User talk:Rms869

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --Sdrtirs (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Law[edit]

Hi, RMS. Before you start throwing allegations around, perhaps you should actually read my edit summaries, before assuming a bias. Prior to your last edit, you were removing a paragraph from the article without providing citations refuting the passage or even providing and reasoning in the edit summaries. When you fail to provide a justification for a major edit (no matter how reasonable you think it is) it will likely come under scrutiny. Also, before you start assuming biases on other pages, please remember that on Wikipedia, we assume good faith. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my page are counterprocutive. Unless you have any evidence of conflict from my contributions on that article, again please refrain from throwing around baseless allegations. All I asked is to write an edit summary when making edit, which, when looking at your contributions, you rarely do. Thank you. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful to put something. For example, if you make a minor edit to tag it as minor and say something like "copyedit" or "spelling" or something of the like is helpful. That way editors like me, who may have a specific page on his or her watchlist, won't think much of it. When you leave a summary blank, editors are more likely to check your edit in case it is vandalism, or to revert edits that are not substantiated in the edit summary. I'm not saying, I'm perfect either (I've had my share of empty edit simmaries, especially when I started editing), but now that I've been around for quite a while, I see why they are recommended. Thanks - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Giggs[edit]

Just undid your recent edit to the 'Ryan Giggs' article. Giggs was not part of the 2008 UEFA Super Cup team for Manchester United and I don't believe he got a medal but I could be wrong. Do you have a ref ?

Aaron carass (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Corso[edit]

I just noticed that back in November you removed a paragraph concerning lightning striking Lee Corso's car from the article on Lee Corso, for which I tracked down numerous cites about a year ago. In the edit summary, you wrote "Not true." Would you care to elaborate here or inform me what I'm missing? Google searches still turn up lots of corroborating articles and nothing indicating it was a hoax.

Pompous stranger (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dead links are as follows:
BCA, Virginia Tech propose a Dec. 1 date
A sign from above tells me to pick the Hokies
Lightning strikes Corso's rental car

You'll note in the 2nd link, Lee Corso says:

During the ESPN telecast of GameNight from the Georgia Tech-Virginia Tech game Saturday in Blacksburg, I picked Florida State and Kansas State in the national championship game. Within two minutes, a tremendous flash of light shot through the thunderclouds and touched down about 300 yards from where our set was. We saw the light and heard the crack, but didn't know yet it was a sign.

Now, I admit I do not know which specific flash of lightning caused the officials to postpone the game, but since the lightning bolt that struck Corso's car occurred during - or at the very latest, two minutes after - a live, outdoor ESPN pregame show on the same premises, I do not believe it would be grossly inaccurate to claim the game was canceled due to lightning striking Lee Corso's car. In any case, I think that this is a quibble about sentence wording and not a good reason to excise a passage.

Pompous stranger (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last response has me at a loss. Are we referring to the same article? The one with a section called "Other Notable Facts" that references how Corso has made "an effort to create a crayon completely out of soybeans"? The same article that says "Corso also says 'sweetheart' to almost everyone" in a long unsourced section describing his broadcasting career? It is amusing that the only claim sporting multiple cites is the one judged not to have any redeeming accuracy to it all.

And what am I to make of your sound grasp of cause and effect? This is not a clarifying example in an article on severe weather postponement. A game was postponed when Lee Corso's car was struck by lightning. All those elements are intensely related, verified, and succinctly describe a singular event in the life of Lee Corso. Obviously when you begin slicing and dicing with Occam's razor and considering why lightning or damaged rental cars would help define Lee Corso or meteorology, you'd be at a loss. (And if google were the best place to go for this information, you wouldn't have needed to ask me to track down those dead links, and I wouldn't have been the person to add those cites to the article in the first place.)

I do not much enjoy the way you appear to treat fellow contributors. You encounter dead cite links (the very lifeblood of wikipedia) and, instead of making a good faith effort to track them down or ask for their correction, you delete those references. Your first stated reason for deleting their attendant passage was "not true," a phrase which apparently describes dead cites, a quibble based on a very intense cause/effect reading of the relational word "when," and a belief the passage is not germane. Then, in ensuing discussion, you also end up abusing both language and the other party by exaggerating the grossness and completeness of their inaccuracy and incompetence. Does precise language not matter to you when you are not considering cause and effect reasoning?

I understand the point the sentence could be made clearer and less offensive to a literal interpretation. As for the rest...

Pompous stranger (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NYUAthleticsLogo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NYUAthleticsLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan 01:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]