User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Stanleybet riots

Hi - I work for one of Stanleybet International's agencies in the UK. I'm new to Wikipedia discussion pages so sorry if this is not normal practise!

I'm not quite sure what is going on with the Greece situation. I think it is an ongoing fight they in involved in aiming to make it a free market to competition rather than the state monopoly that current exists. Wasn't really linked to the riots. There have been some more recent articles since your posting: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssCasinosGaming/idUSL929688820090213 http://in.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idINLE49808920090114

I think they would actually like their own small Wiki company entry at somepoint so if you would like to consider writing it then please feel free to go ahead. The About Us section of their site covers most things... http://www.stanleybetinternational.com/stanleyint/aboutus.jsp http://brcconline.eu/memberDetails/166/Stanleybet%20International%20Ltd.htm

Other reference sources that might be useful: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article1480356.ece http://www.eubusiness.com/Media/stanleybet-press.08-02-28/


EdG10 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Population_growth

Hi, thanks for your third opinion on Talk:Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Population_growth. Are you happy with the paragraphs as they are currently proposed? Thanks. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quotation style

Please see the MoS's section on quotation. Your edit here reversed a stylistic correction. Ilkali (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you Take a Look at this?

Please look here. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to assume good faith, but it is overcoming the WP:OWN which is a problem. Please see the conversation. Thanks --Sikh-History 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling user SH wants everything his way without taking into account the available sources; which have been discussed thoroughly. Khokhar (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Theology problem

Blueraspberry, what do you know about Theology. The fact in the Trinity doctrine Islam's point is always being dismissed. It has been noted and reconized by scholars tat Muhammed was disgusted by Christendom's adoption of the trinitry. This is not your place as a laymen to argue that this does not belong. her. if you have a problem email me at galaticainc@bell.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.136.177 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(sent to the email address above)

First let me say that I have no idea what edit you may be referencing, and that I apologize if I have done something to offend you. I have no particular interest in either Islam or theology, and I try not to do much editing on sensitive topics. To the best of my knowledge, I made no recent edit that matches what you are saying.

I think you might have a misunderstanding about me, and about Wikipedia in general. If you would like to talk more about this in the future, then I encourage you to please open a Wikipedia account so that we can post on each others' talk pages and preserve our conversation for other people to read. Also, I think that I can help you better understand how Wikipedia works. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, and if you feel the need to contribute then I encourage you to do so.

yours, Lane Blue Rasberry 18:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

note to self: I found the edit in question here. It was a few lines starting with "Islam,with it's founding by Muhammed was a result not only of Christendom's blood thirst and violent additude that..." and I took it to be an inappropriate addition and reverted it when I was doing recent changes patrol. I took no thought as to religious implications, but at least, if an organization is said to have "blood thirst and violent additude" then a citation is needed. Blue Rasberry 19:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Isam Mostafa

Hi Blueberry, the artist that I have chosen to write a wikipedia article on is an American Hip-Hop artist living in Dundee. He has nominated for 3 NME awards. As you wanted references for why this wikipedia page should be kept. Here are some links to prove that the rapper Doe Boy has been nominated for 'NME awards [1] [2] video's might not be able to be streamed because the artist might of removed the video's but theres the link. If you have any more problems please feel free to contact me again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Isammostafa (talk • contribs) 21:02, March 23, 2010

My response is on your talk page. Blue Rasberry 03:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


comment on your "warning" to me

I don't know how to send private messages, so please excuse me.

Did you see what I (tried to) removed from the Catholic Priests' Sex Scandal article? Do you really think it should have stayed? It was an irrational screed totally unsuitable for a wiki page regardless of one's opinion on the specific issue. I think you owe me an apology and should retract the "warning" I received courtesy of you. Thank you.99.227.86.155 (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for writing; most Wikipedians prefer public messages so your etiquette is fine.
I apologize for reverting the changes you made to that article and sending you a warning. Immediately after I made the change I put it back the way you had it, because I saw that you had done a good thing. I am sorry, and I said so on your talk page also. Blue Rasberry 15:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

y dude how iz it not constructive

y dude how iz it not constructive—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.109.1 (talk) 17:38, March 28, 2010

Hello. I confirm that I believe this edit is not constructive. Blue Rasberry 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for pitching in! NeilN talk to me 03:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

It's called pushing the wrong button, fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InFairness (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue somewhat explained here. Blue Rasberry 20:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lou Bega

I have no idea what you mean by "unconstructive" edit but you cant just remove a vast amount of information from the page. Be more clear what you mean by "unconstructive" and you could have just made it little bit more "constructive" instead of "telling me off".

I have undone your actions and would like to keep it like that unless you can justify why you have removed it in the first place or are you just power hungry?

Am sorry if I come across a bit rude but I spend ages on finding the information and posting it on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IE4gle (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You do not come across as rude, but even if you did I would not mind and anyway you are right. I should not have undone your edits.
If it matters to you, I can explain why I thought your edits were improper. Here is what I was examining. It is no excuse, but I did not notice you had just been making lots of good changes to the article. The first thing I saw is that you provided a reference to a link; this is a bit unusual, as it is not typical to reference a link with another link. Also, I checked your link and saw that it was to a German-language site that was selling music; now that I look again, it seems to also have German language content that seems to be about the article's subject, but not on the page for which you gave a link. Finally, and this is totally my mistake, I saw that you had added a line of code lots of times. I just counted and the number was 25. Now that I examine more closely, I see that you were making a table with entire lines of null values. Now I can see why you did this, but still, I just was not thinking to see an entirely blank line in a table.
I was wrong, but I hope that you understand that I meant no harm. I see a fair amount of vandalism and that is what I thought was happening to the article you were editing. I did not understand what you were doing, and if it is any consolation, if I see anyone else doing what you did I will be more careful in the future. When I reverted the changes I described above, I also reverted all changes you had immediately made before that change. Since at the time I felt certain that your most recent change was some kind of trouble, I did not even consider your other changes. It will not happen again. Blue Rasberry 06:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback regarding copyright question

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Message added 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

I noticed you edited out my revision to the Shroud of Turin. The statement in the summary which denied the existance of documentary evidence was inaccurate and misleading. The problem was the author referenced in the article predated (1980) the physical pollen (1982) and limestone (1986) findings which supported the Eddesa to France linkage that is found in the historical documentation. I provided this and you removed the link. How come? JimfromGTA (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue was that you used strikeout to alter mainspace text that contained references. You also added content with an oddly formatted reference to a site that is non-reliable due to its failure to list sources, authorship, or authority. I reverted it with a note saying that I thought you were doing a test edit, but a lot of what you were doing seemed odd.
I have no opinion whatsoever on the content of what you wrote in the context of the article, and first, let me say that I am pleased you are taking initiative in editing and I do not want to discourage you. I was simply looking through recent changes, and saw you had done those two unusual things. It is not appropriate to mark text in an article with proofreader marks like strikeout. However, if you see something you do not like, you should take initiative to either delete or change whatever you do not like.
That said, if someone has gone to the trouble of writing content and referencing it to a reliable source, then it is not appropriate for anyone to delete that content without somehow indicating why. I am aware that you have been writing on the talk page that you disagreed with what this passage was saying, but what got my attention is that referenced material was being striken and not being replaced with another proper reference.
The main reason that I reverted your changes is that I wanted to get your attention so that you would recognize that what you were doing was controversial. In the future, consider putting notes in the revision summary (yours was blank) so that reviewers will have some idea that you are conscious of removing sourced material. If you want to completely remove sourced material, consider either discussing it to consensus or cutting it and pasting it on the talk page for others to consider. Finally, when you reference sources, make sure the source is reliable and then reference it properly with a template like these. If you have any questions about what I am saying or ever want to talk more, then please contact me again. Thanks for being a good editor! Blue Rasberry 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I left the "strike out" in because I though someone would be editing and as such this would give them guidance as to what I removed. I guess I did it wrong. Thanks for the feedback. I will make another attempt. JimfromGTA (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Cannabis Invitation

You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

DYK for Oregon Cannabis Tax Act

Updated DYK query On April 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Washington Initiative 1068 (2010)

Updated DYK query On April 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Washington Initiative 1068 (2010), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for undoing vandalism on my userpage! Much appreciated Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcoming message

I will take it into consideration. 95.223.187.171 (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Blog

Please explain your reinstatement of a blog. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The summary of this is that I admit to an error related to technical ability, and not to an error in applying Wikipedia principle. It was easy to rectify, and I commit to pay more attention. A slightly more detailed description is on your talk page. Blue Rasberry 02:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw, thanks--I left a slightly more detailed "thank you" on my talk page! ;) Drmies (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hijra (South Asia)

Your version of the lead is workable, imo. I only have a few reservations.
The first sentence seems a bit lengthy, wordy and repeats a bit. Having said that, I'd find it hard to improve the sentence, because I think it attempts the right thing with the right sorts of neutral language. I'm curious to know if "devotional" hijra preceded the formation of their communities. If so, we could talk of the "devotional" before the community aspects of hijra. The current order is probably best for now, because they are best known as members of communities.
The phrase "all-hijra community" is awkward, if all you want to do is avoid saying "all male". It's almost tautologous to say hijra live in all-hijra communities. I'd prefer "exclusive" or some other similar direct adjective.
Finally, and this is important. The reliable sources say two things that confirm that all hijra, without exception, are male. One source says "girls cannot become hijra". Other sources tell us that intersex conditions are either male or female. So, even the tiny proportion of hijra with DSDs are males with disruptions of male sexual development. Anne Ogborn does not provide a counter-example to the exclusivity of the hijra to those of male birth sex, since Anne is actually a MTF transsexual.
I have no particular personal "take" on the hijra other than accurate, clear and neutral coverage. Well, even that is a "take" of a particular kind, but it extends to being sympathetic to the views of brave and exotic people, and to those who are oppressed for whatever reason. The hijra fit into both later categories. I should probably confess, though, I'm nervous about Western LGBT activists projecting their own issues onto the hijra. It has the potential to mask the hijra as hijra, but it's very well known, and widely discussed in reliable sources, that this kind of "framing" has been done. I think we must document it, without judging it, just not permit that political movement to hijack the article.
Well done with your tweaks, feel free to go live without checking with me, I can't promise to get back to you in realistic time for you to make changes you work on. I will eventually get back to the article, and tweak where I think necessary, though I'll make a point, at that time, of letting you know I've made changes, in case you want to discuss them.
Ultimately, we should probably make the effort to feature this article, and "lock in" a range of points of view in a good example of controversial material handled neutrally and responsibly.
Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The first sentence is poor and redundant, as you say. Somewhere early I would like to describe hijraness with the atypical gender presentation and the devotion to certain gods; I am not particular about how this is done, but I will try another way.
  • The idea I would like to convey is close to "exclusive". I am not sure it is possible to be a freelance hijra; I think the community is a hijra-defining trait, but I would reconsider that notion if you thought I should. Maleness is not something that I want to discuss just here; I do not think you are proposing that hijra communities are always inclusive of non-hijra males. "Exclusive" to me is not as descriptive as "all-hijra". Hijras live in sequestered communities? Cloistered? Their own? Communities exclusive of non-hijras?
  • I think this is a problem with semantics. I do not disagree with your statements about the facts, but still you seem to be emphasizing "maleness" in a way that to me has no relationship to the points you bring up.
  • One source says "girls cannot become hijra".
I think you mean genetic females cannot become hijra; fine. I might say that people claiming to be girls have professed to becoming hijras; I do not think you would dispute that, and at the same time I think you would understand the distinction between what you have said and what I am saying.
  • Other sources tell us that intersex conditions are either male or female.
Okay, and I do not disagree, but I fail to see the relevance of this. I am not disputing that there are measures by means of which sex can be determined. I would assert that these tests are not significant to almost everyone writing on the subject, in that practically no geneticists write about hijras and many non-laboratory types do. For every genetic typing article written about any population up for sex determination, there must be at least 1000 social articles. Hijras are not interesting for their genes; this is a cultural topic, and the genetics behind it are not in dispute and therefore not part of the discussion - so far as I know!
  • Anne Ogborn does not provide a counter-example
Okay. And supposing there was a counter example, I still would not have a problem. I am comfortable saying "all x are y" even if 1% of x are not y; I want a general statement and exceptions can be described elsewhere. For the sake of argument, grant me that a significant number of hijra are indubitably non-intersex full genetic female. If this number was small, still I could say "all hijra are genetic male." This was not a point that meant anything to me.
  • reliable sources ... confirm that all hijra, without exception, are male
Not okay just yet. I do not think you would dispute that some reliable sources state that hijras are not male, particularly in the context of "neither male nor female." I would describe what is happening as a disconnect between social researchers' and bench scientists' definitions. How would you feel about putting this widely-used phrase - bogus though it it may be in the context of genetics - in the article? How would you feel if I asserted that the "neither male nor female" statement was a traditional definition in India? Do you associate this statement exclusively with any modern political movement?
  • I am not afraid of any political movement hijacking the article. I do not dispute existence the politics, nor do I think there is anything hidden or shameful about it. I would oppose the political philosophy being definitive of hijra character, because activism is not a traditional thought, but that has not yet been an issue in this article, so far as I know. To the extent that I can, I would be interested in creating a politics section, and whatever has been written about Western LGBT projection could proudly be part of that.
  • What would be your categorization of the disagreement between you and me? I am not able to readily say we disagree about anything. To what extent would it be acceptable to you to use the word "male" twice in the lede so as to get the point across that a class of metrics (the scientific minority) would classify hijras as male and the majority of other measures (tradition, social scientists, and hijras themselves) more commonly use "not male" as a descriptor? Blue Rasberry 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Questionable revert

Why did you make this edit? --ElKevbo (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I reposted something without a citation which you had removed. When I reposted it, I added a citation. I made the edit because it was interesting news. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry 12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
But the source you cited didn't support your edit. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be better to say that the extent to which his presidency of the university has changed is now ambiguous, because he did say he took the presidency of the NCAA and "It is never a good time to leave one great job for another." Something is different and newsworthy, and I wish there was a way that you could have changed the wording to permit keeping of the citation because I am always hesitant to remove those. As you like, though; for my part it can stay removed. Blue Rasberry 12:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SEI page revert

Your comment with your revision here doesn't make sense to me, so I'm curious why you made the revert. The CMM and RMM are both Management practices developed at the SEI. Error9900 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was

Similar to the CMM, a Resiliency Management Model (RMM) is currently being developed for operational resiliency management.

I removed this saying

relationship between these systems is not obvious...

I confirm that I checked your reference and I see nothing there saying that RMM is similar to CMM, or even mentioning CMM at all. Also, the RMM is at this time a stub with a deletion template on it, so I have my doubts about whether the time is ripe for this kind of statement to be made. Without further info, I stand by my edit. Does this satisfy your curiosity? I think you might be new here; if you have questions about Wikipedia standards then please ask and I will help. Blue Rasberry 17:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I meant 'similar' in the sense that they are both "management models." I feel the more appropriate edit would have been to change the text to: "A Resiliency Management Model (RMM) is currently being developed for operational resiliency management." rather than completely removing the text. I am confident that there is enough information to develop the RMM page past a stub. While looking at the page for the Software Engineering Institute, I noticed there is no mention of it anywhere and feel that there is a need to do so. I was simply trying to get the ball rolling on this. Is there a better way to do so? I just don't have the time right now to develop a full Wikipedia page on the RMM. Error9900 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is something that could have a Wikipedia article; the importance of the subject matter is not in question.
If you could say something like, "A Resiliency Management Model, which is XXX, is currently being developed for operational resiliency management." The wiki article you created is deletable on sight unless someone does substantial work to it; even now that you fixed the copyright violation problem, the information you present is not enough to make a viable article that would pass initial reviews. For this reason, it is probably best not to make a wikilink to RMM, because if you are depending on that then that destroys the statement's worth.
Concerning the RMM article, if you do not have time now, then consider making a sandbox in your personal space where you can edit the article without disturbance and then post it live when it is ready.
Otherwise, you can put a request in the requested articles section. However, the turnaround here ranges from weeks to never depending on how interesting it sounds, and I think you would understand if I said RMM is not the kind of article general users rush to create.
Here is the beginner's outline for article creation. I cannot make your article for you, but if you need help now or months later when you decide to do it yourself, just ask me and I will do what I can. Blue Rasberry 18:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
One more thing: Why is it not acceptable for me to mention the Resiliency Management Model on this page? Rails Maturity Model does not have a Wikipedia page, yet it is allowed to be mentioned, so I'm not sure why Resiliency Management Model cannot also be mentioned here. Thanks. Error9900 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
At the time I thought that the RMM article was going to die quickly; as of now it is still being considered for deletion, but it moved from speedy deletion to another deletion process. Generally it is debatable whether dead links should be listed based on whether the link would make a good article. At the time I removed your link I thought it seemed like a corporate blurb, but I think now that I may have been wrong so I changed it back to the way you had it.
I am not sure the Rails Maturity Model should be listed on that page. It too is a dead link, and it does not seem to be something that gets much discussion outside of blogs and discussion boards. I did not consider it before, and now I would not oppose its deletion.
There are not many hard rules on Wikipedia. I make quick judgments based on incomplete information about what kinds of articles I think are likely to develop; perhaps I made a bad decision about yours, but at least now we had a talk and you know that you can easily find people on Wikipedia who can answer your questions and help you make good articles. I think for my part I will just leave things as you had them, and then if someone else wants to get involved then they can make changes. But at the same time, I feel that my actions are probably characteristic of what some other editors would do, and creating stubs for topical articles with little reference documentation - especially when there are other issues like copyright violations - tends to attract a lot of this kind of attention. Starting with a certain minimum amount of content in a new article completely sidesteps this kind of evaluation. Other thoughts? Blue Rasberry 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I definitely intend to include more substantial content when creating a new page from now on. Thanks for the conversation/help/education. If the page ends up getting deleted, I'll just put more effort into recreating it next time, so that I don't run into these problems. Error9900 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

YOUR TALK PAGE CONTESTED

Thank you for your reply but as I have already told you, I cannot do anything if the artist has removed links, stories, music from either link. But I will give you the link to his 7 Digital & Wiki Answers Page. [3] [4]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Isammostafa (talk • contribs) 16:15, March 25, 2010

The links used for citation do not source the information stated in the article, as you acknowledge. If the links were valid, this article still does not meet WP:MUSICBIO standards, and without any citations it does not meet WP:RELIABLE. The new links you gave do not meet WP:Reliable. If you need help understanding Wikipedia standards I would be happy to answer your questions, but at least read WP:MUSICBIO first. Blue Rasberry 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why has the page been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isammostafa (talk • contribs) 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove it; only administrators can do that after they review the page. Please read this explanation. My guess is that your article was deleted for not meeting the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Do not take offense; every article on Wikipedia gets reviewed by multiple people and remember that I was not the only one to tag your article for review. Blue Rasberry 15:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User Bluerasberry, at home preparing to edit Wikipedia

You are an irresponsible editor. You just want to remove anything you think is useless because of your make believe ignoramus educational skills. You are not a Nobel Prize winner. You are just an iditiotic clerk and your future be. You smell like an ass hole during summer. Your bad breath diffuses much to the "halls" clamoring over it and your arm pit odors emanates even in the bathroom. You are a skunk of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.59.47 (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bluerasberry. You have a new message to please observe hygiene while at work. You smell awfully bad.. better clean your assholes thoroughly for you smell like it. People are following you because of your smell until they poke your head with a hammer. Better observe hygiene . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.59.47 (talk)

Hello Smelly Skunk... how come that you again changed it.. you are a stupid asshole... like your ancestors you gobbled greedily fecal materials.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.184.53 (talk) 13:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

We are not stalking you .. who are you that we will be interested upon... you are the one stalking us with your irresponsible racial editing...you better be careful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.59.47 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.101.63 (talk)

semi-protected

I've semi-d your user page indefinitely, and your talk page for 3 days, due to the pestering. Let me know if you'd like it reduced, or if it continues when protection expires. If this is a long term thing, you might want to create User talk:Bluerasberry/Unprotected and make a note of it on your talk page, in case legitimate new/IP users need to talk to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Penis vandalism

Hi Bluerasberry , I noticed some vandalism on the "indigenous peoples" article by the following IP: 67.142.165.20 The person comes & does totally unconstructive edits - He enters the word penis here and there whereever he likes. I don't know why he does that, but it's annoying. Please keep an eye on that article.Not sure if you are the right person to inform, but since you contacted me once - I am telling it to you. Thanks --95.223.187.171 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's cool - I will watch the article for a while. I am not an admin, but if I see a problem I will report it to one. If you want to read more about what I will do, check out Wikipedia:Vandalism. And feel free to come to my page at any time. Blue Rasberry 04:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Crime in Oregon

Hi. Can you expand this article? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I have no idea how you found me because I know nothing of this topic and to my knowledge never edited any page related to the issue. Sorry for the late reply. Best of luck in your editing. Blue Rasberry 13:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV "reminder"

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Interlace

A month has passed and no reaction (as in change in article). What is the recommended course of action? --Xerces8 (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC) PS: Feel free to remove this section if this is not the right place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerces8 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I did understand what you want to do, and I do agree with you that the lede does not make sense nor do the comments on the talk page address your concern. I will back you up on the interlace page so be bold and change it to however you want it. I think you are new to Wikipedia; this is how change starts. As I said here, the lede as written really needs to be changed. I am watching the interlace page; you start things off and I will be there to give comment if anyone reverts it. Blue Rasberry 22:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

historical maps

Hello there! :)

I see, you have had commented at the OR too at the end of April. I had applied for mediation and more than 3 days had passed, so this is why I didn't follow that discussion anymore (hadn't read). Before going through dispute resolution steps I tried to make sense with the author. ironically he hasn't contributed from that very day until now :). But I do have concerns, that it is quite a synth of POVs (could even be biased POVs) the author bases his works on with not referring to RS. have a look [5]. Basing created maps of editor comments, especially when those comments are wrong, is not a good reference :). Anyway, the map has clear violation of WP:V in its current state so should be removed from articles for now, in my opinion. Aregakn (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand, so let me try to restate what you are saying. I do not think you have shown me the map above before, but that is okay.
If I understand you, you are saying the map above is not referenced to any published reliable source. Because of that, it fails WP:V and may be WP:OR. I checked the file page and the author did attempt to reference and describe its shortcomings here, but in my opinion there is not enough information about the original source for me to find it nor is it clear that this is a copy of the original source; I am suspecting that substantial changes have been made to the original because this is a digital map that someone made and not a scan from any book.
What I would propose is that we first contact the maker of the map and ask if this person can clarify the source or the changes from the source. Assuming this person can not do this, then I would ask if you could describe some specific faults you find with this map, then we post them on the map's talk page. At the same time, if you have another map you feel is better, then we also propose to do a map change on all pages using the map, and see if anyone would oppose a switch. If there is any opposition, we talk it out, and if not, we make the switch.
Is this what you had in mind? Should we start by asking the map maker to verify the source and talk about what original research he might have done? Blue Rasberry 16:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope. This map was not the subject of discussion. We had a discussion in NPOV about historical maps. Then I continued the discussion on OR notice-board. The histrical map of Rome in question was created by the user Andrei nacu. The link to the talk-page of Iberieli was to show, that in the process of map-creation by Andrei not only (let's suppose) RSs participate but also other editors with their persnal commnts about the historical facts of that period. In [6] it can be read, that by only the comment of Kober the map was modified to reflect a different territorial construction of the region. This change is made with no reference to RS.
I only meant, that I have doubts, that the map-creation by Andrei is based only on RSs and not POVs.
But the issue I brought up is about the other map of Andrei: [7] That is what, due to no references, violates WP:V and can only be seen as WP:OR for now.
As for the author's comments, as I said, he was not online for almost 3 months and did not respond.
The discussion of that map is on OR noticeboard. Aregakn (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I misunderstood; yes, of course the Roman Empire map is what we are discussing.
I do not entirely know how Wikipedia map-making business works. I posted some questions here asking about the source for the map in question and about map talk in general. Let's see whether anyone responds, and if not, then we will call for assistance. For now, I am mostly interested in learning something about the source for this map and map verification in general. Blue Rasberry 02:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks! But I wish the discussion on OR board to contnue as well. Aregakn (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of D. W. MacKenzie

An article that you have been involved in editing, D. W. MacKenzie, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. W. MacKenzie. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to self - my only interaction was huggling some vandalism off this page. Blue Rasberry 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

iPad and the Foxconn controversy

There seem to be a number of other editors who have come out in support of slimming down the content on Foxconn on the iPad article that you wrote, and its only really User:MishMich who wants to see the content in the article do you have any further comments to make on the iPad talk page? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I replied on that talk page. Thanks for giving me notice! Blue Rasberry 00:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Not weird things with Latin names--making alphabetization consistent

What I've been doing with these plant names isn't by way of doing weird things with Latin, or bringing Wikipedia up to botanical standards. I'm not a botanist, and I wouldn't try to do that. But I find that many of the pages for "Category:(name of plant genus) have the alphabetization garbled. They can have as many as three consecutive alphabets (meaning you get to Z and you start A over again.) It happens because on the pages for the individual species, the statement for the Category were set up in different ways. I have simply tried--as I have found them--to set them up consistently, in order to list them in one coherent alphabet on the Category page. 71.126.140.136 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Note: Confirmed, this user is manually performing a very repetitive task. I have therefore added this user to the huggle whitelist so it does not detect this user every time they organize a category. Maybe we should suggest a bot to perform a task. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A question

Hi again Blue!

Can it be, that you know what to do, if an AE process was automatically archived by a bot with no results yet provided? Regards, Aregakn (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:IAII_team.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:IAII_team.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Teensex_welcome.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Teensex_welcome.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for explaining, although I don't think his issue was with the word "shit" as he used it himself in the edit summary when removing my post on his page. Anyway, thanks for the nice welcome, even though I'm not new it's appreciated 82.43.89.11 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Maps

You can look at the description to see what I did: in this case I used the public domain blank map of Washington counties, saved a png from it (I'm not proficient with svgs) and colored it in with Paint (the Microsoft program). I also removed the water part - being lazy as I am I reduced the number of colors in the image until I could easily replace it. Then I took the info from the Secretary of Washington State website that wouldn't change because the recount is so far along and colored the parts in. I then uploaded the image with a proper description and added a free license that would allow attribution to me (the original creator released all rights). The end :) Hekerui (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome :) Hekerui (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just looked at my talk page and I don't think I replied to your thank you note: you're welcome. Btw since you are eligible, you can vote for one of the images proposed for Picture of the Year 2009. The contest closes tomorrow. Hekerui (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember you replying, but you are thorough. I just voted. I noticed on your userpage that you are interested in India-related topics. If you ever want to collaborate on any India-related map project, then let me know. I am not sure where we would get data or what templates exist, but if I found other interested people I would help search for data or create templates if it meant that we could start making good maps. Blue Rasberry 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the offer! Hekerui (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

William A MObley page updated

Can appreciate the statement "used by every major retail distributor" being too vast. Removed. That credit would belong to GE Global Exchange Services who acquired it in either case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.6.3 (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous revert?

Please review this revert - thanks. 92.0.63.81 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am totally in the wrong. I replied further here. Blue Rasberry 00:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for taking the time to reply. 92.0.63.81 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer to "external links might be spam"

That might be right, but the other links also have sales information on the link: 

  * LMD Solutions
  * Leica Microsystems commercial non-contact Laser Microdissection systems

So I ask you to be fair on these terms. Please delete all company links or release all company links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.5.244 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please consider creating an account so that it would be easier to have conversations.
You are completely correct and I just removed the links to those two commercial sites. I have no interest in laser microdissection; I just patrol looking for trouble. When I saw your link, I saw WP:SPAM. I am sorry that you came to Wikipedia and saw an article that had advertisements on it; it was a bad example of what Wikipedia can do.
But while I have your attention, do you know any published source where I could find encyclopedic content describing the field of laser microdissection? The article is lacking sources, and if you could direct me to some content I could integrate it into the article. Blue Rasberry 16:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Metrostarlogo.png

Thank you for uploading File:Metrostarlogo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

Because you used a fair use rationale with your upload, the recommended copyright tag is {{non-free logo}}. Please add this to the image and remove the speedy delete template ({{di-no license}}).

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ambrose

Thanks for checking in with me on the Ambrose article. I've been away from Wiki for a few days, and have checked in from time to time. I'm not clear that we're going to get a neutral article at the end of the day, given the zest of the editors there. However, it's hard for me to work up much of a sweat over this, and I was hoping that other editors might step in. It's hard to work up much enthusiasm for making an article on a serial liar more neutral, if you know what I mean. I've read several of his books and I wonder what's the fact and what's the fiction. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
Message added 20:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have made a reply to your comment. Outback the koala (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Swami Ramdev's Birthdate

Hi.. This is in reference to your comment on the talkpage. Please see the [Date] ... I've proposed to remove the birth date altogether as no credible references are available. I'm new and I would really appreciate your help. Thnxx --SanskritGuy (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it and tagged it appropriately, and wrote about it here.
If you need help working on articles related to India feel free to write me about anything. I checked your blog through your user page and with you liking to write as much as you do I think Wikipedia would be an enjoyable hobby for you. Blue Rasberry 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :) --SanskritGuy (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

response to Barksdale Theatre page

I could not figure out how to respond correctly to the message you sent me.

I listed past productions because I thought that people who view Barksdale Theatre's wikipedia page would be interested in the theatre enough to see what productions they have done in the past. I do not see how it violates any of the "Wikipedia is not..." guidelines. When I view information about a theatre, I like to view a list of some of their most recent shows so that I can get an idea as to what kind of shows they do. Is this not appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KikiJones6 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My reply is here. Blue Rasberry 16:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:69.181.249.92

Thanks for the Barnstar! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation of East Africa

Hello Bluerasberry! On the WP:NPOV/N you recently had a conversation with User:Outback the koala about a dispute on the page East Africa. The dispute is being revisited in a MedCab case overseen by User:Ronk01. Any assistance you might be able to provide would be hugely appreciated. I'm in the process of fulfilling your request for condensing the dispute into key points, and will update the new discussion thread (located here) shortly. Regards, Night w (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Should I just close the Second Amendment case since it looks like they don't want help from the cabal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby122 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the editors requested more time on a different board just two days ago. I just referenced this on the medcab board and made a recommendation to leave the case open. Blue Rasberry 18:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI The mediation cabal case should be considered dead. I am a party to the dispute and I have no faith in the self-nominated mediator Bobby122 who has no history on wikipedia and whose account seems to have been created for the purpose of the mediation. Even the process and its title seems to be a bit "cookey" so I have no faith in it. --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It may well be dead. I am aware that the current mediator is new. Besides your lack of faith in the mediator, I am also aware that you have previously stated you were not interested in the mediation. Despite all these things, the mediation is truly over when the nominator decides to no longer participate. I will continue to watch that page and the NPOV noticeboard until then. Even though you choose not to participate in the mediation, your contributions to Wikipedia are at the heart of it, and I am interested in watching what is said about the work you have done. Blue Rasberry 19:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I am handing this case over to another mediator because I am tired of Hauskalinen making false assumptions about my account. Regards, Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 16:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
If this is the worst thing that happens to you as a mediator then you will be very fortunate. Of course I would welcome you to stay, but that user does not want you to mediate and if you also feel it is not best then I wish you good luck where you will be better appreciated and more happy. Cheers! Blue Rasberry 04:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought it over and have realized that you are right. I will reinstate myself as the moderator because as you said when you are a mediator you have to endure some comments that you may not particularly like, so the best thing is to persevere. Regards, Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 04:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

East Africa Mediation

This seems to be an issue that one mediator would have difficulty tackling, so I would ask you to co-, or assistant mediate this case if you would so choose. Ronk01 talk, 23:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What's taking so long?

There has been no activity on the mediation page, any ideas? Ronk01 talk, 21:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if this took a few weeks or longer. User:Night w and User:Outback the koala just wrote me on July 11 saying that they are summarizing past discussion; I presume they are still working. I have noted repeatedly elsewhere that this instance of this discussion runs to more than 80 printed pages, plus there have been other instances of it. Also this same problem has happened with different circumstances for other states, notably Taiwan and Palestine. Those arguments run for hundreds of pages only about Wikipedia policy for just this issue. I have no idea whether anyone might be researching precedent, but they all are aware that precedents beyond the default exist.
When you mediate this, hopefully we come to a consensus about this issue and then can send our decision to other people who have participated in similar discussions. Perhaps over time we can escalate our thoughts to suggest a site-wide policy on this. Outback has noted that some of the proposed changes could affect thousands of files, so this mediation would be one of many which would have to play out over a few years to actually make this kind of choice solid.
Even if there is no consensus, I think having the talk about the problem in a controlled forum is meaningful. I have enough interest to accept this as a long-term project if others are interested, but if there is not enough interest already among involved parties, I would not canvass others to create an issue out of it. Blue Rasberry 00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well. However, for now, I would like participants to focus on the topic of this mediation, we can move onto larger issues once we have a firm base. Ronk01 talk, 01:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Due to a rather nasty confrontation about my revealing my personal opinion (which is something I normally do when I mediate, in the interest of full disclosure) Midnightexpress has launched an all-out attack on me on the mediation page. As I have exasperated myself trying to reason with him, I am going to have to ask you to step into my position. If you have any problems with Midnight, you might be best to talk to an administrator. Ronk01 talk, 02:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fortis College

First of all, thank you for giving me some insight on why all of my posts were deleted. However, I'm not sure why my edits were considered any more of an advertisement than any other college listed. I understand I put Fortis up on several pages, but Fortis has 27 locations. Each of those locations have a Wikipedia page. Each of those pages have other colleges (my competitors) listed. I would think the more colleges listed on each location page, the more thorough and informative the page is (as long as the school is actually in the city). Is my only option to create a wikipedia page for Fortis?

Thank you,

Tylor Thermanson (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You have other options, but that is the option I would consider best. If you want to talk more about other options then ask me, but right now, let's look at why what you are doing is different from what is already there.
Look at these edits you made:
In all of these cases, there are many colleges listed. Almost all of the colleges listed have their own Wikipedia articles and are internally linked. The few which do not have Wikipedia articles are not linked anyway. Most Wikipedia editors would consider this to be informative rather than advertising, because without external links, the colleges have little control over what information people find about them.
Your edits are external links directly to the college. External links are supposed to be only in the external link section (see WP:EL). Also it is not obvious whether the college you describe is even WP:NOTABLE, because you provide no references. Wikipedia is supposed to be entirely verifiable, and especially when people make edits which could direct people to spend money, most editors demand good references.
Another editor asked you to consider going to the first article project on your talk page. I also think this is a good idea. Lots of people are here to help you join Wikipedia as an editor, but know that it usually takes people about 10 hours to understand Wikipedia well enough to make a meaningful attempt and another 20 to make a first article which will not get deleted within a few weeks. If you are going to do this at all, then do it right. I or lots of other people are here to help. Blue Rasberry 16:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken Davenport

These were legit edits. Please click and follow my citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoples13 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a citations for all claims in this edit that you made and which I reverted. Here is an excerpt from your work:
Ken Davenport is regarded by most in his industry as a shameless self-promoter.

I see that you also added other cited information, but you removed other cited information without stating why this was necessary. I stand by my revert for your edit as a whole. If you do not understand then please let us talk further. Blue Rasberry 17:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright I narrowed my edits and limited to factual change with a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoples13 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your new edits look great! That is how you do it.
It looks like you also wanted to request a citation because you made a superscript note that said, "lacks citation." The usual term for this is "citation needed", and you can make this notice appear in a neatly formatted way by writing {{citation needed}} or just {{cn}} anywhere you want sourcing. Also, when you post on someone's talk page, sign your name and put a timestamp on your message by putting ~~~~ at the end. If you ever need help using Wikipedia, then let me know. Blue Rasberry 20:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the assistant BR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoples13 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

g

y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.53.102 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this comment is in reference to this.
Umm... x? Blue Rasberry 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

HIV Vaccine Trials Network comment

re: talk#Comment from a study volunteer:

Thank you for the guidance. I was hoping you would get to it first. I did send an email a few minutes ago to the CAB offer my support with anything they need. I believe I'm on the right track.

Thanks again,

B —Preceding unsigned comment added by BPFromme (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, get back in touch with me if you talk to your local people and still do not get the answers you want. I am happy to talk to you, but I agree that you are on the right track by talking to people in your own city first. Blue Rasberry 22:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As I am very new on here and can't find your email, can you email me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BPFromme (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just emailed you. Blue Rasberry 22:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure!

Thanks for noticing. Not yet done, but trying to bring it up to snuff. At some point, I'll have to check if there are any appropriate pictures out there of the two main litigants, the lead lawyers, the judge, the shirt, etc. Those would help prettify the article. If you're interested in the last legal scandal article I worked on in the same manner (I think its an interesting case, at least), it is Gerald Garson, which recently had a DYK. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And as to your areas of interest, an article I worked on that may interest you is that of Gita Sahgal.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dalveer Bhandari

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dalveer Bhandari, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/sitting/db.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What did I do to offend you?

I posted in the NPOV Noticeboard what I hope is a sufficient reason why I am displeased with Blackash's behaviour. But here I wanted to ask you what you think I am doing that causes you to, apparently, dislike me so much. I came to that discussion from an RfC as a neutral editor. I have no connection to the craft at all. I love WP. It has helped and educated me on numerous occasion and on numerous topics. I edit from the sole standpoint of giving back to a place that has given me so much. I know I am not an expert in many of the fields I comment on and contribute to, so I base every single one of my edits on clearly stated WP policy. I try not to be emotional over what I am editing because I feel that policy should be implemented in a clearheaded and transparent way. However I would be lying if I said that I am not hurt when someone takes a personal stance against me. I do not think I have broken any of the civility rules (in-fact taking someones comments out of context and using them against that person is explicitly mentioned as unacceptable in those rules), nor do I feel that I have been "naughty" in anyway. I simply see a problem that WP has very clear policies (not just guidelines) about and have tried to keep those policies in the forefront of the discussion. Of course I am not perfect, I have made many mistakes throughout my life and if I live to be old enough I will be making many more as the years go by. Therefore I am seriously considering starting an RfCU on myself based on your comments. No one has ever, in the six years I have been editing, singled me out as you have. Maybe I cannot see the problem you have with me because I am too close to the issues. If you honestly feel that I am somehow hurting WP than I urge you to start an RfCU on me as I feel doing it myself will compromise the process. Colincbn (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not able to reply to your message just yet, but I wanted to apologize for making you feel bad. I might also apologize for something else later, but I need to read what you wrote and re-read what I said.
I did not intend for you to take anything which I said personally except for the word "naughty" and I choose that word because I did not think it would offend you or anyone else. I was wrong about that and am very sorry for upsetting you because I did not want that. I am also sorry that I cannot say more now, but I will reply soon. Blue Rasberry 05:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intent to say anything personal about you, but I regret that what I did say has made you unhappy because that was not my intent. I intended to provide supporting evidence and an argument to counter my interpretation of an argument which you made, and that is what I thought I did. Something went wrong here.

Let me also state that do not understand the posting you just made above. Here are some things you mention of which I have no knowledge:

My hamster and I are sorry to have upset you.
My hamster and I are sorry to have upset you.
  • a part of my post which could lead anyone to think that I "apparently, dislike (you) so much"
  • a statement which "takes a personal stance against" you (Did I make one?)
  • the civility rules to which you refer
  • an instance of someone "taking someones comments out of context" (Did I do this?)
  • an means by which I "singled (you) out as (I) have"
  • a "problem (I) have with (you)"
  • a reason for you to start an RfCU on yourself
  • a reason for me suggest an RfCU for you

I did not want to say anything about you, and do not think I did so, and I am sorry that what I wrote gave you this impression. If you accept that sort of apology as satisfactory and you understand that I have I have no emotional involvement in the NPOV issue, then I would like to discuss your actual complaint if such talk would please you as it would please me.

When I used the word "naughty" to describe you I meant to use the word to describe your behavior on the board and not your personal character. Still, I misspoke and I will try hard not to do it again to anyone, because I know the word can offend.

At the same time, I feel that you made a harsh accusation ("blatant misuse of WP to further her own monetary gain") against another user without an attempt to provide a reasonable basis for this. I still do not understand why you would say this, and I find the evidence you wrote on the NPOVN to be non sequitor to the request for clarification which I made. I still think that your accusation looks naughty and your behavior is even more naughty because you did not answer my request to clarify the accusation you made, and instead changed the subject. I will respond to that on the board presently.

Please let me know if you would like further apology from me or a redaction of anything which I wrote. I further regret that I cannot talk further for a while as I will be traveling out of my country for a while. Blue Rasberry 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for responding.
Please don't worry about deleting your posts or anything. I don't think we are supposed to do things like that anyway. Besides it seems we still don't see eye to eye and I think we should work that out first.
In reference to your points above I will try to address them in the same order you made them above:
  • a part of my post which could lead anyone to think that I "apparently, dislike (you) so much"
This was more of a general feeling I got when I read your two posts about my behavior. Perhaps I am too sensitive, but I hope you will see why I felt that way after I address the following points.
  • a statement which "takes a personal stance against" you (Did I make one?)
I felt the statement "I think user:Colincbn is being naughty because..." clearly implies that I am doing something inappropriate. The word means something you don't want to be caught for or something you know is wrong but do anyway for your own gain. Something against the rules, or to put it simply: something "bad". I understand you then went on to explain why you felt that way, and I have attempted to address those issues on the page in question. But I still feel you should have assumed that I was doing what I felt was for the best of WP, which I assure you is what I always attempt to do.
  • the civility rules to which you refer
You linked to the WP policy WP:NICE, which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Civility, this is the actual name of the rules you mentioned.
  • an instance of someone "taking someones comments out of context" (Did I do this?)
You quoted me as saying "rid WP of a term that is, in your mind, against your commercial interests" when what I actually said was "Quite frankly all I can see is your continued campaign to rid WP of a term that is, in your mind, against your commercial interests". This may seem irrelevant, and in many cases one needs to cut a statement when quoting someone, but in this case the whole quote clearly states that I am talking about an impression I get from her posts and I am not claiming that impression to be absolute fact. I think this is an important difference.
  • an means by which I "singled (you) out as (I) have"
You mentioned me by name on two occasions as an editor who is not acting appropriately.
  • a "problem (I) have with (you)"
You seemed to imply I am uncivil when you made the post about being nice and liked to the policy on civility and later used the word naughty in reference to my actions.
  • a reason for you to start an RfCU on yourself
I have never acted out of anything other than a desire to help improve WP. If something I am doing is hurting the project, as incivility or naughtiness would, I feel I need to know what it is in order to curb that behavior. An RfCU is a good way to have other editors look into my actions in a neutral way.
  • a reason for me suggest an RfCU for you
You are the only person who has ever implied my actions are in anyway bad or inappropriate. Also if I start the RfCU on myself I feel it would distract from the issues at hand as it seems few editors take that route.
As for your other points and continued impression that I am doing something wrong: First I must apologize for not being clear. When I said Slowart was not editing and Blackash was, what I meant was taking an active role in guiding discussion about the naming issue. Both editors have continued to add non-controversial content to the article. I have repeatedly pointed out that I feel this is a good thing. What I take issue to is either of them trying to influence the naming debate. I felt I did address the issues you brought up and in no way changed the subject, but I see now that what I consider "the subject" is not what you were addressing. You said: "Colincbn has suggested that this discussion about the merits of using various terms within an article be converted to a discussion about how user blackash is interested in advertising some commercial interest while you have not done anything which can be construed as such". As I said above I was talking about influencing the title. I do not feel a discussion about "the merits of using various terms within an article" can realistically take place while the issue of the title and conflicts of interest remain open. For the record I do not care, at all, what the title ends up being. I think policy is clear that it should have remained arborsculpture, but I have detailed my reasons for that elsewhere. However if the WP community decides to name it something else (I like "Tree Training" but there is a lack of good references for this so far) I will not take issue, provided that any editors with commercial interests in the name of the craft allow the debate to play-out unhindered.
You seem like a great person and it saddens me that what I have attempted to do for the betterment of WP has lead you to think I am doing something wrong. I think we both have the best interests of WP at heart and I hope we can work together towards that end. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Cute hamster. C-
I think this issue is resolved amicably. See here. Blue Rasberry 16:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Reply from cracked acorns

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at [[User talk:Cracked acorns (talk)|User talk:Cracked acorns (talk)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Grassroots democracy - Merge discussion

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Talk:Grassroots_democracy.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluerasberry/Archive_1"