User talk:Raeky/Archives/2010/June

This page 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.

I find the proposed amendment quite reasonable, except for two technical points: (1) You were the only contributor expressing this view, so it might belong in a "useful points raised" section of the summary (perhaps along with Greg's suggestion to explicitly exclude animations from the 1000 pixel criterion), and (2) the way it's currently worded is inconsequential - e.g., would the intention be to explicitly recognise opposes on this basis (long exposure, EXIF withheld) as valid? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that for example, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Foxfire, if that was missing the exposure information you wouldn't have any idea how weak the the light of the bioluminescence it was illustrating was. So what I'd like is the valid grounds to oppose similar long exposure images that exclude EXIF/exposure information. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Raeky

I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to contribute to the article about innocent. I read a book by innocent on how their company started and the creation of the brand and logo was credited to a company called deepend who also exist on wikipedia yet there is no reference to this on the page nor a cross link to the company? I'm very wary of changing anything and see you have managed the page alot so thought I'd ask your advice. Do you think it's relevant, or should I just add the text? Ive read your discussions and don't think it's advertising related. MrNoobDoob (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC) MrNoobDood 14May2010

Provided you have a

reliable source to back up the statement, and properly cite the source then there would be no problem with including the information. What is the book you read it in? ISBN#? — raeky ^{(talk | edits}

) 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

1. ISBN-13: 978-0718153175. --MrNoobDoob (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's written by one of the founders of Innocent, [1], so it could be considered a

primary source. So you'd need to treat it as such when add any content from it. The way you cite a book found here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits}

) 12:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Raeky, ive added the relevant facts and citation, I'm pretty sure ive done it right, perhaps you could check it if you get a moment.MrNoobDoob (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You participated in the discussion at

you wrote: There really isn't a compromise to be made here, this editor is trying to push creationist views into a science article. Hes not willing to improve the article within it's scope, hes wanting to change the purpose of the article. There is a _long_ history of people with his views trying to interject their pseudoscience into science articles and we don't allow that. Like every editor who is not Gniviv has pointed out to you that there is no point to protecting the page, it's not solving anything. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the protection itself, I'm not sure I understand your position. How is an article titled "objections to evolution" a science article? In order to maintain neutrality, per

...And I'm an idiot. I totally misread that. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol, no problem. It's an article covered under the Evolution umbrella, thus it's treated like any other science article. It's an article meant to present the mainstream scientific establishments rebuttal to common objections to evolution. It's not an article meant to give credence to those objections. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent efforts with Gniniv. I think I've completely lost patience with the whole thing. We're still having the same discussion we were last month. I just don't have that kind of free time. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I appreciate you stepping in. The situation is long past disturbing, particularly being unable to remove an unwarranted PP even with Gniniv's behavior. So yea... thanks. Jess ^talk _cs 03:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Eek! Dyslexia kicking in! I was looking at the wrong side of RoyBoy's diff, and thought I was changing it back to "agreed it was". Thanks for fixing my mistake!! :) Jess ^talk _cs 03:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem.. lol. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I want it to be clear to all editors that I am acting in good faith from my personal perspective (As I know all of you are).. All I ask is that some debate is included to avoid absolute suppression of alternative theories.--Gniniv (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand you have likely been doing your best to pick a fight with me for several days and may have little or no interest in improving the project, but if you are interested in a cogent discussion feel free to come by

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Citrus paradisi (Grapefruit, pink) white bg.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Elakala Waterfalls Swirling Pool Mossy Rocks.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Morchella elata 83497.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Jujutacular T · C 05:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking. I only perused the 'interests' section, and didn't notice the biography listing. Cheers, JNW (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:PaperAutofluorescence.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Jujutacular T · C 13:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Think that was an edit conflict over at ANI, I've specified.

No problem. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Err, I think things are settling down. We should probably start trying to determine which images have the highest EV... NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do, odds are we might even have better quality images on Commons for some of these, i'll look there as well. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to just edit the articles replacing images as we see fit? Or start a consensus discussion on their talk page? I'm not sure they're all capable of rational discussion at this point without a cooling off period, but we'll see. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd just start browsing and taking notes. There are a lot of pages involved, and we'll see how they respond to my comment. A cooldown period would be good though. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 07:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at Paracetamol now, and since Tylenol was the first marketed brand of it I'm suggesting the first image be of that, going to upload a couple images off of flickr, and i'll post on the Talk page for that page about my suggestions. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted my opinions on images on the relevant talk pages, and while I was doing that, they're still reverting eachother, see

WP:3RR and is more evidence for a time out, but thats definitely not my call. — raeky ^{(talk | edits}

) 08:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll deal with the less savory bits ;) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)