User talk:Martin Raybourne

This user may have left Wikipedia. Martin Raybourne has not edited Wikipedia since 5 December 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Martin Raybourne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Jack Simko, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cxz111 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jack Simko

A tag has been placed on Jack Simko requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cxz111 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and such

Hi Martin. Welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent switch from standard citations ({cite book...} and {reflist}) on the Bullpup article, I have a couple of thoughts. I appreciate your efforts to help get citations added; that article is sorely in need of many more. As to citation formating, Wikipedia allows several types, principally because several types got started early on before the verification and citation policies got worked up to their current state. So the Harvard style is still allowed. However, I would argue that you would be better to leave the standard style in the Bullpup article for two reasons. 1) I think you will find the standard style by far the most used style in Wikipedia today. Pick any controversial article that is newsworthy and grows rapidly (say, for recent examples, 2009 Turks and Caicos Islands migrant shipwreck or the 2009 Tour de France) and you will find the standard style used almost exclusively. 2) the Wikipedia normal practice is to refrain from changing citation styles in an article once one style is in place. While you had attempted some Harvard style citations in the Bullpup article, I found the article showing no citations and "References" empty. So as a good Wikipedia editor ought to do, I expended not a little time to fix it and make citations work, using of course, the standard style. This makes the standard style the only ever working style on Bullpup which, ordinarily, should then not be changed, or at least not without discussion on the Talk Page first. Moreover, anytime you delete a large portion of another editors work (mine in this case where your recent edits deleted my work to put your GOOD sources into a workable citation format for the article), you run the risk of ticking that editor off. I am not ticked; I see you are fairly new to Wikipedia. But I do think you should revert your recent changes that changed the article citation style to Harvard citations. Hope this is helpful and constructive input. N2e (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to get Harvard to work and link it to the references below but was no sure how to do it, so I asked the help desk and that's why they weren't fully complete. I dont see how the other one is any easier to use. --Martin Raybourne (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we could talk quite a bit as to why the standard citations are better. I'll simply provide one reason here: far more editors today are using the standard ({cite xxx ...} and {reflist}) style and are therefore more familiar with and able to use the standard style with much more facility as any article evolves over time. One significant implication of this is that, as the many firearms articles that need citations get fixed, the citations added by many editors will be in the standard format and not the Harvard format. When both kinds are in the same article, the reference list is always bifurcated -- it doesn't blend well in the References section of the article. Hope that helps to answer your question. You'll see other valid reasons as you edit longer.

But please recall that another great reason for changing them back is that the standard style was already in use and working on the Bullpup article when you changed it to Harvard style on 2009-07-29. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin. I just made two citation-related edits to the Bullpup article. The first was to change the format of the two orginal citations, the ones I got working on 2009-07-28, back to the standard citation style. The second edit was to show you one example of converting one of your other, more recent, citation additions (I chose the Hogg2003 source) to the standard style. You will note that in the standard style, the citation information stays inline with the article text where the citation is located; it is not therefore separated into an entirely different section of the article. This is very helpful in two situations: 1) when any WP editor edits just a single section of an article, they can easily see the full citation, and 2) when a particular sentence/paragraph of Wikipedia text is "reused" in another WP article, it gets cut&pasted with it's correct citation information. Moreover, the citation can easily be used multiple times in an article with a very shortened form for all uses after the first use. This is illustrated with the Dockery citation: the first use is complete, all subsequent uses can use the shorthand form, which you can look at in the Bullpup article. Thanks for the additional good citations you have added to the article. Hope this is helpful to you. Cheers, N2e (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North by North Quahog

Would you mind revisiting the FAC, all editors who were against the promotion of the article have now decided to support. Your oppose is the only one that's left. Thank you.--Music26/11 16:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion of MyGreenPC declined

The tag you applied to this article asked that it be deleted because it was about " company, corporation, organization, or group that did not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". The article is about a piece of software, not a company or group, and is therefore not able to be speedy deleted under this criterion.--Beeblebrox (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea and Biscuits with Maggie Pritchard

Of course I searched for references before nominating the article for deletion. Please assume good faith. The wording of the nomination is an example of good faith itself and focuses on the article rather than the editor who created it. If someone can come up with the necessary references to show notability then great otherwise it needs to go.--RadioFan (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: FK Warszawa

I declined the speedy deletion of FK Warszawa (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch because WP:CSD#A1 did not apply; context was abundantly provided by links to soccer players.

However, the article may still be a hoax; please see my comment at the article's talk page. — Sebastian 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tag removed at Brun Campbell

Hi, I've removed your speedy tag for this biography. The composer recorded but did not publish. The article is referenced to a history of ragtime music. Under these circumstances speedy criteria do not apply. Durova³¹⁴ 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawk War FAC

Acted on this, pls take a look. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from 1945 Calgary Stampeders season

Hello Martin Raybourne, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to 1945 Calgary Stampeders season has been removed. It was removed by Nihiltres with the following edit summary '(rm old prod tag after undeletion)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Nihiltres before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for working on such an important article as Byzantine Empire! I've responded to your question at User talk:Awadewit - sorry it took me so long. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hello Martin Raybourne, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SYdney Riot

The letters have been pruned. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cigarette Smoking Man

I have a question about on of your questions on your GA review. --TIAYN (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the lead and other problems with the text. So is it a pass? --TIAYN (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ophois has "given his support" to the article. Do you have anymore comments/question towards the content of the article? --TIAYN (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do you want to give over reviewing duties for the "Cigarette Smoking Man" article to another user, since you are "semi-retired". --TIAYN (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]