User talk:RA0808/Archives2018/January

Gregangelo’s Velocity Circus/Arts and Entertainment
On April 28 2017, you speedily deleted Gregangelo’s Velocity Circus/Arts and Entertainment as being promotional. As a new page patroller, I am looking at the present incarnation of the article and wondering if it is any better than the original. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

RE Interior design
I was telling Oshwah as im about to tell you that I was giving interior a simpler explanation. and I believe u speedily jumped to conclusions. (MalaKite (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing relevant content, even if you claim it is to make it a "simpler explanation" is not constructive. Please refrain from doing that in future... continuing to do so will result in further warnings and likely a block from editing. If you prefer to work in an environment with simple explanations of concepts consider the Simple English Wikipedia. RA 0808  talkcontribs 22:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok look, I'm not trying to be condescending, but as relevant as any of us trying to justify our actions is, who can say for sure if we really are justified in saying that our decisions are relevant? there is no true logic that can justify any of that at least that I know of. maybe the answer is on simple wiki. I bet I wouldn't even find that there. because its too complicated to explain to anyone. MalaKite (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's issues from both of you here. It is wrong of you to threaten blocks and whatnot at such a stage, -- this can be described as a content dispute with no bad faith whatsoever.  -- I like your simpler explanation, but be reminded that a lead section should generally reflect the size of the page. I think it would be worthy to replace the first sentence of the lead with yours, removing any redundant info after that (your mileage may vary as to what that means), instead of deleting the whole lead section. The interior design bit needs to stay -- we have a Manual of Style. Further discussion of a content dispute should take place on the talk page. MalaKite, please be aware of the edit war policy, so do not attempt to revert again without agreement. Thanks,  ! dave  15:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Re: Draft:Nuturco"
Dear Ra,

First of all, thank you for your prompt action. I believe you will give us the chance to explain and inform the purpose behind our article.

We as an organization would like to be present on Wikipedia's fruitful and resourceful platform for our industry, customers and adversaries to be able to see and help us improve the way we present ourself and the voice we embrace. In order to be fully entitled to Wikipedia's policies, we have added "advert" tag at the end of our page. I hope this illuminates that our article belongs to a business organization. We are not trying to promote our company. We believe in absolute transparency and therefore we believe it is necessary to allow readers and editors to have access to our content. As they will be able to help us and our community to adjust our voice and the way we present our company. If readers or editors believe we are using deceptive information on our page, they are more than welcome to challenge us and give us the chance to educate or inform them about us and our sole belief in transparency. Sociologically motivated, we believe we must put out our words out there for others to say yes it is true or no it is not and that is why...How can we keep representing our image and voice correctly, if we can't listen and learn from others.

Sincerely, Nuturco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuturco (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi - site reversion: Re: University of Western Ontario Faculty of Education
Good evening,

I have been trying to ensure that the content found on the previous version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Western_Ontario_Faculty_of_Education is removed and replaced with what I have placed in its stead. I work for the institution in question and the original poster does not. Perhaps I can just get it all deleted? Not sure what the best option is, but the content that was there earlier is not correct.

I have placed text that I think is descriptive, trying not to use promotional language.

Thanks! ...Colin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couchmancolin (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, and welcome! Please note that since you are an employee of the university and/or faculty you have a conflict of interest relating to the article, and are encouraged to propose changes at the article's talk page rather than editing directly. You can see WP:COI and some of the resources in the welcome message I sent you for more information on editing with a conflict of interest and how to disclose it. Additionally, if the edits you are making are part of your job (i.e. you are making them as an employee who is tasked with promoting the faculty) you are required under the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of service to disclose that on your user page (see WP:PAID).


 * Now for the contents of the page itself. First, please understand that editors with a conflict of interest may be adding promotional language even if they don't realize it... purely because they are so connected to the topic in question. You have stated that the content, which details the history of the faculty,is erroneous but a significant portion of it was cited to reliable sources. What exactly about it was erroneous? RA 0808  talkcontribs 15:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Marshmallow
hey there. im not an expert user of the WP interface therefore probably i am to take the blame (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.99.38.199&oldid=820991964&diff=cur ). i noticed that when editing an article if i write something in the edit summary box, it appears as a section title in the article. to avoid this i put the argument/explanation to the talk page of the article. (in this case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marshmallow#Section:_Sucrose ). please take time to read it and if you find my point convincing, delete or rewrite the paragraph discussed there. if you disagree about it, let it be. im not going to delete it a third time. cheers. 80.99.38.199 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC).

Nomination of Joshua Claybourn for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joshua Claybourn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Joshua Claybourn (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notifying you about the discussion, since you have made significant contributions to articles related to this subject. --IndyNotes (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

John Staff
I clicked "Publish Changes" accidentally while creating the article, instead of "show preview"; you caught me while I was working. My apologies. Brewer Bob (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You have made a mistake
Hello,

You have made a mistake. I am an intern for the Kingston Canadian Film Festival and they have specifically told me to put these changes onto the page. If you could please reverse the changes that would great.

Thanks,

Jbensimon123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbensimon123 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message and welcome to Wikipedia. Since you are an intern working for the festival please note that means you have a conflict of interest in editing its article. You can consult Wikipedia's guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest at WP:COI. In a nutshell, you are strongly recommended to disclose your conflict of interest pro-actively and to not directly edit the article. In your scenario you could disclose your COI by placing the following on your user page: . You can suggest changes without directly editing the article by making an edit request.


 * Please note that if this is a paid internship and/or you are otherwise being financially compensated for your edits you are required under the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of service to disclose who is paying you to edit (see WP:DISCLOSEPAY).


 * Regarding the social media links, I will not be restoring them. Wikipedia's external links policy is to minimize the number of external links and "more than one official link[including social media] should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." RA 0808  talkcontribs 17:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fidelity Fiduciary Bank
I forget where I read specifically that the bank run in Mary Poppins was depicting a real bank run from that same year, but I did find specific sources that detail a real run on an English bank in 1910, the year in which the film is set, which is certainly not a coincidence. If putting the full text of the edit back doesn't seem appropriate without a specific source indicating that the bank run in the song is specifically based on the one in history, then at least an entry that there was a real bank run in England that year seems like a good compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.35.98 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Personally, to me that sounds a bit too much like original research (specifically "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources"). That being said... if you would like to make a note of the possible connection on the talk page and perhaps come back to it once you've found a source that explicitly makes the connection that would be fine. RA 0808  talkcontribs 18:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The compromise I went with was stating that there was a real British Bank run in the year the film was set, and then avoid speculating as to whether the film was specifically referencing that or not. Is that acceptable?