User talk:Raeky/Archives/2010/June

Proposed amendment
I find the proposed amendment quite reasonable, except for two technical points: (1) You were the only contributor expressing this view, so it might belong in a "useful points raised" section of the summary (perhaps along with Greg's suggestion to explicitly exclude animations from the 1000 pixel criterion), and (2) the way it's currently worded is inconsequential - e.g., would the intention be to explicitly recognise opposes on this basis (long exposure, EXIF withheld) as valid? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that for example, Featured_picture_candidates/Foxfire, if that was missing the exposure information you wouldn't have any idea how weak the the light of the bioluminescence it was illustrating was. So what I'd like is the valid grounds to oppose similar long exposure images that exclude EXIF/exposure information. — raeky ( talk 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Entry for innocent drinks
Hi Raeky

I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to contribute to the article about innocent. I read a book by innocent on how their company started and the creation of the brand and logo was credited to a company called deepend who also exist on wikipedia yet there is no reference to this on the page nor a cross link to the company? I'm very wary of changing anything and see you have managed the page alot so thought I'd ask your advice. Do you think it's relevant, or should I just add the text? Ive read your discussions and don't think it's advertising related. MrNoobDoob (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC) MrNoobDood 14May2010
 * Provided you have a reliable source to back up the statement, and properly cite the source then there would be no problem with including the information. What is the book you read it in? ISBN#? — raeky ( talk 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's called "A Book about innocent: Our story and some of the things we've learned". There are two ISBN numbers for it, # ISBN-10: 0718153170 and
 * 1) ISBN-13: 978-0718153175. --MrNoobDoob (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's written by one of the founders of Innocent,, so it could be considered a primary source. So you'd need to treat it as such when add any content from it. The way you cite a book found here. — raeky ( talk 12:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Raeky, ive added the relevant facts and citation, I'm pretty sure ive done it right, perhaps you could check it if you get a moment.MrNoobDoob (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped
You participated in the discussion at Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983 and so I thought I would alert you to a discussion at Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

question re your comment on WP:RFPP
you wrote: ''There really isn't a compromise to be made here, this editor is trying to push creationist views into a science article. Hes not willing to improve the article within it's scope, hes wanting to change the purpose of the article. There is a _long_ history of people with his views trying to interject their pseudoscience into science articles and we don't allow that. Like every editor who is not Gniviv has pointed out to you that there is no point to protecting the page, it's not solving anything. — raeky ( talk 02:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)''

Without commenting on the protection itself, I'm not sure I understand your position. How is an article titled "objections to evolution" a science article? In order to maintain neutrality, per WP:UNDUE, we must cover significant objections to theories that are considered by most to be decided, but we don't give them undue weight. Thus, the main evolution article would not be the place for this, but Objections to evolution is definitely the proper place to note the most prominent objections to evolution, of which creationism is definitely the most popular. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...And I'm an idiot. I totally misread that. Sorry. J.delanoy gabs adds  03:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, no problem. It's an article covered under the Evolution umbrella, thus it's treated like any other science article. It's an article meant to present the mainstream scientific establishments rebuttal to common objections to evolution. It's not an article meant to give credence to those objections. — raeky ( talk 03:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Objections to evolution
Thanks for your recent efforts with Gniniv. I think I've completely lost patience with the whole thing. We're still having the same discussion we were last month. I just don't have that kind of free time. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I appreciate you stepping in. The situation is long past disturbing, particularly being unable to remove an unwarranted PP even with Gniniv's behavior. So yea... thanks. Jess talk cs 03:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Eek! Dyslexia kicking in! I was looking at the wrong side of RoyBoy's diff, and thought I was changing it back to "agreed it was". Thanks for fixing my mistake!! :) Jess talk cs 03:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem.. lol. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 05:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I want it to be clear to all editors that I am acting in good faith from my personal perspective (As I know all of you are).. All I ask is that some debate is included to avoid absolute suppression of alternative theories.--Gniniv (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Ratner Athletic Center
I understand you have likely been doing your best to pick a fight with me for several days and may have little or no interest in improving the project, but if you are interested in a cogent discussion feel free to come by Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Ratner Athletic Center. If you really want to pick a fight, however, here is a little advice. Find something I have really done. Saying something like I ignore everyone, when you know I compromise with people who have rational opinions won't get you anywhere in terms of picking fights. Constantly opposing won't get you anywhere because I have too much hardware to really care. Inflammatory untruths just don't get up my dander. Find something I have really done, because I will likely continue to do it and believe in doing it. Saying that I comment about image placements too much on FPCs won't likely result in a good fight regardless of how many people you get to corroborate your opinion because no matter how many people you get to tell me it it wrong, I do not believe it is wrong to try to improve the encyclopedia in that way. I believe in freedom of expression and will ignore all advice not to express my opinion. I admit I may be overzealous in 20 to 25% of my image placements and you may note that but you are free to try to help me understand my errors with cogent discourse. I am just getting bored of your attempts to pick fights I am not interested in so I thought I would give you some advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson and music
Thanks for double checking. I only perused the 'interests' section, and didn't notice the biography listing. Cheers, JNW (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Think that was an edit conflict over at ANI, I've specified. N419 BH  01:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, I think things are settling down. We should probably start trying to determine which images have the highest EV... NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do, odds are we might even have better quality images on Commons for some of these, i'll look there as well. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 07:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to just edit the articles replacing images as we see fit? Or start a consensus discussion on their talk page? I'm not sure they're all capable of rational discussion at this point without a cooling off period, but we'll see. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 07:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just start browsing and taking notes. There are a lot of pages involved, and we'll see how they respond to my comment. A cooldown period would be good though. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 07:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at Paracetamol now, and since Tylenol was the first marketed brand of it I'm suggesting the first image be of that, going to upload a couple images off of flickr, and i'll post on the Talk page for that page about my suggestions. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 07:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted my opinions on images on the relevant talk pages, and while I was doing that, they're still reverting eachother, see Sertraline. They're clearly in violation of WP:3RR and is more evidence for a time out, but thats definitely not my call. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 08:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll deal with the less savory bits ;) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 15:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)