and summarily removing the text.  If you were going to remove the text, without evidence, it would be more appropriate to remove the text by copying it to the talk page, stating that you feel it was not sourced appropriately, that it came from a blog which looks to you to be fake. (I'm talking about impeccable behavior, here, which I assume you wish to strive for, since you are willing to spend this much effort talking about it).  Also, it might be worthwhile to contact me, as the editor who added the info, to see if I had some comment on the issue, before you dash off to bad-mouth me on RfA.  I don't care about becoming an admin, but I do care about the Wikipedia, and so I have to care about its individual editors.  I hope you understand that all of this is advice along the lines of 'wanting you to be the best editor you can be', and that it is of some use to you.


 * Thanks for your patience and efforts to keep wikipedia free of bullshit... it's good to meet you. User:Pedant 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood the 'put it on discussion page part': I was suggesting you put the text on the talk page AND remove it from the article. That way the discussion all takes place on the talk page, if there is any, and its easier to get collaboration on the 'fake/not fake' issue. Yes, definitely let 'be bold' and 'use common sense' be more of a guiding light than any sort of 'process'. Wikipedia wouldn't need rules if everybody would use bold sense. Putting it on the discussion page is a good thing in the case that it's a major change, such as excising any mention of 'Fugelsang Syndrome'. This one might qualify for Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, but I prefer it didn't go there, as that would reward the hoaxer... and writing a hoax blog as a public figure is something I definitely want to discourage. I'll see you around... maybe you might vote for me as an admin after talking to me... which is another good reason to discuss edits first. User:Pedant 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Dickman
There are far less notable media presenters who have wikipedia pages than Dicko. Look at for instance bid up.tv presenters and the like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reni's Drums (talk • contribs).

Some brand of bourbon
Ok, but if you want an article to exist on a brand of bourbon, the burden of notability falls on you. The article as it stood gave no reason for why that particular brand of bourbon deserves an article. Jack Daniels having an article is not justification. I could distill my own bourbon, make an article for it, and you would be fine with that? Murderbike 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Murderbike Bourbon? I'd have one of those with ya for sure! And the article looks much less deletionable now. Good job! Murderbike 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bulliet Bourbon
That's much better now. Good work on that! Thanks for the improvements, and sorry if we stepped in too soon with the deletion notices. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

210.235.209.39, 19 October 2007
The license you provided was invalid. Because, indeed the copyright of Mona Lisa is expired. But the graphic effect that was generated was not generated before 100 years and is subject to copyright. --210.235.209.39 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Adobe is not going to sue him for using an Adobe Photoshop swirl. If that were the case, the entire field of graphic design would not exist in this day-and-age because no one would create anything because the exercise of one's creativity in using software would result in copyright infringement lawsuits from said company. That's like saying Tim Berners-Lee (co-inventor of the World Wide Web) is having his intellectual property violated every time someone clicks a hyperlink. Copyright law exists not only to protect but to promote the exercise of creating works. - Ageekgal 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mona Lisa+Swirl may be a new artwork. So, I think you should release one of these: GPL or CC Public Domain or GPL CC PD dual license. Please see: Image_copyright_tags. --210.235.209.39 01:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

60.49.68.37 (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be lovely if you wouldn't run around deleting additions just because they lack a good source. It would be much nicer to flag as reference required for a while, make a note on the article's discussion page, and if nobody can help; remove the information. An encyclopedia is, after all, about information and it is always better to have extra info and mark it as unsourced than to remove it.

Newcastle University
Sorry, I seem to be ignorant of that. Could you perhaps provide a source for me? Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you're sure. I always thought Newcastle University was just used as shorthand. On the prospectus in the small print it said Univeristy of Newcastle upon Tyne trading as Newcastle University though. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
Yo. You removed my stand alone complex comment on the Project Chanology page. This isn't to bash around, and I'm certainly not interested in getting into an edit war, so I'm not putting it back. And I see that there is a strong argument that on controversial and unfolding topic its important to have accurate information.

But its also true that on a controversial and unfolding topic, the issues unfold faster than mainstream media and in ways that mainstream media doesn't see. Wikipedia allows users to Be bold so that users can build a page together. One person lays a foundation and over time others can add. Wikipedia doesn't expect every little thing added to a page to be well sourced by impeccable sources the moment its put on a page.

I noticed that at least one other person (see your talk page below) has commented on the fact that you seem to delete things that are unsourced without leaving any time for anyone to add or change them. You deleted what I wrote less than 12 hours after I posted it... if someone wanted to add sources I guess its too late! Please give people a little more time to work on eachother work and build an encyclopedia together; expecting the first person to post to set everything up perfectly is asking to much and doesn't give enough credit to the collaboration that makes wikipedia great. Michael.passman (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Response from Passman
Hey. I don't know much about this talk page stuff, but I assume I'm supposed to respond on your page, so I am.

You are absolutely right that it would be a problem if mainstream media picked up something from wikipedia, then it was in turn used to justify wikipedia. I never really thought of that. On the other hand, I could have found a blog written by some claimed to be an expert (or written the blog myself), then cited the blog, which unfortunately I think happens a lot on wikipedia, and is essentially as bad as your proposed scenario. So I guess I agree with you.

As to Stand Alone Complex being an obscure anime reference, yes and no. First of all, I assumed you knew what Stand Alone Complex was because you responded to my post and because of your name, EditorInTheRye. The anime that delves into SAC is Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. The main "bad guy" (sort of) copies all sorts of lines and styles from Catcher in the Rye, A Perfect Day for Bananafish, Laughing Man, etc. (all by JD Salinger, but I assume you know that). That said, stand alone complex may have gotten that name from the anime, but it is a documented philosophical/socieological thing.

Basically, stand alone complex is a situation where many individuals act alone but produce a complex and cooperative action, each one not knowing about the other and all trying to copy an original that may not exist. The documented cases that are best known (and sort of picked up in the anime), are the ones I cited in my post.

The first, the Glico Morinaga case was a kidnapping in Japan. To summarize shortly, some big exec was kidnapped from his house in what was a fairly horrific home invasion scare tactic kidnapping. Then his company was blackmailed. He was eventually returned but the blackmailing didn't end. In fact, other related companies were blackmailed. And companies were even told their products were poisoned and they had to be taken off the market. The supposed kidnapper or kidnappers were never caught. Eventually, people realized that maybe there wasn't one person behind all of this. There were probably copycats upon copycats. Some of the companies involved were probably faking blackmails to ruin their competition, etc. And there were just randoms going out for the fun of imitating a famous kidnapper and blackmail-artist. But to the police, at least at first, it looked like a well organized cooperative criminal enterprise. But it probably wasn't. In the end it was probably just a lot of individuals trying to imitate an original who had stopped (or had toned it down) but the original could never be found.

The and public reaction to the May 15 Incident is another example. Some young japanese naval officers rebelled against government policy and were sentenced to death. But after their sentancing, single chopped off finger kept getting sent to the prison from around japan. Along side were often notes stating that this was a personal sacrifice to preserve the prisoners lives. At first, to the government, it looked like rebel sympathisers had organized a nation wide protest. But when they investigated the people who sent the fingers, they found that they had no connection to one another. They had all undertaken this personal sacrifice (rather grusomely) on their own, without prompting or organization. Essentially, all of their unrelated individual actions "imitating" what they thought was the right thing to do produced the appearance of a cooperative protest.

A more academic explanation of what a stand alone complex might look like can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard#Simulacra_and_Simulation - the era of the original - to the counterfeit - to the produced, mechanical copy, and through - to the simulated "third order of simulacra", whereby the copy has replaced the original.

Internet meme's are also sometimes considered a stand alone complex. No one tells you to download the video of the star wars kid, but a ton of people do it. It might look from the outside like there is a plan to download star wars kid videos. But there isn't. Everyone's individual action forms a collective whole on its own.

Some might also consider religion to be a stand alone complex (though obviously some religions are more organized than others). If we accept for the purposes of this post that the historical Moses or Jesus or Mohammad (or whoever, please don't be offended if you are religious, this is just a hypothetical example, no insult intended) is not the same as the one we remember in our religious books, many people are trying to imitate an original that never really existed.

My point with my post was that because of this one anonymous post on youtube, many other people posted very very similar posts, claiming to be supporters of anonymous. those people went out to protest. those people helped hack Scientology's website. those people spread the word. all of them appear to be a cooperative mass. but they aren't. they are a bunch of individuals imitating some anonymous individual or group of individuals, who may or may not exist as a real organization, or may just be a joke, or may simply be someone's fun afternoon project. there may be no core group that wants to destroy Scientology. but now a bunch of other want to be just like anonymous, or be anonymous, and therefore make anonymous appear to be an organized conspiracy.

Anyway, thats about it. If you read through this entire thing, thats incredible. one thing that is amazing about wikipedia is that it brings together so many viewpoints from all over the world. anyway, just so you dont think i'm a crazy anime freak who does nothing constructive on wikipedia, i am also the guy who added project chanology to the the disambiguation page of anonymous because i'm sure a lot of people were searching for anonymous and had no clue it had a more formal name (for example, me until i found it through the Church of Scientology page. So I am constructive and I am not really an anime freak (though if you can tolerate anime, I recommend Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex because it really does make you think about the world in interesting ways). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.passman (talk • contribs) 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my essay of a response. I found a source for linking "Anonymous" with Stand Alone Complex. Its a blog, but its a source. So I'm going to add it back to the page. You should feel free to tinker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.passman (talk • contribs)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles
I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm Geniac. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person   on Asrani, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bulleitt edit
Thank you for that! I had glanced at it after putting it back and didn't like the Facebook reference as self-published, but hadn't thought about how to revamp that section. There probably is mention in secondary sources about what's in the FB post, but what's there seems of due weight and gives a good summary. Thanks.  Ravensfire  (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like a weird mix between self-promotion and something big enough to make the news. I don't think I struck the perfect balance but it hopefully got closer! :) EditorInTheRye (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

re: WP:AUTOBIO notice
To EditorInTheRye I left you a message at User talk:37.164.3.214. John Serry 37.170.103.26 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks, I've replied there :-) EditorInTheRye (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

To EditorInTheRye Please find another message at User talk:37.164.3.214 37.170.103.26 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Carl XVI Gustaf. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Carl XVI Gustaf shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll make sure I wait 24 hours before fixing your next mistake editing the article about Carl XVI Gustaf. EditorInTheRye (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note the final sentence of the last post: you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted. Blocking an editor for making Good-faith, cited, and each time improved edits is pretty poor application of this rule, but whatever floats your boat. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Geronimo
From your comments at the RM proposed by you, I understand that currently neither you nor any other editor is supporting the original proposal and the choice is effectively between Killing of Geronimo the alpaca (or some minor variant) or retaining the current name. I don't see any consensus between those options, and I'm minded to relist, but I think it would be helpful to strike the original proposal and add Killing of Geronimo the alpaca so that editors can see what is now being proposed. Would you be happy for me to do that? Havelock Jones (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, yes I think that would work. As it stands now I think there's a consensus that the current title isn't right, but no agreement on the destination (although one would probably be reached easily enough if a clear and reasoned alternative was presented). EditorInTheRye (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Silverback
Why did you delete my addition? Brent Taylor is well known for each of the elements listed. I have support for my submission? Bbbogden (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you :-)
cool, thanks! (for editing that link in "Great tit"). (please feel very free to delete this message here, I just have, I think, no other option/ place to react as a non registered user.)

-- Apropos the capitalized European sparrow hawk and non capitalized other animals in that chapter (/article?) and mixed usages or all capitalized in other articles - after some (little and non expert) "research" ;-) it seems to me (I am not a native speaker of English ), that there really is no clear rule about English species names (common names), is there? (Ignore this and also remove it, in case I am getting on your nerves, but should you have time and fun answering, I'd be happy to learn. I have some botanical background and am more familiar with Latin species name rules, but "plain" English isn't always  "plain" to me :-D ) -

And: Asking about courtship/ mating behaviour didn't (of course!) mean to diminish all the information, that is already there. Just in case you were a main contributor there (I didn't check for editors' names) or s.th. in the line and felt not appreciated - it is appreciated, a lot! :-) -- have a good day! 2A02:3035:C12:FED3:1:0:BB0C:F3BC (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

re: (non)caps animal names
Thank you so much for your friendlyness and help!! :-)) ( I'm not going to further "spam" your page here now, but one "by the way": I like your username :-D ) 2A02:3035:C12:FED3:1:0:BB0C:F3BC (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Bold binomials in lead
Per European robin see the revised MOS:LEAD. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's changed relatively recently. My bad and thanks (and I do hope you find a bot to do this - seems like a very big job...) EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

=Bot chatter=

upload the display picture of Govinda(actor)
hi EditorInTheRye, it is my humble request for you to please upload the display picture of Govinda(actor) on wikipedia (Link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govinda_%28actor%29). I have uploaded it so many times but everytime some issue occurs regarding license or copyright. I dont know how to fix it or upload image successfully. You can find best pictures of Govinda here http://themirchmasala.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/govinda-photoshoot.jpg

http://hamaraphotos.com/albums300_2012/wpw-20130504/hpse_normal__1644962347_%20Govinda%20photo%20shoot%20for%20designer%20Suprabha%20Jain%20%289%29.jpg

The current Display Picture will also be deleted after 23rd January 2013.

So it would be much better if you upload either the pictures whose link i have given above of Govinda without any licensing/copyright issue or upload any best picture of Govinda. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanraj6 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)