User talk:Raryel - Knowledge (XXG)

439:

have had with them has been amicable, and I can think of only one 'debate', about Charles Matthews' comments on unilateralism, and that was a friendly exchange of views in which I was entitled to participate. As for 'frequent' clashes with other Wikipedian users, well, that's another mudslung accusation. I often welcome new users; I have adopted new users to ensure that they learn the ways of Knowledge (XXG); and, with very few exceptions, my correspondance with others, even with vandals, has been amicable. The only people to whom I take exception are those who attack me (million dollars guy), revert good faith edits, or start vanity articles and keep on removing AFD notices. Are you saying that that's excusable and that I should let this kind of thing happen? Clashes with these people are few and far between, at any rate, so much so that the last conflict other than the one that you created by calling me a vandal was back in December 2005, with a vanity editor who kept on removing AFD notices. Over 99% of the time, I work in harmony, and 99.99% of the time with people who play by the rules, which is more than can be said for most. Thus, I would that you would retract your troubling and fallacious comments about my being frequently in conflict, a statement that is a stain on my personality and patently false.

466:

not. I barely have one conflict per year, never mind constantly, and all of them are caused by people who think that they know better than official Knowledge (XXG) rules. I consider such a mislabelling to be a denigrating ad hominem attack and strongly suggest that you retract it, otherwise I will have no further option than to take your comments as harrassment into the administrative process. I am thoroughly upset about how you continue to lie about me and belittle me. It is unpleasant to say the least.

948:. Would he have continued to revert? Depends on whether he noticed the Talk page message. But warning was clearly inadequate. It looks to me like he was restoring the removal of sourced content and was being tag-teamed. (This, however, is a snap judgment. He shouldn't have been edit warring, whether what was being done by others was improper or not.) Discussion, however, was on-going. Killerofcruft requested discussion at 14:58, one minute before warning 1126:), general links to the CDC or other sources on related topics do not sufficiently accomplish this goal. The references must be specific, sometimes to the point where you may take a direct quotation from the source provided in order to verify the information within the article. The "External links" is what's used to expand the reader's knowledge or provide information similar to that provided in the article within Knowledge (XXG) ( 706: 1850: 632: 3624: 3412: 3339: 776: 3551: 3262: 3132: 3057: 2983: 2913: 2840: 2766: 2678: 2577: 2407: 2339: 2216: 199: 2171:

that a new discovery has been made, and the adding of nonsensical stuff about the non-existent grain sack in the memorial, which was simply an error in the AP report due to a misunderstanding of what the scholar said, as she has since clarified. I gave you several reliable sources on the page, which you have failed to follow up on.

1181:

within those links, and the references here needs to point to them. Adding links to general portions of the CDC's website looks more like an advertisement than something appropriate. I'll leave them in, but you need to correct them later on. I'll work with you. When you get to the reports, be sure to

927:

1) I do not merely remove content; I almost always leave previous content alone, either moving it to another section or adding detail to it. On occasion I replace it with newer stuff (example: Boeing will roll out the new airplanre tomorrow; I change it to: Boeing rolled out the new airplane today.

991:

Ask the admin -- don't demand -- to annotate the block log to show that you had not been properly warned before the block. Usually this will resolve the issue, most administrators are reasonable. If not, let me know on my Talk page and I'll assist you. (It can be important because once you have been

347:

The point of my reversion back was to get the deletion request box back. Practically none of the article, including what you retained, was anything but speculation. I realize my caption was faulty-- I meant to say reverted to retain the deletion of the article. The page as a whole is useless and any

970:

I missed something in my review. The 3RR report was moot. The admin blocked before it was filed, and my description of the 3RR filing timing may have been off, partly because I'd assumed, from a first reading, that the block was after the report was filed. The block remains improper, in my opinion;

438:

Incidentally, I do wish that you would stop with the on-the-side attempts to tarnish my reputation. It is unbecoming and rather insensitive, and sniffing around for dirt on me isn't exactly model Wikipedian behaviour. I have never had a conflict with a Wikipedian administrator: every contact that I

2170:

Since you have seen fit to add this absurd remark a year later, I may as well reply. As I said, this is well known material that can be cited to reliable scholarly sources. It is well-established in all Shakespeare biographies, so there is no "extremism" except from you. What is false is the claim

1160:

Your removal of links to bioterrorism article were inappropriate. Each bioagent was part of a list with details, and while you are correct in that references should support the article, you are mistaken in that references which support the listed topic are not appropriate. They are appropriate.

375:

I've declined to delete the article, because if it is used by railbuffs it might be notable--and it was written by a well established WPedior on the subject, whom you didn't notify. (You aren't required to, but it would have been an appropriate courtesy in my opinion. I've put a "unsourced' and a

2054:

Axtually, my edits do not flout either convention. There is nothing in Knowledge (XXG) to prohibit the citation of Associated Press stories and nothing except your personal opinion that the citation isn't high quality. I looked at your explanations on the Talk page of Shakespeare. You cited no

920:

I was not engaged in an edit war; merely restoring vandalised content. Of the twoor three individuals who arbitrarily removed content, only one offered an intelligent suggestion/counterproposal regarding where the content should go. The other two merely reverted content. They could easily have

465:

You stated that I was in constant conflict with other users. That is not true, and my sticking up for myself proves nothing but my loathing of being mislabeled. The only way that such a spurious claim can be substantiated is to show that I am in constant conflict, which is impossible, because I'm

2104:

I did read it. You are the one who spouts rubbish. You have decided that you alone know who is reliable and who isn't and what is a fact regarding Shakespeare and what isn't. Instead of displaying your own childish nonsense, you could have cited a specific reference providing information that

1995:

Raryal, will you please stop adding material about these non-existent "new" discoveries. This whole story is just regurgitating material that has been known for decades. These researchers have discovered nothing whatever that wasn't published by Schoenbaum back in 1970, and which dates back even

2185:

Sorry, but you have it backwards. The only person I see claiming to be the sole arbiter of what is reliable research is you, not me. I'm comfortable with debate about what Shakespeare was like or what he did in his lifetime, but you're not. I think that reflects poorly on you, but that's your

330:

If you're getting vandalism warnings on your IP's talk page, I wouldn't worry too much about them. That just means the address is shared or was used by someone else to vandalize in the past. For simple vandalism, we almost never set a block on an IP address that prohibits registered users from

422:

Outside national anthems, it is not Knowledge (XXG) policy to copy songs word for word. Not even if they're in the public domain and the most popular song ever, never mind if they are unverifiable whose lyrics exist nowhere but on one site and on Knowledge (XXG) mirrors. All claims have to be

3424:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2318:) 00:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I didn't realize they were unformatted, since Knowledge (XXG) generated the citation numbers and did not indicate any errors. But I'm always happy to get help and I certainly want readers who are blind to be able to read the content. 1206:

Advertisement for the government? OK, fine. If you look at the latest version of the article, you'll see I've added additional specific references and added some text as well (regarding pneumonic plague). You're welcome to add to them, and I'm very appreciative of your

992:

blocked for edit warring, it will later tend to be assumed that you did it in spite of warning, and then a subsequent block, should it happen, could be for longer. You won't have any more problems, of course, because you'll be careful, but still. Shit happens.) --

2302:

templates. I would be appreciative if you'd use these in future edits. They maintain a consistent style, automatically create professional formatting, and enable the addition of things like archive links for dead URLs more easily. Additionally, they create

2105:

disputes the issue of Shakespeare's behavior as a merchant. Are you in fact able to do that? Do you really know as much about Shakespeare as you think you do? How do we know you're not an obstacle to a better Knowledge (XXG) article about Shakespeare?

3351:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

916:

OK, well, I will file a notice of Administrator Abuse. Granted, I do not expect a satisfavtory resolution the first time. But if seicer does it to more persons, eventually the other administrators will get the drift.03:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel

1016:

article gives the project undue weight. It is simply a misnomer to include it in the Feature films section. I agree that fan productions should be mentioned more prominently in the Star Trek article, and I'll do that while you enjoy your block.

647:

prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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

1137:

article), the External links in Bioterrorism is sufficient. You're edit was in good faith, thank you, but you need to understand how articles are constructed in order to improve them. Knowledge (XXG) is no longer so simple as it was six years

2143:

The real problem is that some extremists decided they alone were the arbiters of what is acceptable for scholarship. Compliance with Knowledge (XXG) standards isn't the problem; it's the approach to Shakespeare as a religion that's the

1161:

However, I am not done adding references. A more constructive use of your time would be to help me improve the references, and not merely delete material. I realize that takes time and effort, but that's why we're both here, isn't it?

1094:

located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!

3496:

title = FAA Data Sheds New Light On JAL Pilot's UFO Report|author = Philip J. Klass|url=chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-003.pdf</ref:

2055:

references. The implication is that you consider yourself a sufficiently authoritative source on Shakespeare that you need not cite anyone but yourself when removing material. I think that flouts Knowledge (XXG)'s policies.

1806:

Okay, the Weitbrecht problem appears to have been solved. While numerous sources that come up in a Google search, say Weitbrecht invented it, an official looking paper says the device existed before but Weitbrecht refined it.

2744:

Emirates order cancellation of 70 A350s involved only -900s and -1000s. But you added that text twice in the -800 section of the A50 article, where it has not clear relevance to me. Can you explain what I am missing here?

1691:

article. I realized when I saw the obituary that he needed an article. There's lots more about the device itself in the other article, obviously, but you seem to have some knowledge that would be useful for the article I

3669: 3452: 3379: 3221:. 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 934:

You have two users who did not hesitate to vandalize content that did not suit them. I treated them with far more respect than they offered me. Perhaps they need a "time out." 01:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel

971:

the user was not warned, and was likely, in good faith, attempting to restore what he saw as proper, sourced content, in the face of what, again, looked to him like vandalism. Warnings are important! --

2039:. You do not plonk content in the lede that is not referred to in the main text. The main Shakespeare article is featured, which means we only use high-quality sources. AP reports do not fit the bill. 2186:

problem, not mine. I read your references. To me they are not completely persuasive. But since you think you're the world's expert on Shakespeare, the only thing that matters is what persuades you.

3653:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3436:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3363:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2015:

article, and here. Indeed I am under no obligation to inform you personally of deletions; that I did so is a courtesy. That I moved your comments and provided a discussion of them is so too.

3638: 1769:. None of these obituaries say that he did. Where did YOU get this, because it may have to be corrected. The Knowledge (XXG) article on the device says nothing about where it came from. 1271:. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Knowledge (XXG). If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place 954:. One minute is not enough time to respond to a warning, and blocking is not supposed to be punitive, i.e., it should be used to stop problem behavior that continues after warning.-- 376:"notability" tag on it, in the hope it will get references. -- just incidentally, you accidentally placed the speedy tag on the talk page, not the article page. Best wishes-- 2011:

It is not "disrespectful" to remove material. It's normal practice, as you should know by now. I explained very clearly what is false and what is not on the talk page of the

2125:

Indeed, I came here to suggest he add the material to the article, except that it be based on and cited from reliable Shakespeare sources, such as Schoenbaum, Potter, Bate,

2535: 1221:

Publishers add books to the "Further reading", advocacy groups add and remove their websites from the External links—References looks like a new vector. Especially since

1036:

Hi - you still seem to be writing in your signature rather than using the time and date-stamping tools. could you use the tool as it links your edits to your talkpage. --

1389: 1959:

I will defer to you. If you would like to move it (there is a link to the lemma from the Nike Hercyules page, right?) and arrange it nicely there, that would be fine.

2531: 1293:

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Knowledge (XXG) you might want to consider being "

683: 137: 906:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

423:

verified. It's no use saying that it's notable because of personal experience; it has to be backed up with a neutral, respectable source for proof. Take the

2545: 1776:

is a favorite of many message board posters that I communicate with. Ironically, I don't even like the man. It's just that I saw the name in my newspaper.

3487: 1433: 1302: 351: 292: 155: 3582:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 239:

to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

2351: 1940:

Hi Raryel, You added some text on the Nike Hercules about a Nike on display. I believe this should not be here. A better place to add the text is

921:

created a new header, or moved it to a new section. They chose, insteadm, to destroy content justrifyimng it purely through personal preference.

1688: 1178:. References verify the article, and your assertion that simply linking to the CDC accomplishes this goal is mistaken. The CDC provides reports 987:

Raryel, at this point I suggest that you politely note, on the blocking admin's Talk page, that you did not realize you were violating policy,

1578: 891: 175: 2541: 2076:"Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." 3501:

title = FAA Data Sheds New Light On JAL Pilot's UFO Report|author = Philip J. Klass|url=chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/

3156: 1662: 1600: 3692: 3466: 3393: 3246: 2319: 2086:. There is no rule that says sources have to be cited to delete material. And by the way, you could make the effort to research the matter 1974: 1945: 1429: 99: 2129:, the more recent the better. We could always use a few extra hands as long as the additions improve the articles and comply with policy. 1587: 924:

I've edited a number of articles on Knowledge (XXG), and have been careful to follow a couple of rules perhaps not explicit in wikipedia:

274:

I noticed your interest in aircraft-related articles. There is a group of editors here at Knowledge (XXG) who have come together to form

816: 400:

and next time follow them exactly. You did not subst the template in step one. In step two, you added your nomination to the wrong page

355: 3579: 1614: 1407: 1827: 1793: 1748: 1709: 1552: 485:

Prodego, I would appreciate your researching a subject first before removing material. It's helpful to avoiding acts of vandalism.

1484: 1424: 730: 281: 276: 148: 939:

I have reviewed the history of this. Yes, of course, Raryel was edit warring. However, he was not warned until 14:59, 24 June 2008

2291: 1290: 1091: 931:

2) If there are opposing views on a subject, I've added text to the effect of View A says High and View B says Low and so forth.

1582: 1534: 263: 3688: 3462: 3389: 3242: 3662: 3445: 3372: 2538:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1538: 1357: 665: 248: 236: 42: 34: 26: 1907:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

1654: 1521: 1445: 742: 649: 644: 295:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

3575: 2419: 607:, if you think you can provide a policy based reason why a fan production should be given such a promiment mention in the 424: 1856: 1610: 1512: 1462: 1458: 1411: 1361: 144: 130: 74: 1268: 811: 763: 470: 443: 3233:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1480: 1441: 789: 722: 713: 655: 268: 46: 3674: 3532: 3457: 3384: 3238: 1225:, the manual of style for medical articles, are beginning to depreciate the "External links" and "See also" sections. 1088:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 584:

Please sign your posts by using --~~~~ or by clicking on the signature button (tenth from the left on the toolbar). --

280:

in order to improve aircraft-related articles. You are invited to check us out and, if interested, join our team. Our

1636: 1632: 1467: 1420: 783: 70: 62: 2307:

data which makes the article able to be processed by certain library software and screen readers for blind people.

446: 2523: 2522:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1908: 1894: 1722:

Oh, I'd hardly call it marvelous, but thanks. I have the time now to add to the article using one of your sources.

788:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

428: 1560: 1449: 1416: 432: 38: 2082:

on AP reports, which may indeed be acceptable for some topics, but certainly not for historical scholarship. See

3502: 1731:

article, though. Maybe the real one, if I can remember. But I don't think it's free online, and there's no link.

1556: 1547: 1516: 1351: 1294: 1264: 660:. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a 243: 95: 58: 3607: 3567: 3543: 1318: 1230: 1197: 1150: 3650: 3433: 3360: 2323: 2083: 1978: 1949: 1596: 1591: 1298: 288: 684:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Raryel reported by User:Killerofcruft (Result: 24 hours)

3563: 3528: 3483: 3286: