User talk:Ravensfire/Archive 8

Archive for 2016

about order 11110
Hello brother can you send me the text of the order 11110 of president john kenedy and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.212.45 (talk) 17:29, January 5, 2016‎


 * The full text is linked at the bottom of the article, in the External links section. It's also substantially reproduced in the article itself as the EO is extremely short.  Here's a link to the text though. Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations
Dear Ravensfire, thank you for your thorough explanation about the conflicts of interests when editing Wikpedia articles. The truth is that most of the content related to our entry "Bank for International Settlements" is outdated, include names of board members and top managers. This is the only information that I have modified so far, but I understand that such changes have been cancelled.

I would therefore ask you if you would be so kind as of to insert on our behalf the changes that we consider necessary. If so, I will forward you our changes.

On a related note, I have also requested changing my user name from Bank for International Settlements to my own name, to comply with Wikipedia policy.

Thank you very much. Victoria Torrano

2014 Department of Defense Vandalism of the List of whistleblowers Page
So what does one do to bring the community's attention to the fact that DoD vandalized the List of whistleblowers page in September 2014? That would seem to be concerning to the community, but the only thing I can find about it is you reversing the vandalism...

Hethofpern (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It happens. Ideally, there's enough people who have the page on their watch list and notice the changes, review them and act as needed.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to quickly note that I'm preparing the McGill stuff from the Congressional record - so a couple of quick things. McGill is (as far as I know) a he, not a she. Also, the two disclosures are official government documents and McGill was the government official preparing them. They were also accepted for review by Congress. As such, they are more than just McGill's personal opinions, but rather a matter of official record. I'm not sure how Wikipedia treats that sort of thing - but all government documents are written by somebody -- that doesn't make them any less official. Any input on how to cite this if future would be appreciated.

Hethofpern (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Update Board members of BIS
Hello again, I would like to update the section about Board of Directors within the entry "Bank for International Settlements", to reflect its current composition. The source of this information is here: http://www.bis.org/about/board.htm?m=1%7C2%7C2 Can you please implement this change for me so that I do not incur in a conflict of interests? Thanks, Victoria

The BIS Board of Directors Chairman: Jens Weidmann, Frankfurt am Main Vice-Chairman: Raghuram G Rajan, Mumbai Mark Carney, London Agustín Carstens, Mexico City Luc Coene, Brussels Jon Cunliffe, London Mario Draghi, Frankfurt am Main William C Dudley, New York Stefan Ingves, Stockholm Thomas Jordan, Zurich Klaas Knot, Amsterdam Haruhiko Kuroda, Tokyo Anne Le Lorier, Paris Fabio Panetta, Rome Stephen S Poloz, Ottawa Jan Smets, Brussels Alexandre A Tombini, Brasília François Villeroy de Galhau, Paris Ignazio Visco, Rome Janet L Yellen, Washington Zhou Xiaochuan, Beijing — Preceding unsigned comment added by V Torrano (talk • contribs) 04:51, January 7, 2016‎


 * , Sorry - been a crazy few days. We'd need a source for the info (and if you've got a webpage listing the directors, that's enough) but that probably should be okay.  I'll see if I can find anything, but it will be several days at best. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , Hello, yes, the information about the composition of the Board of directors of the BIS is here: http://www.bis.org/about/board.htm?m=1%7C2%7C2. I have already updated the BIS Wikipedia entry to reflect this composition but it would be helpful if you could endorse this information. Thank you.V Torrano (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on J. Kirk McGill entry
I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether the J. Kirk McGill entry should be deleted. I understand the concern that we really only have a couple of things linking him to the greater news coverage -- but given that one of those was him being named as the source of the information by the chairman of a congressional committe, during a hearing that ended up on national television, I thought I hadI found enough that a stand-alone entry was justified, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Hethofpern (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looked at it and I think it's correct to delete the article. WP:BLP1E says a person notable for a single event should generally not have a stand-alone article.  Right now, McGill is only notable for being a whistleblower so a brief mention in the DCAA article is warranted, but nothing more.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. McGill may end up being one of the most influential whistleblowers in history with major policy actions across multiple departments being caused directly by his actions  - but most of that information is not publicly accessible at this time. If and when that information becomes public may be a better time to revisit the issue again. I move the bulk of the information over to the DCAA article, but I suspect that information will need some editing down to meet guidelines. Given that I obviously need to learn quite a bit more about those guidelines before I make any further major content edits of my own (or certainly before I try to post any standalone content), I'm going to leave those edits to someone else.

Hethofpern (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BLP
See the section talk:BlackLight Power (and my reply)? I asked where are teh [sic] hydrinos again... Also, that edit request by the IP just above, whois came up with an address ~35 miles from BLP. Who would have known? Jim1138 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that - not entirely surprised. *shrug*  Not exactly new tactics. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you think that the BlackLight Power logo File:Blacklight Power.gif should be on Brilliant Light Power page? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No reason for it - it's the logo for the previous name. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

BLP's proof of concept
BLP has released a few videos demonstrating an arc welder running amok proof that they can get power with hydrinos! Maybe we should rewrite the article that they have successfully invalidated quantum physics? (Also left on Roxy's page) Jim1138 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not all quantum physics, just the parts that depend on the Heisenberg Principle. Are you hanging your hat on the idea that the energetic demo involves burning something like magnesium instead of water as claimed? Your room to maneuver is getting smaller and smaller, it seems. Will you be willing to admit defeat if the demo conclusively shows water as the fuel source and not something else? 2600:1008:B023:CA6D:E4A8:2C2:AB71:1E12 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ooooooooo, pretty fireworks! Let me get by bowl and watch ... [[file:Popcorn_(2609202064).jpg|50x50px]] Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's see... Burning magnesium, arc welder running amok v. invalidating quantum mechanics. I don't know which one to pick! Help me!. Pass the popcorn, please? Trade you some Milk-Duds-Box-Small.jpg?
 * A demo won't do, it would need to be conclusive testing by multiple reliable independent labs. A few grams of hydrinos would do for a start. Got any? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Jim1138 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I only know what's in my ability to control, which includes the capability to verify the equations in his GUTCP theory and the results they produce. They significantly outperform those derived from QM/Standard Model. You choose to remain ignorant of these so I guess there's not much else to do here. 2600:1008:B023:CA6D:E4A8:2C2:AB71:1E12 (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this: BLP builds a working power plant. Independent experts state Mills' theories are valid and the plant is converting ground-state hydrogen to sub-ground-state hydrogen (hydrinos) which is unequivocally the energy source for BLP's power plant. Theoretical physicists leap out of skyscraper windows en masse. Randall Mills wins a Nobel Prize and gets filthy rich. You get to smirk and say "I told you so!" all the way to the bank. (I presume you have stock in BLP). I go home humiliated and don't show my face around Wikipedia again. Well, maybe I do get cheaper power. Then, hydrino waste poisons the world and we all die... Or, something like that. Please wp:ping me for the BLP groundbreaking. Anyway, why should I study the math, or prove my ignorance when others are going to make all the money? It's going to happen (or not) irregardless of what I do. So, I might as well do things I like. BTW: where can I get a gram or two of hydrinos? I've never gotten an answer on the hydrino sample question. The world wonders! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Spoiler of Movie Removal
Hi, this is regarding spoiler posted on Wikipedia for AirLift Movie. We have personally notified to the copyright team as the movie is still running and someone has posted complete movie story here which impacts it business. I would request you to kindly take care of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmendarm (talk • contribs) 05:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are implying with your post above, but I would suggest you read wp:no legal threats.
 * I doubt that the "complete movie story" for Airlift was posted on the Wikipedia article Airlift (film). The plot section consists of less than 1,500 words. Unless it was a very simple movie such as Bambi Meets Godzilla. Most likely, the plot on Airlift it was a synopsis of the movie story. If the information is copy/pasted from a website, that would be a copyright violation and that information should be removed from Wikipedia. See wp:copyvio. If the information is a synopsis of their own words and own creation, and was posted elsewhere, they would probably hold the copyright to that synopsis and not the copyright holders of the film. Since the plot synopsis was added to Wikipedia, by clicking the "Save page" button, they have irrevocably released it with the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence.
 * Anyway, if a person wishes to find the plot of a newly released film, there are many ways to do so besides Wikipedia. If a person reading Wikipedia does not wish to have the plot revealed or "spoiled", they should know to stop at the section titled "plot" or not read the article in the first place. Wikipedia once used spoiler warnings and no longer does so. If you read articles on newly-released major motion pictures, you will almost certainly find a "Plot" section. I suspect people try to be the first in line for a premier so they can add the plot to Wikipedia. You can find more information out here: wp:spoiler and Spoiler warning/RfC. Further reading on the matter can be found under the "See also" section of those pages. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And besides, if your desire to not have a movie plot posted were fulfilled, when could one post a plot synopsis? After all of the DVDs have been sold and reruns are no longer aired? Might as well rely on people's desire not to spoil their own movie experience. Jim1138 (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , Jim1138's reply is exactly correct. As long as the plot summary isn't copied whole or in part from a copyrighted source (which means just about any other website out there), it acceptable and even strongly encouraged.  Wikipedia is not censored, meaning we do include the plots of films once they have been released.  This includes plot twists, surprises, etc.  See The Mousetrap for the classic example of this.  At the end of this play (which has been running since 1952!), audience member are asked not to reveal the ending to keep it a surprise, yet we've got the ending in our article.  If the plot description is directly copied from someplace, you can remove it but you MUST leave a note on the talk page with a link to where it's copied from.  If someone then rewrites that information (does not copy it), you must leave it.  If the section is original, you must leave it there. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Update "History" under the entry Bank for International Settlements.
Hello again, I would appreciate your help again to improve the information that appears under the History section of the Bank for International Settlements. In my view, the history section is unbalanced as it focuses almost exclusively on the Second World War. I therefore suggest to provide a sober, very high-level and factual overview of the entire BIS history. This is not only what the average reader would expect to find under this heading, it also reduces the exaggerated focus on the WWII episode (for which, nonetheless, I have kept to a large extent the original critical tone). It is also a good way of referencing the key academic literature on the BIS – which is currently entirely ignored by the Wikipedia entry.

Thank you for considering this new version.

'History The BIS was established in 1930 by an intergovernmental agreement between Germany, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, the United States and Switzerland. It opened its doors in Basel, Switzerland on 17 May 1930.

The BIS was originally intended to facilitate reparations imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, and to act as the trustee for the German Government International Loan (Young Loan) that was floated in 1930. The need to establish a dedicated institution for this purpose was suggested in 1929 by the Young Committee, and was agreed to in August of that year at a conference at The Hague. A charter for the bank was drafted at the International Bankers Conference at Baden-Baden in November, and its charter was adopted at a second Hague Conference on January 20, 1930. According to the charter, shares in the bank could be held by individuals and non-governmental entities. However, the rights of voting and representation at the Bank’s General Meeting were to be exercised exclusively by the central banks of the countries in which the shares had been initially subscribed. The BIS was constituted as having corporate existence in Switzerland on the basis of an agreement with Switzerland acting as headquarters state for the bank. It also enjoyed certain immunities in the contracting states (Brussels Protocol 1936).

The BIS’s original task of facilitating World War I reparation payments quickly became obsolete. Reparation payments were first suspended (Hoover moratorium, June 1931) and then abolished altogether (Lausanne Agreement, July 1932). Instead, the BIS focused on its second statutory task, i.e. fostering the cooperation between its member central banks. It acted as a meeting forum for central banks and provided banking facilities to them. For instance, in the late 1930s, the BIS was instrumental in helping continental European central banks shipping out part of their gold reserves to London and New York. At the same time, the BIS fell under the spell of the appeasement illusion. The most notorious incident in this context was the transfer of 23 tons of gold held by the BIS in London on behalf of the Czechoslovakian national bank to the German Reichsbank after Nazi Germany had invaded Czechoslovakia in March 1939.

At the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, the BIS Board of Directors – on which the main European central banks were represented – decided that the Bank should remain open, but that, for the duration of hostilities, no meetings of the Board of Directors were to take place and that the Bank should maintain a neutral stance in the conduct of its business. However, as the war dragged on evidence mounted that the BIS conducted operations that were helpful to the Germans. Also, throughout the war, the BIS accepted gold from the German Reichsbank in payment for prewar obligations linked to the Young Plan. This in spite of repeated Allied warnings not to accept gold or other assets from Nazi Germany. It later transpired that much of this gold had been looted (and subsequently remelted) by the Germans from the central banks in occupied territories. Some of this remelted gold included gold rings and other items from labor and prison camp victims. Operations conducted by the BIS were viewed with increasing suspicion from London and Washington. The fact that top level German industrialists and advisors sat on the BIS board seemed to provide ample evidence of how the BIS might be used by Hitler throughout the war, with the help of American, British and French banks. Between 1933 and 1945 the BIS board of directors included Walther Funk, a prominent Nazi official, and Emil Puhl, as well as Hermann Schmitz, the director of IG Farben and Baron von Schroeder, the owner of the J.H. Stein Bank.

The 1944 Bretton Woods Conference recommended the "liquidation of the Bank for International Settlements at the earliest possible moment". This resulted in the BIS being the subject of a disagreement between the U.S. and British delegations. The liquidation of the bank was supported by other European delegates, as well as the United States (including Harry Dexter White and Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury), but opposed by John Maynard Keynes, head of the British delegation.

Fearing that the BIS would be dissolved, Keynes went to Morgenthau hoping to prevent the dissolution, or have it postponed, but the next day the dissolution of the BIS was approved. However, the liquidation of the bank was never actually undertaken. In April 1945, the new U.S. president Harry S. Truman and the British government suspended the dissolution, and the decision to liquidate the BIS was officially reversed in 1948.

After the Second World War, the BIS retained an outspoken European focus. It acted as Agent for the European Payments Union (EPU, 1950-58), an intra-European clearing arrangement designed to help the European countries in restoring currency convertibility and free, multilateral trade. During the 1960s – the heyday of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system – the BIS once again became the locus for transatlantic monetary cooperation. It coordinated the central banks’ Gold Pool and a number of currency support operations (e.g. Sterling Group Arrangements of 1966 and 1968). The Group of Ten (G10), including the main European economies, Canada, Japan and the United States, became the most prominent grouping.

With the end of the Bretton Woods system (1971-73) and the transition to floating exchange rates, financial stability issues came to the fore. The collapse of internationally active banks, such as Bankhaus Herstatt (1974), highlighted the need for improved banking supervision at an international level. The G10 Governors created the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS), which remains active to this day. The BIS developed into a global meeting place for regulators and for developing international standards (Basel Concordat, Basel Capital Accord, Basel II and III). Through its member central banks, the BIS was actively involved in the resolution of the Latin American debt crisis (1982).

From 1964 until 1993, the BIS provided the secretariat for the Committee of Governors of the Central Banks of the Member States of the European Community (Committee of Governors). This Committee had been created by European Council decision to improve monetary cooperation among the EC central banks. Likewise, the BIS in 1988-89 hosted most of the meetings of the Delors Committee (Committee for the Study of Economic and Monetary Union), which produced a blueprint for monetary unification subsequently adopted in the Maastricht Treaty (1992). In 1993, when the Committee of Governors was replaced by the European Monetary Institute (EMI – the precursor of the ECB), it moved location from Basel to Frankfurt, cutting its ties with the BIS.

In the 1990s-2000s, the BIS successfully globalised, breaking out of its traditional European core. This was reflected in a gradual increase in its membership (from 33 shareholding central bank members in 1995 to 60 in 2013, which together represent roughly 95% of global GDP), and also in the much more global composition of the BIS Board of Directors. In 1998, the BIS opened a Representative Office for Asia and the Pacific in the Hong Kong SAR. A BIS Representative Office for the Americas was established in 2002 in Mexico DF.

The BIS was originally owned by both central banks and private individuals, since the United States, Belgium and France had decided to sell all or some of the shares allocated to their central banks to private investors. BIS shares traded on stock markets, which made the bank an unusual organization: an international organization (in the technical sense of public international law), yet allowed for private shareholders. Many central banks had similarly started as such private institutions; for example, the Bank of England was privately owned until 1946. In more recent years the BIS has bought back its once publicly traded shares. It is now wholly owned by BIS members (central banks) but still operates in the private market as a counterparty, asset manager and lender for central banks and international financial institutions. Profits from its transactions are used, among other things, to fund the bank's other international activities.

V Torrano (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Suicide of Rohith Vemula
Thanks buddy for removing the duplicate paragraph. Can you please comment on article's talk page? Terabar (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

adding credential
hi i am part of the particualar project which is on Air these days.. i need to update my name in credentialls kindly help, as 2-3 times I tried to add but why does it gets deleted?? pl. help thanks

Consensus
Consensus was to use only GRG-related sources. Three people have attempted to create a new consensus. There is no consensus in favor of non-GRG sources being included. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly you are incorrect. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Prem Khan
Hi Ravensfire, re: this edit, please also note that it's almost certainly this guy: Sockpuppet investigations/Washim Rahman/Archive. Take care, and good eagle-eye raven-eye. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * :) Agree it's the same.  Persistent, aren't they? <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

re: Managing a conflict of interest
Hi Ravensfire. I am responding to your COI concern.

NO i do not do PR for Kendall or anybody. Nobody consults me, nobody gives me clues. I am here entirely of my own volition.

My reason for updating Kendall's bio really just comes down to me appreciating her doing something with her life while surrounded by fame-seekers and social climbers. I leave her work bio here as an example for them as well as her detractors to realize that she is offering much more to the world than some of the company she keeps.

It's my way of saying, you're going in the right direction, kid. Keep doing what you are doing.

That's really all there is to it.

When i knew Kendall, she told me about all of the different career moves she was making. When i Googled to find out what was going on, i saw that none of that information was to be found online unless you spent hours doing a deep search. If you searched for Kendall in those days, you found links only to gossip sites. Whenever her modelling was mentioned it was in a negative way. For that reason, the bio entry Kendall had here on Wikipedia when i joined the site was completely inaccurate.

I have persisted in editing this page because of the amount of trolling that goes on here. Kendall's page is often vandalized and until it was locked i found that i often had to go in and make sweeping changes to undo the damage.

Nobody will care in 50 years if she is a maven of the society papers. What will matter is the impact of her career on her industry, so that is what i focus on.

I make all of my updates entirely by checking Google's News feed using Kendall's name. From there, i find links to jobs she does and/or awards she has won, and add Reference tags to link to them. The links i do post tend to be work-related or cover the impact of what she contributes to society. What i do is pretty straightforward.

If you read the edits i have done, you will see that i stick to facts. At this point, probably 90% of what is on Kendall's bio is my writing and 100% of the Reference links are my additions. NONE of my links are to gossip blogs, which is where the overwhelming majority of Kardashian and Jenner-related info comes from. For that reason, i have to search very carefully to find links of any value.

As an example of the kind of foolery i have to put up with whenever i update Kendall's bio, in the last two weeks i updated her modelling to include an interview she did with Karl Lagerfeld and some new initiatives she had with Estee Lauder. I also spent over an hour last Saturday reading annual reports from Estee Lauder and Calvin Klein's parent company to pull profit percentages showing that her ad campaigns have been profitable to companies she works with. In the same time period, the media was busy reporting that Kendall was supposedly sleeping with her brother-in-law and Leonardo DiCaprio. She was also publicly attacked by both designer Calvin Klein, and Vogue's Creative Director Grace Coddington. I completely ignored the latter controversies and posted only the links to her work.

As another example, i knew Kendall when Nick Saglimbeni shot her first portfolio for Wilhelmina. I remember when Nick posted his blog entry Part 1. After he uploaded Kendall's portfolio, the family was hit by all types of media accusations saying Nick and the fashion industry was promoting child pornography, anorexia, and unhealthy body types. Nick is a professional photographer with a lot of integrity and i think he was taken aback by all the anti-Kardashian hysteria and outrage for what was a typical photoshoot he does almost every day. I realized back then how much damage can be caused to a career based on hearsay. There were dozens of links for that event at the time, all of them negative. When i added that event to Kendall's bio, i ignored ALL of the negative press and controversy and only posted Nick's links on her bio here for the sake of being objective. Result: Wikipedia's entry on that event is factual and almost reads matter-of-fact over an event that caused a lot of consernation at the time, but has since died down almost to nothing. Sometimes you have to ignore the mob mentality and focus on the facts at hand and that is what i do.

The reason i have not responded to different concerns and accusations i have seen on here is because i got used to personal attacks online from having dealt with the Kardashians. It has made me very impatient in dealing with strangers who introduce themselves to me by accusing me of things i don't do.

I also don't argue on the internet. That is a personal decision of mine, i don't respond to online hysteria or base attacks. In general, if someone comes after me in an aggressive way, i ignore them. If they persist in attacking me, i warn them to stop bothering me. If they still keep at it, i block them.

When your editors accused me of being a PR shill, i didn't know whether to be insulted or flattered. Insulted because that is a false accusation. Flattered because PR types are usually very good writers, and you never accuse anyone of being PR unless their research skills are top notch. So clearly you acknowledge that my referencing isn't sloppy.

In the absence of understanding how you were rating my writing, i chose to say nothing and let the chips fall where they may. I did make up my mind that if it was going to be a conflict, that i would just deregister from Wikipedia and go on with my life. Again, i get nothing to be here, so leaving is not a problem. I will say this, though: good luck in finding someone else to report on anything Kardashian with as much objectivity as i do. Kardashian fans tend to be dumber than a bag of rocks. But i digress.

Don't take my silent treatment personally. I have made the decision to ignore willful disagreement on social media. Too many people love to argue online, but i don't play those games.

I don't know what else to tell you.

If you do have any more questions, ask me and i'll respond. Otherwise i'll leave it at that.

About your COI message
Hi there.

Thank you for welcoming me. I have already stated clearly on the page itself that I have no relationship with the company whatsoever. I can send you my linkedin ID if that helps. Also I have mentioned why I joined Wikipedia to create the page and contribute otherwise as well. Please read the QuestionPro deletion page discussion. Feel free to ask me if you have any other questions. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It is a bit odd that a new editor focuses exclusively on a relatively small company so the concerns about a COI or paid editing will exist.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 13:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Truth?
You're continual removal of links to articles that disagree with the content on the "Scientific opinion on climate change" page needs to stop. That page is full of lies on there being a "consensus". If you disagree, that means you are ignorant and refuse to search for the truth which also means you should not be a contributer to any knowledge base content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marocano1 (talk • contribs) 11:38, July 31, 2016‎


 * Ahhhh, a seeker of WP:TRUTH, here to reveal unto us the vast knowledge hidden by others. Oh.  Wait.  That's the vast knowledge of climate change various energy companies and neo-con think tanks try to hide and divert.  Wikipedia isn't your blog, and it isn't Conservapedia, it uses reliable sources, which your links fail badly.  Post your screed elsewhere, please. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits by US Governent User
Good afternoon. There were a number of changes to the Defense Contract Audit Agency page by an unregistered user. IP traces back to the Depaetment of Defense. . Could you review those to see if they should be left alone, modified, or reversed?

Thanks!

Technical Support Required
Dear Sir , My self Priyananda Banerjee.I have a blog on Indian supermodel across worldwide. This blog is based on portfolio, polaroid library of these models with updated content. Blog's url-http://feminamissdiva.blogspot.in/. But thing is I dont know how to put the the url link of each post of the blog in wikipedia.org on external reference section. My request to you, Sir, Kindly help me. Give some your important advice.

Regards Priyananda Banerjee Kolkata( India) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyananda 2016 (talk • contribs) 10:14, September 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * , thank you for responding. The short answer is your blog is not considered a reliable source and is not an acceptable external link.  You can see our pages on what is a reliable source and our external link policy.  Thank you for your understanding. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Kurukshetra War
What are you, an idiot? What do you mean by there is no evidence this person is a scholar? Is there a certificate for a scholar? This person is from an IIT, much above your average scholars. Don't make idle useless comments, evaluate the work. 49.32.56.144 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, a slideshow thrown together by some random person posted on a site anyone can upload to is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. This isn't a collection of every single person's thoughts and ideas about something - we are looking for high quality sources and nothing that I can see about your source demonstrates that.  You've also got a major NPOV issue - that presentation is simply one person's view, it doesn't "confirm" anything - that comes from other scholars reviewing and agreeing with the analysis.  Thank you. 11:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I am talking. If you knew anything about Mahabharata, you wouldn't have deleted the small addition that some people may find helpful.

The dating follows Arcaheology of BB Lal, an eminent archaeologist and also uses the astronomical parameters stated in Mahabharata. Deleting it without an analysis/evaluation goes to show what a fool you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.32.56.144 (talk) 07:44, September 13, 2016


 * Personal insults won't earn you any bonus points here. We're done.  As written, your view is not notable and isn't anything that will remain in the article as it fails to have a reliable source. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 12:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Character theory (media)
Why are you harassing me? You are removing content about my work for reasons that would equally apply to any character theory on that page. I note you edit articles relating to the skeptic movement. Is this retaliation for the news reporting I have done on one of your "gods", namely Andy Lewis of Quackometer? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I see harrassment and bullying in this situation but it coming from you. Unsupported accustations, hounding, refusal to discuss in a collaberative manner and unrepentant self-promotion.  All from you, Jonathan.  Yes, there is a problem here.  It's your behavior, trying to bully others into allowing your blatant self-promotion.  It's your behavior, making unsupported accusations against others because they disagree with your self-promotion.  Stop it. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No, the fact is I provide counter trolling services to victims of abuse and because of that I have become a victim of abuse myself. The removal of the part of the article about me was biased because the reason given did not just apply to mine but could have applied to all the theories in that article. Are you calling those self-publicizing? No you are not, because you are singling me out above all the others. You are bullying me because if you were not you wouldn't be applying different rules to me than you are to others --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's humorous that with your background you cannot see how your actions are perceived here. Actually, it's not humorous, it's rather sad.  Your hostility and blatant self-promotion here is completely contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That's bullying here.  You need to change your attitude, your actions and re-examine how you participate here.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

List Of Whistleblowers
Mr. Axel V. Sabersky

1998/2000's US Department of Justice//US Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services

1950's Whistleblower // 1970's Federal Filing (Department of Health and Human Services) Whistleblower // 1990's California State Compensation Insurance Fund //  1970's inclusive 2010's Department of Veterans Affairs Whistleblower.

My name and one (so-called) case file submitted within National Whistleblower Center Director, Mr. Stephen M. Kohn and Government Accountability Project  Director Mr. Tom Devine with 11/2003 Whistleblower Legislation Testimony before the full US Senate Committee on 'Good Government and Ethics' Chairperson's Senators Lieberman and Collins presiding.

My name and a (so-called) case in Federal Judges Handbook and appears to be routinely used against//upon other Whistleblowers and has been publically that I was not heard on the original matter(s), stated matter(s) nor Whistleblower matter(s). (Also stated that had I been heard that may have also assisted in preventing the horrible tragedies of 9/11).

Author of an expression, It appears as the 'Enactment of the Death Penalty is not in compliance within any Law, Religion or Democracy'. Also and/or therefore, 'It appears as an act of Treason, Terrorism and Terrorist Activity, (Rackeetering, etcetera) 'and through high crimes of Malfeasance and/or Negligence'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel S (talk • contribs) 11:54, September 25, 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to provide the sources for the information and they need to be from reliable secondary sources. In other words, no fringe websites, blogs, no forum posts, no comments and no primary documents like court cases.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

List Of Whistleblowers Reply
Dear Wikipedia,                            9/25/2016 Dear Mr. Ravensfire,

Many thanks for your highly, and again, prompt reply and consideration.

I do not understand as all the information you are requesting within the/my post request as the Information is 100% documented and by me and at least all others that have been noted in my post that keeps disappering. My thought and feeling is that I have complied 100% within your and the Wikipedia 'good faith' protocol, expectations, efforts and endeavors.

Please let me know via telephone and or e-mail where I am deficient and/or with the exact words to allow me to be 100% in 'good faith' Wikipedia compliance and within their highly recognized expectations, efforts and endeavors. Please do not hesitate to mention and/or apply any 'good faith' modifications and/or suggestions to allow me to be allowed on this list, and again as I am 100% documented and verified Whistleblower.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Axel Axel V. Sabersky

PRIVACY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient you may not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon it. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone and destroy this communication. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Mr. Axel V. Sabersky

List of Whistleblowers
Dear Wikipedia,                                   9/25/2016 Dear Ravens....,

Thank you again for your and again prompt reply. I believe and in 'good faith' expectations, efforts and endeavors of Wikipedia and all that I have fully complied 100% with all your protocols and requests.

I am unable to proceed further without your more direct comprehension and assistance, as all my post is 100% documented and verified to the fullest extent possible at this time.

Please format, if necessary, and post at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Axel S

=
================================================================================ Mr. Axel V. Sabersky

1998/2000's US Department of Justice//US Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services Whistleblower more formally filed 1/2000.

1950's Whistleblower // 1970's Federal Filing (Department of Health and Human Services) Whistleblower // 1990's California State Compensation Insurance Fund filed Whistleblower Compliant //  1970's inclusive 2010's numerous Department of Veterans Affairs filed Whistleblower Complaints.

Also, my name and one (so-called) case file submitted within National Whistleblower Center Director, Mr. Stephen M. Kohn and Government Accountability Project Director Mr. Tom Devine and within their 11/2003 Whistleblower Legislation Testimony before the full US Senate Committee on 'Good Government and Ethics' Chairperson's Senators Lieberman and Collins presiding.

My name and a (so-called) case in Federal Judges Handbook (Elections) and appears to be routinely used against//upon other Whistleblowers. I have numerously publically stated that I was not heard on the original matter(s), stated matter(s) nor Whistleblower matter(s). (I ,also stated that had I been heard that may have also assisted in preventing the horrible tragedies of 9/11).

I am the Author and of an expression and/or legal fact that it appears as the 'Enactment of the Death Penalty is not in compliance within any Law, Religion or Democracy'. Also and/or therefore, 'It appears as an act of Treason, Terrorism and Terrorist Activity, (Rackeetering, etcetera) 'and through high crimes of Malfeasance and/or Negligence'.


 * it's really hard to help you when you aren't bothering to read the responses you've gotten and the information left in the welcome message on your talk page. On Wikipedia, information, especially information about living people, MUST be based on independant secondary sources that meet our reliable sources}} policy.  You are not a reliable source for Wikipedia.  The information that we include in articles is soley based on those sources, not based on your descriptions or how you want to be described.  Right now you're trying to shove a poorly written section with no sources and extremely promotional and ignoring attempts from others to help you.  Your actions are what we call [[WP:EW|edit-warring and it can end up with you being blocked temporarily for disruption.
 * My suggestion is that you first MUST find those sources we need. Articles in major newspapers or magazines can help.  That will define what information could be included in the article.  It's then a case of making sure it's presented neutrally based on those sources.  I can guarantee you it won't look like what you've written.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, Ravens...., et all others that have been disingenuous and dishonest to me at Wikipedia, very sad, deplorable and unbecoming of, et all @ Wikipedia.  you are incorrect and seemingly dishonest and hoodwinking, and well know that you are incorrect, disingenuous and/or dishonest and lack any proper and forthright expectations of and within kind and gracious behavior(s).  very sad and unbecoming and seemingly as you and all at Wikipedia well know.


 * Very sad. If you change your wrongful behavior etcetera, let me know. Again and as you well know, the informational submission is 100% verified, true and correct and within Wikipedia or any reasonable persons comprehension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2016‎ Axel S (talk • contribs) 14:51, September 25, (UTC)


 * Oh bullshit. You were offered advice and specific suggestions on what you need to start - sources. You chose to ignore that.  I don't know that the infomration is 100% verified, true and correct because you haven't bothered to show any good sources.  I, nor anyone else, know who you really are and we honestly don't care.  You are not a source for your information for Wikipedia.  At a seminar you are presenting, sure.  Here, doesn't work like that.  But hey - I'm clearly in the wrong here per you, so I'll just not worry about it further.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My final bit of advice. Look at the very first post on your user talk page.  There are four phrases bolded, all of which link to other, useful pages on Wikipedia.  Read them. But again, we're all dishonest here so why would we keep offering help and advice to someone who insults us? <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

3RR
I understood, but please keep in mind that two users Artoxx & SednaXV engaged in edit war agaist me, have been banned few minutes ago. Its actually a one person, a sock-puppet. Still, I won't revert anything in next 24 h despite the fact that banned user has been reverting again, because of rules and your advice. Many thanks. --MehrdadFR (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not good when someone pulls something like that. Nice job on the report on their socking.  Hopefully they won't try to come back.  Thank you for being willing to discuss and not revert - it can tough at times to go that route, but in the end it does work better. Couple of things you may want to consider.  First, leave the POV tag on for now.  Get through everything else and then start a discussion about that tag.  For the information you're trying to remove, think of that initial line as a very short summary of the current state.  4 references are probably overkill, but think of it that way and consider if it's an accurate summary of the current state.  For the rest, it looks like there are several people willing to discuss, so have a solid reasonable discussion and look for places where a compromise can leave all parties satisfied.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ravensfire, I left a messege in the MehrdadFR's page but he deleted it, there is a current discussion about him and if you please you could give your opinion here, hopefully we will come to a closure. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest anyone looking at this should first look at Sockpuppet investigations/SednaXV Meters (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Paradox wiki link
I did check the the External links guidelines before making the edit but I though it qualified as "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.", the paradox wiki I would think would qualify, Wiki about page, as it is owned and administered by the publisher and has a large number of editors.

Let me know what you think, thanks.


 * See WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Also, please read WP:COI.  If you have an official position involved with the games or publisher, you need to declare it. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 01:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey sorry for not responding to you sooner. I do not have any position or ties to the company, however I am a user editor on the Paradox Wiki, my user page.


 * I was wondering perhaps the two links could be combined on a single line, for example writing it as "official [site] and [wiki]". That way it avoids having unnecessary space on the page for the link. As to ELMINOFFICIAL, it says "In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information. Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information.", since it is a separate, though official website providing information, I think it could be reasonably argued that it would comply with that.


 * Please don't take this as me trying to start edit war or anything though, if you think it still doesn't qualify I've got no problem going with your better judgement, and I'll make sure to remove the links to the specific Paradox Wikis which I added at the same time as the main Paradox Wiki link. As a fellow wiki editor I value trying to follow a manual of style :)


 * Thanks--Kwwhit5531 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What is Spam Link?
Hello Ravensfire, my name is Shivam Gupta. I received your email regarding the reversion of my Wikipedia content. But I am confused about what is a spam link is called? Will you please make it clear to me?. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivam Gupta16 (talk • contribs) 23:04, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPAM and reliable sources. Adding something from an unreliable source that you wrote is spam.  Please don't do it again. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 03:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Your guess on the blacklist system sounds correct
Got a response. Admin says whitelist as he understands it only allows exempting part of a blacklisted site, not a target page here on Wikipedia. He has no objections in this case to what he called my "cheesy work-around", (he would if it was a spam site, but this is simply a WP:RS issue) nor my request were it to be technically possible. Will try to get a blacklist expert to look at it, but will likely be declined as impossible :( Eliyohub (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)