User talk:Rray/Archive 3

robbins lol
I know, I just hope s/he takes a break in a few weeks. Looking back over the talk page, the article has attracted several different rabid fanboys over the years.  Merkinsmum  19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the in universe template
I note that you have removed the in universe template from the article Drizzt Do'Urden, with the following comment "Removing in-universe tag. Please don't restore without discussing on talk page. More than half the article is written from a real-world perspective".

I think that you may be mistaken in this instance, as
 * 1) The majority of the article is still made up plot summary or descriptions of the primary sources (in this case books and games) from which the character is derived;
 * 2) The sections listed as Biography: Appearance & Personality are not about person who exists in the real-world. This is becauseDescriptions of fictional characters describe in universe aspects of the characters 'fictional' existence.
 * 3) There are no primary or secondary sources supporting these sections which would provide evidence of that they have real-world origins;

It appears that you like fictional character very much, but you should not remove the in universe template without addressing these problems. Your opinion alone does not override Wikipedia Guidelines. I shall be grateful if you would resotore the in universe template until such time that real-world content of this article can be increased. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied on your talk page. Maybe we could continue this discussion on the article talk page? Rray (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a problem we need to address on your talk page, because it relates to your actions, namely courtesy. This problem relates to consideration for other editors, and also whether or not reverting their edits is reasonably justified. Taking the example of the article Drizzt Do'Urden, I think you already agree that this article has comprised of mainly plot summary and references to the character in the primary sources which it belongs. The reason why I put the template there is that it is an issue which the respective guideline suggests should be addressed. If you remove the template, and your decision to do so in not warranted (as I suggest above), then you might expect your actions to be questioned (if not reversed). What I am saying here is that it is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to consider that other editors have opinions too, especially where they give reasons (good or bad) as to why you might be mistaken. I have asked you to replace the template. Whether you choose to do so while there is a discussion about this issue is your decision. However, it would be considered to be courtesy by me if you did.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied again on your talk page. Your characterization of my edits as being "discourteous" is unfair and more importantly inaccurate though, and I'd appreciate it if you'd not try to make these conversations into something personal. Rray (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? I need help! :(
Hi. Sorry to bother you but I need help and i still don't know my way around here but currently there is a user who is pestering me by inserting my old post after even after I mentioned i was going to post the correction. Now that user is still bugging me! What do I do? :( HELP please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacy 1 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 January 2008

Thank you so much for replying! :)
I'm sorry if I posted this wrong.

Do you think I did the right thing? I mean I posted the correction but the user brought up my old post after I deleted it. I didn't know I wasn't suppose to edit in the discussion page until I was told so after some grief. Maybe the user didn't know I was new here but I'm overwhelmed by how difficult adding info is here. Should i add the strike-through in my post in the Discussion page or leave it?

And thanks for telling me about admin. LOl I didn't know that. You would be good as a admin. You are so helpful and nice. Thanks for your help, i'm truly grateful. This world needs more people like you. :D

Thanks again. :D [user: Legacy 1] 6:45 18 January 2008

You're very welcome! :)
Okay. :D Moving on then, lol. :)

You're very welcome, my pleasure. :D And thanks because you also made my day. This issue has caused me grief, pressure for these two days '''but your help and replies has also made my day. Thanks again! :D'''

[user: Legacy 1] 6:52 18 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacy 1 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Oops, I meant grief from another user. Thanks again. :D [user: Legacy1] 7:01 18 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacy 1 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought you should be informed of this
You might want to see Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man since your username was specifically mentioned. My advice, however, is that you probably shouldn't really make any sort of reply as it's not necessary (I personally don't believe that you're using any of the sockpuppets). I think it's unfortunate that your name was mentioned here as I don't believe you're intending to be disruptive with your edits, and have displayed what I think is a genuinely collaborative spirit. I don't think you need to dignify any remarks on that page by responding to them. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Poker Psychology
I had left the folowing reply on my talk page, and then subsequently rolled-up the discussion. I was not certain you saw it, so here it is again:
 * Actually, what you are suggesting does not require a change to the AfD at all. Since merge is a form of keep, as is no concensus. The redirect was made because of an editing decision, for which there was concensus; such an editing concensus does not need to occur at an AfD (as Uncle G went to great effort to emphasize at the AfD). What your suggestion would require, though, would be unprotection. I only protected the article because another editor restored the content to as it was before the AfD, even though my edit summary makes it clear that the action was taken as a result of ther AfD discussion. If this editor disagreed with the closing of the AfD, they should have discussed it with me, as you have. I am willing to make a deal with you, if you agree to it; create the article first in your user space, then once it is at least a satisfactory stub, let me know and I will move it for you across the namespaces, and then unprotect it. Would this be acceptable? JERRY talk contribs 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

JERRY talk contribs 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The content was not the same as before the AFD. That is a false statement, so please do not say something like that again.  Please revert your inappropriate edits so we can move on. Also it is not for you to judge what is a "satisfactory" stub.  There is no need for another editor to create an article somewhere else that meets your approval.  Requiring that before unprotecting a page is also inappropriate.  No please unprotect the page so we don't need to waste other editor's time in a deletion review to clean this up.  2005 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What was unsatisfactory about the previous stub? Rray (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article appeared to be a substantially similar recreation of a pre-afd version of the page. The edit summary said "fixing goofy redirect", not something to the effect of "creating whole new stub which addresses concerns from previous AFD". I was not convinced that the article stub, as rewritten, did in-fact address those concerns. As I said above, if a userfied stub is created that meets the following criteria, then I will have no problem unprotecting the page: I feel that a DELREV is not required, as the article has not actually been deleted. I have outlined a workable solution that can be followed with all parties winning. JERRY talk contribs 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * demonstrates the subject has notability
 * presents encyclopedic content in a neutral point of view
 * has adequate, reliable, verifiable sources


 * I replied on your talk page, but to reiterate, I just don't care enough about it to mess with it. I don't think that a clear consensus was there to merge the article, and unprotecting the page is the right thing to do at this point. But I'm taking some time off from the Wikipedia anyway. There are less frustrating things to do with my time. Best of luck to you in your efforts here though. :) Rray (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "winning"? Please stop this antagonistic waste of everybody's time.  The stub was different than previously.  That's a fact, not a matter of opinion.  I was going to expand it more, but you stopped that when inappropriately removed it and protected an unneccesary redirect.  It presents material in an encyclopedic manner, with reliable verifiable sources, which also demonstrate notability.  Additionally the clear, strong consensus of the afd affirmed both the notability and the adequacy of the previous, smaller stub.  Please stop digging your heels in here.  You don't need to remove a lung to act reasonably and cooperatively here. (It is unfortunate that stuff like this drives a good editor like Rray to take time off.  At the very least you should reflect on that.) 2005 (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD Again (You voted before)

 * The article formerly known as VP:Admin Abuse is back up for a MfD, in spite of its new title and greatly expanded sections highlighting great admins. (The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack.) The new page is WP:What Were They Thinking? (or simply WP:WWTT). The deletion question is here. Please visit and voice your support or, if your opinion has changed, opposition to this article. As you'll recall, it was a UNANIMOUS KEEP the first time around. Thank you for your time. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Rray, I hope you don't mind me taking your name in vain:), but I have mentioned you at WP:ANI, in connection with the recent block of VigilancePrime by User:Tijuana Brass, for the alleged 'canvassing' he engaged in. Just thought I'd let you know.  Merkinsmum  02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind at all. Thanks for the heads-up. Rray (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

wikibreak
ooh, you are on wikibreak? Are you ok?  Merkinsmum  15:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Gavin Collins (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)