User talk:RUL3R/Archive 1

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes ( Redwolf24 06:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC) ) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes ( Redwolf24 ) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

Universalforumofculures-stub
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

June 2009

 * Comment from RUL3R. While I recognize that my initial efforts where out of the line and against policy, I have come to believe that Scientology-related articles are intentionally confusing.

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am but a simple editor and admin here, keen to do justice to all parties. It does make it very difficult to assess the merits of your edits when you delete 37K of text with an edit summary "covered in sub articles", or words to that effect. Frankly, I don't have the time do go through a line-by-line analysis of whether this is so, and accordingly I request that you repeat your edits but with more specific information. You are obviously aware that all Scientology-related articles are still on article probation, recently reinforced by the ArbCom decision, and accordingly, to be fair to all parties, I urge you that if you repeat your edits, please give us mere mortals some chance of following the process. I'm sure you are well aware of the alternatives. Rodhull  andemu  23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Scientology. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. AndrewrpTally-ho! 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to be fair here, you will be aware that all Scientology-related articles are a bit of a hot potato here, and it is vital that all edits are visibly and scrupulously above-board. I have no issue with balance, but when you delete sourced content from a main article, please make it absolutely clear that it is replicated in a sub-article. Thanks. Rodhull  andemu  00:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Best to avoid primary sources, and use secondary sources satisfying WP:RS/WP:V instead. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * re Sources for Scientology ethics.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful tagging of Monterrey
Your intent was to help improve Wikipedia, however the tags you placed on Monterrey were excessive and unhelpful. The article is reasonably sourced and largely uncontentious. The top page tags were unhelpful as they did not direct people to areas of concern. And the inline tags were on petty statements, and there were too many of them. The article appears to be decently written, and the facts I checked were reasonably robust. It is better to do a moment's research with Google before adding a fact tag. If you can't find anything to support the statement then consider either tagging it or removing it completely. If the statement is likely to be contentious, it is usually better to remove it, but if it is a simple statement, then a tag would be appropriate. If the statement is really innocent or clearly obvious, then don't tag it all all. For example: "Grupo Multimedios operates 2 television channels in the city" is an innocent statement - not contentious - not worth removing or tagging. "Grupo Multimedios operates the leading television channels in the city" needs a source to support the claim of "leading" - so a tag would be appropriate, or simply remove the word "leading". "Grupo Multimedios were the first television company in Mexico" is a contentious statement that either needs a source or to be removed - a tag is not enough. Mirror sites copy our statements, but not our tags. Do you get the idea? Let me know if you want to talk it through some more. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From the food section:
 * Carne asada (grilled beef) on weekends remains one of the most cherished traditions in Monterrey's families. It is usually served with grilled onions, baked potatoes and sausages or chopped as tacos. Carne asada gatherings generally take place in the afternoons opposed to central Mexico tradition of having carne asada between 2 and 4pm. Locally brewed beer and cola soft drinks are an almost mandatory part of the weekly ritual. The traditional desserts, "glorias" and "obleas," made from goat milk are both traditional candies from Nuevo León.

How is that not written like a travel guide? Also, unreferenced.

From the public safety section:
 * Since 2003-2006, however, the city has seen its share of drug violence related to turf battles between warring cartels.

Informal, unreferenced, weasel words.

And that is on a quick check. I wait for comment. Thanks. RUL3R (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You do a quick Google check (these days Google is excellent for doing such quick checks, though for someone who wants to work closely on an article, a visit to the library is recommended) and then apply the common sense model I outlined to you. It's about making some informed judgments on the value of the statement and the usefulness of tagging. For the last section you mention - the drug wars, I put in a Google search for "Monterrey warring cartels" and found plenty of evidence to support the bulk of the drug war statement. I removed the bit about 2003-2006 as my search didn't reveal that, and pinning down a date requires an informed opinion, and is anyway not required. I changed the wording of "seen its share of" to "experienced" as possibly more formal, though that is debatable, and I moved the word "drug" from "violence" to "cartels" for clarity and better English. It took less than 5 minutes. The same approach can be done with the other statements. I'll assist you going through the other statements if you like. For the food section, I suggest trying a Google search on "Carne asada Monterrey", and using the book search facility, as you tend to get better food related sources from books than from the internet. Look here. I use an add on tool for Firefox called Wikipedia Cite which means I then only have to click on the source page and I get all the reference details in an appropriate format which I then paste into the article. Quick and easy. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 07:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am actually from Monterrey and I know first hand that most of what is written is true. The issue here is that any reader not from Mexico (which amounts to about 99.5% of the world population) is likely to be lost in the article. Aside of that, references in Wikipedia not only serve to cite a source, they also serve to avoid making additional searching elsewhere, that's a reason to link to them. I believe it makes no sense to say that it is OK to leave unreferenced statements just beacuse it can be found on Google in less than 5 minutes. I can acknowledge I overreacted with my tagging, but this article lacks many references. The history section has none, for example. RUL3R (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not saying that contentious statements should be left unsourced because it only takes 5 minutes work for the reader - I was saying that instead of tagging the article, do the 5 minutes work yourself and improve the article. Uncontentious statements, however, do not need to be sourced. Not every single statement needs sourcing - Verifiability goes into more detail. It comes down to:


 * If the statement is basic and obvious, it doesn't need a source.
 * If the statement is likely to be questioned, then either tag it or source it.
 * If the statement is making a bold claim, then either remove it or source it.


 * Tagging alerts other editors that some research needs to be done. Some editors (I do this) will tag an article they are working on to remind them of statements they need to source later - I do this when working on potential Good Articles. On some articles I keep an eye on (Beer for example) I welcome somebody putting on a specific tag, as it draws my attention to a questionable statement. But considering that almost every article on Wikipedia has at least one contentious unsourced statement that could be tagged, mass tagging of such statements would overwhelm every editor who makes an effort at finding sources (such as myself). I am trying here to encourage you to get involved in improving the Monterrey article, and I'm willing to assist you in doing this as it's not that difficult, and would be better than just tagging. The article would improve, and you would feel good about your contribution. If you'd rather tag and walk away than edit the article, let me know, and I'll get on with something else.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, so far I have been able to find a couple of sources, made some additions to the article and slight corrections. I also reformatted some information, based on the format of the Manchester article, which was recently given WP:FA status. Let me know if my work complies better with policy. Thanks. RUL3R (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you. I will take a look at the Monterrey article shortly.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Monterrey article
I've just a bit more work on it. The article is more problematic than first appears, and you are right to be concerned about it. I can see that you are doing some good work on it, and are bringing some order to it. Well done! I'll drop in later to see how things are developing.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Getallthefacts.com
Since you commented on the AfD for this page you may wish to comment here, too. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)