User talk:RA0808/Archives2017/October

Re: The vulture and the little girl Info

Hello RAo8o8, this is not a error message - just an information about my work up to this day and in the next months. I startet to do updates on all articles connected to The Bang Bang Club, Greg Marinovich, Joao Silva, The Bang-Bang Club (book), The Bang-Bang Club (film) and yesterday Kevin Carter. The job is not finished - maybe in January. I did a new and intensiv research, and found more and more old and actuel valuable sourches. The IP is from US and maybe someone connected to the old Bang Bang club. This IP is expecting that I chance the deleted text to my new version of the events in Sudan - I think.

At this time RL ist first and I don't start which this articel about the Girl and the vultur now. It is to much work and I try to finisch first the article Kevin Carter in the next time. I working in connection with editors, taking care of the stories. I prefer at this time that the article is still in his old styl. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Patricia Black (contd)

I thought my sarcasm was spot on, actually, and quite justified. Varnebank (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Varnebank: Please be mindful of the civility policy and, in future, do not undo archiving of talk page comments. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: The vulture and the little girl Info

Hello RAo8o8, this is not a error message - just an information about my work up to this day and in the next months. I startet to do updates on all articles connected to The Bang Bang Club, Greg Marinovich, Joao Silva, The Bang-Bang Club (book), The Bang-Bang Club (film) and yesterday Kevin Carter. The job is not finished - maybe in January. I did a new and intensiv research, and found more and more old and actuel valuable sourches. The IP is from US and maybe someone connected to the old Bang Bang club. This IP is expecting that I chance the deleted text to my new version of the events in Sudan - I think.

At this time RL ist first and I don't start which this articel about the Girl and the vultur now. It is to much work and I try to finisch first the article Kevin Carter in the next time. I working in connection with editors, taking care of the stories. I prefer at this time that the article is still in his old styl. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Patricia Black (contd)

I thought my sarcasm was spot on, actually, and quite justified. Varnebank (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Varnebank: Please be mindful of the civility policy and, in future, do not undo archiving of talk page comments. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

LOL No, no, I was being perfectly civil. I found my sarcasm indeed to be spot on. You need to learn a little humility. Varnebank (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Great American Baking Show

Hi RA0808, just wanted to thank you again for the edits that you recently made in The Great American Baking Show. It was one of the reality television stubs that have caught my eye for a while now, so I was happy to see those revisions. Regarding Template:No footnotes, can that template be reasonably removed from the article now that there are currently five solid references? The reasons as to whether or not to remove it were not clear to me in WP:WTRMT, so I would appreciate some input on that. --JC (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@DJCA: I'm glad the revisions I was doing were helpful! I figured that since I was doing some GBBO tinkering in the category and template sides (plus some changes at The Great Canadian Baking Show) this article could use a bit of attention. As for the template, I think we're clear to remove No Footnotes now. Like you said, we have five solid references and they're referenced as inline citations. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 02:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Shirley Towers deletion - thanks

Thanks for the deletion on Shirley Towers - I hadn't intended to create a page, decided to work on a page in my sandbox, I was borrowing from a page about a similar event, but must have created a page proper by mistake

Will try again with the article when I get it sorted in the sandbox.

Jpmaytum (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jpmaytum: Glad to hear you will keep working on it, best of luck with your draft! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 13:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Venezuela and the International Monetary Fund

link

Hi, you undid my edit on the article 'Venezuela and the International Monetary Fund' because it was unexplained, I removed the information because it was an economic forecast for 2017, and 2017 has mostly happened now and the forecast was very inaccurate. According to the news inflation was over 2000%[1][2], not 750%, and the economy contracted by over 12%[3][4], not 7.4%. Emblyn Kerensa (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Emblyn Kerensa: Thanks for the message and thanks for being one of the few people who include the link in the title, haha! In future it is really important to state reasons for removing content in an edit summary... especially when it is content cited to a reliable source. The best option in a case like this would be to change the phrasing to something like "The economic forecast for 2017 was..." (italics are just for emphasis in this message) and then add the updated sources that you've shown me. Hope this clears things up and happy editing! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's much clearer. thanks. Emblyn Kerensa (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

RE: American Civil Rights Union

I now understand that I cannot place links to outside sources (such as the ACRU web page) in the text. But all my other changes were wiped out, too, including considerable work on updating personnel on the board of directors and policy board and adding information about new programs. How can I restore that? Can you restore and I will go back and take out the links that triggered this?

Thanks,

truthwins09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwins09 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Truthwins09: Hello Mr. Knight and thank you for your message! I greatly appreciate your enthusiasm to improve the ACRU article but unfortunately you have a conflict of interest since, as you state here, you are a senior fellow of the organization. Wikipedia attempts to adhere to as neutral a point of view as possible, under the behavioural guideline on conflicts of interest (see WP:COI) editors that have a COI are requested to not edit pages affected by their COI directly. I see that you have also been making edits to the Wikipedia page about yourself, that is also highly discouraged as violation of both COI and autobiography guidelines.

COI editors are requested to, instead of making direct edits, submit their suggested changes for peer review using the {{request edit}} template. Directions on how to use the template are available at Template:Request edit/Instructions. There is also the matter of proactively disclosing your COI by placing Template:UserboxCOI on your user page (in your case the template would be in the form {{UserboxCOI|1=Robert H. Knight|2=American Civil Rights Union}} and would be placed on User:Truthwins09 along with some sort of written message such as "I am Robert H. Knight, a Senior Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union... etc.").

I hope you don't mind I take the chance to address some of the parts of your help message as well. There is no way to prevent other users from making changes to the content of Wikipedia articles. Per the Policy on Ownership of Content:

“ No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. ”

Edits to Wikipedia pages are only restricted in a process called "page protection" as a response to a limited range of circumstances, such as repeated disruptive editing. While you may see changes made to the article as disruptive the edits by users such as User:DrFleischman and myself... these were entirely within Wikipedia policy. Further, automatically accusing other editors of having a personal vendetta (it is unclear who your were describing when you referred to "a rogue administrator who hates our organization") is not conducive to a collaborative working environment. Wikipedians are expected to comment on content, not on the contributor.

I hope this helps to clear a few things up! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwell_Zoo

Hi,

I was checking the Marwell online presence yesterday and noticed the initial history on the page appears particularly negative regarding the zoo, and would obviously like a positive outlook on the work the zoo does. I was updating the accurate history of the zoo, including updates that are not currently on the page, eg the new exhibits. I have not edited on wiki before and spent ages making the changes which were deleted. I did not realise it required a detailed explanations or would have done this.

For future reference, how do I edit the page without my edits being deleted?

(I work for Marwell but was using factual comments and therefore no COI, if this is still COI then please can I forward on my information to you for you to upload what you see fit.)

Kind RegardsJodiealesbury (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jodiealesbury: Hi Jodie and thanks for your message! There were a few reasons why I reverted (undid) your edits: you removed cited content and that the content you added was still coming off as being of a promotional tone. While I understand that you want your employer to be reflected in the best possible light, that conflicts with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).

Now on to editing with a COI. Adding content, even if entirely factual, when you have an external connection to the entity in the article is still a COI. Editors that have a conflict of interest are requested to not edit pages affected by said COI directly... but rather submit their suggested changes for peer review using the {{request edit}} template. Directions on how to use the template are available at Template:Request edit/Instructions. There is also the matter of proactively disclosing your COI by placing Template:UserboxCOI on your user page (in your case the template would in the form {{UserboxCOI|1=Marwell Zoo}} and would be placed on User:Jodiealesbury). Additionally, if I may ask, what is your role at the zoo? Are you in a marketing or PR department for the zoo? RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for replying on here and my page, I wasn't sure if I had done it right.

Sorry, I have never edited on wiki before and it is pretty confusing, I will try to establish how to add it to my user page and will suggest edits by the template. Jodiealesbury (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jodiealesbury: It's no trouble at all Jodie, as long as the message gets to me it's all good! Adding the template to your page is very straightforward: simply click the link I've made here to User:Jodiealesbury (your user page), then copy this grey-highlighted bit {{UserboxCOI|1=Marwell Zoo}} and paste it in the editing window. I'm not sure if you saw my question at the end of the last message, what is the nature of your job at Marwell Zoo? RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Monster Mash

In the music clip, Bobby is imitating Dracula (from Transylvania). Dracula was played by Bela Lugosi, not Boris Karloff (who played Frankenstein, who did not speak). Connell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:5100:8FE6:8C6D:AC20:223A:5DD6 (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources Pickett's narrator voice from the song is based on Karloff, for example here: "It’s been haunting folks since 1962 when Bobby Pickett channeled Frankenstein actor Boris Karloff with an imitation that he thought, at the time, was pretty spot on." "He knew I had the Boris Karloff voice pretty nailed, although in retrospect, I feel that what I actually had was a very cartoonish rendition of that wonderful actor's voice." RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you. :)

Beauty School Dropout (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a country of the Iberian Peninsula

Catalonia is not a country of the Iberian Peninsula it is just a autonomous community, the countries that form the Iberian Peninsula are Spain, Portugal and Andorra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.251.97 (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Given the current uncertain political situation regarding the proclamation of the unrecognized Catalan Republic this is a matter that should be discussed at the article's talk page to achieve consensus. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

American Civil Rights Union

Thanks for taking the time to explain the process. I still do not understand why perfectly good edits, such as updating personnel, which have no ideological content whatsoever, are not permitted by the organization itself. But, hey, you guys set the policy. Also, the process you laid out is unbelievably cumbersome for a non-techie like myself. To bring the page up to date, I made dozens of edits. So, if I understand this, I have to painstakingly lay out what to delete and replace to a third party, ie an administrator? Well, okay.

I'm sorry if you were offended by my supposition that we were, in effect, hacked. We deal in highly contentious areas and our opponents often resort to character assassination and dirty tricks in an effort to silence us. If the revert edits really were merely done to conform to Wiki policy, then, my apologies.

I guess a tutorial about all this would be handy.

Thanks,

Robert Truthwins09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwins09 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Truthwins09: The edit review process doesn't have to be so burdensome, though! You can create a user-space draft to tinker with wording and referencing before using that for the edit request process. The process I'm thinking of is: I take the previous edits you made and move them into a draft, you can continue to make changes to the version of the article text in the draft, and when you are done you can post an edit request and simply provide a link to your updated version with a brief explanation (even point form) to the peer reviewer. I would be happy to help you with creating a draft so you can edit it when you get a chance and not worry about it being deleted until you're done.

As for the part about disclosing your conflict of interest just copy everything in this grey box {{UserboxCOI|1=Robert H. Knight|2=American Civil Rights Union}}, then click this red link User:Truthwins09, then paste into the editing box and click "Save page". RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw your opinion piece in the Washington Times. If there are serious problems with the ACRU article, why not suggest changes at Talk:American Civil Rights Union? If they are backed up by reliable sources then I will likely support them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Truthwins09: Was that constructive, Robert? After not only myself but DrFleischman and Operator873 have offered (sincerely) to help you improve the article, instead you turn around and smear us (and the whole Wikipedia project) in a public forum. All we have ever done is assume good faith and wanted to work with you to make a better article. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 02:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)