User talk:RyanTee82
Welcome
|
Welcome to Wikipedia | ||
 Hello, RyanTee82, and welcome to Wikipedia!
{{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Banjeboi 20:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Ellsworth bridge
Hello, thank you for your edit on the bridge article, but I removed what you added as it lacks a proper source. Verifiability is one of the key policies of Wikipedia, and that article is otherwise completely sourced (the WP:LEAD section does not contain any footnotes, but as it is the lead section it is merely a summary of the article and all info is cited in the rest of the article). Feel free to re-add the info once you have a source that qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Think newspapers, books, journals, etc. Then, as you added everything to the lead, please re-add the info to the history section, and add just a summary sentence to the lead (or lede if you prefer that spelling) noting that this bridge replaced an earlier bridge. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the sources, however the first two are not what we call reliable sources. Again, this is a specific Wikipedia guideline (you can click the link above to read what qualifies) where we a re looking for sources that have some sort of formal editorial process or other indicia of reliability, which self-published sources on the internet usually do not qualify. You might want to use Google News that could have an old newspaper article, or consult the databases of news/journal sources you likely have access to via your local library (with most available online). The third source looks promising, but it does not support everything you added: mainly it says on pier remains and says nothing about dynamite. Just to be clear, I am not saying this is untrue, it just is not supported by the sources. Wikipedia is not actually about truth, it is about verifiability (this is because the truth varies, which sounds odd, but just ask a certain Iranian leader about the truth and if Hitler killed off any Jews versus what the Holocaust Museum would say.) Aboutmovies (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry its taken a little time to get back to you. As to your latest note, again, I'm not saying its not true, but we need published sources (reliable sources as I mentioned before) that state what you are saying. In essence, with the picture at least, that is what we call original research and we don't allow it on Wikipedia. The only reason we know the picture is from the bridge is because you are saying so. We need the source to say so. But anyway, we have sources for the existence of the bridge, what is needed is sources for the other info you added. There is no hurry here, so when you get a chance head down to the library and check the book you mentioned and make sure it covers the info you want to add. Then be sure to write down the title, author, publisher, copyright date, page numbers, and the other information needed for a full citation. Much of that you can get here but we would need the specific volume and page numbers. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
November 2009
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
RyanTee82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What is this about??? and yeah, I am going to need an answer. BTW, thanks for supporting homophobia on wikipedia, i.e. user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AntonioMartin
Decline reason:
No reason for unblocking given. TNXMan 12:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
RyanTee82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm going to need an answer.
Decline reason:
The reason given by the blocking admin was quite clear "Block evasion: another sock of User: Ragemanchoo" Since you have not provided any reason at all to unblock you, this request is denied. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
RyanTee82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Here's a good reason -- I'll just go on editing/adding to the site, anyway. Just like most other people who get blocked.
Decline reason:
I presume you're done here. Kuru (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.