User talk:Ray Radlein

''' I am currently in the midst of a moderately extended Wiki vacation. Like MacArthur, I shall return &mdash; hopefully without getting my pants all wet doing so.

Vacation over, I suppose, although I'm going to try to ease back in, rather than gorging myself on glorious wikiness --Ray Radlein 19:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * policies
 * village pump
 * Articles requested for more than a year
 * Most wanted articles
 * List of current stub types
 * WikiProject Webcomics

Worldcon/NASFiC
Hi Ray. I don't know if the change in the bid cycle for Worldcon is affecting NASFiC - logically it would do, as you wouldn't know that you'd need a NASFiC more than 2 years in advance. The 2007 NASFiC site is being chosen in 2005, anyway. Regards, Arwel 20:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Killian
As you have recently expressed interest in this article, please see Talk:Killian_documents. Wolfman 18:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Grammarbot
I noticed (your edit) while checking on things where the bot had apparently been reverted (or, well, they still had spaces before commas). I admit that the reason Grammarbot doesn't correct two or more spaces before a comma is simply because I didn't think of that, but that's actually quite a Good Thing as it has brought some preformatted text out of line, and if it removed many spaces before commas, it would have really ruined those articles, requiring a revert. (Imagine it running on ASCII art!) r3m0t 07:40, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Football
Different types of duck are different species. Different types of football are different codes. Please do not change it again. The phrase is deliberately hyperlinked to the article on football, where the different codes of football are described as such. Jooler 23:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the first sentence of the top-level article about football. As such, it is inexcusable to deliberately use a term of art in place of a perfectly correct standard English equivalent. Many people reading this article will be doing so to learn about football, possibly for the first time. They will not know what the hell the phrase "other codes of football" is supposed to mean. Making them click on a link which takes them to a huge and complex article (when, in all likelihood, they simply wanted to read the article they were already reading) just to find out that the "code" means "type" is idiotic. Furthermore, it should be noted that the very article in question begins with these two sentences:"This article deals with the history and development of the different sports around the world known as 'Football'. For links to specific articles on each type of football, please see the list in the Football today section of this article."See that? "...each type of football"! Even that article doesn't use the word "code" until more than a third of the way through. --Ray Radlein 00:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the error in the opening paragraph of the football article. That particular section has been shuffled around quite a bit lately. May I suggest that if you wish to use terms like "type" instead of species that you look at the simple edition of Wikipedia. Jooler 00:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for screwing up the introduction to that article as well. "That particular section has been shuffled around quite a bit lately", my ass: That sentence has remained more or less unchanged for roughly the last 250 edits, dating back to July 16, 2004 &mdash; nearly 200 edits (and seven months) before the first time you edited the article. The introduction has correctly used "type" for the entire time you have been editing it. It has never used "code" before now. Furthermore, "code" is meaningless from the context of American or Canadian or Australian football, whereas everyone knows what "type" (or "kind," the word which was used for the first hundred versions of that introductory sentence) is. If you are interested in using terms that the majority of your readers will find obscure or confusing, I suggest you look at the recherché: edition. --Ray Radlein 01:45, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that you are incorrect to assert that "code" is meaningless from the context of American or Canadian or Australian football - Here is an example of an Australian page that uses the word "code" to describe the various different codes of football including the North American varieties . You might also note that the Wikipedia article on single (football) (which I have not edited) used the term code in this context for Canadian and American football. Code is simply the correct word used to describe different forms of football that have been "codified" by some offical body. As regard the opening paragraph in the football article, there has been endless shuffling around of that disambiguation block as far as I was aware, I never stated that the word code was ever used, merely that it should have been and I should have noticed it not being used. Jooler 03:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Ray. I've tried to edit Football with a view to making the initial disambiguation note more clear to the average reader. "Football codes" is pure jargon and doesn't belong at the top, before any explaination. I've tried at least two different sets of words to replace it, but Jooler keeps reverting me, insisting only "codes" is correct. Can you help us out? Best. Jonathunder 22:49, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

1929
If you want to ADD people to this page, do so, but don't delete the people who are already there. RickK 07:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why on earth not? (a) it's been done before on the page, and (b) Norm Zauchin is only just barely notable enough to be in Wikipedia at all, much less to have his birth trumpeted as coequal to that of Nobel laureates and the like. --Ray Radlein 07:28, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I mean, let's put it this way: Norm Zauchin was added to Wikipedia yesterday; he hit 50 whole home runs during his six year long major league career. His career high point was finishing third in the Rookie of the Year voting, and the only thing notable about him beyond that point is that he was traded to the perrenially awful Washington Senators for a player who later went on to be pretty good. Should he be in Wikipedia? Absolutely, even if he barely played long enough to qualify for a major league pension (actually, they might not have had those back then; but still). I'm more or less an inclusionist. But should his birth be listed as a major event of 1929, alongside those of Grace Kelly, Dick Clark, Martin Luther King, Jr., Anne Frank, and Audrey Hepburn? Hell, even Roger Bannister, Frank Gehry, or Milan Kundera? Give me a break! Do you really want the birth and death portions of each year entry to become the home for dozens of light-hitting utility infielders, middle relievers, backup left tackles, assistant coaches, reserve small forwards, 1970s teen idols, and two-term congressmen from Missouri? 'Cause, you know, I've got to say, it looks to me like you're the only one who thinks so, so far. --Ray Radlein 11:05, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Manga
Nice job rewriting the passage on how American manga artists are seen. It looks much better. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 23:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Killian docs

 * "To date, however, there is no direct evidence of Rove's involvement."


 * This implies that there is some indirect evidence. Is there any?


 * Also, do you have an opinion on
 * Some opponents of George Bush continue to argue that the documents may be legitimate, or at least "fake-but-accurate"; others allege that Republicans created the documents so that their subsequent exposure would prevent legitimate criticism of Bush's National Guard record.


 * versus
 * Some supporters of Dan Rather and CBS allege that Republicans preempted the controversy by falsifying documents that might have legitimately criticized President Bush.


 * &mdash;wwoods 16:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have tried my best to steer a wide course around the whole Karl Rove thing, but yes, there certainly is evidence of his involvement. I don't personally find it to be sufficiently compelling evidence, mind you; but it is evidence.


 * For instance, there's the fact that Karl Rove has, in the past, pulled stunts very much like this, on several different occasions (I think that he was fired from one of Poppy Bush's campaigns for ginning up some fake anti-GHWB documents, and trying to plant them in the opposition camp to discredit them; but I could be mixing him up with one of his fellow dirty tricks masters, or conflating different incidents). That doesn't mean that he necessarily had any part in this, but it is, clearly, evidence. Others have pointed out entirely plausible connections between various individuals orbiting suspiciously close to this incident which would lead from Karl to Killian, so to speak; however, the Texas Good Ol' Boy Politics Sleaze Network is a fairly incestuous little community, and the same couple dozen players have been crossing paths back and forth there for decades now. Again, it's not particularly probative, but it is evidence, of a sort.


 * So yeah, I'd agree that there is indirect evidence, at the very least; that much should be uncontroversial (but isn't, of course). As for the other dueling sentences, my main opinion is that I'm not sure they need to be dumped in the Executive Summary right near the begining fo the article at all; as for the content, I don't know. I sort of prefer the first one, because it spreads the possibilities around a little, so to speak; but I don't have a terribly great attachment to either of them. --Ray Radlein 20:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call that evidence. Grounds for suspicion maybe. Sufficient justification for cops to look up one of the "usual suspects" and ask where he was on the night in question, but not even enough for an arrest, much less an indictment or conviction. As I said elsewhere, the supposed scheme is too far-fetched to be plausible. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."


 * As for the sentence in the introduction, I rather cut it myself. The second version is the one Zen-master keeps putting in; the first was my attempt to fix it.
 * &mdash;wwoods 00:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we're more or less in agreement here, modulo our definitions of the word "evidence." My view is that a thing doesn't have to be particularly useful evidence to still be evidence. I certainly agree that it's not enough to convict &mdash; or even arrest &mdash; "the usual suspects"; but it might be enough to, you know, get a search warrant, if you can catch the judge in a good mood. :-)


 * And I also agree that it's a pretty far-fetched scenario; however, it's a far-fetched scenario that Karl Rove has, in fact, used before, on more than one occasion. It's one of his most reliable tricks; along with always attacking straight at an opponent's strength, it's one of the things that he's done repeatedly over the years. I wouldn't think that he'd dare try it in this election; but then, there were a lot of things that happened in this election (and the last one) that I would never have thought possible.


 * Anyway, I'm more than happy to have any mention of this stuff consigned to the deep bowels of the article, like it used to be; putting it up near the head of the article merely confuses things and causes the intro to lose its focus. --Ray Radlein 02:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

UT
Is that not the right picture? I'm not from this area and all my friends agreed that was right...I just assumed... ;) Mike H 11:22, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope; sorry. I managed to slap my memory around a little bit, and finally tracked down exactly what that picture was. :-) --Ray Radlein 11:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

paper covers rock
What is the point of this mocking comment? Are you trying to stir up trouble for no reason? 216.153.214.94 17:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

blocks
The relivant policy is that is a bvlock ius dissputed then the user remains unblockedGeni 18:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a shame. I had envisioned an escalating series of disputes, culminating with a 4:00 AM phone calls to Bill Metcalfe, Vincent Cerf, and Tim Berners-Lee with an appeal to ultimate arbitration of the fate of the entire internet. --Ray Radlein 23:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Lawrence
Please do not characterize my edits there as "hysterical". They are nothing of the sort. If you bothered to dialog on the talk page as I have done, you'd see that I take a patient, well reasoned approach. 216.153.214.94 02:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
At times in the past, Rex (216.153.214.94) has suddenly shown up on an article or VfD vote where he's previously evinced no interest, but which he edited soon after I did. It was kind of humorous, because he frequently charged other editors with "stalking" him or "following [him] around", as if it violated a rule, and then he did it himself. Anyway, I see that he now regards you as a greater menace. I don't consider it just a coincidence that he suddenly edited Xena: Warrior Princess to revert one of your edits there. Hence my congratulations -- being stalked by Rex is indisputable confirmation that you're making a significant contribution to Wikipedia.

There's an arbitration currently pending against him (here). If you happen to observe him doing anything that the Arbitration Committee should know about, please feel free to add it to the evidence page. If you're not sure if it's important enough, just leave the information on my talk page and I'll put it into the ArbCom's format if I think it will help. JamesMLane 09:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's all pull together team! Those pesky editors who don't toe the Liberal line, must be incessantly harried! 216.153.214.94 06:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Masami Ihara
I responded on my talk page. Regards. Neier 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely different situations
I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between naming "famous" people to come out of a town or city, for instance, from the instance of picking and choosing "famous players" from a larger list where others who played in the same team, holding the exact same status (this is key), are excluded arbitrarily. When we name famous people from a town, we would aim at listing anyone and everyone who meets minimal standards for a mention on Wikipedia &mdash; who that might be is a question of policy: in some instances, only players who went on to be high-profile professionals might be considered noteworthy on Wikipedia; sometimes the bar may be lower; it depens largely on the sport and on the circumstances. It is completely different when we decide to create a section for "famous players", or "notable matches" where there is a much larger number of people who participated in that team at any given time, or a much larger number of matches played by that player, and we make an arbitrary decision of who gets included in our "who is who" on Wikipedia. That's original research, because we decided that players A, B and C were "worthy" of inclusion, whereas players D, E and F were not. That is also a matter of point of view from each Wikipedia user that decides to include a player on that list. That is textbook POV, and it cannot stay on any articles. If you see it on any article, the correct action is to remove it on sight. The fact that something is on an article when it absolutely should not be there is a negative point on Wikipedia and it is something that needs to be corrected; but it certainly is not a free pass for us to repeat the mistake on other articles. That is why I suggested the creation of a section on past squads (those who played in past Olympics and World Cups, in this particular case would appear to be more appropriate), because that is an objective, verifiable listing and one that would allow us to mention players other than the current ones on the article. Other than that, find a reliable (meaning, no blogs, no fan pages, etc.), external source that makes an arbitrary list of players of their own, make sure that repeating their listing on Wikipedia is not a violation of Copyrights (some compilers reserve rights over their compilation and/or particular ranking on the list), and if is the case, repeat the list here naming that source. If that is not possible, however, do not reinclude that list, which will be considered POV pushing, since now you've been given a lengthy explanation as to why we cannot carry this particular kind of listing. Thank you, Redux 03:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The point remains that every single (non-stub) article on Wikipedia about any single sports team or league includes exactly that same section, of "Notable Players" or "Famous Players"; and every article about a city large enough to have famous residents includes a section listing some of those residents; and every article about a college includes a section listing prominent alumni of that college; and, likewise, every calendar day article includes a list of some famous people who were born on that date, and some famous people who died on that date.


 * And yet, somehow, no one in the entire history of Wikipedia has had the stunning clarity of insight required to see that the act of including these individuals is some kind of ghastly offense against NPOV. Imagine that!


 * Somehow, the entire rest of Wikipedia outside of the article on the Brazilian Women's Soccer Team muddles through, picking and choosing amongst all of the people in Wikipedia born on August 27, or all of the people in Wikipedia from Akron, Ohio, and only mentioning some of them in the articles on August 27 and Akron, Ohio, respectively.


 * If you wish to singlehandedly change the way that Wikipedia has always organized its articles, knock yourself out, and good luck convincing everyone else of the pristine rightness of your vision; but please don't start repeatedly hacking sections out of articles without discussing it appropriately first. --Ray Radlein 05:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have missed the point entirely. Most importantly, the fact that a mistake made elsewhere needs to be fixed, and not become an excuse to repeat it elsewhere.  Second, in my opener above, the obvious difference between listing noteworthy people from a town or college, which is aimed at listing everyone that meets minimal standards for mentioning, according to applicable policy on their specific activity, and making partial lists of people where the only criteria applied is a Wikipedia editor's opinion about who should be in that list. That sort of thing spreads easily, because people like celebrities and they like to rank them.  The fact that something like this managed to spread to multiple articles is, believe me, no indication that it is ok to proceed in that manner. A while back, I spearheaded the movement to remove a similar arbitrary ranking of "notable matches" on biographic articles of tennis players.  The basic requirement is that we need external sources that would have described any given match as "notable", or of some kind of "special relevance".  Today, all articles on tennis players that still carry that section will have links pointing to external sources that make note of that match specifically.  Does that mean that there are no tennis bios not conforming to this?  Probably not, because it is impossible to control or predict what people will add to articles, and sometimes it takes a while to find out that inadmissible data has been added.  But once they are found, they are removed. It is absolutely immaterial that other articles feature arbitrary selections of people made by Wikipedia editors.  Those need to be removed, and they do not, under any pretense, justify repeating this on other articles. So I'll be crystal clear now: I'm proceeding to remove that section for the third time.  Do not readd it, or I will block you from editing for POV-pushing.  I already mentioned this above, but I'm assuming good faith to an extra extent here.  Redux 13:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Katana
Hello, I thought you may like to voice your opinon on a matter that is currently being debated over at the DC comic book character | Katana's Talk page. It concerns Arrow. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks + invitation
Hmlarson (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the List of footballers with 100 or more caps page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=666139678 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F666139678%7CList of footballers with 100 or more caps%5D%5D Ask for help])

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MLS/NWSL
The reason I linked the two was because they're both American top division soccer leagues drafting college players to their league clubs. I felt they were both relevant enough to each other to link, and that readers of both articles would be interested in crossing over to both. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar for you
Hmlarson (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2020 (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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of minor edit
You may want to check the minor edit checkbox while making minor edits such as the one you made at Sheena Bora murder case. Jay 💬 11:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)