User talk:Ruby Murray/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ruby Murray. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hello, I'm Anup. I noticed, we had an (edit conflict) while tagging Mr_Mohammed_Sani_Musa page for deletion. You made it blp-prod and I, CSD#A11. I made a google search, there's no sign of significance, even the company the subject claims to be a CEO of, probably doesn't exists (at least on Google). I've removed blp-prod and let A11 remain on the article, because I guess, it doesn't warrant to stay up even a week. If you believe, I've made a mistake, consider nominating it for deletion. Thank you and happy editing! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, thanks. Ruby Murray 18:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. I could still see yellow highlights in New pages after you edit a page that is not made by you. Eyesnore (pc) 20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That must be a bug in Twinkle: which article was left unpatrolled? Thanks, Ruby Murray 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This one: Sadam1bapar. The page has been deleted before being marked as patrolled. Eyesnore (pc) 20:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't recall which tags I added: if I added them manually, then that might explain the lack of patrolling. Can you remember which tags I added, or are you an admin and can look at the deleted page? Ruby Murray 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not an admin, but I know which deletion tag it was: {{Db-a3}}. Here is the deletion reason: [[WP:CSD#A3|A3]]: Article has no meaningful, substantive content Eyesnore (pc) 20:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I would definitely have used Twinkle to add an A3. OK, I'll start checking to make sure that Twinkle has set patrolled properly from now on. Thanks for letting me know! Ruby Murray 20:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello people, I guess, perhaps I tagged this page (Sadam1bapar) with Twinkle under CSD#A3 criteria of speedy deletion. Most of the times, TW automatically marks pages as patrolled while tagging for speedy deletion. However, I do manually check for patrol, not sure whether I did perform this in this particular case. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is the rule is, do what is needed to be done, honest to goodness it is not my intention to sell anything using wikipedia and also i do not intend to own somebody's work, i even cited the source of the information. I accept my fault of not learning/reading the rules and guidelines in using wikipedia. My apology!

Regards to you all! GOD Bless! Chrisbrain1907 (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's OK- it was obviously an honest mistake. Please try again, and do a new version of the article. The album seems to be notable, and so does the artist. God bless you too! Ruby Murray 05:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ruby! Thanks for reviewing the Earth Law Center page. I made substantial updates in terms of using objective/neutral language, attributing any subjective language to Earth Law Center, and adding many references. Would you mind taking another look at it? Thank you very much. Grantstanleywilson (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Grant

Hello, and thanks. I've made some more edits for neutrality. The article needs more WP:Secondary sources: it's mostly referenced by your own website, along with laws and proceedings written or co-written by your group. Ruby Murray 07:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your work on the Earth Law Center page, Ruby! I went back and added/changed a number of sources so the references are heavier on secondary sources as well as non-Earth Law Center sources. Sometimes, such as when asserting the opinion of Earth Law Center, a primary source was most appropriate. Since I am committed to making this article to the highest standards, I am happy to add additional secondary and tertiary sources if you think this is appropriate. Again, thank you for continuing to improve Wikipedia.Grantstanleywilson (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Grant

Hi again, Ruby! I just wanted to follow up again with you, since I didn't hear back after my last note to you. As I mentioned, I added many secondary sources where appropriate. If you have time, do you mind checking it out, and either removing the alert or else letting me know that more revisions are needed? Thank you so much; I hope you have a wonderful week Grantstanleywilson (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Grant

Hi, the two remaining issues seem to have been fixed, so I've removed both tags. Thanks, Ruby Murray 05:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruby! As I've said, I really appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia. We are lucky to have you out there making this a better, more reliable tool. I wish you the best of luck. Grantstanleywilson (talk) 7:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Grant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.43.98 (talk)

Hello Ruby, I've received your message, I'd like to talk about the page I just created

thank you for your help

enrico

Seroti (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, what are you thoughts about it? Ruby Murray 20:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've read the warnings, and I'm trying to improve the page, but I'm new to this...

I am a member of the band, in fact. The entry "Confusional Quartet" is already present in the italian wikipedia, since some years. Many people from different countries asked for an english version, so I decided to make one. I'm trying to follow as much as possible the rules of Wiki. I've found some links in the english wiki, so I added a link to the band from the voice "italian rock", and I linked back from the page. I also added a link to "Bloody Beetroots", present in the english wiki. Other links are in Italian, I read that is preferrable to avoid these, but since there aren't more... I also added links to the bibliography, mainly websites where you can buy the books, but they contain some further information about the books themselves. Moreover, these books are not about the band Confusional Quartet, but more generally about the history of Italian Rock music, so I think that they could be useful for anyone interested to this subject.

I don't really know about "inline citations", maybe you can help me. Do you think that inline citations are applicable to this case? As I told, there's only one Wiki voice about Italian Rock bands, which I already linked (from and to). Could this link be a citation?

thank you very much for your kind help

my best regards enrico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.61.158 (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, any suggestion about the form and general tone of the article is appreciated!! thanks again!! enrico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.61.158 (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

An article you contributed to is being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 100 meter times by NFL players‎ Trackinfo (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you've deleted my pages due to copyright infringement although the source states

all content is available under the Open Government Licence v2.0, except where otherwise stated

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.brad (talk • contribs)

Hi, yes I see that now. However, I still have two concerns: first, it also says "Crown Copyright", and second, I don't know if the OGL is compatible with the Creative Commons License used by Wikipedia. I'll let a reviewing administrator decide. On the other hand, if it's not eligible for speedy deletion, the content isn't really suitable for an encyclopedia: they're verbatim pastes of UK government policy documents. They'd make ideal references for the article on the national curriculum, but they aren't encyclopedia articles in their present state: see WP:NOTREPOSITORY for more information on why Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a mirror of other web sites. Thanks, Ruby Murray 20:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I intend to make the pages more than simply mirrored pages from the curriculum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.brad (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ruby, thanks for the welcome message and comments. While I am affiliated with the content of the page I've created I've striven to make the content completely impartial and thoroughly cited. Do you have any specific issues I should address? Thanks! Meaghannf (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you've done a good job on keeping it neutral, thanks. I only posted to your talk page to make sure you were aware of the COI policies, and also just to welcome you, as you hadn't been welcomed yet. :-) Ruby Murray 13:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking forward to participating more :) Meaghannf (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.A.Minkowiski (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It took me three hours to write "1939 Herald Exhibition of French and British Contemporary Art", even though the material first appeared in my blog "Art and Architecture, mainly" five years ago. But I have read more research in the meantime and wanted to be thorough.

Despite me logging into Wiki in my own name (Helen Webberley), you warned you would immediately delete my very very long entry in Wikipedia because it breached the copyright of "Art and Architecture, mainly". So I wrote back instantly saying "Art and Architecture, mainly" was written by me, Helen Webberley, as you can see on the blog. Nonetheless the Wiki entry was deleted :( 1750 words lost :(

If you believed the quality of the history writing was not scholarly enough, I would have appreciated a note citing alternative references on the 1939 Herald Exhibition of French and British Contemporary Art.

Helen Webberley (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Helen Webberley Art and Architecture, mainly http://melbourneblogger.blogspot.com.au/

No, the quality of the history was not in question, but there was a clear breach of copyright. The article was copied from two sources: the Melbourne blog and this article by Phillips and Christian on wsws.org. Ruby Murray 11:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just created an article on the above and made the mistake of creating it via an incorrect link which has given the article an incorrect title. Sorry about that. The subjects name is Hubert not Herbert. Graemp (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem: I've just moved it to Hubert Houldsworth, 1st Baronet. Thanks for creating the article. Ruby Murray 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing links to Hubert Houldsworth, 1st Baronet but everything links to Sir Hubert Houldsworth, 1st Baronet but my move is being blocked, can you do it please? Graemp (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

All links now fixed, thanks. Ruby Murray 10:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

All links now wrong, Baronets on wikipedia have the pages titled Sir ...., 1st Baronet. Graemp (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

How are the links wrong? Why should the unpiped link use "Sir", when the pipe can contain that? For example:

*Sir [[Hubert Houldsworth, 1st Baronet|Hubert Stanley Houldsworth]], Q.C. Ruby Murray 10:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha, I see what you mean. I'll fix my fix now. :-) Ruby Murray 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I had fixed all the fixing other than deleting page Hubert Houldsworth, 1st Baronet Graemp (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually, you already have. What a team we make. :-) Ruby Murray 11:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ruby, changed the template for deletion on this article Pino Joy titled Chief Keef from A10 to G2 as more resembles a testpage with all the faulty coding all over the place. If you feel this is incorrect feel free to revert thanks --KaraokeMac (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, thanks. Ruby Murray 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree in the strongest terms with your deletion of this additional biographical information I was writing. It is all factual and easily sourced which I returned to do hours later only to find it deleted. The public rebukes by former American champions and high-profile parents of Mr McEnroe are unprecedented in the history of USTA Player Development and the controversy/crisis surrounding his leadership is the singlemost defining aspect of McEnroe's post-Davis Cup career. Thus, by deleting it, what you have left people with is a puff piece that showcases his accomplishments with a grinning self-serving PR photo and hides his utter failures as General Manager of USTA Player Development that have caused national outrage. Every line in the piece I was writing came from widely-distributed national columns (like this one http://www.hannity.com/article/sean-s-analysis-on-usta/15702) and or to public correspondence between Patrick McEnroe and coaches like Wayne Bryan or public letters on the USTA website (like this http://www.usta.com/Youth-Tennis/Junior-Competition/patrick_mcenroes_response_to_sean_hannitys_analysis_on_usta/). Again, I was not finished citing sources but your knee-jerk deletion of 100% ACCURATE INFORMATION that already had some key embedded links to the sources I would cite makes me doubt Wikipedia's mission statement. It appears you only want fawning bios of famous people.MannySchotz (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP: when you write about a living person, you need to included WP:Reliable sources to WP:Verify what you're writing, even if you're 100% certain that it's true. The claims you added had been up for two hours, without a reliable source: just a blog reference written by a party to the alleged dispute. It's up to the person adding the claims to include the reliable sources, if they exist - not other editors. Without reliable sources, contentious claims about a living person must be deleted immediately. Thanks, Ruby Murray 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ruby, please look at the sources I have linked to above, i.e. The USTA column by Sean Hannity published on Sean Hannity.com, and tell me if you consider these acceptable sources for contentious material. The column outlines concerns with the USTA leadership and policies by a high-profile tennis parent. The second is a letter written by Patrick McEnroe published on the USTA site itself. Are these acceptable sources? Can I paraphrase the content of the dispute and cite these sources?MannySchotz (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that's an acceptable source if you're adding "Sean Hannity wrote..." and "Patrick McEnroe wrote...", since it's a matter of opinion whether he failed or succeeded. Go for it. Ruby Murray 14:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ruby, with respect, if Wikipedia lives in a reality where historical fact -- i.e. no American male tennis player has reached the second week of the US Open the last two years and for the first time in 101 years no American progressed past the third round of Wimbledon in 2013 -- cannot be used to point out the failures of USTA leadership (you call this an opinion) then I feel the deck is stacked to avoid controversy at the expense of accuracy. Knowing this, I don't want to contribute my time to Wikipedia. The Patrick McEnroe page will remain grossly out of touch with what is happening during his tenure as general manager. An incomplete & unreliable reference. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MannySchotz (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a television news channel, so opinions don't get served up as fact here: not yours, mine, the Pope's, or Sean Hannity's. When you're ready to start adding facts backed by references, you'll be welcome to contribute. Thanks, Ruby Murray 05:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ruby, I understand it is an encyclopedia. Everything I wrote was factual and I returned to cite sources (some were already embedded in the text). Forgive my error. I appreciate the need for references but please consider that your unfamiliarity with an ongoing national debate does not mean the presence of the debate is subjective. To say Patrick McEnroe's tenure as general manager has been highly contentious is like saying there is a moon in the sky. You are saying prove there is a moon. These discussions between coaches and the USTA are not sensationalism which I think is what you meant by the television news reference. They are a defining moment in Patrick McEnroe's career and in the history of American junior tennis and its governing body. They are happening now, in real-time (erupting into an unprecedented public feud in 2012), which means the primary sources are letters exchanged between the key players and published online on various tennis sites. Nobody has written a book about the events yet -- they would have no idea it was happening if they looked up Patrick McEnroe on Wikipedia -- but the information is still demonstrably factual and important. Obviously, I am new to this process but my intention to contribute meaningfully was/is genuine. Please could you tell me which of the following sources you consider legitimate references:

http://www.smmirror.com/articles/Sports/Tennis-Coaches-Unite-Under-Bryan-To-Challenge-USTAs-U10-Mandate-/36257

http://www.tennis-prose.com/articles/wayne-bryans-letter-to-the-usta/

http://adirondacktennis.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/tim-mayottes-reply-to-the-wayne-bryan-letter/

http://parentingaces.com.previewdns.com/wayne-bryan-vs-usta/

In terms of proving something factual, does the presence of a news article like the one above in the Santa Monica Mirror "Coaches Unite Under Bryan To Challenge USTA'S Under-10 Mandate" establish sufficiently that there is a contentious debate going on between parents and coaches and the leadership of the USTA, the General Manager of which is Patrick Manager? Or must I cite sources to prove he is General Manager, sources to prove there is general contention over rules changes, sources to prove there is an under-10 mandate and sources to prove it has prompted widespread outrage. In other words, if there's smoke is there fire in Wikipedia's mind?MannySchotz (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you want to contribute meaningfully, and I'd be happy to help you in any way I can.

We need to be specific about attribution. So as I mentioned above, if Sean Hannity wrote something, then we can write "Sean Hannity wrote..." with the hannity.com reference you cited above. We can't write vague allegations like "...considered by many to be exorbitant", since "many" is an unsupported attribution, but if Wayne Bryan used that word then we can certainly write that "Wayne Bryan described the salaries paid as "exorbitant", and called for...". Claims like "Though a lack of transparency continues to plague USTA Player Development, the results of American professionals during McEnroe's tenure are stark by any measure" are entirely subjective, but if someone notable said that, then we can quote them having said it (with a supporting reference).

Also note that allegations of problems with an organization should be quoted (with references) at the organization's article, and not at it's leader's article, otherwise we are implying that the blame is entirely with the leader, which is not writing from a WP:Neutral point of view.

Wikipedia also has a policy of WP:No original research, so although we can factually state in an article that X is true, and that Y is true, we can't then go on to conclude in the article "Since X is true and Y is true therefore Z must also be true", even if the logical inference seems entirely sensible to the writer. We can't even imply an original conclusion, and the inclusion of facts about lack of American achievements in tennis in Patrick McEnroe is a strong implication that McEnroe is responsible: this would definitely be original research, and so will be removed by other experienced editors, not just me.

One last point: in general we should avoid blogs as sources, since they're not considered WP:Reliable sources. If the blog is quoting a mainstream newspaper or TV article, or someone's official site, then it's best to hunt down that quote and cite the original source, rather than the blog. If there's no proper editorial control on a blog, then they might have misquoted the original source.

I hope that's useful. If any of it's not clear, then please ask away. Thanks, Ruby Murray 10:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That is helpful. I am realizing just how much I have to learn. I'm not sure how it is subjective to say "the results of American men during his tenure are stark by any measure" when you have none in the second week of the US Open for the last two years (unprecedented in the modern era) and none going past the third round of Wimbledon in 2013 for the first time in over a century. Those are facts and this is the context in which the debate about player development is occurring. American tennis has always produced a steady stream of champions; suddenly it has none in sight and Patrick McEnroe is in charge of player development and taking junior tennis in a direction a lot of very experienced coaches and players disagree with. Anyway, a specific question if you don't mind. Here is a letter to Patrick McEnroe from Robert Lansdorp, a legendary figure in tennis who has coached many past champions. It was posted online by Robert Lansdorp himself on tennisconsult.com. [1]

Robert Lansdorp Writes To Patrick McEnroe - October 15, 2013

"I am happy that my career started a long time ago. And my last Champion was Maria Sharapova, a Russian who had nothing to do with the USTA. I think they were trying to make her an American so the USTA could claim her, but it did not work out. Maria was or is too proud to be a Russian and good for her. The USTA 20 years ago was not as blatant and desperate for a Champions as Patrick McEnroe. In my early days the USTA was not into stealing players from private coaches, like McEnroe is. This has to stop because coaches in this country will rather work with non Americans or won’t give their heart and soul to the student, because they know that when the kid is 15 or 16 and shows great promise, the USTA will come and convince the parents to go with the USTA, instead of involving the private coach in continuing to work with his or her student. Can’t you see that Patrick? What is wrong with you??? Very attractive to the parents, because the USTA will fit the bill for everything, plus give tons of wild cards. Hopefully parents will realize that wild cards are not going to make their kids CHAMPIONS. Take my word. It does not work. I heard that the USTA is not alone into this taking students from private coaches. I think England is doing it and I think so is Australia. Yes Australia. England we can understand, because they don’t know what the hell they are doing, and are very desperate. But Australia? France I think has a different system. If a Frenchman reads this, maybe he can explain to me what they are doing. In all my years of coaching, the USTA has never send me a student, never. Canada is sending me several young juniors. Some are just great and I am just dying to prove to the USTA that at the time Mc Enroe’s stint is up, these Canadian kids will show what a real CHAMPION is. Patrick I will do anything to prove my point..."

Ruby, since this letter is addressed directly to Patrick McEnroe and posted directly by Robert Lansdorp, can I quote freely from the text as an example of prominent coaches questioning McEnroe's leadership and decision-making as General Manager of USTA Player Development? For example, to capture the contentious tone of the debate, can I quote Lansdorp saying: "In my early days the USTA was not into stealing players from private coaches, like McEnroe is. This has to stop because coaches in this country will rather work with non Americans or won’t give their heart and soul to the student, because they know that when the kid is 15 or 16 and shows great promise, the USTA will come and convince the parents to go with the USTA, instead of involving the private coach in continuing to work with his or her student. Can't you see that Patrick? What is wrong with you???"

Is that quote allowable under Wikipedia policy? Can I build my article using a series of quotes like this from different sources (Wayne Bryan, Tim Mayotte) like beads of a necklace?MannySchotz (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

We can quote briefly from it, certainly, with a reference to the source: a really lengthy quote would probably be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Better to use the original source of the quote as reference, in a sentence that briefly summarizes its meaning, something along the lines of "The tennis coach Robert Lansdorp criticized McEnroe in 2013, and said that McEnroe's leadership of the USTA was responsible for the US falling behind other countries in youth tennis. We can also write "young men's results in the US Open from 2011-2013 were X", with a reference, without giving an opinion on those results as success or failure on McEnroe's part. The article should let readers make up their own mind about that, and stick to objective facts. Many people think that McEnroe is to blame for current USTA results, but not everyone does: it's a matter of opinion, so we need to be very specific about whose opinion it is. As far as a series of quotes goes, we need to be careful not to swing the article from hagiography into an WP:Attack page, so let's make sure that the criticism isn't given undue weight. Thanks, Ruby Murray 08:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I took another shot at the Patrick McEnroe General Manager entry. Could you review? I would appreciate your feedback.MannySchotz (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's getting better. :-) But who are the "advocates" mentioned in that section on USTA, with no reference? I've removed some of the unsourced and vague claims about widespread support: again, we have to be very specific about who is making the criticism, and who is rebutting it. Thanks, Ruby Murray 09:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think we're missing the scale of what is happening, i.e. the current draft makes it sound like Robert Lansdorp is the only coach who disagrees with the U10 mandate but there has been widespread condemnation. Juniors have trained from age 6 and 7 to compete in national U10 tournaments and suddenly all those tournaments disappeared, converted into mini tennis events with beginner balls. People are FURIOUS. I've avoided listing the names of everyone who disagrees with Patrick McEnroe (the list is very long and their criticisms are scathing -- I've also left out, of course, that Patrick is a bit of a bully and is known to retaliate against families who speak out against the USTA, which Wayne Bryan touches on in his letter). But my point is it's the unprecedented massive public outcry against these mandates that makes the events notable. The Santa Monica Mirror article, "Coaches Unite Under Bryan To Challenge U10 Mandate, says: "In a forum PACKED with tennis coaches and interested parties that flew in from as far away as Arizona just to speak their minds..." If we paraphrase that by saying "several coaches and professionals" it makes it sound like it was a handful of people chatting peacefully when it was hundreds in a heated debate. Thanks again for teaching me the ropes.MannySchotz (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I understand your point about conveying the scale of the opposition, but "packed" and "people are furious" are too vague, and we need references. If there's a reliable source that says the room was packed, then we can quote the author of that reliable source, or if the source says there were hundreds, then we can write that. We don't need to list the name of everyone who agrees or disagrees with him, but neither can we just vaguely talk about large-scale or small-scale: we have to be able to WP:Verify everything we write about him. Be particularly careful before calling him a bully in the article: again, if someone notable called him that, then we can quote them, otherwise it's possibly libel and will be immediately deleted. Ruby Murray 10:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not going to call him a bully, I am just trying convey to you my effort at neutrality and powers of restraint. :)MannySchotz (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, restraint is good. :-) But I'm still concerned about that section. It really belongs in the USTA article, not in McEnroe's bio. He's involved, but the controversy isn't about him but about USTA policy. The Santa Monica Mirror reference, for example, doesn't even mention him. The section should be moved to United States Tennis Association, and mentioned in the McEnroe bio. Ruby Murray 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you removed genre with unreliable sources that JayJ47 added? Thanks.

P.S. If User:JayJ47 did it again with unreliable sources. 183.171.179.96 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The best place to start is to discuss the genre and sources at Talk:Red Lights (song). Talking it over helps to avoid an edit war. Thanks, Ruby Murray 15:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ruby! I'm still trying to get the hang of Wikipedia, and learning how to properly author and reference encyclopedia articles. So I really appreciate your help! On the Morton's The Steakhouse and Landry's Seafood pages, I think I've now removed any promotional content. Would you mind taking a look for me, I trust your judgement. And if everything is okay, maybe get rid of the "promotional content notices" at the top. I'll leave it up to you, I won't delete again :)

Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcraig (talk • contribs) 13:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. Ruby Murray 14:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

i don't know what the previous authors have done. But i want to tell you that i don't spam. I created that article from scratch. So, kindly don't request the Wikipedia administrators to ban me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qasim900 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already asked administrators to take a look at the articles involved, and that can't be un-asked. But if they find no evidence of a problem, then you have nothing to worry about. Ruby Murray 21:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Kajol & Ritu Dubay, I thought this was odd but yeah they moved it to there userpage and now it is still marked as a prod, not sure how to approach this one. Wgolf (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Article creator wrote in the edit summary that they want it deleted, so I've changed the prod to db-author, and nominated the redirect for speedy R2. Thanks, Ruby Murray 15:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks-I was trying to figure out what to put-at least for once they were not deleting the prod every 5 seconds lol. Well have a good day and good luck editing! Wgolf (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You too! :-) Ruby Murray 15:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)