User talk:Rickyrab
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Attention! Please Read:
Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. Use headlines when starting new talk topics. If continuing a conversation, please post replies on my talk page so that the new message heading appears for me. Likewise, I will post my replies on yours so you get the nifty yellow banner. Thank you. Oh, and by the way, thank you, Bratsche, for this template.
-Rickyrab
Contents |
[edit] Ilayathambi Tharsini
A stub that you started a year ago[1], please take a look at it now. Thanks RaveenS 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kid
In my view, we don't need an article on a person who was victimised as a child (Katie Beers - name inserted by Rickyrab 02:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)). It seems like an invasion of privacy. If you would like to write a well sourced article on the incident under a different title, I can live with that. Frankly, linking to a New York Times search is completely unacceptable as a "reference" for an article, especially on a living person. Mak (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I said an article about the incident under another title. There's already an article about the perpetrator. I don't think it's right to have an article about the victim, the information that's relevant to her fame is already on the perpetrator's page. Mak (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- So write an article about the perpetrator. Mak (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I assumed you linked to the right guy in the first place... so write an article on Esposite (horrible human being) or something, or whoever the perpetrator was, or whatever the incident was called. Just don't write an article about the incident and name it after the victim. It's simply unfair and cruel to do so. Mak (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- So write an article about the perpetrator. Mak (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ?
Does it matter in a two dimensional setting? Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Khajuraho
I saw that you made a valiant effort to rewrite the copyvio in this article. I would like to bring to your attention that the Hindu Jagruti site is maintained by the the activist group HJS, and is a very unreliable source. Links and content from the site were added to many Hinduism related topic on wikipedia by Anit Pimple (the spokesperson for the group) and his sockpuppets (see [2]). Reliance on that source for content not only violates wikipedia policies on reliable sources, but also the information itself is likely to be simply false. I don't want to undo the hard work you have put in the section, so could you please edit the section so that any information that is based only on the HJS site either directly or indirectly (example [3]) is removed. Several books have been written on the temple's architecture and it shouldn't be difficult to write a good article on the topic. However, even in absence of someone taking the initiative and adding reliably sourced information, we should be careful in not propagating possibly unfounded myths about the subject - especially since the wikipedia article is the first hit for a google search on the topic. Thanks. Abecedare 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Slutgers
A tag has been placed on Slutgers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jerry 16:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Banner
What? April Fool's Day or not, vandalism is still vandalism. And the reason I made two edits is that I initially reverted to the wrong version of the page, then fixed it. -Elmer Clark 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
