User talk:Rray/Archive 5

Contact juggling and citations
Contact juggling citation needed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contact_juggling&diff=177983874&oldid=177968156 I have added several citations on the discussion page for this revision you made but I don't know how to make a citation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Contact_juggling#Reliable_Source

--RichShumaker (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC) - I apologize for putting a note here if that is not the correct place to put it.


 * I replied on your talk page. Rray (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. For more details, please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gambling Companies info
RRay

Listen I am basically new to Wiki, but I have been heavily involved in gambling and the managing sportsbooks/Casinos for the past 9 years. I have an interest in helping write the information on gambling websites any chance you would be interested in working on this with me? Gabest2 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)gabest2

Gavin.collins RFC/U
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror needs your help
 : You've received this message as you are listed as a WikiProject Horror Participant. As you may have noticed, WikiProject Horror has suffered from a lack of direction and coordination of late. A suggestion on how to improve the Project and maintain it as a viable resource has been placed up for discussion here. As a member of the Project, your voice is valued and your input is requested. Thank you, hornoir (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dwellers of the Forbidden City
Hi! :) I have nominated the article Dwellers of the Forbidden City for Good Article status, as I feel it has undergone significant improvement from the point at which it was almost deleted. Since you were involved with improving the article, and/or sparing it from deletion, I'm inviting you to help out in any way you can to improve the article so that it may join its fellow modules, Ravenloft and Dragons of Despair as a Wikipedia Good Article. :) You may want to place the review page (which may not begin immediately) on your watchlist to keep track of the review process. BOZ (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is now up for good article review, so if there is anything at all you can contribute to get the article the rest of the way there, let us know. :) BOZ (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Drizzt Do'Urden
Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Drizzt Do'Urden, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) BOZ (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - February 2009
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 02:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - March 2009
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - April 2009
{| width=100%
 * valign=top style="border:1px solid red; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background-color: transparent;"|
 * valign=top style="border:1px solid red; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background-color: transparent;"|

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 05:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?

I don't know if you've been around in a while, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)

If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Project_Gambling - Possible tasks
Hi Rray! I just posted another note in the possible tasks section, I was hoping some of the project members would hopefully give a bit of feedback to my ideas? Are you still actively updating wiki?Zul32 (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Rousso GA thanks
Thank you for your editorial contributions to Vanessa Rousso, which is now a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ross Jeffries
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ross Jeffries, 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 04:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your RFC on Chris Moneymaker
Hi Ray, Thanks for making a comment on the CMM article. I just wanted to let you know that no one is suggesting that we use a phrase in the article like "some people say". I asked for an RFC because my well sourced, balanced text on criticism of the subject has been deleted and is being blocked by some editors on the talk page. If you have a moment, could you please come back to the talk page and comment on this specific text below in terms of its balance, neutrality and sources? And any suggestions you have for improvement of the text are welcomed as well. Thanks!
 * A 2009 article in Bet Us says Moneymaker has had his fair share of critics as a result of his tournament record after his 2003 World Series of Poker win. According to an article in Poker Listings, Moneymaker is regarded by many critics as a "one-hit wonder" in spite of his success in 2003. However, an article in Blind Bet Poker says that Moneymaker has shown he is not a one-hit wonder by making strong showings at some of the biggest tournaments in the industry. These tournaments include 2nd place at the Bay 101 Shooting Stars World Poker Tour Tournament, 3rd place at the Fourth Annual Jack Binion Poker Classic in Tunica and another 3rd place at the APPT in Sydney, Australia.

Thanks again for all your input.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At the request of one of the opposing editors, I have created a new RFC post on the talk page, with a more neutrally worded intro and additional citations. This new version can be seen here.. Thanks again, and Happy New Year!-- — Kbob • Talk  • 17:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the belated reply. I look forward to working together.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tony Robbins
I recognized your hard work on this article and wanted your help making it better. My focus is on adding facts and references to this page. Let me know what you think, and please feel free to add some info you can contribute.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 00:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Rray! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Michael Craig -
 * 2) Michael Konik -
 * 3) Dave Stann -
 * 4) Michael Castellana -
 * 5) Max Rubin -

Proposed deletion of Michael Castellana


The article Michael Castellana has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * After a search he appears to not be notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob Dancer]
Hi, you seem to be the only editor still active who has had anything (besides drive-by tagging etc) to do with Bob Dancer, which (yes, I know, another one!) is an unreferenced BLP. I've done some searching and was unable to find anything to establish notability. I'm considering an AfD but I thought I'd see if you had any particular opinions or knowledge of any sources I may have missed. HJMitchell   You rang?   13:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUND
I am giving you a warning to stop Wikihounding me. Your name is the most frequent name I have seen in my year+ as an editor changing my edits, commenting on my comments, voting against everything I have ever done and just generally giving me the impression that you are purposely following me around and analyzing everything I do. Such editing is against Wikipedia policies which you can read here WP:HOUND. If this continues I will report you and you will most likely be warned by an administrator, and then blocked. I suggest you leave my edits alone and let other editors change them if they feel necessary - and if I nominate something for deletion or make a comment on a talk page, keep your opinion to yourself and let other editors handle it. DegenFarang (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not Wiki Hounding you, but please feel free to "report" me if you like. I'll continue to edit anything I find interesting here, regardless of whether they're your edits or anyone else's. Rray (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you are ignoring my warning and telling me you have no intention to stop doing something that I consider to be Wikihounding, I am going to report you now. DegenFarang (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Rray (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gambling 102: The Best Strategies for All Casino Games


The article Gambling 102: The Best Strategies for All Casino Games has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable book with no references, long orphaned

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006
I see that you were involved in the discussion at Talk:SAFE Port Act in 2007, so you may want to take a look at the new discussion at Talk:SAFE Port Act. OCNative (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed
Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...

Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva

Thank you very much for all of your help! --Michaelparks (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of important information in Texas Hold'em page
You removed twice our input in the Texas Hold'em page at paragraph Evaluating your hand. Since you added no explanation on this deletion and the deleted content (strength matrix of a hand) is strictly related to the topic of that paragraph and brings important information on it, we took your action as personal and non-professional. Infarom (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's impossible that it's personal, because I don't know you. Your addition to the article was poorly written, and the only citation you included is a website that belongs to you. I explained (politely and cheerfully) that Wikipedia isn't here for you to promote your site in our last discussion, but I notice that you deleted that entire discussion from your talk page. Rray (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My name is George F. If the text was poorly written, you could correct it and not delete it. Per your argument, all the additions of links promote the respective websites, so all should be deleted. So, if I had another username, then you would not consider that the addition was a promotion of that website, right?. You simply ignore the content, you are just focused on eliminating the "intruders". The strength matrix is a math concept that appears in math papers, a book and on our website. I could cite any of them, but I chose the website as the information is very comprised and well organized there. You also removed my external link in the poker probability page, for the same "spamlink" reason. I remind you that you posted several commercial links in the page we created (gaming mathematics) and I did not removed them, just for the sake of the content. Here is what you said when someone removed one of your commercial links: "Being a commercial link is irrelevant to whether or not the link is an appropriate addition the article. Re-adding link. If you disagree, please discuss on the talk page". Does this also apply in my case? Our links are not commercial and are pointing to math information related to games. We are a group of mathematicians devoted to the mathematics of gambling and our aim is to inform the players on the mathematical facts of the games they play. Our works are recognized by several gaming institutes. I also detected several conceptual errors in your contributions related to odds, which mislead the readers. I might correct them. So I expect you to prove my link additions are "spamlinks". Otherwise, my opinion stands: you have something personal with us. Infarom (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make the same recommendation (the one you recently deleted) that I made on your talk page several months ago: review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links. I'm also going to request that you discuss edits made to a specific article on that article's talk page, rather than here on my page. That way other editors can participate in the discussion. Rray (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you wrote, "Otherwise, my opinion stands: you have something personal with us." While you're welcome to your opinion, it's impossible for me to "have something personal with you." I don't KNOW you. As far as "proving" that your links are spam; how many links have you added to sites that you have nothing to do with? A quick look at your editing history makes it clear that the single purpose you have is here is to promote your site. If you were honestly trying to improve articles, you'd see a variety of edits besides just the addition of links to your site. Your deletion of my suggestions to review the external links guidelines and the conflict of interest guidelines on your talk page clarifies that even further. Rray (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your reply just confirms what I said before: you ignore the content improvement (you simply hate that a newer does this) and make a police job instead of working on content. We were talking about the current contributions to the Texas Hold'em page and not about my contribution history of the past years. You acuse me of COI, but you don't mention what is my interest. I am not selling anything and you cannot prove that I own that website or I have an affiliation with it just basing on my username. So I guess there is nothing to do to convince you about my intentions, since you see spam everywhere. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. And as a last attempt to convince you, I promise to you I will not place any links to any website (despite your behaviour of placing commercial links - but you have this right, right?), I will just improve the articles, this is my only inention. So, let's improve the articles, Rray! Infarom (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edits didn't improve the content. If you disagree, please bring it up on the talk page of the article, and other editors can weigh in with their opinions.
 * You cannot judge this by yourself. I'll do bring it in the talk page.Infarom (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Don't bite the newcomers" doesn't say I shouldn't delete spam.
 * You continue acusing of spam, while not proving that and placing commercial links in your past contributions. I might say you are the spammer here, not me, but I won't. Infarom (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your username isn't the reason I assume that you're affiliated with the site. It's your username combined with your pattern of edits. You've added no links to any sites except a single anonymously written site; it's not like you've added five or six excellent citations to five or six different articles with links to peer-reviewed content written by experts. Besides that, you wrote, earlier in this discussion, "We are a group of mathematicians devoted to the mathematics of gambling and our aim is to inform the players on the mathematical facts of the games they play. Our works are recognized by several gaming institutes." It's hard to read that and NOT assume that you have an affiliation with the site. Rray (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your job here is not to assume anything and assumption is not a proof. An editor job is not such kind of investigation, which still do not prove the spam. My last contribution (which we talk about in this thread) is within a section that holds reference notes, one per idea/paragraph. How can I insert several references, for the same idea, as long the rest of the article has a different structure?Infarom (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As older on this site, you should know that Wikpedia is not about winning or having a last word, not about owning aticles, not about mastering a field. It is about content adding and improving, which is exactly what I did and you didn't - you just obstructed my contributions in a manner close to vandalism. I end here this discussion with no result. The mahematics behind Hold'em is not a thing to ignore, it is more than counting outs, and I'll do my best to improve the content of the related articles by obeying Wikpedia rules.Infarom (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to reply to any more of your messages on my talk page. Please don't post on my talk page again. If you want to discuss content, then we can do so on the talk pages of specific articles. Rray (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

adding links to philipkdickfans site
I have added some links to content that appears on the official fan site for Philip K. Dick (that has be recognized by the Philip K. Dick Estate and is linked to from philipkdick.com). There is a complicated history for this site and I realize at one point it has been taken over by malware. The site has changed hands two times and the malware no longer exists on the site. The site was rebuilt from scratch, is stable and will be around for a long time.

The site now contains all the articles that the original site had with some exceptions and can be safely linked to. In addition the site has a vast section that is a reference for all the works that Philip K. Dick wrote called PKDweb or The Encyclopedia Dickiana and contains VALBS which is a reference for secondary materials published about Philip K. Dick. VALBS exist elsewhere on the Internet but this is the official copy of the information.

I would like to add links to each of Philip K. Dick's works with appropriate links from philipkdickfans.com including novel and short story pages. When I have recently made these changes, they were removed. This issue may have been that it appeared I was spamming the site because I was making several edits to several pages in one evening. I believe that the edits I would like to make fall within the External Linking Guidelines that I have read.

Horselover Fat (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't "appear" that you're spamming. When you repeatedly re-add links that have been removed by multiple editors, and you ignore multiple requests on your talk page to stop adding those links, then you are, by definition, spamming. Rray (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Before I didn't say anything because I didn't realize that I could do so. Now I am asking that the links to content that is "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." (External Linking Guidelines) Are these links being deleted only because they were added all at once each time?  I am linking to pages that contain more content about each novel including cover images that don't fit within the structure of the typical page.  I've never really understood what the issue is because the links are going to an official fan site not one I created on my own.  Can you explain what the issue is with the links other than I was told not to add them before? Thank you.  Horselover Fat (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fan sites aren't generally good candidates for external links. Adding a massive number of them at one time would cause anyone to raise an eyebrow. Especially when you re-added the links after being asked to stop adding them on 3 different occasions, by 3 different editors. Rray (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is the typical fan site. One fact to realize is that this site was the official Philip K. Dick site until the domain name was taken over by the Estate. The content here is not generated by one fan but by scholars who are fans of the writer. I understand what it looks like but I work in batches and I felt this should be added as a resource to the content here, not for SEO purposes. The site has a complicated history. I would like you to reconsider removing the links and maybe visit the links that were removed to see what the content is. The links are not all going to the same location and are relevant scholarly content.Horselover Fat (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You should also seek the opinions of the other editors who asked you to stop adding the links. I did review the pages that were being linked to. For what it's worth, I liked the site--I don't feel like adding 50+ deeplinks to the site from 50+ articles is appropriate though. Rray (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You asked on my talk page for my contribution. I agree with R Ray: if it looks like a fansite, see WP:QUACK. You might like to bring the site up on WP:RSN and see if you can get a wider consensus that agrees with you. However, Rray has also brought up the question of conflict of interest, in consequence of which the most you should be doing is suggesting linking to the site on articles' talk pages. If the consensus at RSN is that the site is acceptable, then I think a link at Philip K Dick would then be appropriate, but not at all the individual books' articles. --ColinFine (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)