User talk:Rray/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

• You're welcome. We seem to have similar interests so I expect our paths will continue to cross. I see you are also active in the card sharp/shark matter - a remarkable storm-in-a-teacup. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• It is that. <sigh> Rray had some good observations on the matter at my talk page, for which I thank him, even if I have to disagree on the disposition of the AfD matter itself. I was too combative. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki fauna article

Hi Rray I was wondering if you could take a look at the article User:Merkinsmum/WikiSloth and give me your opinion or suggestions? I ask because you are one of the few editors I believe may occasionally resemble a WikiSloth, a beast I believe to be associated with WP:DGAFMerkinsmum 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

or maybe it's just me lol.:) Merkinsmum 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I love it, and I do believe that I might qualify for inclusion in that fauna! Rray 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.:) Moved out of userspace to Wikipedia:WikiSloth, so feel free to edit if you can be arsed.:) Do you know anyone who would know how to make/might feel like making a template/userbox for it?Merkinsmum 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't right off hand know of anyone who would know how to do that, but I'm going to keep my eyes peeled. Rray 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

be firm lol

Sorry to pester you again. Be firm with me, could this person be considered notable? User:Merkinsmum/Edmund Cusick A few more sources could be found via google I think, this is just my late-night start to it.:) Merkinsmum 03:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop following me around

I don't like you, and you don't like me, so quit following me around and fucking up good articles, claiming that you're doing wikipedia a service by enforcing reliability, and constantly claiming that I just must not understand wikipedia policies. I understand them, and you clearly don't enforce them the same way with people that you don't like. So I'd appreciate if you didn't follow me around here, editing articles that you know nothing about, and linking to policies that don't support your edits, as if it somehow lends you the moral high ground. LEAVE ME ALONE GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cutting out sections of all of someone's articles because you consider them a "bad editor" who "doesn't understand wikipedia policies" is completely inappropriate. You clearly don't follow the policies in the way you're proscribing; i.e. where you cut the original reference to a reputable site and added a link to your own website. Like I said before, quit following me around, and quit acting like you're helping wikipedia by doing it. You're not enforcing policies, you're just being obnoxious. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop Removing Notability Templates

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability Templates from articles that do not have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability, such as the article Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. Unless you are prepared to actually add such sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would not revert my edits without good reason. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied to your on your talk page. Rray (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homeopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I also left a thank you note on your talk page, in case you don't get back by here anytime soon. :) Rray (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter D'Adamo

I think the ability for people to add, comment and edit on this website is important in order to keep entries accurate. However, referring to a noteworthy licensed physician as "one of the more notable pseudoscience medical quacks out there" is inappropriate and acts as a personal attack. I suggest you educate and familiarize yourself with his research, which I am sure will show you that he happens to be an extremely science oriented individual, before making such allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.154.230 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If I hadn't educated myself and familiarized myself with his research, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that he's a quack. His research relies on anecdotes rather than double blind studies, which doesn't lend much credence to your assertion that he is an "extremely science oriented individual". My comment was certainly appropriate and does not act as a personal attack. Rray (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "conclusion" that he is a quack is based on opinion. Since you are so free with your opinion, here is mine: Unless you have some level of credentials that would make you remotely knowledgeable in the area of health and medicine, such as attending medical school as he has, I suggest you stick to monitoring gambling entries.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.154.230 (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll continue to edit articles that I'm interested in, and you should feel free to edit articles you're interested in. Rray (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Always good to see people standing up to the deletionists. Not sure if you know or not, but there is a Greyhawk-specific wiki now. You'll find many Wikipedia articles have been preserved (& improved upon) there. Feel free to join us!--Robbstrd (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pilotbob must be bored on Christmas vacation

Rod of Seven Parts is up for AFD again! BOZ (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

Hi, Rray. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

robbins lead

let me know what you think of the lead at Tony Robbins.:) And feel free to tinker. Merkinsmum 23:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Removing Notability Templates

I note that you have removed the Notability template from the article Amarillo Design Bureau, with the following comment "inaccurate tag. Notability here isn't in question, although the article needs better references. Adding refimprove tag".

I think that you may be mistaken in this instance, as

1. The article does not contain any content, context or analysis that asserts that the company has any notability;
2. There are no reliable secondary sources which would provide evidence of notability;
3. The company is a private company, has no listing on a public stock exchange;
4. The Star Fleet Universe games are not of its own creation; they licence this from Paramount Pictures corporation;
5. Lastly, they are not the first company to operate this franchise, as they are the successor company to Task Force Games.

I know that you must like these company very much, but their notability is in question, and your opinion alone does not override Wikipedia Guidelines. I shall be grateful if you would resotore the notability template until such time that real-world notability can be established.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied to this on your talk page. I'll continue to remove any incorrect template, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me how to edit. Rray (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think the use of the notability template on the article Amarillo Design Bureau is "inaccurate"?--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already a discussion of this on the article talk page. I see nothing helpful about having a second discussion here. Rray (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

the state of robbins

Yes, the bloke has added a section from his own notes into it lol! I don't even know if he would need permission from robbins to share that. I'm going to remove or summarise it, because no-one can verify it, it's sort of non-notable as it hasn't been written about, and it's irrelevant. I think apart from that section it's bearable though. Bloke is a newbie, apart from his COI I think he's genuinely trying to improve his edits (if only so they stay in.) Merkinsmum 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the un-wikified bit, and changed the pic. What do you think? Merkinsmum 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, robbins

Forgive me for bothering you again with news of it lol:) One of the problems may be that there's not many editors working on it. Soon I'm going to let this lie, and see if this editor disappears for a while. If not, it may have to go to an informal mediation. Merkinsmum 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)