Talk:R.A. the Rugged Man

Biggie Smalls

According to this article, Biggie was not a fan of RA: [1] Let's not get into an edit war. If Biggie was a fan please provide a link proving it like I have. Thanks. MrBlondNYC 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is bogus and the alleged interview in the article came out years after Biggie had died (it's fake and no tape of that interview can be found.) While B.I.G. was alive he recorded two songs with R.A. The quote from biggie "I thought I was the illest" reffering to R.A. is fact and was published in Ego Trip magazine in 1994 while B.I.G. was still alive, the quote was also used several times while Jive was promoting R.A. as Crustified Dibbs from 1992 -1994. For more REAL proof not a bogus internet article check both Notorious B.I.G. albums 'Ready to die' and 'Life after Death', you'll see Biggie thanks 'Rugged Man' in the shout outs.

It's real easy to say the article is fake with ZERO proof. Just as I can say the Ego Trip article you referred to fake with no proof. What does BIG's death have to do with the validity of the article if it occurred before he died? Are the songs released after his death fake too? Maybe this is a whole big conspiracy against R.A. the Rugged Man. Yes, Peace magazine is trying to bring him down. Look, I don't want a childish edit war with you and it's obvious you love this guy. But you still need to have a citation for such a claim. As long as you don't remove the "Citation needed" tag, the sentence remains suspect as it should. And as long as that tag is there the entire sentence can be removed at any time in good faith. So please keep that in mind. MrBlondNYC 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN--- For more REAL proof from the real NOTORIOUS B.I.G. check both Notorious B.I.G. albums 'Ready to die' and 'Life after Death', you'll see Biggie thanks 'Rugged Man' in the shout outs. --- Did you know B.I.G. personally? Try asking the people associated with B.I.G. and R.A., that knew the both of them. Jive records could not have used B.I.G.'s quote without serious lawsuit from Bad Boy if it were not true. Yes, and the magazine with the fake interview saying B.I.G. didn't like R.A. can not produce a taped recording of the interview. They have been asked to before and can't produce. It is false. That's why it was never published in a legitimate magazine because any magazine worth something would've feared a lawsuit. Don't you think a long lost B.I.G. interview would've been able to be published in a far more esteemed publication such as XXl, or SOURCE, or even URB ? Ofcourse, anyone would have taken that interview if it were real but nobody wants to publish an interview with no recorded proof. understand? In order for VIBE, SOURCE, KING, etc, to publish something like that the legal department needs the recorded tapes to varify if it is true.

Please provide a citation of the quote. A citation of which magazine, author, article, date title will suffice. Just because Biggie thanked RA in his liner notes does not mean he said "I thought I was the illest". It means he said "Shout out to R.A. the Rugged Man" and that's not the same thing. Reverting good faith edits could result in blocking. MrBlondNYC 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notorious B.I.G. quote "I thought I was the illest" reffering to R.A. the RUGGED MAN (Crustified Dibbs at the time) was published by EGO TRIP MAGAZINE (1994) Vol. 1, Issue 3: Smif-N-Wessun/on the cover. Published by E-Wilson who now is head at XXL, Sasha Jenkins, Chairman Mao, etc. It is a fact that the quote is in this issue. If it is removed from wikipedia the way it is written now you are removing historical truth. Please, stop trying to rewrite history and violate peoples reputations and names out of hate. Thank you.

Haha. I don't "hate" RA the Rugged Man. Wikipedia wants all articles to be correct and prefers them to be cited. Quotes especially HAVE to be cited or they get removed. Sorry but there's rules here. Another rule is you have to provide edit summaries along with your edits. Another is you have to sign your name when you write on the talk pages. Just remember the rules and there won't any Bloodshed Hoo Ha Hoo. OK? MrBlondNYC 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Die Rugged Man Die.jpg

Image:Die Rugged Man Die.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

More Explanation Needed

"Due to violent and disgusting behavior R.A. was blackballed and feared by music industry executives throughout much of the 1990's." - there has got to be specifics on what the "violent and disgusting behavior" is. thanks. Sfrostee 5/26/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.231.249 (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Year of birth

This XXL article states he was born in 1974. And if he was signed to Jive at 18, in 1992, that would also put his birthday in 1974. However an IP-editor has been removing this information and claiming that it's incorrect. This Amazon review states he was born in 1975, but of course an Amazon review isn't a reliable source. It would also mean he was signed to Jive at 17 in 1992 or at 18 in 1993, but not 18 in 1992. Can this IP-editor find any reliable sources to contradict those already referenced? If not, s/he should stop removing the info. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

DELETE this page. My rights are violated

This is R.A. the Rugged Man, I continue to send messages with no response. I want the wikipedia page that is written about me removed. I do not approve the constant false and private information that continues to go up on the page. This is my life and you are falsely representing me through your website. Wikipedia is the first thing that anyone reads when they google something and it is violating my rights. I do not want my name on your website anymore.

Edit request on 10 February 2013

Enough. The request to delete the article has been asked and answered with an explanation and links to the various policies. We cannot help it if you are not happy with the answer. Singularity42 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is R.A. the Rugged Man, I continue to send messages with no response. I want the wikipedia page that is written about me removed. I do not approve the constant false and private information that continues to go up on the page. This is my life and you are falsely representing me through your website. Wikipedia is the first thing that anyone reads when they google something and it is violating my rights. I do not want my name on your website anymore. RAThorburn (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Can you identify the "false and private information" that you are referring to? Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, it is never ending. Since this page has gone up it continues to be bombarded with false and private information. It has been non stop through out the years since this page about me was created. Having false information constantly posted up as facts on this page is a violation. Do you really need me to go through the entire history of false information that has been posted up about me? You can have some one contact me direct ratheruggedman516@yahoo.com and when they contact me I can leave a phone number so we can get this resolved and the page gets deleted. I'm not going to go back and forth arguing with somebody on this message board. You can not continue to violate the rights of hard working people just because wikipedia is a known organization. RAThorburn (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Okay, I'll look into how this works. I'm not sure the subject of an article can request its deletion simply on the grounds that it's a target for vandalism (lots of people's pages are targets). What's more likely to happen in that case is that the page gets protected and more closely patrolled, so only registered users can edit it and any new info is checked for verifiability more stringently. There's no need to go through the article's history, but if you could point out what "false and private information" is currently in the article that would help. Thanks. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC) You'll probably want to take this up with an administrator; here's how you can do that - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Who protects me from the "registered users"? or so-called " verifiability" just because some media source claims it to be true? I do not want to be part of wikipedia, they already violated and slandered my name on several occasions. RAThorburn (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Vandalism is mostly carried out by unregistered users editing from anonymous IPs. As for verifiability, Wikipedia has guidelines regarding what can be considered a reliable source. You can correct information yourself also. If you specify what "false and private information" is currently on the page I might be able to change or remove it. As I said though, I don't think the subject of an article simply not wanting a Wikipedia article is grounds for deletion. I'll find out though. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I've removed the "Personal life" section in its entirety. Unsourced or poorly sourced material won't appear there again. Is the content of the article okay now? If not, let me know specifically which information is false or private and I'll see if it can be corrected or removed. Thanks. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC) It is not good enough. I do not wish to have my name used on wikipedia. I do not trust the registered users or administrators and I do not like the way my name is constantly slandered. I do not approve of the content or my name being used. If you do not have the authority to remove it please have someone who does contact me. RAThorburn (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think anyone has the authority to simply delete the page. Again, I don't think simply not wanting your name on Wikipedia is grounds for deletion (just like if you didn't want your name in a magazine, they wouldn't be obliged to cut it out). Of course, if there's libelous material in the article, and if you'll point it out to me, I'll correct it or remove it. If you won't tell me specifically what information is false or private, or if you just want the page deleted irrespective of what's currently in the article, then there's nothing more I can do. In that case, you'd be best to follow the instructions here: Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC) This scenario is covered at WP:BIODEL. If the subject of the biographical article requests deletion, then if the subject is relatively unknown and not a public figure, Wikipedia will generally favour deleting the article. However, this is not a case of the subject being relatively unknown, etc. This is a well known hip-hop artist under a signed label, who has been involved in high-selling recordings, and has an official website. If a person signs a recording label, and publishes high-selling recordings under that label, that person cannot claim to be a non-public figure. As such, I am not inclined to do a good-faith deletion nomination. Singularity42 (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Who's rules are these? They are not written laws. If you are not inclined to delete my page then put me in touch with the higher up person at wikipedia who is. Obviously someone at wikipedia is capable. Here is what you told me "I dont think simply not wanting your name on Wikipedia is grounds for deletion (just like if you didn't want your name in a magazine".... but in reality its not "simply not wanting my name on wikipedia".. I have been slandered time and time again on wikipedia. if Any magazine slandered my name with as much false information as wikipedia has through out the years the magazine would be sued and held liable. If I go through the history of false information that has been spread on this page the list would be endless. I demand you have somebody contact me ratheruggedman516@yahoo.com so this issue can be resolved. RAThorburn (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.90.147 (talk) I think it falls under freedom of speech, same as the press. If an editor can source it, then we can add it. Our standards are far higher than tabloid and regular news. We only include material that we think is worthy, not just dirty laundry for the sake of using it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) People higher up in Wikipedia are able to remove the article - but they will only do it if they decide that its subject is not "notable". There is a consensus that you are notable. However most editors, and particularly registered editors, are concerned that statements in the article should be verified by reputable sources, and relevant to the article. So we would like to help you. But your saying "the list would be endless" does not help us. Let's start with the piece about agent orange. It looks unlikely to me. Is it true? Is there any trustworthy published evidence for it? Maproom (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC) You can ask this guy: user talk:Jimbo, but like others have said, you are probably to famous for Wikipedia not to have an article about you. The article seems fine (as in not mentioning anything unreasonable) to me as I read it now, but the bit about next studio album needs updating. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC) About written laws, I think THIS is what goes in the US. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I've been slandered for years on wikipedia time and time again. You say you won't remove my page because I am a public figure but I am a person who has been violated continuously on your site. I do not trust your administrators, they have put up false and private information up countless times. you have already slandered my name on far too many occasions. Rather than making it a legal issue why not just cooperate and delete my page? And if you are not authorized to do so have someone who is.. contact me ratherugggedman516@yahoo.com RAThorburn (talk) 9:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Name

Is there a reason his full name is not in the lead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no good source on it. It's possibly Reginald Arbuckle, but he "won't divulge what the initials stand for". Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed a valid reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Father

Article currently says "R.A.'s father, Staff Sgt. John A. Thorburn, was a Vietnam veteran affected by Agent Orange. R.A.'s home and family life was significantly affected by his father's experience."

I have no reason to think this is not accurate, but is information of this kind ok to source to a personal website? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Complaint from IP (claiming to be the subject)

How can wikipedia get away with this?.. they deleted all of the factual information and start the page with "R.A. began recording independently in the 2000's". .... R.A. - an artist that has been signed and had released material on majors since the beginning of the 90's.. This is not cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.90.147 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I moved the IP's comments down to the bottom of the page, as per discussion page guidelines. Singularity42 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, two things:

1. Where does the article say that he began recording independently in the 2000's? I do not see that anywhere in the article. In fact, the article says he has been active since 1992.
2. Stop making contradictory arguments. Your first complaint was that the page should be deleted because too much "false" information was being put up (while refusing to give details), and you did not trust page protection, etc. Your request to delete the page was denied, and the community begain pruning back the article to remove everything that could not be verified by reliable sources. Now you are complaining that too much information is being removed?! Singularity42 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that this "rapper" is trying to take control over the article so that it says only what he wants to have it say, and then, make it follow his personal agenda. Wikipedia is an open platform anyone can edit, and what information is, or not, included, doesn't depend of the subject, but of the editors that volunteer here. — ṞṈ 21:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)