User talk:Raeky/Archives/2009/January

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Seneca Rocks has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Was in the middle of changing the talk page, adding an archive and helpful templates. Raeky (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Saw your edits to List of Vanniars. While MPs and MLAs automatically satisfy notability criteria, businessmen don't. So, I request you to create articles for the specific mediapersons and entrepreneurs before adding them to the list. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) to understand notability criteria. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the guys edit to delete the whole selection, mainly because the whole article is filled with people that are likely not notable, and it needs an entire rework. Raeky (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP customs is incorrect

In response to you comment:

"Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Resveratrol. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Such a large change should be discussed on the talk page first, you may be correct that it doesn't belong in the article, but it is advisable to attempt to get consensus first on the talk page. Raeky (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)"

It was my intention to remove the irrelevant content from the Resveratrol page and it was not a mistake. I specified the reason in the edit summary. Removal of poorly sited and irrelevant junk is generally not controversial and does not have to be discussed on the article's talk page no matter how large it is. Before restoring junk you should have discussed and explained it on the Talk page. It is adviseable to read the text of the article before making corrections and requesting citations in the lead. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 71.244.121.113 (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The reversal was a "good faith" reversal, meaning I assumed you was trying to improve the article but you was going about it the wrong way. Before one removes a healthy size chunk of an article consensus (WP:CON) of the other editors of that article should be obtained (or attempted) via the article's talk page. Also it is generally assumed (although not always accurate) that users editing from an IP address as opposed to a registered account are new to wikipedia. Such large edits for an article would carry more weight with other editors if you had (a) your own account and (b) attempted to follow established practices (consensus). I see that you did post something on the talk page but it doesn't give a clear reason why you feel this section should be removed and I'll make comments relevant to that there. My understanding of wikipedia policies is pretty firm I think. Your edit was in good faith (WP:FAITH) but failed to get consensus. Raeky (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you editing in good faith? It was not a healthy chunk of the article. It was a few small paragraphs at the very end of the long article that really do not have anything to do with resveratrol. As I understand, you are not experienced with editing of medicine related articles on WP. But as a simple criterion, the word resveratrol is not mentioned in the last two paragraphs, and mentioned in the first two paragraphs only tangentially: "based on resveratrol", "more potent than resveratrol". If you think that you have a firm grasp of WP policies, perhaps the reliable sources is your weakness. I advice you to read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, where the lay press NPR, etc is not recommended as a source for scientific facts. WP policies also reject advertisement and that is what the last paragraph taken from a Sitris webpage is. 71.244.121.113 (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Talks on a users talk page shouldn't be about a specific article but about the user, so I would refrain from mentioning details of the article and restrict those to the article's talk page. I think I have a decent enough grasp on what is good faith, but clearly we're not at consensus on these changes. I'm going to ask for mediation in this case. Raeky (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Allason

Hi, Thanks for setting up the RfC. Springnuts (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)