User talk:RaseaC/Archive 4

Reversion
Why did you revert the page? What didn't you like about my edits? In my view, there was nothing wrong about my edits. Those people are all alumni of the university. I thought the section was too weak and short, compared to entries of other universities like McGill. - Wisdompower —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdompower (talk • contribs) 01:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to thank you for your excellent anti-vandalism work, and particularly for reverting the vandalism to my talk page yesterday. It was much appreciated. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Best Halloween Ever!
Hi. I saw where you just tagged this for speedy deletion as patent nonsense and was curious as to why you chose that tag. The page is well-written and doesn't appear to be gibberish. TN X Man 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
TN X Man 17:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

David Bielkheden
Why did you revert the last few changes to David Bielkheden article? Seemed right to me. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I've rectified it and left a note on the IP's talk. RaseaC (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Emile Durkheim
Why have you removed the edit to the suicide section in Emile Durkheim's page which mentioned that egoistic suicide is also known as egotistical suicide? This is a productive edit, as many editions/translations refer to only one term and not the other. Readers should be aware of the relation between the terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.234.74 (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's redundant. Egotistic- and egotistical-suicide are the same thing. RaseaC (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the point to stating that it is "also known as" the other term. The words are not the same: egoistic refers more to a general self-centered nature while egotistical refers more to a self-centered way of thinking and speaking.  Look up the terms and you will see that they are not perfect synonyms.  The implications of both terms on the semantics and the basic message of Durkheim's theory is significant.  This information - a matter of 5 words - should be included in Wikipedia's article.  Both are valid terms with different implications.  It would not be the first time a Wikipedia article lists multiple terms for the same thing.

According Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary they're the same words. 'He performed an egotistic suicide for egotistical reasons', same thing. RaseaC (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless that was a typo, you just used exactly the same word twice. The difference is between EGOISTIC (one 'T') and EGOTISTICAL (two 'T's).  Look up the two words in Merriam-Webster.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.234.74 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a typo. Forget the examples, the word has the same meaning (even according to our very own encyclopedia) and so differntiation is not necessary. RaseaC (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I support RaseaC's decision. Saying that "egoistic refers more to a general self-centered nature while egotistical refers more to a self-centered way of thinking and speaking" is a very, very vague differentiation: even by your definitions I don't see what the difference is. Even we just supposed that the two terms referred to two different things, it would almost logically imply the terms "egoistical suicide" and "egotistical suicide" have different meanings.


 * For my part, however, I am quite certain that Durkheim did not intend to use two distinct words with different meanings to refer to the same thing. If the two words have been equally used by translators, I believe we can fairly assume that they refer to the same thing. Thus, no need to distinguish between the two words: they mean, and refer to, the exact same thing. --m3taphysical (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They may, indeed, refer to the same thing - after all, that is why both are used. People do interpret what they read based on the literal meanings of words, however, so it should be noted that translations of this book use the terms interchangeably, regardless of etymology.  Further, the main point is this: look at other Wikipedia articles.  Take the "Simpson's paradox" as an example.  The article mentions that this concept has gone by at least four different names, each of which is listed.  Those are all names for exactly the same thing.  REAL ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES MENTION ALL SYNONYMOUS AND RELATED TERMS.  Your discrimination, in this case, is an unnecessary inhibition to Wikipedia's potential.  The addition of five extra words, which acknowledge that this phenomenon has another name, is not detrimental to the Wikipedia article.  On the contrary, it is a simple relation of facts - the very purpose of an encyclopedia to begin with.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.108.75 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only do they refer to the same thing, the words are synonyms which is why it is redundant to list both. The Simpson's Paradox example is irrelevant because those are four completely different terms, which use completely different words. If it makes it easier, think of 'egoistic' and 'egotistical' being the same words (as that is, effectively, what they are). It is detrimental to the article as so far as it is redundant wording, which should be avoided so as to improve the readibility of the sentence.  raseaC talk to me 00:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

please continue this discussion on the article's talk page

afd
just some friendly advice--we don't use pictorial symbols there--the system supports them because they are used here in a few miscellaneous processes, like sockpuppet investigations  DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks.  raseaC talk to me 15:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Help
What is the best way of deleting The Ida Funkhouser Roadside Memorialas it is, in my opinion, an implausible redirect. I was unable to find a suitable speedy tag and WP:PROD seems OTT.  raseaC talk to me 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You just changed that to a redirect and now you're requesting deletion because it's implausible? Please explain your intentions: I don't follow your question, I'm afraid.    Fl ee tf la me   ·  whack! whack!  · 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the redirect The Ida Funkhouser Roadside Memorial doesn't fall under any criteria for speedy deletion, and proposed deletion is for articles only, you can list the redirect at Redirects for discussion, where it will be discussed until an administrator makes a decision on whether to delete it or not. Please let me know if there are any more questions.  Thanks!  --Mysdaao talk 19:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both for your help. Fleetflame, I changed it to a redirect because an IP had restored it previously but on second thought realised that it was unlikely that somebody would type the episode name into a search box (Curb doesn't seem to put asmuch emphasis on names in the way Scrubs or Friends, for instance) and therefore think deletion is the best option. Following Mysdaao's suggestion I will list it on redirects for discussion and see how it goes. Thanks again guys,  raseaC talk to me 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Question
Err... was this to me or the IP? -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk. Essentially it was directed towards the dilsuional IP.  raseaC talk to me 22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be sneaky
The article has been redirected to Murder of Meredith Kercher and fully protected to avoid unnecessary re-establishment. There is no real argument for AK to have her own article. The talk is still open for interested parties. Thanks, raseaCtalk to me 01:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Suomi_Finland_2009"

Nobody will look at a talk page of a redirect.

You should don't wipe out/vandalize the article. Once the article is up, then people who object can write about it on the talk page and editors who edit can improve it. After a day or two, there should be enough discussion to see what the current consensus is. By doing what you did, you suppress/censor discussion (even if that is not the intended effect).

I just came here to read about Amanda Knox and find the redirect is a confusing and poorly written section of the murder article. A well written bio can be done. John Obamo (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk.  raseaC talk to me 15:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Oversight
Re, your message: Good point, I'll contact OS immediately.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

John Prescott
Hi RaseaC, would I be right to assume your edit summary reverting my edit to John Prescott (" ... we don't assume that every reader is aware of the welsh labour party, mainly because the majority aren't") was answering mine ("Anyone aware of the Welsh Labour Party would know that wasn't the case, and Wikilinks confirm")? The point I was trying to make (though obviously not very well) was the same as yours. i.e. that hardly anyone has heard of the Welsh Labour Party. Consequently: #1 if one had not heard of the WLP one would not assume that "John Prescott is a Welsh Labour politician ..." meant that he was a member of the Welsh Labour Party; #2 if one were politically aware enough to have heard of the Welsh Labour Party one would know that John Prescott is not member. I don't assume that John Smith was a member of the Scottish Labour Party and there is nothing leading me to suppose he was. Also, "Welsh-born" implies that although he was born in Wales, he is not actually Welsh - in the same way that "Cliff Richard is an Indian born English singer-songwriter ...". This would be misleading, per WP:LEAD, and not a true reflection of either John Prescott or the article. Daicaregos (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

European winter storms of 2009–10
Hi RaseaC,

Thanks for the call for clarification. Here is my rationale:


 * The article is too long and unencyclopaedic.
 * Many of the events described are trivial beyond belief.
 * Also, data seems to be thrown at the article in a most haphazard manner, without any attempt to assess its significance to the overall event.

Ergo, I am removing the least newsworthy items. Anything that pertains to record weather, or particularly severe weather-related incidents, I have retained. Individual airport closures for four hours, and the like, must go.

Any suggestions? Orthorhombic (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response.
 * If you wish to go down that route, then that is fine, but personally, I would suggest that it is overlaborious. This is one of the poorest 'articles' that I have read on Wikipedia for a while. It is basically a dump of trivia from news media that has gathered momentum without consultation to become this rambling mass of waffle Presuming that consensus will be reached for a reduction, someone at some point, is going to have to go down the article sifting for quality items that are noteworthy and removing the dross.
 * Btw, I would not proposing removing items from the past few days, as these could be of significant practical import. Orthorhombic (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

storms
Yes, I was planning to. I would really like the article title changed - we haven't had storms in the UK - just an unusual amount of snow for the UK. I would also like the main content provider to agree to stop adding so much trivia. Leaky Caldron  16:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good start! Leaky  Caldron  17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tesco
Sorry, I don't see how adding sourced content is vandalism. Could you explain this for me? Thanks. Rodhull andemu  21:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi I good faith reverted ycou to copyedit and fix references. The info raised was valid and is covered in the references. The copyedit removed most detail and fixing of refs. I've done the same to most of his postings deleting ones that didnt make sense. I'm unsure about Royal Dutch Shell could you check. CIO is a valid trade magazine. obviously this user has a connection.Cathar11 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)s
 * The reality is that Teco dont use their IT in the same manner as other companies but harvest their customers data and uses it for profiling and marketing services - financial/insurancee/telephone etc. I havent read the full Wiki entry but raising IT question has reminded me to research this.Cathar11 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bohumil Tahal
Person who survive Concentration camp dont have importance?Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorradek (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk.  raseaC talk to me 18:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Terry O'Brien
Hello RaseaC. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Terry O'Brien, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.  raseaC talk to me 23:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The story of nazi zombies speedy declined
This is not the incoherent or meaningless text that WP:CSD describes as nonsense IMO. It in fact looks to be part of a game guide. As such it doesn't belong here but it isn't a speedy either. i've tagged it with prod. DES (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call but IMO another demonstration of WP embarassingly bureaucratic policies. A million ways to get one thing done.  raseaC talk to me 12:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference being that there is a larger chance for something to be rescued if a valid article can be made of it. The speedy criteria are very narrow because they don't work by consensus and don't give consensus a chance to bypass them, so they should, IMO only be applied to cases strictly inline with the narrow terms that have pre-established consensus. Thus when patrolling the speedy deletion candidate category, i always try to ask myself if a given example really fits any of the speedy deletion criteria. DES (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not slating you in any way, you guys do a great job over at SD (I know, I send you a lot of work!) but the rules that the community have imposed really do make it too difficult to remove nonsense pages. For the 7 days The story of nazi zombies is up, it simply detracts from WP as a serious projects. That's my opinion anyway.  raseaC talk to me 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and this case does have very little chance of turning into anything good. But you should see some of the valid pages that are even now tagged for speedy deletion. (a recent case in point Diane James). I feel that holding speedies to the strict line is the only way to avoid more good or possibly good stuff going down the drain with few people ever having the chance to see it. I have seen som very sick-looking pages become valid and useful articles. I also feel strongly that process is important although it shouldn't be a fetish or be used foolishly. DES (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Request
Sir, I fully appreciate why you have given me a warning, but I think that user should be given a warning too. He has variously described me as a "wanker" and "knobhead." Is this really the behaviour expected from an admin? If he's allowed to speculate about my private life and who I am as he did in those comments, then I think I should be allowed to respond to it. It doesn't seem fair on me.81.154.192.156 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Modus Furniture
Hello RaseaC, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Modus Furniture - a page you tagged - because: Per IP's argumentation on the talk page, there's a credible indication of significance. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Unconstructive" to Correct SPELLING ERRORS?
Who do you think you are: one of the admins? What, you think it's "unconstructive" to correct SPELLING ERRORS? (Penal Code [Singapore]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.186.134.103 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk.  raseaC talk to me 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Shirley edit.
I was trying to rephrase a statement on the Paul Shirley article and correct an edit someone did that was based on opinion. My apologies on that. I use Wikipedia all the time so my apologies on that edit error. Thank you, Michael Fannon Alexandria, VA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.174.68 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk.  raseaC talk to me 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Other correction, Rielle Hunter
I just fixed an edit earlier that was opinion based on Reille Hunter as well as I am reading these articles and can see how opinions are not to be used. Thanks for the response on the other thing. Michael Fannon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.174.68 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jason Puncheon
His page is a mess isn't it? If it were me I would revert back to the first edit made at 19:01 27 January 2010 and add a reference to back up the additional sentance, but I really can't be bothered now, what with all the immature comedians that it has attracted today. In my opinion things would be much easier if only registered users were able to edit, so if blatent vandalism was occuring they would get blocked there and then, but c'est la vie. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people are just sad. If the vandalism gets too much just request a page protection.  raseaC talk to me 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me.
It's just the banner basically says 'If you're here to bitch about it, don't bother', so I left the topics that actually addressed anything and got rid of the chaff. Really you should be doing the same yourself, instead of talking to them. How many times has that worked so far? Half Shadow
 * No skin; the banner said the topics shouldn't have even started, so I thought I was doing the right thing. I mean, I probably am anyway, but if the majority wants them to stay (despite the fact it renders the page warning sort of moot) that's their prerogative. Half  Shadow

User:Noah Ringer
I think you may want to reevaluate the way that you interacted with this user, and consider if there would have been a better message to have left him. Giving him a warning for giving silly warnings is rather silly in its own right, a personalized message offering to help him with whatever problems he was having Dorothybrousseau would like be a more positive course of action. Prodego talk  23:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, anyone with a shred of common sense would know that his interaction with that user was inappropriate. Thanks,  raseaC talk to me 00:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, never refactor my comments without consulting me first.  raseaC talk to me
 * And you might also wish to view this. Rodhull  andemu  00:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for that. I was aware of the accusations against User:Noah Ringer of previous vandalism but hadn't seen the evidence.  raseaC talk to me 00:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I might have dropped him a WP:DICK, but he created his account- which I am still not convinced is the real Noah Ringer- in the meantime. If he isn't, of course, he's blockable as an impersonation account. Rodhull  andemu  00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem editors are more likely to remember a message from a WP:DICK than a template warning from another editor. If they were serious about helping chances are they'd consider it a lesson.  raseaC talk to me 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My take on it is that it's somewhat akin to walking into a bar in downtown Huntsville, Alabama, shouting out "You're all a bunch of faggots", and hoping you've picked a gay bar, for whatever reason. Chances are, of course, that you haven't. But when other editors pick you up on it, and direct you to policies, the clue is there, and if you don't take it, you shouldn't complain. Editing here can be a lion's den, but equally, it requires a degree of willingness to adapt and, if in doubt, ask. That's how I started, by learning from my mistakes, and although I had a particularly steep and arduous learning curve, due to an extreme admin who is no longer around, I got the picture. Rodhull  andemu  00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Prodego  talk  01:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/images
Not that I care either way, but the banner does make it clear that protests and image removal requests do not belong on this talk page. I suggest either removing the protests or amending the banner. Rklawton (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Muhammad/images.  raseaC talk to me 10:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

UKC/UCK (one reason people should do their own formatting)
UCK is not a terrorist organization, but an insurgent group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlisPrishtina (talk • contribs) 14:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * replied on user's talk.  raseaC talk to me 14:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

....its name is UCK not UKC!! you have no clue about the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlisPrishtina (talk • contribs) 14:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * replied on user's talk.  raseaC talk to me 14:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films
FYI: I started an RfC about the redlinked entries in this article.  Them From  Space  16:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Matt Damon
If you go here, you'll see this --> "Exclude from the lead sentence phrases that bolster a person's status beyond basic descriptions covering career that designate the person's occupation. Examples include phrases that inflate standing such as being an award winner, award nominee, one of the greatest actors/filmmakers ever, or other such highlights." I don't have the time to look for the past discussions, but it was agreed that "Academy Award winner/nominee" should not be in the lead. If you go through the archives of WP:Actor, I'm sure you'll find them there. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Goatse mediation
I'm assuming from the strikeout that you are no longer participating? Is there any particular reason? Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Malaga Airport Problem
Hi RaseaC. just wondering how come some of my pictures were removed from the "Malaga Airport" page. Apparently, it was due to bad quality. Please help as most of my pictures on the Malaga Airport page (all of them excluding first 2 pictures in the article of the and the fist Monarch picture, [the one that doesnt say G-OZBN]) were taken with the same camera, and is there any way I can get them to be better quality?

Thanks

 MKY661' ( talk ) 19:59, 2nd March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk.  raseaC talk to me 20:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. thanks for your help. Those windows in pier c are very annoying. It's really hard to get a good shot there and I keep being reflected in the window. Going to Malaga agian in Easter so I should be able to get some good shots, possibly of the new terminal.

That picture of Pier C arrivals is my favourite part of the airport.

 MKY661' ( talk ) 19:59, 2nd March 2010 (UTC) 2nd March 2010 20:25

Banksy
My recollection was that the picture was of a pen, but an anonymous editor who removes referenced material and offers their own opinion is not acceptable. A ref. that shows it is a pen, and not a machine gun, is welcome. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 19:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Nicholas photo
I do not like my current photo. I changed it but it has reverted back. It was taken in Nottingham and posted without my consent. plaese replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beunic (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Nicholas photo
I do not like my current photo. I changed it but it has reverted back. It was taken in Nottingham and posted without my consent. please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beunic (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re British Airways 146 incident
Hello there, i have reverted your reversion back to the word "blown" instead of "sucked" as all modern jet liners are pressurissed internally. Normally they are operated with an internal pressure of around eight thousand feet when they are cruising at altitude. The outside air pressure is less at this altitude than the pressure inside the aircraft so when the window blew the cabins air was forced out of the hole where the windscreen was and blew the pilot of the front of the cockpit and nose.

There was no suction because for suction there would have had to have been a vacuum and if the aircraft could not operate in a vacuum, the engines would not run and the wings would have no lift - hence the term Airplane!

Regards

Zippyandgeorge (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

NEW PHOTO!
Hello again

Remember when you said last month that the alleyway picture was poor quality, well now i have a new picture of it. type in malagaairportcgatealleyway2 in commons and could you tell me if it is any better quality than the first one

Thanks --MKY661 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick Clegg Deputy PM
Please stop removing Clegg from the Deputy Prime Minister page, he is now officialy Deputy PM as comfirmed by Downing Street - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/11/general-election-2010-live-blog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.229 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick Clegg IS officially the new Deputy Prime Minister
It's being confirmed all over the place. Please stop removing this title from his page, it's official. And I might add, Sky News did confirm it also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longstudios (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I hope you didn't find my comments rude. I was frustrated at how Nick Clegg was being deprived of his newly appointed position being noted here on Wiki. Going to be an interesting few months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longstudios (talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Watch the end credits of Magnum Force please
It should be noted that Callahan is spelled incorrectly in the end credits of Magnum Force. --Ch8ch (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your help noting this. I would like to send you a still of the item in question.--Ch8ch (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC) I would also like to apologize for my tone and approach. Thank you. --Ch8ch (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding facebook
with due respect, plz make sure that you do not revert an edit that is correct. can you plz tell me what is the problem with my edit made to facebook article? i am also a wikipedian from a long time and know the ethics to use such a great place. regards -- Adeelbutt88  talk  19:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See the article's talk and the post already on your talk. Thanks,  raseaC talk to me 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

please rephrase and add the following any where you want in the facebook article.i have provided a valid link down here.

Facebook has allowed its users to celebrate an event named "draw mohammad day" in which people from all across the globe are invited to make drawings of "Muhammad" the spiritual leader of the Muslims. The event is thought to spark a new era of controversies and religious racism. Being a social networking website having users from all around the world and from all religions Facebook needed not to allow such an event.

User Pakistanfanforeva
I just saw this user made POV edits on an ITN page for today, and the Mohammed drawings page as well per your page. Have you reported him? Good grounds for a block or at least an admin warning.Lihaas (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its cool, either way. But as an aside, he's has more warnings since your post on my talk. User talk:PakistanfanforevaLihaas (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

John Prescott Talk page
Hi RaseaC, Tired of him, huh. Persistent little troll, isn't he? One wonders what possible kicks he derives from reiterating the same point over and over again ad nauseum. Still, takes all sorts. I admire your patience. I tend to just try to ignore it, in the hope it goes away. It hasn't worked thus far, though. Hope your way works better. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Public Apology to User RaseaC
I'm sorry for my tone and approach on the "Magnum Force" issue. I have a still photo I would like to send to you with your permission. --Ch8ch (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure how to go about that.--Ch8ch (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) REDIRECT []

Help!!!
Could you please tell me exactly what I did wrong? I do not understand the acronyms used here. Please, I have a deadline on a project and must get back to it. I like to do what I promise though and I was requested, as a published author and freelance writer, to contribute the bad Facebook experiences and opinions of 349 people about Facebook, which surpasses the normal distribution curve's +- level of error for primary scientific methodology research (have MBA in Marketing). Ok, here is the contribution, please, what is wrong, what would YOU change? Stellair777 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2010

Recent Issues May, 2010
+ While some may think Facebook's norms and modus operandi resemble "more accepted forms of database marketing", , many, many users and conscientious professionals feel that if Facebook's actions are not fully disclosed to a user, before the fact, Facebook could allegedly be in violation of Truth in Advertising Laws, as well as in violation of Privacy Laws and certain other Constitutional rights of the individual. Given the fact that 64% of the US population over 18 has only a High School education, 67.5% if one includes an Occupational Associate's Degree, with no advanced Marketing or Business courses, one can hardly expect this majority to automatically and fully understand that any information given to Facebook may be used wherever or sold to whomever Facebook chooses, even indiscriminately.

+ Many people feel Facebook should be more professional by ensuring the fully cognizant, Individual user's consent to the full extent of how any information given by said Individual user may or will be used by Facebook. Given the wide use of the Internet, users should be aware that while networking is a great thing, it is better done in a private environment, where people are screened and not someplace easily and presently accessed by everyone, including criminals and other wrong doers, even terrorists, moles or otherwise, in the entire world! Stellair777 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI work
Just a heads up, when you are creating a SPI, make sure that the users in the "Userlinks" template don't have the "User:" prefix before them. This minor mishap can create a headache when sorting through data. Also, make sure that the oldest user is the sockmaster when you are filing it. When you are notifying editors, if there is a big red thing on the top of the page that basically says that the user isn't registered, tagging the page won't do anything as they don't exist. Finally, do some research before filing as you would have realized that the master is actually a sock. Sorry if that sounded mean but I'm assuming you are new to the process and I figure you might enjoy the heads up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, seems to be fine now.  raseaC talk to me 20:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

BP Talk refactoring:
Hi. I'm going to generally disagree with your comment. I moved my own writing from an old and ignored section to a new and relevant one, didn't change the text or other editors', inserted a link directing users to the change, and removed white space to improve the flow of the discussion. I don't think those moves are against Wikipedia policy, and I think they put my response next to a relevant question. I'm not exactly sure when you left your remark, but there was some residual formatting that I had to correct, so perhaps it looked worse than it does after I fixed it. So, I think your comment wasn't needed, but let me know if you still disagree or I'm not addressing something.


 * I see what happened... They weren't other user's comments I moved, they were mine. I forgot to login.69.142.154.10 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm confused. Do you actually have a registered account? It sounds as if you do but you still appear to do a lot of editing as an IP...? raseaC talk to me 11:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been editing on this i.p. for a few months. I registered an account just a few weeks ago, but haven't always logged in.  Thus, sometimes when I'm in the middle of an article, or switching computers, or getting logged out by my inconsistent browser, I edit the same article under both accounts.  I don't do it for nefarious purposes, and it was only a problem when I did it to edit old comments I made on a talk page (which looked like refactoring someone else's comments, but wasn't).69.142.154.10 (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I'm more involved in editing articles than discussion or administration, so it hasn't really been an issue until recently. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth trying your hardest to remember to log in when editing to avoid confusions/allegations of wrong-doing, using an IP and an account will just cause you unnecessary hassle.  raseaC talk to me 15:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Diesel
Ok, I admit it. I smiled. But I wonder if, on a highly trafficked page, we might consider being a little more professional? I'd add l'ill Blue Stratos to the list btw.--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call.--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What's a VER?
I went to a disambiguation page but didn't see anything about any Wikipedia policy. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done it. Thanks. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Dell infobox
On the Michael Dell article talk page, I've added a section arguing that there's not enough evidence of Dell's religion to justify the "Religion=" field in the infobox. As your revert (of someone else's anonymous edit) indicates you might disagree, I cordially invite you over to push back. Or.....be persuaded. ;-) Barte (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_victory
Hello, it is only some days ago that I became aware of the fact that on 28 April 2010 you deleted the following link HMS Victory-Website by Heinrich Siemers with many historical and technical details pointing to the Website which I consider as helpful because it offers supplementary detailed knowledge about HMS Victory not provided in the article. Therefore I would like to suggest that this link should be restored. If you don't agree please be so kind as to give your reasons. With kind regards Dierk Lange (registered user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dierk Lange (talk • contribs) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism
Thank you for your report on 65.95.41.9 at Administrator intervention against vandalism. The user has been adding unsourced material, and edit warring. however, neither of these constitutes vandalism. You may like to consider Dispute_resolution, and, if that fails, Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)