User talk:Ravensfire/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Archive for 2017

Texas Bar Sunset review...

The Sunset Review of the State Bar of Texas is very significant. Why have you repeatedly deleted a link to the best website about the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prizes fan (talk • contribs) 05:33, January 22, 2017 (UTC)

@Prizes fan: Not, it's not. It's your website, with your views, and nothing special. In other words, the average blog. You need to get consensus on the article talk page before adding it to the article again. You may also want to try convincing people at the reliable source noticeboard that it's a viable source for Wikipedia. Good luck on both of those. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The website links to various external sources that are accepted by the Texas Bar, itself, as well as by the Texas legislature, mainstream media and ABA. There's nothing "average" about that website. Do you have authority to keep removing such a progressive portal of truth? If so, precisely what?

First, please sign your talk page posts by adding four tildes (like this: ~~~~) so people will know who left a particular comment without having to look at the page history. (There's a button on the editor page that makes this very easy) Secondy, just as you are, I'm an editor on the english Wikipedia and when I see someone adding something that's contrary to the policies and guidelines, it will be removed. Your site clearly is not a reliable source and clearly should not be used as an external link on Wikipedia. I understand that you want it to get the widest possibly exposure, but It's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. I've already pointed you to the reliable source page, also review the external link page, especially WP:ELNO - hint, #11. You can use the external link noticeboard if you'd like another view, but simply put, your website isn't notable or useful for a Wikipedia article. Ravensfire (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not a blog, fan page or personal website. It is a portal to official information and cutting edge analysis that are all from, or legally recognized by, state authorities. The page is 100% nonprofit, and maintained by attorneys who seek to enable to public to learn what they can about a remarkably little-known topic. You evidently have no special right to keep removing it. It is suspected that you have a conflict of interest, which when discovered and exposed will make you wish you had not abused the trust that Wikipedia placed in you (and the rest of us). We are on the verge of reporting you, and anyone who lets you mistreat others' well-meaning endeavors like you've repeatedly done. If you do not respond sufficiently persuasively, you will be reported and litigation may very well emerge until you are dealt with like you deserve. Prizes fan (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we're done here. You are stooping to legal threats on Wikipedia and will be reported to WP:ANI. They will handle your actions from here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Lovely message from a spammer

Excuse Me (MR. & MRS) Ravensfire, I think You are the same person who is doing double job as Ason27, Sorry if not. But when I do good editing.you are discouraging me. Ason27 edits are not same as me. He violates some pages. When I add some point he-she knowingly attacking it by his own fake things.Ason27 is definitely a Shriya Saran Fan and Revathi Fan. I edited the vandalism on fan excitement by Ason27 on the pages of Shriya Saran and Revathi.

Apni maa chudwale behnchod. Gand me leke soza Wikipedia ko. Sala Randi ki aulad. Beta Haryana se hi Tera baap hu m . Naam h Deepak . Ravesfire Teri Gand me itne fire karunga ke ghar walo ki phchan me bhi nahi aaega haha
Stop deleting external links from other users accounts. Your account will be banned without any further warning if you still continue to let ur ass come in between.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak90saini (talk • contribs) 06:28, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk! Such language there, Deepak90saini. I left you a warning on your talk page for the personal attack, no more of those please. Kindly apologize for that post before we interact any further - I do not discuss matters with people who feel insults are a way to start a discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

recent deletions by you

I added some definitions from the tax code. Why would you not include them as they are taken directly from the tax code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.87.102.89 (talk) 17:03, March 14, 2017‎

What you added is called original research. You added a fact backed by a primary source, then made conclusions not mentioned by that source. It's also a garbage idea promulgated by conspiracy laden tax protester websites. Hint - "includes" does not mean a full and complete list. The definition is there so that a person. Find a solid reliable source that makes that claim, and sorry, the various tax protester websites that loudly proclaim this aren't reliable sources - I linked you to our page on what is and is not a reliable source. You won't even be able to find a court case where this has worked because it hasn't. Ravensfire (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This section about court rulings on various statutory arguments may prove insightful for you. And yes, it applies to the argument you've copied from some tax protester website. Ravensfire (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

And for more general education, there's a nice discussion on this forum that includes some specific court cases on this exact point and the intention of the definition. Here's a link to on such case where your exact argument was raised. And held as legally frivolous, noting the multiple previous cases that have debunked that theory, resulting in the person who made the argument being fined an additional $10,00 for raising such a patently frivolous argument. Ravensfire (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank You So Much Ravensfire

Saxenaaditi81 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Hi Ravensfire, Thank you so much for your kind guidance. I wasn't aware with this, so again thanks for letting me know. I will keep this in mind for future editions. Before that, I will go through the guidelines you mentioned on my talk pages. I am actually new here, so apologies. I have so many questions in my mind but before asking I think I should first go through the editorial guidelines first. My be I get more of my answers there. Thank You so much for your kind support.

Best Regards, Aditi Saxena

Mony earning

How to earn money from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.247.10.96 (talk) 23:16, April 27, 2017‎

Well, spamming doesn't work, as Wikipedia links are set as NOFOLLOW so Google and other search engines ignore them when calculating rank. So if that's what you had in mind, please don't. I'm not a fan of paid editing as frankly the articles from paid editors are garbage, existing only to promote the subject and require substantial cleanup. Ravensfire (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

It's nice to see your name in the world of Indian cinema articles. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but I think you're a conscientious editor and we could use more of those in our Indian film articles. So thanks for your good gnoming. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Indian universities - cell phone spam

Morning! I noticed you ran into some of the recurrent cell phone spam issues that have been playing out on a number of Indian university pages. This appears to be a (possibly malicious/fraudulent) business (this guy [1]) who is trying to syphon off prospective students. It has been going on for about three weeks now, and apparently a range block is not possible. MelanieN has been mole-whacking vigorously, but the guy is nothing if not persistent. If you come upon any more of these, could you please let her know at her talk page? User_talk:MelanieN#Add_one_to_semi-protected_institutes_please.3F Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Absolutely! I've been wondering what was going on with those random numbers and this explains it nicely. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the latest lot! Currently being dumped on Drmies, reported them there for semi [2]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

COI Tag on Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo

Reading the talk page edits on Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo revealed to me that they put it there over a year ago because of conflicts with a few editors bickering back and forth. Is it still needed though? Also Is it appropriate to expand the career background listing her education as per what college she attended? Thx! Wikiafrican (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should stay. Part of that is I strongly suspect that you also need to review the COI rules and declare you COI for that article. Oh wait, you've been blocked for that already. Ravensfire (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Message from GOOD morning

Excuse Me (MR. & MRS) Ravensfire, I think You are the same person who is doing double job as Ason27, Sorry if not. But when I do good editing.you are discouraging me. Ason27 edits are not same as me. He violates some pages. When I add some point he-she knowingly attacking it by his own fake things.Ason27 is definitely a Shriya Saran Fan and Revathi Fan. I edited the vandalism on fan excitement by Ason27 on the pages of Shriya Saran and Revathi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOOD morning (talk • contribs) 11:02, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

Replied on their talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you think you are doing right. You don't even have a page. Why you do the Unwanted things which you think awesome. Shame on you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GOOD morning (talk • contribs) 10:12, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

@GOOD morning: We're done here - next post is to the edit-war noticeboard. You don't understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. When you get reverted, you need to discuss it on the talk page and NOT keep pushing your preferred version until that discussion is finished. You've been blocked already for edit-warring and show zero signs of changing your approach. Your continued hostility personal attacks is not helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering refspam

That site may as well get blacklisted. Jacob Carter is only the latest in a long line of editors spamming it into that and other articles. DMacks (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked to find that spamming is going on here! I'll get the blacklist entry created later today, before Claude Rains's ghost takes umbrage at abusing his perfect quote. Ravensfire (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I almost didn't recognize it at first because I've never really seen spam anywhere on Wikipedia before, and especially not test-prep sites. DMacks (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Dangit! Now you've gone an broken another perfectly good spam-o-meter! At least the blacklist report makes me feel better. After all, every time a spammer cries ...Ravensfire (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for filing it. Beer on me if we ever meet. Or in your glass if you prefer. DMacks (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Get me Off of this site

How do I get a page written about me and my history off of Wikipedia. I am looking to have the content written about me off of the site because it's one sided and damaging to my reputation and name. Is there a legal department for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.0.211 (talk) 18:45, July 24, 2017‎

@24.46.0.211: I'm assuming you're referring to Jerry Speziale. If that's you, that rather explains the white-washing. An article on a person should reflect an accurate picture of that person, warts and all. We're not here to present a purely favorable view of a person, but a nuetral view, meaning it reflects the views expressed by independent, reliable sources, in relative weight of that coverage. For pretty obvious reasons, Wikipedia STRONGLY discourages article subjects from editing their article - see WP:COI. So far, all I've seen from you is continued white-washing of Speziale and that's not productive. Read the COI page I linked to for some advice. As to the legal threat you insinuated, first, please read our policy on legal threats. Wikipedia obviously cannot prevent anyone from taking legal action, nor does it try. It can, however, prevent those who use legal threats from editing Wikipedia as it's completely contrary to the collaborative editing approach. If you want to contact Wikipedia, your best option is the WP:Contact us - Subjects, just follow the advice there. Please be aware that under Wikipedia's notability policy, there's essentially zero chance of the page being deleted. Finding good reliable sources that help create a better article will help and can result in changes, but given the strong history of obvious COI editing, that's only going to happen through cooperative discussions on the article talk page, using good reliable sources to help shift consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Act

Congress didn't sign or pass a law for the Federal Reserve Act...president Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.75.138 (talk) 16:06, July 25, 2017

Congress certainly didn't sign the law, but they did pass the Federal Reserve Act and then send it to Wilson to sign. Ravensfire (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

7 men created the Federal Reserve Act....Nelson Wilmarth Aldrich, A. Piatt Andrew, Frank A. Vanderlip, Henry P. Davison, Charles D. Norton, Paul Warburg, and Benjamin Strong...its not even under the control of the government...so how did congress pass it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.75.138 (talk) 16:26, July 25, 2017

Nope. The Aldrich plan is substantially different from the Federal Reserve Act. Congress passed it the same way they do everything - months of discussions amendments, revisions and finally enough of an agreement to pass both House and Senate. It wasn't done in secret (despite the conspiracy sites claiming otherwise). Ravensfire (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If you say so......our whole financial system is corrupt...and its only a matter of time before it all crumble! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.75.138 (talk) 10:33, July 26, 2017

Probably, but so would any other system. Indeed, image if the Federal Reserve System was more tightly under Federal control or influence. Far too many elected officials at the federal level have an extremely short-term view point. So with each new election, significant shift in Federal Reserve policies. Each time there's a global market change, significant shift in Federal Reserve policies. I doubt that there'd be much support to raise interest rates, yet that's needed to encourage and reward people for saving. The government does set the goals for the Federal Reserve System. Beyond that, too much government meddling would be ruinous, especially compared to current day. Ravensfire (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Jerry Speziale (cont.)

Collapsing white-washing rant with some hints of legal threats

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have viewed the content and attacks and violation of the policy, to wit, Jerry Speziale and "Criminal Investigation" unless someone is convicted, which never has the policy is violated because Wikipedia states it under the rules. The credibility of the people involved, such as the law to prevent search warrants was made by then Chris Christie US Attorney and Mentor David Sampson then NJ Attorney General (Plenty of Cites to prove it). Yet, Sampson was convicted of bribery in Christies Brigegate and appointed by Christie to the Port Authority as Chairman. That doesn't get reported and it seems you take that off. Or the fact that , many papers state EL Atriss fled hours before the raid and the fact that Speziales investigators testified in the secret hearings that the FBI was notified of the warrant the days before and stated they had no interest. SOMETHING WRONG THERE? Why do you think Christie and the US Attorney requested secret hearings, not to protect Speziales investigators, BUT CHRISTIE AND THE FBI...because they left a guy who facilitated the highjacks with ID out there to do more. Speziale had the guts to say no so there wasn't another attack. Or do you think the tons of fake id's that Bergen Essex and Passaic Cops kept finding were good leaving el atria out there. He helped take the world trade center down you think we should have continued to let el Atriss operate. Or the fact that Speziale was the Sheriff not the investigators from Bergen Essex, Paterson and Passaic, that made the case with his 1100 employees, yet you make it like he did it. There were three sheriff's with the media press conference yet its speziale.... Left out that Essex Bergen and Paterson Chief all were there and all on the raid... But it was again speziale...

You have destroyed my name with such a negative twist and this page has made it extremely difficult for Speziale. Tell the facts Speziale left Prichard as my wife was diagnosed wife metastatic breast cancer at 40 and died while he had young kids... Thats not abruptly.. Thats a fact.

Your attacks are troubling at best24.46.0.211 (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC).

@24.46.0.211: Your repeated attempts at white-washing and the massive innuendo in your post are troubling at best. You've been offered advice and suggestions, and rather act on the good-faith attempts to help you, you leave a post titled "Legal Action" here. Quite obviously you aren't interested in collaboration, only intimidation. If you are genuinely interested in working with other editors here, use the article talk page and offer suggestions based on reliable sources, not your personal point of view. Given your history, I frankly find that extremely unlikely to happen. I understand that you personally don't like the article, but changing direct quotes, removing solidly sourced material and adding in personal opinions not backed by reliable sources isn't helpful here. Your actions have poisoned the well as you've shown zero interest in cooperative editing. At this point, there's no benefit to interacting further with you until you decide to change how you interact with other editors. Please use the article talk page and offer suggestions based on reliable sources. Further posts similar to the above will not be helpful there, and will be removed here. Wikipedia is a community based on cooperation and collaboration, consider how you can best work in that environment. Ravensfire (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page protected

Please let me know if you'd like the protection removed or extended -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: thanks for the semi-protection, appreciate it. I think the duration is okay for now, hopefully the IP will lose interest soon and this won't be an issue for much longer. Again, thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome User

Hello Ravensfire, one question please. Can I welcome new users (newcomers) using WP:Twinkle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by H-DHAMI (talk • contribs) 20:12, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Well, since you're a blocked sock puppet, I'd think you probably not want to welcome new users. Ravensfire (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Spotoption page review

HI, we are trying to complete this company wiki page adding more information about brand history and products (all verified with references) but I think someone is attacking the page because in less than 10 minutes most of our edits have been undone. As you can see the page is not neutral at all right now. We would like to add truthful information, but they are considered commercials edits. What can we do to better this content? Thanks! 84.55.216.90 (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

First, read the WP:COI page. Second, declare your COI, and realize that if you are paid by the company to edit here, you ALSO need to declare that - see WP:PAID. Third, realize that Wikipedia is a place for information, not promotion. We use good secondary sources for information. Not press releases. Not company websites. Continuing as you have been (and I'm assuming this is Opianto1) will not help. This article has seen insane amounts of promotion and white-washing. Proposing small edits on the talk page, backed by reliable sources is about the only option you've got at this point. The amount of obvious undeclared COI editing by/for SpotOption on this and related pages have burned a lot of bridges and generated a lot of mistrust. Ravensfire (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, what really is the issue with the page? All the information have reliable sources and citations which have been provided as well. I have been asked to ensure that they are not promotional content which I have carefully edited in the process and have provided as much information that is necessary for the history of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opianto1 (talk • contribs) 09:52, September 1, 2017 (UTC)

Tone is overly promotional - this isn't some brochure or SpotOption's website. Please take this to the article's talk page. And declare your COI and if you are paid by SpotOption in any way, read WP:PAID and make the required declarations. Blatant undeclared COI edits will not help. Ravensfire (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: Opianto1 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Tammy Levy. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Spotoption using socks? I'm shocked, shocked to hear that! Ravensfire (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Mega flop

Bless you for this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I just don't get those blanket declarations and how quickly some people love to make them. *shrug* They makes 'em, we reverts 'em. Ravensfire (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a weird obsession common in Indian cinema. Their media likes to publish the declarations and fans/non-fans love to brand the films with them as if they have meaning. "All-time super blockbuster status!" If Times of Indian declared the film a steaming pile of crap, would we print that in an article? Another weird thing: people's obsession with satellite rights. "Satellite rights were sold to Star for ₹27 crore." Who cares? Why is it an encyclopedia's business what deal they made to air a movie on television? Happens all day long and nobody cares except in India. Sigh... Anyway, I'm just gonna start rambling if I don't shut up, so... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: and @Ravensfire: Sorry for these obsessions and Thank You for Removing Vandalism from Indian pages. Thank you So Much learned a lot from you people, It's already 2018 in India So Happy New Year. Sidaq pratap (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Ravensfire!

Apologies if the edits I have made appear to contain bias of any form. I have purely attempted to include information to benefit the topics I have edited. I saw that LMS and e-learning solutions have been mentioned and presumed that it would be beneficial to list some of the solutions that I have come across and how to obtain them (just as appears to be the case with Blackboard and Moodle etc).

Thank you for your time. Jaan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamjaan (talk • contribs) 09:56, November 16, 2017 (UTC)

@Iamjaan:, Your edits are highly promotional, please stop adding them to the articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote businesses or add lots of links. Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

URLs

Hello.

So you are suggesting that documented information should not include references to official websites?

E.g there is a page on 'Lectora' - you are suggesting it is wrong to include a link to the OFFICIAL UK/EU website???

You are also suggesting that pages which discuss LMSs such as Blackboard and Moodle, again shouldn't be edited to include other mainstream LMSs such as Lectora?

I feel as though this is wrong? Why shouldn't the official website URLs be allowed in the references / external links section? Surely the lack of this results in limited information?

Thanks, Jaan.

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

<b><font color="darkred">[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]</font></b> <font color="black">([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]])</font>

→ Ravensfire (talk)

to

[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]] ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) → Ravensfire (talk)

Notes:

links to this page appear bold instead of wikilinked.
the font enhancement in ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) didn't do anything because the parentheses outside the wikilink would appear in black anyway, and inside the wikilink, default wikilink colors override surrounding font markup.

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Tags have been update, and I thank you for the reminder. I should have changed it a while ago - I only do web development for my job! Ravensfire (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Box Office for Mersal is not from a reliable source

Box Office for Mersal is not from a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruljuan2 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ravensfire. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Ravensfire,

Appreciate you consulting the community regarding my edits. I'd be happy to provide any official releases/references you'd need. Our website indianmi.org is under construction but we have published material on multiple platforms.

Best, Siddhant IMI

Ref: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/with-revenues-up-26-in-2016-music-industry-on-a-song-says-ifpi-study/article9974013.ece

Multiple winners edit war on Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Lil Champs pages

Hello sir, On the following 3 pages- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa_Re_Ga_Ma_Pa_L%27il_Champs_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa_Re_Ga_Ma_Pa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa_Re_Ga_Ma_Pa_L%27il_Champs

there is edit war going on which you are aware of. Earlier, warning was given to editor Piyoush but in spite of that he has removed co-winner Anjali Gaikwad again even when there are reliable sources to support to it. Seems like he has some personal issues or bias against Anjali. Can something be done to stop this user totally from editing these 3 pages so that he will not do it again. Also there were 2/3 IPs as well which did same as Piyoush did. Can these 3 pages be protected forever and only be open to the moderator to edit? because no amount of warning/advise etc working in this case.

Thanks. Truegrit15 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Truegrit15:, I've already requested semi-protection of the articles for that reason, and noted that they have been protected before. It's not the first time we've seen something like this, and temporary semi-protection usually handles the issue as the people get tired of not being able to make the change. In the event it continues, something called Pending Changes can be tried, where the change can be made by a new or IP editor must be approved to be visible. Ravensfire (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, I just left an edit-war warning for Piyoush and will follow up on that if they make the same edit without consensus again. Ravensfire (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Great, hope this will work! Truegrit15 (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Dangal gross

It is not an edit war, but an attempt to correct wrong information. If you want to request the admin to force a discussion please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102‎ (talk • contribs) 23:30, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

@Bangalore102: No, it really is an edit-war. Both of you think you are right and are editing in good faith, but there's been basically no discussion on the article talk page or a noticeboard where it may help. Going back and forth in edit summaries is not helpful and is a very difficult way to hold a discussion. This probably is a good topic for the WP:ORN noticeboard, and possibly also reliable sources noticeboard about whether Rob Cain could be considered an expert in this area and thus a viable source. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Providence religious movement

I am quite shocked by the reaction to an edit I made on a page. I have been accused of socking, of having a conflict of interest. I have never met anyone from this group. All these accusations have been made, why? Because I added TRUE, cited information to one of the pages I came across? It seems this is a crazy sensitive issue to some of you...I wonder why, do you have a COI? It seems some editors truly are not editing for balance and truth, but based on their own point of view without looking at things objectively. It's disappointing that people like that edit an encyclopedia that is so widely believed. AspiringCheetah (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah

@AspiringCheetah: You are way out of line suggesting Ravensfire "harms society in general". Sam Sailor 17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Sam Sailor: It's not out of line. In this day and age, public information can make or break a person, if you look at the recent social media allegations against people, proof or no proof is not the issue, it's about societal perception...and those perceptions are based on information available on the internet. Therefore I think anyone adding information to a platform which is respected, should always make sure that anything they state is balanced and fair. None of the other articles I edited have had such a severe backlash, there's discussion, advice and guidance on how to improve. That naturally makes me suspicious...why the strong reaction. If I had added poor news sources, or poorly cited information, I would completely understand...but that's not the case. AspiringCheetah (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah

@AspiringCheetah: Sorry, Wikipedia isn't here for propaganda. It certainly isn't here for The Truth that your group wants to present. And yes, your comment is out of line here. Kindly retract it, or don't bother posting on this page again. I will interact with you on article pages, but if you cannot be civil on my talk page, you are not welcome and further edits here from you that don't retract / apologize will be removed. I don't put up with rather lame insults like that from blatantly obvious COI editors. Ravensfire (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The protracted arguments in re the convicted criminal Jung Myung-seok can be left on Talk:Providence (religious movement), although I doubt you have much further to add to what has already been said by other users who glorify this rapist. Your personal attack against Ravensfire is unwarranted. Please redact it. Sam Sailor 18:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Revensfire: I apologize if I offended you. I don't think my edits were treated fairly. I am offended and of the opiniong that Jytdog was unjust for citing me for 'socking' and having a 'COI' just because I'm a new editor and may not know the ropes yet. I will continue to discuss this topic on the talk page of this topic. Not once has a good reason been stated as to why my edits were removed.AspiringCheetah (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah

@AspiringCheetah: You're edit has the hallmark of a meatpuppet trying to cast doubt about a convicted criminal's guilt. Read the sources! Read the previous discussion on the articel talk page Just because your account is new does not mean that we are going to sit down and strike your hair gently and explain where you went wrong. Sam Sailor 18:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Alan Feldman Public School

I know whats right. pls man let it be so for some time, ill take in back pls pls pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.246.43.85 (talk) 22:43, December 28, 2017

That's not possible - you're adding unsourced and basically garbage connected to the names of living people. That's just not funny. Just stop. Ravensfire (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pokemon on Voot

The article is about the Pokemon anime in India and it's not saying anywhere that it has to be only aired on TV channels. Why can't the Voot stuff be there? User 261115 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@261115:, WP:ELNO would be one reason, and not promoting one streaming site over another would be an easy other. Wouldn't be hard to find more examples. Wikipedia isn't a directory, it's an encyclopedia. Ravensfire (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)