User talk:Ruy Lopez

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ruy Lopez has not edited Wikipedia since 14 March 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Would you be interested in an online interview?

Dear Ruy Lopez,

I am a student in Seoul National University doing a research project on Wikipedia. I am very impressed about your insight regarding Wikipedia. Reading your page, I see you are truly concerned about the quality of Wikipedia articles, and I appreciate your efforts to find reasonable alternatives. So I thought you could provide some opinions really worthwhile. So, would it be possible for you to take some time off and give an online interview via E-mail or online messenger? It would provide my project a lively voice of an actual editor, and this will be of a great meaning; your experience, concerns, opinions and ideas would add a lot to my project. Actually I'm in real need of something concrete; for my project is about the mechanism a version of explanation is settled, and as you will probably guess, understanding such things involves a lot more than just watching some explicit process. Again, I would really, really appreciate your help.

It will not take that long; in fact everything will depend completely upon your will. If you are willing to give some help, would you mind contacting me on my User Talk page within April? Thanks a lot.

Sincerely, Little Sheepherd

Little Sheepherd (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Thanks! ==0

I'm really glad you made contact. Can you tell me your e-mail address? MSN would be even better... You can mail me, or it would be even better to chat(tell me the time convenient for you). Do you use MSN?

Little Sheepherd (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Nields Jr.

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: John W. Nields Jr.. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John W. Nields Jr.

The article John W. Nields Jr. has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. NW (Talk) 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza aid shipment

Hi Ruy, I undid your change to the Israel's intention to deliver aid. However in note of your concerns I reworded it to Israel's promise. This is unbiased and readily verifiable in multiple RS's Zuchinni one (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruy, you are making A LOT of edits yet you are not participating in the discussion. Please read over the talk section and discuss changes before making them. You have already undone more than one thing put in place by a consensus of editors in the Talk section. You are in danger of getting banned due to the 1RR protection currently in this article. Please participate. Zuchinni one (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory look at your user history shows you are a sock puppet account. Amazing you are so knowledgeable in the rules when you've only made a handful of edits before massively intervening on this article over the past days. As you are a sock puppet and not a real user, further discussion with you is pointless. Ruy Lopez (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see what you mean, the suggestion that Israel's promise to take possession of the aid then deliver it themselves belongs in the lead, but that a qualification of the six ships as ships carrying aid does not belong in the lead raised flags. Similarly the ascribed motivation, that the GFF wanted to breach a blockade rather than deliver humanitarian aid. It's like a guy whose partner is in labour and bundles her into his car to speed to the hospital, suggesting his motivation is to break traffic laws, not get her to the hospital. RS basically describe the ships as carrying aid, whereas some edits left the lead describing the ships as carrying militants hehehe. Still, Zuchinni played the voice of reason well, no? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, only 1% of aid to Gaza has ever gotten through. Also, Israel could have announced this supposed deal to the flotilla before they departed, not by megaphone/ship-radio a few minutes before they sent commandos to kill unarmed passengers. The whole point of the flotilla is Israel is blockading food, medicine etc. If Israel was letting food and medicine in, the flotilla would never have existed. Ruy Lopez (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruy, in case you haven't seen it, here is an interesting article on how the wiki article had been anti-Israel! Tireless defenders have been working to improve it. [1] —Regards— KeptSouth (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment there by "Ezra" "Still, worth looking behind the scenes to see just what type of individuals are involved in creating & editing wiki pages." I wonder what you think he could mean by that?— KeptSouth (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted AmericaSpeaks changes

Hi,

I noticed that you deleted all the content on AmericaSpeaks and replaced it with a link to an accusation that they are an "astro-turf" group. In fact, their latest event, "AmericaSpeaks: Our Budget, Our Economy" a National Town Meeting about the US federal budget (with a focus on the long-term deficit) came under fire from both the Right and the Left, with defenders on both sides as well. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to add a section to the list of Projects on "Our Budget, Our Economy" with mention of this back-and-forth -- but not to replace their entire listing with a single accusation. I have rolled back your changes for now, and if no one adds a section on the above project by early next week, I will do so (at which point of course you could add any references you feel are appropriate). I have tried to offer below a fairly wide-ranging set of links to opinion pieces on both sides, the results, and some first-hand accounts.

Thank you.

Roz Lemieux

[Full disclosure: I work for a firm that was contracted to help put together the event's online presence. It was my experience that the organizers went to *great* lengths to recruit participants from across the political spectrum and provide materials vetted by both right and left-leaning advisors.]

Rozlemieux (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters:

Detractors:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/america-speaks-back-derai_b_619465.html (critique from the left -- note that the actual results did not at all resemble Baker's predictions)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-hickey/in-deficit-town-meetings_b_627030.html (left-leaning, post-event)
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/06/the_america_speaks_forums_and.html (critique from political science perspective)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4262098/tax-hikes-needed-to-cut-debt (critique from the right)

Participants & Organizers:

Results presented to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform for its public meeting on Wednesday, June 30, 2010:

http://usabudgetdiscussion.org/written-testimony-for-the-national-commission-on-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform/

Oh Suzanna

Hi, regarding this post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arundhati_Roy#Oh_Susanna... Do you have any supporting reliable citations to support it? I am considering removing it as it could be personal imformation that could harm the living person, please explain and please either delete or offer a citation. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this as after further investigation I see it is citable, excuse me. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may ..

You may have caused me to leave the 'pedia for a time but I'm BAAAAAACK--198 (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the Anti-Communist guy.--198 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Americans in the Venona papers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Americans in the Venona papers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Americans in the Venona papers (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wackos.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wackos.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry

I'm sorry for getting mad at you a while back.

CJK (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Twelve Caesars (disambiguation)

The article Twelve Caesars (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]