User talk:RayAYang/Archive 4

Wikipedia Article Assistance Request
Dear RayAYang:

We are attempting to create a Wikipedia Page for Lou Stanasolovich who is founder, CEO and President of Legend Financial Advisors, Inc. in Pittsburgh, PA. Our company Web site is www.legend-financial.com. We are having difficulty once we have created the page, it is being deleted and we are not sure what we are doing wrong. We are putting in descriptive content that uses a neutral point of view and we believe we are complying with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. We are primarily seeking to post factual biographical information about Mr. Stanasolovich with some of this content coming from his existing biography page on our Web site. Since the content is coming from our company, we should not have any copyright issues. Mr. Stanasolovich is a highly regarded and an extremely accomplished financial advisory professional who is frequently sought after by the national media and industry conferences to speak about various topics. Our goal is to create a short, factual Wiki about him as his name is often searched upon in search engines due to the media recognition he receives. We have noticed that a friend of our in the financial advisory profession, Harold Evensky has successfully built a Wiki article and we were attempting to model Lou's after his but it still got deleted. Could you please advise us as to how we can mold the content a certain way in order to create and sustain the article? Also, is there a Wiki customer service contact person we could speak with directly by telephone if we continue to experience problems? We are excited about being part of the Wikipedia community to provide objective information about one of the most prominent figures in the financial advisory profession. Please advise.

Best Regards,

Christopher J. Kail Legend Financial Advisors, Inc. (412) 635-9210 legend@legend-financial.com LFA061807 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NB Also raised and addressed at WP:EAR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected your userpage for 2 weeks, since it looked like the guy changed IPs. Cheers,  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RayAYang (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Donald
I dont think it needs mentioned in the article, but to read the category listing is interesting, Fasach Nua (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve Schmidt

 * You're welcome to try the BLP for your purposes. I recommend expressly calling my edit a "drive-by insertion of noncontextual derogatory remarks about a living person". Good luck. Everyme 00:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall do so in a day or so. I'll post you a note when I put it up so that you can reply. RayAYang (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have no intention of letting you lawyer your way through this by abusing our BLP policy which was devised for an entirely different set of circumstances. As the first step in dispute resolution, I've filed a request for third opinion. In the meantime, I'll collect some more sources and begin to write up a section for the Schmidt article focusing on his previous and present campaign work. Everyme 00:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am annoyed by your unwillingness to assume good faith on the matter. You reverted my edit without affording me the courtesy of a meaningful discussion on the talk page as is standard, pushing us to 3RR before a real discussion could begin. When I pointed out this discourtesy and the unhelpful natrue of your beginning, you have responded by accusing me of lawyering.
 * Thank you for seeking a third opinion on the matter -- I'm glad to notice that people are already chiming in, even if I don't necessarily agree with what they're saying. As for collecting sources and writing a real section -- this unpleasantry could have been avoided if you had done so first, instead of starting your section with a quotation of name-calling. My instincts against vandalism are aggravated when a page I visit contains random quotations of name-calling. RayAYang (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Churchill and bipolar
Sure See List_of_people_affected_by_bipolar_disorder. I simply added all of them to the category. I would have done vice-versa, but it was frankly a bit of a chore. Please respond on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive work on Jill Hazelbaker
You and I haven't always agreed on what should be in the article -- or how much of it should be in -- but I always get the feeling that we share the goal of making Wikipedia articles the great, informative resource that they should be. If there is a barnstar for Wikipedia civility, I think you should get one! And also, thanks for improving the structure of the external link in the bio summary this morning. betsythedevine (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Wikipedia is a marvel of the age, and I love information well presented. RayAYang (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Php.MVC
Php.MVC is about to die in WP:PROD but it was nothing but a copyvio. I gutted it and intend on letting it die. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I think it should die too -- I did PROD it, after all :) RayAYang (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should've clarified: I'm letting it die with an expired PROD rather than forcing it to die with a db-copyvio. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of controversies
I've added my comment at the article talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy as pi?: Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership
The discussion, to which you contributed, has been archived, with very much additional commentary, at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35 (subsectioned and sub-subsectioned). A related discussion is at (Temporary link) Talk:Mathematics and (Permanent link) Talk:Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership"). Another related discussion is at (Temporary link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and (Permanent link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership"). -- Wavelength (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Question for you about Ecologic Development Fund and Notability
Dear RayAYang,

I am helping EcoLogic increase its visibility, including working on their new wiki page. I see from the history, that you added the "notability" tag to the entry. I've been working on adding some citations. Could offer some feedback about what an acceptable standard would be to remove the tag? I've read the guidelines, but I'm finding there isn't much coverage of EcoLogic in reliable, independent secondary sources. I believe this is because, in its 15 years of existence, EcoLogic's focus has been on working with rural communities in Latin America to advance conservation, not on being documented in secondary sources.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please let me know if I can provide any other useful information.

Thanks, (LG08 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

New Page Patrolling
Hi there! I've been going through the New Pages log, particularly the back end of it. I've come across a few articles that you've nominated for deletion that haven't been patrolled (e.g Conrad Tao). I was wondering if you could make sure that you mark an article as patrolled before you tag it for deletion (or any other tag) as then it won't show up on the list, which will save people patrolling an article that has already been looked at by an experienced editor like yourself.

Please accept my apologies if you are doing this and the software is lagging behind, or if you're just tagging articles that you're coming across from a different source that doesn't allow you to patrol them. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ged -- I'm coming across them from the Uncategorized patrol, not the new pages patrol (I haven't done new page patrol for a while). I don't think I have any way of knowing whether they're patrolled or not, if I get there that way. FWIW, I usually only categorize pages from the previous month, so they shouldn't be pages at the top of the newpage patrol. RayAYang (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey there, thanks for the clarification, and you're right, there's no way to tell if a page has been patrolled other than from the NP page (as far as I know). Sadly, the new pages backlog runs as far back as the middle of September at the moment, so there will be some overlap! We're working on a bot to hopefully address this issue (i.e. it looks at unpatrolled pages and if they're already tagged, marks them.) Sorry to have bothered you :) --Ged UK (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pedestrian (band)
Hi RayAYang. I just wanted to let you know that I added sources to the article, which might address your concerns at this AfD. Cheers, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures
I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG &#x260E; 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of edit?
What is the point of this edit? TeX automatically aligns the final punctuation correctly, but when the period is outside of TeX it can get badly misaligned or in some cases actually pushed to the next line. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I already wrote on your talk page. To summarize: it wasn't rendering properly for me inside, and after playing around with the preview, I found that the TeX rendered properly if I moved the period outside. I found this bizarre. Of course, now it renders properly both ways, leaving me a bit mystified .... RayAYang (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that just hitting the "reload" or "refresh" button on your browser could have been all it took? Otherwise, I think I have found that in some cases saving some minor edit forces it to reload when the "reload" button doesn't work. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I hit reload a few times; tried the preview a few times. It was bizarre. Anyhow, I'll stick to knowledge of what good TeX style looks like, and not try to hack it to work on the page, next time :) RayAYang (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Request
Dear RayAYang,

We are attempting to create a Wikipedia Page for Lou Stanasolovich who is founder, CEO and President of Legend Financial Advisors, Inc. in Pittsburgh, PA. Our company Web site is www.legend-financial.com. We are having difficulty once we have created the page, it is being deleted and we are not sure what we are doing wrong. We are putting in descriptive content that uses a neutral point of view and we believe we are complying with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. We are primarily seeking to post factual biopgraphical information about Mr. Stanasolovich. Mr. Stanasolovich is a highly regarded and an extremely accomplished financial advisory professional who is frequently sought after by the national media and industry conferences to speak about various topics. Our goal is to create a short, factual Wiki about him as his name is often searched upon in search engines due to the media recognition he receives. We have noticed that a friend of ours in the financial advisory profession, Harold Evensky has successfully built a Wiki article and we were attempting to model Lou's after his but it still got deleted. Could you please advise us as to how we can mold the content a certain way in order to create and sustain the article? Also, is there a Wiki customer service contact person we could speak with directly by telephone if we continue to experience problems? We are excited about being part of the Wikipedia community to provide objective information about one of the most prominent figures in the financial advisory profession. Please advise.

Best Regards,

Christopher J. Kail Legend Financial Advisors, Inc. (412) 635-9210 legend@legend-financial.com --LFA061807 (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I refer you to FAQ/Business. RayAYang (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Collaborative Research Initiative
I disagree with your assessment of the Major Collaborative Research Initiative article, but I'm tired of debating things like this on Wikipedia. I won't contest the deletion, but only because I've come to realize that contributing here is just a waste of my time. – SJL 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fred Malek
Category:American politicians is supposed to contain only subcategories. It's not supposed to directly contain any articles at all; people are supposed to only be in the subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I've found a more appropriate category, I believe. Thanks. RayAYang (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Judith Regan
I don't disagree with removing the political scandals category - it clearly doesn't belong. But can you avoid using comments like "scandalmonger" in edit summaries on a BLP in the future? Thanks, Avruch  T 18:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

George Washington and the First Emperor of China
Your comment on George Washington and the First Emperor of China is hilarious! I want to write that article! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "calmness and clearheadedness" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/FireGPG
Jmundo made a valid case about not all blogs being unreliable (which is actually covered in policy), so you might want to clarify your comment in this AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I used blog in the sense it's used in policy, which is to say, a self-published platform. Ray (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

reply on WTA
Its on my talk page... lighten up man! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Globalize
Hello RayAYang, I am questioning the removal of the "globalize" flag on List of designated terrorist organizations, see its talk page. Cheers, Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Terrorist"
I hope you'll work with me on this; we've had discussions on how the discussion on controversial words (terrorist, martyr, etc.) has been the "thing that ate WP:Words to avoid" for the past couple of years. It's become an impediment to watchlisting that very important style guideline, one of just 6 mentioned at WP:WIAGA, and one that's used a lot at WP:GAN, WP:GAR and WP:FAC. The current threads ended on Dec 18. Sarah77 made a post on the subject today. I didn't get any objections to my suggestion, so I took the liberty of moving her message to a new home where I hope it will be happy, WT:Controversial articles. That's also a guideline, so it's not a "demotion" of the subject, just an attempt to split discussions on controversial words away from the rest of WP:Avoid. I also broke the Words with controversial or multiple meanings section up into Words with multiple meanings, which stayed at WP:Words to avoid, and Words with controversial meanings, which I created as a section at WP:Controversial articles, with a single (for the moment) subsection of Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter? I also moved the two shortcuts, WP:Terrorist and WP:Extremist. (Watchlisting a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Dank55 -- that sounds quite reasonable to me. I'm currently travelling and will be until the 11th of January (that's why my participation has dropped quite a bit). I'll chime in there when I get back. Best, Ray (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Ray
Your comments would be appreciated at WT:Words to avoid; GreyFox moved the section on terrorism back to WORDS, and says he doesn't have any evidence that I checked with anyone involved in the discussion when I moved it to WP:Controversial articles (presumably because he didn't bother to look). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. As for the wider subject of the guideline, my position hasn't changed, merely my energy level :) I'll get back to it at some point, I'm sure. Ray (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you
Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
Hi Ray,

terrorism-info.org.il is not a WP:RS. Furthermore, Hamas never claimed or admitted responsibility and Islamic Jihad said they didn't know who did it. Even the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs didn't link the attack to Hamas.

The new source you added doesn't pin the bombing on Hamas either. If you insist on adding this info, please find a mainstream reliable source that supports it explicitly.

Cheers, pedrito  - talk  - 30.01.2009 14:06
 * Pedrito, I examined the site, and it appears professionally done, is not self-published, and has a staff and editorial control, more than surpassing the requirements of WP:RS. Furthermore, a Jerusalem Post article is as good as you're going to get. The requirement is verifiability, not confession for attribution of violence. I'm going to copy this conversation to Talk:Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing, please respond there. Ray (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking for photo of artifact at Princeton Art Museum
Ray, I am looking for someone to drop by the Princeton Art Museum to take a photo of some Mesoamerican artifacts there. If this is possible for you, let me know -- any of these would be great, but I really need a photo of ballplayer pair in third photo down.

Let me know. Thanks very much, Madman (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Madman -- I'll see what I can do. I'll need to find a camera first, so it may take a few days. Ray (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for any attempt. I've been developing the Xochipala article the past few days and it could certainly use a photo of a stone bowl and the aforementioned ballplayer figurines (which would also be extremely useful for an upcoming article on ballgame gear.  Good luck, Madman (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Ray, thanks for taking the time to make an intelligent and thoughtful comment on WT:Notability_(fiction). I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. Ikip (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

re: donald rumsfeld
No I don't have a source as such but I went on website adherents.com which informs one about the religion of famous people and Donald Rumsfeld came up as Presbyterian? Is that Ok or do I need to do more?? Georgereev118118 (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. You should probably have cited the website, is all (see WP:CITE). Ray (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Israel

 * Hi, I'm flattered by the invite, but Israel's not really an area in which I have any particular knowledge. Ray (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

??????
What?

For starters, being Jewish doesn't necessarily mean one is religious - it is an ethnicity. Plus, his involvement with the pro-Israel club and newspaper etc.. warrants its inclusion. Second, the common complaint was sourcing, and I didn't realize sourcing would matter so much when it is a blatant fact, or as you put it, "sourced with a minimum of effort." So, when applying this same reasoning to the rest of the article: if a fact doesn't have a source, and no one has made an effort to add a source, it should be removed. I stand by my edits, please don't remove them. They were just and appropriate as far as I can tell. I now understand sourcing in its full context and am willing to implement edits according to those rules. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting into that discussion with you here when it's already being discussed at ANI -- my warning to you is strictly concerning your pointy removal of information at Noam Elkies, specifically, the information concerning his adviser and his date of associate professorhood. Ray (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I removed ONE of the advisor because the source only verified one of them. Sourcing is important, im sorry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Iain Hook
Please let me know your objections to Iain Hook. I have requested expansion of the article from relevant workgroups. Do you know of any source for the "Israeli investigation"? Pustelnik (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not offhand. My objections to the article are firstly that it's extraordinarily one-sided in its presentation (not merely the Israeli investigation, but also the first UN investigation, are both suppressed), and secondly that it fails to place events inside an appropriate context, such as, say, my question regarding the authority possessed by a British court over events in Jenin. This conversation is more properly continued at Talk:Death of Iain Hook, I think. Best, Ray  Talk 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Photo-tagging?
I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Shri Bhola Nathji
Hey there. I noticed that you recently prodded Shri Bhola Nathji. I have removed your prod, but sent it to WP:AfD and quoted your exact rationale there, as I feel that it was a rather complex prod that requires more than one lookover. Feel free to check it out at Articles for deletion/Shri Bhola Nathji. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. And I cringe at the spelling error I made in the article. That's what I get for typing and not proofreading :) Ray  Talk 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Please see my response at Articles for deletion/Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. Also note that the article has been greatly expanded since it was nominated for deletion. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: photo-tagging
Here, User:Mathbot/Mathematicians missing photo. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ray  Talk 17:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Words to avoid
Just a heads up - you are already made four reversions today at WP:Words to avoid, which would appear to violate the WP:3RR rule. Just to be clear, re-adding dispute tags is often considered a reversion, and 3RR applies to all of the reversions made in a 24 hour period to a page, whether or not to the same particular section. I am not planning to file an administrative report, but please do keep this in mind, and seek consensus rather than edit warring, even on matters such as tags. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. I count rather carefully. Adding the tag the first time cannot count as a reversion, since it was the first time this particular tag was added. Rest assured I'll leave the actual tag alone for 24 hours, while I prepare my RFC statement. Are you willing to do a quick summary of your viewpoint? I can try to summarize yours and PBS and Cerejota (the main people seriously arguing for the current language)'s positions, but I would rather that the summary be done by somebody in favor of that position, in the interests of fairness. Ray  Talk 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)