User talk:RA0808/Archives2013/October

Wally Hunter article

Is the article in question still being proposed for deletion? Two references have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike123321123 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not, since there is no PRODBLP template on it. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 04:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

iPad air

Hi the reason remove the delete template is because the iPad 5th generation should be moved to iPad air do to iPad air being the official name for the new iPad 86.135.249.249 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for putting up with noobs like me :) Ideophony (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Sorry - accidentally gave you an edit war warning for reverting vandalism! I have warned the IP but shouldn't have warned you. Sorry and keep up the good work! Oddbodz (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Jubair Bin Iqbal

I edit conflicted with you tagging the article. You might find it useful to tag articles like that with {{db-multiple|a7|g11}} to cover both promotion and notability. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for dealing with edits by 74.196.253.55?

Hi. I saw you just reverted some edits by 74.196.253.55, to Joseph Randle. This user seems to be making lots of height/weight and "personal best" edits to NFL players. I reverted a height change they made to Terrance Williams since it conflicts with what's at nfl.com, but can't tell if the other changes are legitimate or not, so I added a {{citation needed}} tag. I haven't dug into many of the other changes, but it seems that most of the "personal best" sections probably don't have references in the first place. Any suggestions for dealing with the anonymous edits, since it seems some of them may be legitimate; I don't want to blindly revert the changes, but if I can't verify them.... Thanks in advance. Gmporr (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My personal advice is that if they can't be verified the edits should be reverted, as they would fit into a pattern of disruptive edits. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess putting the burden of proof on the anonymous editor makes sense. Gmporr (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Geotokens

I'm the original author of the article. Please have a look at my "User Page" that I just wrote tonight to indicate my credibility in writing it. I've been aware of the request to cite references. Since I am also a major instrument in the creation of Geotokens in the sport of Geocaching, I have never quite understood what reference I could provide other than referencing my own involvement, which started in 2002, when the sport was in its infancy.

This is just one part of what I've put on my "User Page" but might be of the most help in your verifying that the use of geotokens was not even known of within the sport as of 2003. Note the entry by irishe who is the founder of Geocaching. and the next entry that explains geotokens to the forum.

http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=55128

Thanks for any help you can provide. I am proud to have authored the article on Wikipedia and am wanting to fix any problems/issues with it.

I don't have a "talk page" that I'm aware of. But I did get a notice of your reversion of an edit I tried to include which cites myself as the reference.

**** (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

SpiderTracks

Your new friend

Is blocked. Clearly wasn't here to contribute. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks RA0808 ^talk_contribs 14:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Brocagh GFC

You removed my changes and they were constructive, I'd like this amended please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.55.94 (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would consider it if your edits had been constructive in any way. Regardless of how you try to pain them, they were vandalism... so my revert and the warning on your IP will remain. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 14:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)