User talk:Raeky/Archives/2012/July

Opinion
Thanks for offering your time. I had posted two potential FPCs at PPR. You can see my cases for them at Picture peer review/20120623 Sqwiki the Squirrel at Wiknic.JPG and Picture peer review/Atmospheric thermocline. Does either of those have a chance?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded, thanks! — raeky  t  15:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing I note is that when your listing the articles the image is in, you NEED to sort them by EV, articles you think the image has the most EV for (and is contributing the most too) should be listed first, articles that have almost no EV should either be omitted (just say "and __ more articles). For FP criteria it just needs to have HIGH EV contribution to at least one article, using it in A LOT of articles that it has minimal or very low EV for can actually hurt the FP nomination since it looks bad to many of the reviewers to just cram images into articles that isn't helping them much. I know you advocate over-use of images in articles (something I oppose) but for the FP nominations sake, if your putting forth YOUR OWN images, best not look like your cramming it into as many articles as possible. Find just one or two GREAT articles for the image, and only put them in that during the nomination period, after the FP process is done, you can add them to others as you see fit but too many articles for your own pictures at the start seems like self-promotion and is HIGHLY looked down upon at the FP process. —  raeky  t  15:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Pages nominated for deletion
Hi there,

Can you help me understand better as to why these pages would be deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Nemtin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dave_Lingwood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonnie_Penn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Duncan_Penn

I am trying to meet the basic requirements wikipedia requires, however this has been a very, very difficult process. Any insight and helpful tips would be greatly appreciated, as I have not received any help when asked previously.

Thanks PeterJensen007 (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I responded to you at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard that gives you the basics. All articles need to meet Wikipedia's basic guidelines for inclusion, these are setforth at WP:N, specifically for an actor they're WP:ENTERTAINER and as far as I can tell they don't meet these requirements. They're known for one TV show, has had no significant roles in any other tv show or movie, has not received major awards, has not had major news coverage about them as a person, etc. The show probably meets notability requirements but I don't see it for these individuals. If you feel I'm incorrect in this assessment then by all means state so in the deletion discussions, but keep in mind of the COI, you'll have to have clear evidence that they meet these requirements. — raeky  t  11:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The bar for inclusion is usually set pretty low by Inclusionists so it may not be that difficult to keep them, but generally for WP:BLP articles theres a higher level of requirements for inclusion than a non-blp article, simply because of promotion or privacy concerns. — raeky  t  11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Disruptive Creationist Slanted Edits"
making such edits will not get you any where. Further warnings or actions may be taken as well. --Cormag100 (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. — raeky  t  10:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pinta Island tortoise
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pinta Island tortoise. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First colored senator and reps.jpg
Hi Raeky, thanks for your input at Featured picture candidates/First colored senator and reps.jpg. It's been very illuminating. I was wondering if you would be giving your Support for the nomination? – Lionel (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha)
I've started an SPI. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jared Lee Loughner
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jared Lee Loughner. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Photosynthesis
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Photosynthesis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis
If you had given that user a warning for edit-warring instead of just an NPOV warning they'd have stopped already--or been blocked already. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly, it seemed more likely that they just wasn't aware of the removals of the content and reasons why and kept with their edits. Edit warring I thought wasn't clear cut since it was all completely different edits, although all content related, but completely different in actual content. In the future I'll take your advice in account if I run across a similar editor. This Snootcher character is starting to annoy me, if he contiunes today me or Jess will likely seek remedy from a notice board. ;-\ — raeky  t  03:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's hope that won't be necessary. Consider ignoring... Drmies (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since he just stated hes going to open an ANI by editing my user page and not the user talk page looks like a matter of WP:BOOMARANG here. — raeky  t  04:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Phillip Witcomb
Hi Raeky Thank you for offering to write an article I'm not a writter and just dont get this stuff I just paint.

so can I write to you via an email that isnt wikipedia obviously my biography is on my website. I do have a gallery currently showing my work permantly and I have had some extremely notable tutors ref my biography.. there are a number of sites that have written about me.. I cant remember all of them off hand but one is www.doxfordhall.com look on latest news..i will ask the gallery to write a short article about me and the work they are showing..to forward to you i will also ask Alnwick castle (the home of the duke of northumberland) and hary potter film set to send me a short reaction to the painting of the castle i have just finished. I will also ask Roy Reynolds great, great grand son of the founder of the Royal academy to confirm what i have said on my biography...My previous agent was the one who had researched me for a year and named me as one of Colombia's greatest artists I dont know if he will still stand by this claim or not but I can only ask.. What else would you like to know...

Regards Phillip--The Modern Master (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In the Toolbox menu on the left of my talk page it has an e-mail link that will reach me, and e-mail is fine. Sources need to be verifiable, so personal statements from someone may not qualify. You have paintings on display at Alnwick Castle, that's probably fairly notable if can be verified. The Doxford Hall link I don't think will meet our reliable source guidelines. Commissions that are on private display, are not enough to establish notability. Any permanent displays at notable galleries or museums? Biography information, about your art education, past works, etc would only be useful for filling in information in the page, not to establish notability. A statement by a previous agent stating "one of Columbia's greatest artists" is not usable or a claim we could make. Such a claim would need to be backed up by a fairly notable award or prominent art critic that has authority of the subject. The gallery showing your work, they have a website? Ada Balcacer doesn't seem to have an article here, but from the biography I saw online she probably would meet WP:GNG. And we have Roger de Grey already. Once we compile all the sources for establishing WP:N we may want to go to one of the noticeboards to confirm before the effort to create the page is made. I'd hate to work on it only to have it deleted again, and with it being deleted twice now it's prudent to get some solid confirmation that it should stay this time. — raeky  t  17:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolution as fact and theory
I have been a regular contributor and editor to that article for years now. I co-authored the original lead and the information is cited. I apologize if I clicked on the minor edit button by accident. I usually use it when I make small grammar changes after a longer edit. Please refrain from deleting my work - it is annoying after spending a whole day researching and working on that. Please refer to the talk pages and you will see that other editors approve of my work.Thompsma (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. - I undid your revision to my work, because it was uncalled for. A pleasant heads-up would be more helpful. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the log:

(cur | prev) 04:30, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (50,713 bytes) (-23)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 04:29, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (50,736 bytes) (+27)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 04:21, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (50,709 bytes) (0)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 04:20, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (50,709 bytes) (+13)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 04:19, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (50,696 bytes) (+49)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 04:14, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (50,647 bytes) (-2)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 04:13, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (50,649 bytes) (+8)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 04:12, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (50,641 bytes) (+15)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 03:59, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (50,626 bytes) (+25)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 03:38, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (50,601 bytes) (+13)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 03:36, 27 July 2012‎ Thompsma (talk | contribs)‎. . (50,588 bytes) (+1,564)‎. . (Trimming / tweaking the lead. The gravity bit was removed, because it does not belong in the lead - too general of a connection and this needs to be shortened.) (undo)


 * Note that the "m" was used after the major change at the bottom. I first made the major revision with comments (+1,564) - and then a bunch of minor revisions afterwards. It has been a number of years since I have read through the proper usage of minor revisions, but I believe I am in the correct here. {{subst:unsigned|Thompsma|04:54, 27 July 2012‎))
 * It's obvious you've not read it in a while. It's ONLY to be used for 100% uncontroversial edits, i.e. formatting. Changing ANYTHING that could be conceived as changing the meaning or wording should not be marked as a minor edit. — raeky  t  05:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple times is accedent and overlookable, of the 11 edits I reversed 1, not proper, 2, not proper, 3, not proper, 4, not proper, 5, ok, 6, not proper, 7, not proper, 8, ok, 9, not proper, 10, not proper, 11, not proper. 2 out of 11 was acceptable. After looking at your edit history in the last 500 edits the majority were marked minor, and the vast majority of those are improper. Some people have their watchlists set to ignore minor edits, and if you mark edits changing the meaning or wording as minor people can miss those. It's IMPORTANT to PROPERLY use the minor edit box. By reverting your 11 edits, it puts them all outside of minor edits so people can see them once again! — raeky  t  04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your synopsis. I have re-read and read the page on the minor edit button long-ago and you are quibbling here on points that can be easily debated. I have been an editor in here long enough to know what I am doing and you are the first editor out of thousands that has taken issue with this. There is a margin of interpretation and it does not look to me like you are an admin. Please refrain from undoing my work.Thompsma (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be an admin to make this assessment or issue a warning. Some of those changes I actually object too, and to see it marked as minor is why I took exception. It doesn't matter if a bunch of other people haven't cared enough to let you know that you're using the minor edit feature wrong or not, it's immaterial. — raeky  t  05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From Help:Minor edit: "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Perhaps you do not have a grasp of the meaning of the scientific philosophy to understand that the changes I am making retain the original meaning. If the meaning is retained, but I simply re-work for improved structure - then I can hit the minor edit button. You do not need to be admin to make the assessment, but I think you are wasting my time. There are far more important things to go after in this wikipedia world - I am an editor in good faith and have used it in this circumstance. We differ in our opinion on the proper use of the minor edit button. I will re-consider my use of it, but at this point I do not agree with your conclusions on the matter.Thompsma (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The other part that you are missing here is the history. For example, you labelled the following: 11, not proper - I deleted that text, but I also put it into the lead last year. These are minor edits to text I inserted long ago - it is revisions to my own work. Please stop wasting my time and let me get back to work. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who put it in, there is no ownership of articles. If the edit is not procedurally trival, format changing, or something unobjectionable you use minor, if your changing the wording, or meaning or ANYTHING that someone could EVER object too, you DON'T. It's pretty simple. — raeky  t  05:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment on the ownership, but I disagree with your categorization of "minor" and think you are being obtuse on a trivial matter.Thompsma (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please put this into perspective relative to the amount of edits I make. I make substantive edits to that page. There are few other editors working on that page. The purpose of "policing" in wikipedia is to go after people who are working in bad faith. Go police elsewhere where you can be more useful. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Penis
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Willful disregardful of WP:ME.
Hey. First off, language like "punishments" and "obeying" is probably something best avoided when discussing Wikipedia policies/guidelines; the guidelines are there to aid in commodious and fruitful editing, not to be obeyed, and "punishments" are not handed out at all- instead, blocks and the like are merely there to help prevent disruption. Now, speaking generally, if someone is choosing to deliberately ignore the minor edit/article ownership guidelines, and they refuse or fail to moderate their behaviour upon being approached, and this is causing some kind of genuine problem, then I'd say that it's something that should be raised at the incidents noticeboard. Alternatively, Wikiquette assistance may be able to offer some help; they're a lot less bitey, as a rule. A third possibility would be to raise the question on the applicable guideline talk page; if it is determined that the behaviour is not appropriate and the editor in question still does not change, then you'd probably have a good cause to take it to the noticeboard. If it's not really causing any great issue, then it may be best to leave it be- possibly keeping an eye out for any cases where it genuinely does cause an issue. This is not really the sort of thing I like to get involved with, so I'm not really comfortable wading in and/or attempting to make any kind of judgement about the behaviour myself. I hope this helps. J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees  in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's  follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)