Contents

User talk:Raggz

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polar bear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine Mammal Protection Act. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iroise Sea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boreal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raggz- A couple of general editing suggestions for you to consider:

• Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
• Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered.

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas. The summaries are easy to do, the second harder because I often don't know exactly what to say. ~~

Hello! Thanks for your edit to Isle of Wight. I was checking your new reference but I couldn't find any details of the Ictus/Vectis issue that you mention in it. Also, I wondered if you were thinking of Ictis which is not quite the same thing? Can you find a more specific reference, or guide me to another source maybe? Thanks! Naturenet | Talk 12:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

== Thank you for improving my edit. I will look at Ictus/Vectis.

There was a tin road from the Rhine to Anatolia where it was needed to make bronze. There is good a citation for a regular tin sea route to the Rhine and also a for trade route from the Isle of Wight to the amber roadand to the Med. The wheat came from the Anatolia area. Do you think that this is too speculative? Raggz (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is evidence for trade between what is now the South of England and those areas, but what's needed to support your edit is evidence that Ictis/Ictus is actually the Isle of Wight. At the moment the Ictis article is not supportive, although the Island is shown as one (fairly weak) candidate amongst many. Maybe this would be more appropriate for a mention in History of the Isle of Wight where there is more room for a nuanced explanation of this essentially unresolvable subject? Naturenet | Talk 09:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Feel free to edit it. See Mount Batten. Is this "this essentially unresolvable subject"? Perhaps so, but it seems quite solvable. Where is there (1) an island large enough to be worthy of note as a military conquest (2) that could be reached with a tin cart at low tide, (3) that had early (wheat of 8,000 BP) international shipping infrastructure and (4) conveniently near the tin mines, (5)ma later Roman military infrastructure, (6) has an infrastructure that probably is now mostly or completely submerged? Raggz (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I will. Anyway, by unresolvable I perhaps mean 'unreferencable', at least for the moment. Whilst your thesis about Wight/Ictis may well have merit I'm sure you know we can't do original research on Wikipedia, so unless we can find a notable reference that says that the Island could fulfil those criteria you helpfully lay out and furthermore identify it as Ictis/Ictus, we'll have to leave that debate for others to have elsewhere. Naturenet | Talk 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we agree on the original research. Even though I have three notable supporting cites, lining up "stepping stones" to move from conclusion to conclusion just won't do here, (especially since I am totally out of my area.) Raggz (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds sensible, thanks. I'll have a look at those articles in due course. And let's hope somebody does at some point make a good case that the Island is Ictus. That would be an awesome story. Naturenet | Talk 13:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bouldnor

added a link pointing to Smelt

Isle of Wight

added a link pointing to Smelt

Sequoia National Park

added a link pointing to Fisher

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sack of Baltimore page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help) and a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isles of Scilly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veneti. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a few edits to that article in November 2014 [1] you added several incomplete references like Kurten 1964, Lono 1957, Pedersen 1962 and Harington 2008. Could you please complete them? Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Netsilik Inuit page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Atlantic Bronze Age

added a link pointing to Galicia

Phoenicia

added a link pointing to Onoba

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mexican grizzly bear you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Burklemore1 -- Burklemore1 (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the history of the taxonomy and restored the name as "Ursus arctos middendorffi" because it's still important to mention who discovered and named the first specimens and explains the etymology, and that the source you gave, http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z63-005#.VgoYi3pVikp , mentions that "U. a. middendorffi" is still applicable to the brown bears of Kodiak, Afognak, and Shuyak islands due to anatomical differences between them and the mainland brown bears, of which those populations are not distinct enough from each other to merit any subspecies statuses.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your points are all good. We do not however agree because I have references that I need to add. Since 1953 much has changed because of the genetic tools. I will add a recent US Fish and Wildlife taxonomic review. I've not read Merriam 1914 in 2-3 years, it is hard to come by. From memory Rausch or Hall gave it to the ABC Islands bears and not Merriam. Your logic is very good. I prefer to use the talk page. Raggz (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My edits are likely incorrect as the correct name is Ursus arctos middendorffi. It is the only widely recognized subspecies. I will correct my errors tomorrow. Raggz (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We all live and learn, except for my late uncle who tried to invent an "edible bear-repelling armor." Catch you at the talkpage, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mexican grizzly bear you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mexican grizzly bear for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has offered a further suggestion.r Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raggz, I have undone several of your recent edits (specifically, these three: 1, 2, 3). With regard to the United Nations Convention against Torture, I undid your edit because reference to international courts in the context of "sanctions that are authorized by international law" did not appear to be relevant. With regard to the other articles, discussion about article 103 of the UN Charter is likewise irrelevant. Additionally, all these edits do not appear to accurately reflect the law as I understand it to be. Remember that claims must be supported by reliable sources. – Zntrip 21:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the United Nations Convention against Torture we are discussing a treaty under the authority and jurisdiction of the UNSC, correct? Within this context there is no other relevant international law? By the UN Charter all members must respect this and none may delegate jurisdiction regarding defining torture that they lack to any supranational. Perhaps this is original research until supported, but do we agree that other international law as described in this article is irrelevant because only the UN has authority and jurisdiction for any UN treaty?

Your points would be good if the article was about torture but it is not about torture. It is about a UN treaty. Does any part of international law other than that with the UN accurately reflect the law as you understand it to be? If so, which part? (The Geneva Conventions are within exclusive UN jurisdiction,) Restated, does the ICC or the ECHR have jurisdiction over UN administered treaties? Raggz (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, pretty much all of what you said is not accurate. The Security Council does not have "authority and jurisdiction" over treaties. Is there a source that you are getting this from? – Zntrip 22:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ICJ has this authority and not the UNSC. Raggz (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The authority to do what? – Zntrip 23:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Raggz. I've undone your recent edits to the International Criminal Court article. Specifically, the section you added entitled "Limitations to jurisdiction - subordinate to the jurisdiction of the United Nations" is not an accurate reflection of international law. – Zntrip 02:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Kshama Sawant seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kshama Sawant. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the International Criminal Court page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Kshama Sawant. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kshama Sawant. Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not draw conclusions not actually stated in the cited sources. This is essentially "building the Frankenstein", putting 2 and 2 together, from multiple sources, to reach your own conclusions. Because the Biographies of living persons policy requires great caution when making controversial statements about living people, you should not apply labels to Kshama Sawant like communistorTrotskyite, or supporter of revolution unless a reputable, mainstream cited source actually says those exact things about her. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Raggz BLP violations. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raggz, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot here. Based on your edit summaries, it looks like you're deleting stuff based on misunderstood policy. WP doesn't decide what's relevant presently, we catalog what was reported at the time. Please don't remove things because they aren't in the news at present. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 22:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the policy that requires old irrelevant material be retained? WP:BOLD. I am unaware of this.

This is an article about health care reform, and if you want to add a historical section, good for you! The ACA is not a health care reform topic in general. The ACA IS now a health care policy subject, not a reform issue.

Does this article need to be transformed to discuss TrumpCare now? Raggz (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about, I don't care about this topic. I'm concerned at the massive edits with summaries like "The ACA section needs to get rid of dated and now irrelevant material for health care reform. This should now be found on the ACA page". These don't seem to be policy-based but rather driven by your personal opinions. This is an encyclopedia, history *is* the subject. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 22:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please shift to the WP:TALK page after my reply. I don't have much interest in the topic either. Like you, I want to edit. See: WP:BOLD Consider that the title is about Health Care Reform in the United States. Should the article focus upon this topic? In 2009 when this article was last substantially revised it was relevant to health care reform. Since then the ACA has transformed into our health care system. The ACA has little to do with health care reform. A study on what healthcare cost in 2005 is not relevant because it has nothing to do with reform of our health care system in 2017. Do you disagree?

Check the WP:TITLE section and then please use the TALK page for its purpose. Please also be more clear about which policy you are concerned about? Thank you. Raggz (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Merging. As you did not start any discussion prior (which is step one), I undid your merge proposals. Jim1138 (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will of course review the policy again. I prefer to continue this discussion on TALK. Raggz (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy does not require prior discussion, only consensus. Your objection now indicates a lack of consensus. Please initiate your discussion on that TALK pages. There is no consensus for your deletions of tags on articles. Please restore them because discussion was required. Raggz (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to the above article was very close to http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/17/what_happens_if_trump_blows_up_the_iran_deal.html, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation, even if you cite the source. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure of the sentence is preserved. This was detected by automatic plagiarism detection software. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raggz, I undid your recent deletions at Avoiding dangerous climate change. When these domain hijackers break a link, it's better to just tag it with {{dead link}}. This enables those chasing down archived versions from the Wayback machine. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Copy-paste as your recent edits to Climate change included material copied from the source you cited. Vsmith (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Anaxial. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gray whale, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Anaxial (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]