User talk:RayDeeUx

Welcome!
Hello, RayDeeUx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Brooklyn Technical High School. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Contributions to iPad pro article
Thank you for specifying why you reverted my changes on the iPad pro article. I appreciate the communication rather than a revision war. Revision

Czylstra (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks For Liking some of my stuff
Thanks for liking most of my posts on Wikipedia, it's fun to see people who are happy to do these kinds of things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvasiveFire1987 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Case Count Task Force
Hi ! We've started the Case Count Task Force to gather information about the most reliable sources for each country and to coordinate updates. I hope you find the info useful, and feel free to update it directly. If you think you can commit to update a few countries frequently, you can add your username to the corresponding country in the table (see the Spain row for an example). Best, MarioGom (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I saw your message
Thanks for the feedback. I will def consider it in mind. I have been getting a lot of edit requests that state a fact or something like that, but are not really suggesting an edit. So therefore there are a lot of "unclear (x -> y)" that I have been handling. Aasim 21:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Just remember that if an edit request simply consists of "update case count for this location/international conveyance" then don't worry about the request not using the "change X to Y" format. There's an influx of contributors who want their respective locations' COVID–19 figures updated and there are some who want to get their suggested edits out before they forget what it was. Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs | talk page)  21:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * True, maybe next time I will take care to talkback the editor so that the editor can rephrase their edit request so it is in a "Change X -> Y" format :) Aasim 21:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

re: request for change regarding reporting of recovery numbers.
Its a nice footnote*, but it misses the point. The point was that the way this information is being used (probably by bots) to auto update google front page with misleading information. Its cool we have a footnote, and anyone that wants to can get to the bottom of the 220k recovery number inaccuracies and we should have somewhere that we tabulate what information is available. What I feel like we should also consider is our responsibility for creating mass confusion for how the numbers are portrayed to anyone trying to google reliable covid19 stats. I have already sent a message to google regarding the misleading presentation of your accurate information (that page contains no mention of the footnote but it does break it down by state if you scroll and unhide the information). What I was hoping was that the community could discuss a way to fix the problem at its source here in wikipedia.

Sure you could say, "well here on wikipedia, where we use it and have control, it is adequately explained that the data is innacruate" which is true but is not going to solve the problem of thousands of people being misled as we rest on our laurels. sure we cant be responsible for how every third party might use or misuse the information, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of the people referencing this information are going to be referencing it through google, not through wikipedia, and are thereby going to be misled. You have an opportunity to fix potentially thousands of people being misled by the misuse of the information you are providing, and it would seem to be in your power to do something about it so I figured that it might be beneficial to discuss how/if that could be solved on our end in case google chooses not to act.

It might not be your direct responsibility or your direct purpose here on Wikipedia, but it does seem that you have the power and opportunity to right a wrong and I believe that creates a responsibility to do take action. Like I said, I don't know how to solve the problem, but perhaps with some discussion we could figure out a way to give accurate information in way that does not potentially mislead (through google) more people than it helps (through wikipedia).


 * actually, since less than half the states are reporting saying "Not all states or overseas territories report recovery data" implies that there is some data missing but could give the impression that the number given is close to an accurate representation of US Recoveries. While being a bit more precise like "Most states or overseas territories do not report recovery data therefore the actual number of recoveries in the US is currently unknown" would create a more accurate impression. Or maybe you could put an estimated margin of error beside it so people can appreciate how not counting half the states might make the number unreliable.  Maybe you could color coat reliable vs unreliable numbers, I don't know, but as it is presented now it is makes a stronger impression that we intend to convey.

p.s. sorry if I don't know how any of this works, I created an account solely to try to fix this tidbit of misleading information being broadcast throughout the web. I don't have confidence in my feedback to google making much headway (do people even read those?). So my guess is that you are (even though I know you are not responsible for what google posts) the only person that can make a difference regarding how google is presenting your information, and I believe you can do so by changing how that information is formatted or presented here at the source.

Sulris (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your detailed explanation. However, we have no control over which states report recoveries. The best option right now is to contact Google to include the footnotes associated with a location listed on the template into the sidebar along with the numbers. Additionally, we are not responsible for any consequences that rise from usage of the template. It was originally solely intended for the article COVID–19 pandemic. Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  14:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment on tone
Hi RayDeeUx.

First, thank you for your work and your contributions surrounding the COVID pandemic, as well as before that.

I just wanted to point out that in your edit comment replying to my discussion topic, I perceived the link to WP:DENY as rather unfriendly, indicating that you consider me a troll and vandal.

I understand that you probably have to deal with plenty of actual trolls and vandals in very highly visible content. I don't mind at all that you answered the request via the comment and by simply deleting it, particularly, as it was already discussed and answered somewhere in the 13 pages of the archive, as you pointed out helpfully. That's all OK. But the link to WP:DENY was, in my opinion, unnecessarily unfriendly, and I would suggest that you consider for a moment whether a edit summary such as this is contributing to a welcoming climate in Wikipedia.

I am sure we are on the same page regarding Wikipedia. A reply is not needed.

Again, with respect for your contributions, and genuine gratitude for your engagement, --denny vrandečić (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

inquiry from the Foundation's Communications Department
Dear User: RayDeeUX

I'm a member of the Foundation's Communications department. We recently received a media inquiry about the Worldometer decision. We'd love your assistance in helping us address the inquiry. Would it be possible for you to email us at press@wikimedia.org. The reporter's questions are pretty straightforward and we hope it won't take up much of your time.

Best, Chantal De Soto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.217.44 (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Worldometers
Your input would be helpful at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Central Park (TV series), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. — Young Forever (talk)   17:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't mind having my edits reverted as long as there's a relevant policy being cited in the process—I read up on WP:TOOSOON the first time around and didn't find anything relevant to TV episodes.
 * TLDR: Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  19:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, the Twitter post and the YouTube link are not reliable sources because the accounts who posted them are not verified accounts with a check mark. — Young Forever (talk)   20:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for that—though they were there beforehand. Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  20:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Say, why don't we compromise by restoring my markups that split the episodes by season, but store them in HTML comments so that it'll be easier to edit in the future? Thoughts? Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  23:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable source to verify that the episodes have been split into two seasons. As I said above, the Twitter post link and the Youtube link are NOT reliable sources. — Young Forever (talk)   23:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , right, but let's say I didn't include sources inside the comments—only the wikimarkup templates. Would that be fine, given that I'll only uncomment the wikimarkup when proper sources are found? Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  00:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, repeatedly that would still be WP:OR. When the series was ordered to series it had two season ordered with a total of 26 episodes. Also, futon critic said it 13 episodes for the first season. — Young Forever (talk)   00:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , but they're invisible text and won't affect the content of the article visually—are you sure about this? Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  00:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, Corey Barnes have no say when they air because he isn't one of the creators nor executive producer nor Apple TV+., the streaming service. — Young Forever (talk)   00:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , taking that as a yes. Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  01:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not a reliable source as it is user-based website. — Young Forever (talk)   15:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , just read up on WP:CITINGIMDB, and as per that page only, there is a mention of using IMDb for cast lists of TV shows that are still yet to premiere. Would "Central Park" fall under that category, despite that some episodes have already been released? Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  16:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It only applies to films, not TV series. Also, it is a dispute use for films. Per WP:RSP, it is considered to be an unreliable source. — Young Forever (talk)   16:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks! Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  17:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IMDb should only be used as an external link. — Young Forever (talk)   23:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IMDb should only be used as an external link. — Young Forever (talk)   23:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Welcome, newcomers


A tag has been placed on Welcome, newcomers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_16. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. signed,Rosguill talk 18:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Merging templates
Hello, I proposed the merger of South Ossetia note (which you created) and South Ossetia-note, please take a look here. --Theurgist (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I just read your stream of edits on the page spanning over an hour trying to get efn's to work. I'm sorry it didn't work out in the end, but thank you so much for trying and putting so much effort into it! Giving you a barnstar is the least I can do 😅 Johnson524 (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"Verify our range to target. One ping only."
FYI, you can ping another editor via an edit summary by linking to their user page within the edit summary, e.g. . You can also read up on how pings work at WP:PING. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
I appreciate your edits, However I was recently scrolling though Wikipedia and I found this edit summary of yours. The IP who added the death was most likely editing in good faith, so please assume good faith before you flag an edit you don't agree with as vandalism. Din oz1  (chat?) 14:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @ There's a footnote at the bottom of the article, a comment block at the very top of the wikitext of the article, and an FAQ section on the article's talk page that clearly specifies why the article keeps the DOD as June 2022. All of them share the same line of reasoning of "most sources report June 2022", and the comment block has further instructions to add a reliable source if anyone does end up publishing the DOD in question. What good faith is left to work off of for an assumption if the instructions to keep the DOD at June 2022 are clear as day and the edited wikitext is a difference of 4 bytes in the lead sentence? Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  14:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies, didnt see that there, keep up the good work! Din  oz1  (chat?) 17:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Technoblade RfC close
I would suggest holding off on removing PinkNews on the basis of the RfC close, as even the closing commenter says there is no consensus for its removal, and the closing comment is being discussed at WP:AN where, of the three uninvolved editors who have commented so far, all three have said that the close should be overturned and re-closed as "no consensus", because despite what the closing comment says there was no consensus for anything in that discussion, and the part about replacing PinkNews was the commenter's suggestion, not a reflection of the discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Aoidh Noted. Thanks for stopping by. Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  03:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Youtuber
Hey! I noticed you removed the addition of Category:Youtuber from Technoblade because it has been deleted in the past under multiple speedy deletion criteria. However looking at the deletion log, it's only been deleted 3 times: Once because it was a redirect to a category that was deleted via a deletion discussion, again because it was advertising, and again because it was empty for multiple days without being populated (G4 was also listed however I don't believe that deletion discussion sets a precedence for this category). None of these really seem to set a precedence for not having the category on Wikipedia, and I can't really see anything at WP:Categorization that would be a valid deletion criteria for the category. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Correction: I also removed it because it was an extraneous category as Technoblade is already under Category:American YouTubers. Not to mention that there doesn't seem to be an actual intent to populate Category:Youtuber beyond PewDiePie, Technoblade, TommyInnit, and a Draft article. Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  14:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah alright. I might send it to CFD then based on your rationale. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent. Thanks! Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  14:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Technoblade
Hi, would you mind me bringing this article to FAC in the future?<span id="LunaEclipse:1717248088670:User_talkFTTCLNRayDeeUx" class="FTTCmt"> — 🌙E cl i ps e (talk) (contribs) 13:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind; is there something in the article that needs review? (Assuming you're referring to WP:FACR.) Cheers, u&#124;RayDeeUx  (contribs &#124; talk page)  11:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)