User talk:Rubywine/Archive 3

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG
I've finally been prodded to raise the auto-tagging 'bot(?) at Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG. Your comments or endorsement would be welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 10:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Grant
If it was "wholly unjustified", do you really think I'd revert it, what, just to annoy you? I wouldn't. Please consider this: the article on Hugh Grant is supposed to place him and his life and career in context, while maintaining a neutral point of view. So 1000 of material that's only tangentially related to him and his career is not justifiable. The material itself gives the phone hacking scandal far too much weight to the incident and is clearly recentism—in a year's time, what will be remembered is that the News of the World was closed because it hacked people's phones, rather than whose phones they hacked. I would ask you to reconsider your revert, on the basis of WP:BRD—you were bold, I reverted, so the proper thing now is to discuss, not to revert the revert—and take it to the talk page if you really think we should be giving that much coverage to this incident. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion moved to Talk:Hugh Grant: Phone hacking expos&eacute; (moved from personal talk page) Rubywine (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:User Australia
Hello there. Without any explanation, you recently changed the fundamental meaning of Template:User Australia by changing its text from "this user comes from Australia" to "this user lives in Australia". There are over 500 Australians linked to that userbox; many of us no longer live in Australia, so you rendered all our profiles inaccurate. Also, there was already a userbox carrying the text "this user lives in Australia" so it's completely unclear why you made the edit. I have reverted it. Please do not do anything like this again. If you have made other similar edits, then please revert them yourself. Rubywine (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the mix-up. I was fixing several templates with incompatible labels and categories, and I changed Template:User Australia by mistake.  Residents of Australia may use Template:User in Australia.  Yours aye, -- Buaidh  16:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Though I agree with you please stop edit warring at 2011 England riots - you have now reverted three times and it's really a content dispute rather than undoing vandalism. Hopefully we can sort this out on the talk page. violet/riga [talk] 22:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention. I thought I had only reverted twice. I shall stop editing right away.  Rubywine . talk 22:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking again I might be mistaken - I think you have only done two. Nonetheless FactController says s/he will take it to the talk page now.  violet/riga [talk] 22:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Women in Distress
Hi Rubywine. Thanks for the work you have done to help keep the Women in Distress article. I have posted my thoughts on the deletion page and it includes a series of links to reliable secondary sources. Even if the article has to become a little smaller, at least it can stay. Take a look at what I posted here: Articles_for_deletion/Women_in_Distress SarahStierch (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your help. I was very surprised and happy to see the article snatched from the jaws of death! It will take me a while to get all your resources into it but I'll get there. I've added a video in which the Governor of Florida spoke highly of them, so I hope that puts them in a stronger position.  Rubywine . talk 08:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to update this, I've now added all of the references you gave me and I think the article is now in pretty good shape. I think it's safe from future AfD nominations. It's also quite interesting to read, and to explore all the links. Women in Distress is a very impressive organisation. There's just one question in my mind about the date of foundation. Roxcy Bolton is said to have founded Women in Distress in 1972, and her article supports this, but their website says that Women in Distress of Broward County, Inc. was established in 1974 by Edee Greene and some others, with no mention of Roxcy Bolton. So there's a bit of a question mark there. I might contact Women in Distress to ask for clarification.  Rubywine . talk  00:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rubywine. That's a good question about the founding date. Perhaps Bolton founded another branch. You can contact them if you wish - it can't hurt. Just make sure, upon confirmation, you cite from their website (or the Bolton website). You cannot cite your email/phone call with them. :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again. According to their tax filings they were founded in 1974. Guidestar SarahStierch (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah. Yes undoubtedly Women in Distress of Broward County, Inc. was legally founded in 1974 but what I'm wondering is whether Women in Distress established by 1972 by Roxcy Bolton was its predecessor. It seems strange to have two unrelated Florida women's shelters both called WID, around the same time. There are reliable sources supporting Bolton ,, (video Aug 29 2010) and she clearly regards founding WID as a major life achievement. If she founded another WID, it mysteriously vanished. I just want to ensure the articles are correct. I don't think there's enough evidence to unlink the Roxcy Bolton article from Women in Distress, and vice versa, do you? And yet, this is Edee Greene's obituary.  Rubywine . talk  14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs to be included, we just need to investigate it more. I'll do some work about it. I'm cleaning up the page right now. Take a look at the infobox =) SarahStierch (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's looking very good. It's amazing what a difference the infobox makes.:)  Rubywine . talk  16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Nat Gertler (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of REFUND
Just so you know - I dropped a message on the talk page of the editor who userified the article, as his statement that you used WP:REFUND for the wrong thing does not accord with the statement at the top of WP:REFUND. As best as I can tell, you did fine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nat is quite right, it is indeed permissible to use REFUND in this way, and I was wrong to imply that you should not have; but the main point of my note was to advise you what to do when you think the article is ready for the main space - don't post it directly, or come back to REFUND, but go first to Courcelles and then, if necessary, to WP:DRV. I'm afraid the Wikipedia processes are a fairly tangled maze, but we try to provide helpful guides, even if they sometimes miss a turning too! JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks John. It is helpful to know what to do when it's time to ask for undeletion. I've just left a note on your page explaining that Nat did go to Courcelles about the userfication, who referred us to WP:REFUND.  Rubywine . talk 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nat, thanks for being so great about this. Hopefully, I've made it clear to John that your following of procedures was immaculate and the advice you gave me was irreproachable! Best regards.  Rubywine . talk 21:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. At the moment, I'm pretty amused by this all, because it seems more like something out of a textbook on how Wikipedia is ideally supposed to work - not a system grounded in perfect people and universal agreement, but rather in good intent, cooperation, and procedure. So the editor who asked for the article to be deleted also helped trying to get it saved for possible later inclusion; the admin who thought it shouldn't be saved nonethless pointed you to the proper procedure for doing so; and the admin who thought it wasn't the proper procedure nonetheless took care of saving the article, and tried to help educate on procedure... and when he realized he had made an error, was graceful in accepting correction and made sure that his misinformation was corrected and that no one felt infringed upon. I wish I could say that things always go this smoothly, but it's a lovely example of Wikipedia theory in practice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Philippine history reverts-threats? blocks over invented policies?
Hi there. Pardon my French, but who the heck are you and where do you think you get off reverting edits that take hours to prepare without even engaging the editors on the discussion page? And who the heck do you think you are to go around threatening folks with being blocked for no good reason at all? We have a lively community here and don't need a guardian to police Wikipedia. We don't need wholesale reverts by people who don't even bother to read what was actually edited. Before making judgments on NPOV, I suggest you read up on recent Philippine history. Talk to some actual Filipinos too; I believe there are a lot of them in London. Furthermore, as you seem to want to be an Admin rather than an editor, I strongly suggest you consult with experienced editors on Vandalism and Good Faith before you go around charging other editors with malfeasance. I'm sure you'll get the admin status you want faster if you do. User:elchori01 —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC).


 * There is no requirement to be an admin to tackle blatant POV pushing. There is a requirement to give warnings before requesting an AIV and that's exactly what I'm doing. A clear pattern of editing that removes sourced information and whitewashes a corrupt and brutal dictator stretches good faith beyond its breaking point; your edits which I reversed were also 100% unsourced. If you claim there is any truth in what you write then provide some reliable sources.  Rubywine . talk 13:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not willing to discuss in two places at once. Discussion moved to elchori01:talk.  Rubywine . talk 14:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, let's talk here, because this is a discussion about your lamentable attitude to policing Wikipedia, instead of seeking dialogue with the editors who actually do the writing and the research, which I feel is obstructive and against the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe your previous interventions have shown that you have a poor understanding of good faith. Misgivings about the quality of editing should be noted on the discussion page, and should serve as a spur for further research by the doubter. Instead you are imputing bad faith in an editor who is trying to improve the writing of a controversial article, and have invented a completely new offense "POV Pushing", with which to threaten editors when their edits don't satisfy your own private criteria of "NPOV-ness." Furthermore, you seem intent on pursuing an edit war at the moment, for reasons that are opaque to me. elchori01:talk


 * I have reported you to WP:AIV. End of discussion.  Rubywine . talk 16:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I came here to thank you for joining in the discussion at FGM when I noticed the above. I see you received some advice on this, but to spell it out, "vandalism" is stuff which anyone, even with no knowledge of the topic, would immediately recognize as junk (see WP:VAND). AIV won't help with anything other than ongoing and severe vandalism. When there is a disagreement along the lines of "I think editor X is adding material that is inappropriate", the best noticeboard would be WP:BLPN for living persons, or WP:NPOVN for claims of neutrality problems, or WP:ORN for claims that an editor is using original research. I haven't looked at the edits in question here, but my guess is that NPOVN would be what you want. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

FGM talk page
I agree there are a lot of problems with this article, but as Johuniq pointed out to you above we need to slow this whole thing down, follow procedures and take it one step at a time. Also it would make for a much better atmosphere if you used a dispassionate and neutral tone when addressing other editors or making proposals. No one that has edited this article has sought to intentionally mislead readers or to intentionally misrepresent any of the sources that are cited in the article. To accuse people of doing this is not only rude and condescending, but will not create an atmosphere conductive to improving this article. If the messenger counts for anything in your eyes, I was the person who nominated the article to be moved from Female genital cutting to Female genital mutilation and the person who initiated the terminology changes from FGC to FGM. These changes were accomplished through the cooperation, rationality, and calmness of all the editors involved. If you wish to propose changes I would suggest approaching editors while using and seeking the 3 things I just listed, otherwise people are just going to get their backs up. Vietminh (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)