User talk:Causa sui/Archive 8

Adding "liberation" to "Words to avoid"

I filled the proposal for Words to avoid. Please find it here. I would be thankfull for your commennts, suggestions and corrections.--AndriyK 16:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We issue indefinite blocks only when absolutely necessary, not out of frustration or desire for revenge against a user we do not like."

Was this comment directed towards me? If so, I strongly protest; the blocking had nothing to do with either of those reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what can I do better?

what can I do better? I have zero experience with wiki, and 18 years knowledge of OSINT. can you help me get it right? Robert Steele 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of Talk:Kenneth Lay

You semi-protected this talk page three days ago.[1] Is there any reason to keep the semi-protection in place, or can we open the talk page back up? --Allen3 ^talk 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zen-master as User:Hollow are the Ori violated ban

According to the comment you left on the talk page of Zen-master (talk · contribs · count) at 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC), the use of sockpuppets in contravention of his ban will result in a reset. ZenMaster did in fact violate this ban using the sockpuppet Hollow are the Ori (talk · contribs · count) around 18 May 2006. The reset would be appreciated. --Rikurzhen 08:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid to edit my RfArb.

Hello. I requested a hearing for arbitration today. It was edited by a well intentioned tidy. However the format I had originally setout was compact. The perception of the request, in my opinion, is now overbearing. This is a problem for me for several reasons. Please see my conversation with the editor who tidied it up here. I am afraid to revert it and simply don't know what to do. I will scan here for your reply but feel free to answer where you choose. Ste4k 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.236.112.190

You warned user 66.236.112.190 last year about using Wikipedia for advertising. User talk:66.236.112.190 He/she has been doing it again. Yesterday, I removed a site from the external links of Radiology that was just a commercial plug. Bejnar 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A call for help: Pelé's goal scoring

Hello Ryan, You´ve did a good job reverting (and explaning it to me) my editioralizing edits on the Virtuoso article. Now I'm seeing something even more drastical being made to the Pelé article. Pelé is considered (by many, so many) the greatest soccer player of all time. His goal score, which is somewhat controversial, is around 1200 goals. Some people and sites do question this telling that he counted goals on friendly matches and non-official matches. The problem is that, even if it´s true, the overall assumption is that his score is over 1000. His 1000 goal was scored on November 19, 1969, by 23h11min, in hist 909th match, Vasco 1 x Santos 2, with 65,157 people attending and broadcasted on television. How come a few (well meant) wikipedians make an original research and then change the accepted statistics by what they unveilled as truth? I know, they could be right. They even cite sources, but there are many other sources, including official ones, that says otherwise. I have posted on the article's discussion, even before they started compiling the scores by themselves (they did a good work, which I think has a place on a blog or homepage, or even in the specialized press, what would make it elligible for citing in wikipedia, but not for changing the overall consensus of Pelé's 1000 or so goals.). I don't know how to handle this matter without starting a revert war, so I'm calling for help from an admnistrator. If you know other administrators which are more knowledgeable of soccer, than you could handle him my call for help :-). Thanks for your attention. Loudenvier 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan, perhaps you're right to some extent. The problem is that they're using the more controversial goal scoring as source. It's really well known that Pelé scored 1000+ goals. It's also well known that many goals are disputed. The problem is that the article seems to try to enforce the view that he did not made 1000+ goals, which is really misleading. Every major media in Brazil (hi, I'm brazilian) count his goals over 1000+ (1286 or so). I thought it original research because they did a synthesis of published results on their own. Since it's wikipedia I'll allow wikipedia to heal itself if needed. Sometimes I get tired of watching over so many articles. Wikipedia already proved it watchs over itself very well. Regards and thanks for the clarification. Loudenvier 01:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal

This case has been closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F4U Corsair

Hello RD. I noticed your reversions on this article. It did not seem to me that the editor was vandalizing. Was there copyrighted material being reproduced? (You can reply here if you wish; I'll watch.) Thanks. Kablammo 23:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found where it was being taken from. Thanks. Kablammo 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misunderstanding ?

im sorry i use wikipedia often, and i repect what this web site has done for the online community. I, to my knowlege, have not edited any pages on wikipedia. If you would tell me the name of the page i editied, it would relieve a lot of confusion for me. Sorry for any inconvenience.02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)~Tiffany.

User:203.166.232.83

Hate to bother an admin directly like this, but you blocked this IP (203.166.232.83 (talk · contribs · count)) last time. For the third or fourth time, they have added a cut and paste to Michael White (author). Thanx... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fischer-Life.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fischer-Life.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hbdragon88 08:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an uncropped version? The text is cut off, as if purposefully done to simply illustrate Fischer himself. Hbdragon88 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first image (the one with Time/Newsweek/Life) the best. Hbdragon88 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paganini -- first virtuoso??

Good tag. I think that "first virtuoso" assertion needs to be deleted. See my note in the discussion section. If I think of something good to replace it with, I'll do it soon. Karlhahn 03:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Method Page

Please check your work. It looks like you've left a message for the wrong person. Never added a single commercial link to any page! I think you have me mistaken for someone else. Check my edit history. Only content and improvements to the pages were added by me. Thanks for looking out for the pages, though. Keep up the good work. DutchSeduction 20:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry if my comments on Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition struck you as attacks. I particularly regret saying "The dialog will only become productive if you accept that you may not know everything and that the suggestions I'm making could be implemented here and now by anybody who wants to." I felt that you were showing testiness about my suggestions and I responded in kind, which was the wrong thing to do. --Tony Sidaway 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undone restoration

I have undone your restoration of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Outoftuneviolin. That page was deleted by a valid MFD, and the proper way to restore it if you want to would be to take it to WP:DRV. --Cyde Weys 21:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Average frustrated chump page

Hi, would you like to take a look at the new Average Frustrated Chump page, and the history and discussion? I wouldn't have made the page myself, but someone did. It had POV and OR problems, so I did a complete rewrite to try to give it some verifiable sources. Now the original author is unhappy and making blatant policy violations, like insisting on including books in the references that are neither cited in the article, nor use the term "AFC." And I don't think it deserves the NPOV tag he is slapping on it. Perhaps you can see what you think. Thanks. --SecondSight 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I spelled the page wrong: it is Average frustrated chump. It's still around, and the user I mentioned is continuing to act as if his edits are above justification. If the page goes on like that, I might support an AFD or at least not oppose one. --SecondSight 04:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Leonard H. Tower Jr.

Ryan, I believe your closing of Leonard H. Tower, Jr. as "speedy delete" was not the correct result, and appears to have been somewhat hasty (although I can see how the meatpuppet factor may have been confusing). Even if you remove all the votes by meatpuppets (those noted in parentheticals in the AfD) and count only votes by experienced editors who cited actual reasons in their posts, the count would be 6 for keep (TruthbringerToronto (3947 edits), MCB (4135 edits), lile (135 edits), GRBerry (3283 edits), Ohconfucius (3093 edits), and Capi (264 edits)) and 5 for delete (Aplhac, Samsara, ExplorerCDT, Mangojuice, and JoshuaZ).

Needless to say, that does not by any stretch of the imagination make a consensus for deletion, and the issues regarding WP:AUTO and WP:BIO notability have clearly been considered and addressed by the majority. I'd urge you to restore the article and save everyone the trouble of DRV. Thanks, --MCB 06:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me join MCB's request there: CSD A7 doesn't apply, and WP:SNOW is totally wrong when half the established users are voting for keep. What is the harm in allowing this debate to go for the full period? Mango juice^talk 03:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I was just reviewing my contributions and came here to endorse this request. (Although I will note that I commented instead of opining due to the bias that I declared.) With an even split, or slightly keep split among the established contributors, the discussion should have been allowed to run.

I also see that you have said at the talk pages of the above users that you "speedied the article not as a result of how the AFD was going, but because I would have speedied it if I had happened upon it and there had been no tags." Being a founding director of the Free Software Foundation is an assertion of notability, so it is an illegitimate speedy deletion. Are you willing to restore it, or do I need to open a deletion review? GRBerry 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard H. Tower Jr. on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Leonard H. Tower, Jr.. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Ok, since three of us have asked you, I'll open the deletion review. I add the link for your ease of use in getting there to comment. GRBerry 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Len Tower again

The process wonkism to overturn the AfD decision of Len H. Tower Jr. has been successful, and the new discussion, along with my criticism of the process now being followed, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr. (second nomination). Please note that previous votes/comments are not being taken into account. See you there. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been greatly expanded with more than a dozen sources. Your reconsideration at the 2nd AfD would be appreciated. LossIsNotMore 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIDE World Chess Championship 2006

Thanks for moving the large images. The placement floated right of the TOC is excellent. 24.177.112.146 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Corrupt Wikipedia Administrator Ryan Delaney", and other nonsense

Apparently you are yet another soulless acolyte of Richard Kyanka, as seen here. Ain't it great? DS 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mixed martial arts article improvement drive

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts is now taking suggestions for the new MMA article improvement drive! Please add your input to decide what our first collaboration should be. VegaDark 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the misandry article

Perhaps you could talk a look at the misandry article, and my proposed rewrite? The article was in even worse shape when I started my rewrite, full of POV and original research, and badly written, though it is somewhat better now. I decided to be bold and start rewriting it in my userspace. My rewrite has pretty meticulous sources, and will also have a criticism section that is currently lacking. Yet one IP editor in particular is suspicious that I am trying to "pander to a feminist POV" in rewriting the article, and makes constant insinuations about the motives of others. Maybe you could see what you think? --SecondSight 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something Awful

Hey, I noticed that you added that SA dropped Paypal after Katrina- I reverted this because SA stopped accepting Paypal long before the Katrina incident. I think this incident just made everyone at SA hate Paypal a bit more. --Wafulz 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Adding "liberation" to "Words to avoid"

I filled the proposal for Words to avoid. Please find it here. I would be thankfull for your commennts, suggestions and corrections.--AndriyK 16:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We issue indefinite blocks only when absolutely necessary, not out of frustration or desire for revenge against a user we do not like."

Was this comment directed towards me? If so, I strongly protest; the blocking had nothing to do with either of those reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what can I do better?

what can I do better? I have zero experience with wiki, and 18 years knowledge of OSINT. can you help me get it right? Robert Steele 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of Talk:Kenneth Lay

You semi-protected this talk page three days ago.[2] Is there any reason to keep the semi-protection in place, or can we open the talk page back up? --Allen3 ^talk 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zen-master as User:Hollow are the Ori violated ban

According to the comment you left on the talk page of Zen-master (talk · contribs · count) at 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC), the use of sockpuppets in contravention of his ban will result in a reset. ZenMaster did in fact violate this ban using the sockpuppet Hollow are the Ori (talk · contribs · count) around 18 May 2006. The reset would be appreciated. --Rikurzhen 08:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid to edit my RfArb.

Hello. I requested a hearing for arbitration today. It was edited by a well intentioned tidy. However the format I had originally setout was compact. The perception of the request, in my opinion, is now overbearing. This is a problem for me for several reasons. Please see my conversation with the editor who tidied it up here. I am afraid to revert it and simply don't know what to do. I will scan here for your reply but feel free to answer where you choose. Ste4k 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.236.112.190

You warned user 66.236.112.190 last year about using Wikipedia for advertising. User talk:66.236.112.190 He/she has been doing it again. Yesterday, I removed a site from the external links of Radiology that was just a commercial plug. Bejnar 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A call for help: Pelé's goal scoring

Hello Ryan, You´ve did a good job reverting (and explaning it to me) my editioralizing edits on the Virtuoso article. Now I'm seeing something even more drastical being made to the Pelé article. Pelé is considered (by many, so many) the greatest soccer player of all time. His goal score, which is somewhat controversial, is around 1200 goals. Some people and sites do question this telling that he counted goals on friendly matches and non-official matches. The problem is that, even if it´s true, the overall assumption is that his score is over 1000. His 1000 goal was scored on November 19, 1969, by 23h11min, in hist 909th match, Vasco 1 x Santos 2, with 65,157 people attending and broadcasted on television. How come a few (well meant) wikipedians make an original research and then change the accepted statistics by what they unveilled as truth? I know, they could be right. They even cite sources, but there are many other sources, including official ones, that says otherwise. I have posted on the article's discussion, even before they started compiling the scores by themselves (they did a good work, which I think has a place on a blog or homepage, or even in the specialized press, what would make it elligible for citing in wikipedia, but not for changing the overall consensus of Pelé's 1000 or so goals.). I don't know how to handle this matter without starting a revert war, so I'm calling for help from an admnistrator. If you know other administrators which are more knowledgeable of soccer, than you could handle him my call for help :-). Thanks for your attention. Loudenvier 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan, perhaps you're right to some extent. The problem is that they're using the more controversial goal scoring as source. It's really well known that Pelé scored 1000+ goals. It's also well known that many goals are disputed. The problem is that the article seems to try to enforce the view that he did not made 1000+ goals, which is really misleading. Every major media in Brazil (hi, I'm brazilian) count his goals over 1000+ (1286 or so). I thought it original research because they did a synthesis of published results on their own. Since it's wikipedia I'll allow wikipedia to heal itself if needed. Sometimes I get tired of watching over so many articles. Wikipedia already proved it watchs over itself very well. Regards and thanks for the clarification. Loudenvier 01:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal

This case has been closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F4U Corsair

Hello RD. I noticed your reversions on this article. It did not seem to me that the editor was vandalizing. Was there copyrighted material being reproduced? (You can reply here if you wish; I'll watch.) Thanks. Kablammo 23:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found where it was being taken from. Thanks. Kablammo 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misunderstanding ?

im sorry i use wikipedia often, and i repect what this web site has done for the online community. I, to my knowlege, have not edited any pages on wikipedia. If you would tell me the name of the page i editied, it would relieve a lot of confusion for me. Sorry for any inconvenience.02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)~Tiffany.

User:203.166.232.83

Hate to bother an admin directly like this, but you blocked this IP (203.166.232.83 (talk · contribs · count)) last time. For the third or fourth time, they have added a cut and paste to Michael White (author). Thanx... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fischer-Life.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fischer-Life.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hbdragon88 08:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an uncropped version? The text is cut off, as if purposefully done to simply illustrate Fischer himself. Hbdragon88 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first image (the one with Time/Newsweek/Life) the best. Hbdragon88 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paganini -- first virtuoso??

Good tag. I think that "first virtuoso" assertion needs to be deleted. See my note in the discussion section. If I think of something good to replace it with, I'll do it soon. Karlhahn 03:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Method Page

Please check your work. It looks like you've left a message for the wrong person. Never added a single commercial link to any page! I think you have me mistaken for someone else. Check my edit history. Only content and improvements to the pages were added by me. Thanks for looking out for the pages, though. Keep up the good work. DutchSeduction 20:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry if my comments on Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition struck you as attacks. I particularly regret saying "The dialog will only become productive if you accept that you may not know everything and that the suggestions I'm making could be implemented here and now by anybody who wants to." I felt that you were showing testiness about my suggestions and I responded in kind, which was the wrong thing to do. --Tony Sidaway 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undone restoration

I have undone your restoration of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Outoftuneviolin. That page was deleted by a valid MFD, and the proper way to restore it if you want to would be to take it to WP:DRV. --Cyde Weys 21:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Average frustrated chump page

Hi, would you like to take a look at the new Average Frustrated Chump page, and the history and discussion? I wouldn't have made the page myself, but someone did. It had POV and OR problems, so I did a complete rewrite to try to give it some verifiable sources. Now the original author is unhappy and making blatant policy violations, like insisting on including books in the references that are neither cited in the article, nor use the term "AFC." And I don't think it deserves the NPOV tag he is slapping on it. Perhaps you can see what you think. Thanks. --SecondSight 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I spelled the page wrong: it is Average frustrated chump. It's still around, and the user I mentioned is continuing to act as if his edits are above justification. If the page goes on like that, I might support an AFD or at least not oppose one. --SecondSight 04:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Leonard H. Tower Jr.

Ryan, I believe your closing of Leonard H. Tower, Jr. as "speedy delete" was not the correct result, and appears to have been somewhat hasty (although I can see how the meatpuppet factor may have been confusing). Even if you remove all the votes by meatpuppets (those noted in parentheticals in the AfD) and count only votes by experienced editors who cited actual reasons in their posts, the count would be 6 for keep (TruthbringerToronto (3947 edits), MCB (4135 edits), lile (135 edits), GRBerry (3283 edits), Ohconfucius (3093 edits), and Capi (264 edits)) and 5 for delete (Aplhac, Samsara, ExplorerCDT, Mangojuice, and JoshuaZ).

Needless to say, that does not by any stretch of the imagination make a consensus for deletion, and the issues regarding WP:AUTO and WP:BIO notability have clearly been considered and addressed by the majority. I'd urge you to restore the article and save everyone the trouble of DRV. Thanks, --MCB 06:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me join MCB's request there: CSD A7 doesn't apply, and WP:SNOW is totally wrong when half the established users are voting for keep. What is the harm in allowing this debate to go for the full period? Mango juice^talk 03:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I was just reviewing my contributions and came here to endorse this request. (Although I will note that I commented instead of opining due to the bias that I declared.) With an even split, or slightly keep split among the established contributors, the discussion should have been allowed to run.

I also see that you have said at the talk pages of the above users that you "speedied the article not as a result of how the AFD was going, but because I would have speedied it if I had happened upon it and there had been no tags." Being a founding director of the Free Software Foundation is an assertion of notability, so it is an illegitimate speedy deletion. Are you willing to restore it, or do I need to open a deletion review? GRBerry 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard H. Tower Jr. on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Leonard H. Tower, Jr.. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Ok, since three of us have asked you, I'll open the deletion review. I add the link for your ease of use in getting there to comment. GRBerry 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Len Tower again

The process wonkism to overturn the AfD decision of Len H. Tower Jr. has been successful, and the new discussion, along with my criticism of the process now being followed, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr. (second nomination). Please note that previous votes/comments are not being taken into account. See you there. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been greatly expanded with more than a dozen sources. Your reconsideration at the 2nd AfD would be appreciated. LossIsNotMore 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIDE World Chess Championship 2006

Thanks for moving the large images. The placement floated right of the TOC is excellent. 24.177.112.146 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Corrupt Wikipedia Administrator Ryan Delaney", and other nonsense

Apparently you are yet another soulless acolyte of Richard Kyanka, as seen here. Ain't it great? DS 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mixed martial arts article improvement drive

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts is now taking suggestions for the new MMA article improvement drive! Please add your input to decide what our first collaboration should be. VegaDark 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the misandry article

Perhaps you could talk a look at the misandry article, and my proposed rewrite? The article was in even worse shape when I started my rewrite, full of POV and original research, and badly written, though it is somewhat better now. I decided to be bold and start rewriting it in my userspace. My rewrite has pretty meticulous sources, and will also have a criticism section that is currently lacking. Yet one IP editor in particular is suspicious that I am trying to "pander to a feminist POV" in rewriting the article, and makes constant insinuations about the motives of others. Maybe you could see what you think? --SecondSight 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something Awful

Hey, I noticed that you added that SA dropped Paypal after Katrina- I reverted this because SA stopped accepting Paypal long before the Katrina incident. I think this incident just made everyone at SA hate Paypal a bit more. --Wafulz 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting comments on Talk:Race and intelligence

Do not remove comments from the discussion page especially comments that stress the importance of finding sources to support articles as my comments did. If you feel comments are off topic, you may say so. futurebird 12:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Per WP:TALK do not delete comments from a talk page, This is vandalism. It seems you are trying to supress a conversation about changes you do not agree with rather than joining that converastion. I think it would show good faith if you would put the comments that you deleted back again. I'm sorry that I misunderstood the graphic on this page. That was silly of me. Can we move forward? futurebird 19:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on Race and intelligence

Hi. Did you know that the Race and intelligence article is cascading full protection to a load of pictures and maintenance templates? If it's not so necessary, do you think you could turn the cascade off? Thanks. -- -- zzuuzz^(talk) 16:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redhouse Yacht Club

I am contacting you because I have seen your wise handling of the sensitive issues at Race & Intellegence.

There is a situation developing at Redhouse Yacht Club where the nominator for an AfD is making radical deletions of text and references from the article during the AfD discussion. To me this seems odd. I am not the original author of the project, but am working to provide better source documentation, which the nominator is removing. It seem as though he/she has an inherent bias as the nominator and should abstain from making changes without discusssion. Am I off base?

I don't think that the intent is to vandalize, but I think that this is the result.

Sincerely,

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This problem seems to have solved itself. --Kevin Murray 18:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please include edit summaries....

This is a funny diff, how did that happen? lol Just a test I presume? Mathmo ^Talk 07:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Thanks for your kind words on Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Having read a bit of wikipedia on various subjects, I'd have to say that one of its biggest problems in certain subjects is neutrality. If I can ever be of any assistance to you in restoring needed neutrality in an article, please let me know. --Lee Vonce 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R & I

I'm sorry if I've been a bit mean to you in the past. I really appreciate the fact that you read and edited the "new intro" I've proposed. I wonder if you think it could work. I'm trying to be as balanced as possible, but yes, I do have my own opinions and they might creep in to the way that I write about this topic. Right now I'm confused by what is going on on the talk page-- JK and WD seem to be trying to sort out some kind of dispute over a citation and the argument is going in circles. I want to say "please just unprotect the page now" but I envision a huge edit war and chaos if that were to happen now without most of the editors getting on the same page and, at least, listening to each other. I don't feel the JK and WD are listening to me at all-- and SLR who's trying to "mediate" seems to dislike me for some reason, since every attempt I make to help move things forward just annoys... What do you think of all of this? futurebird 21:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edit to In Flames

I recently noticed that you removed some information from the In Flames article and you stated in the edit summary that you removed "peacocking". I would just like to know what you meant by that term and why the information was removed. Thanks. --Leon Sword 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Social Dynamics and other AFDs

When more sources are available for Real Social Dynamics, someone can try recreating the article. Btw, there are AFDs on Badboy Lifestyle and Pickup 101. Do you think they are salvageable? --SecondSight 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Intelligence

I am utterly opposed to protecting it again so soon. We had weeks of attempted mediation. My fear is RIK views himself as owner of the page. I think he wants to protect it so that it is frozen in the version he likes. I am not dissing his contributions, but in mediation I saw practically no sign of his willingness to compromise or work with others. Now he has no choice. He actually has to pursuade others concerning his edits, and what's more, he has to accept the fact that others have their own concerns and interests concerning the article, and that he needs to acknowledge these and work with them. I say: give them a week or two where they have to work with one another. If it leads to a revert war, let the reverting begin. When it becomes hopeless, they can either (1) ask for mediation through the formal process, in which they will HAVE to work together and make compromise, or (2) take it to ArbCom for them to sort things out. Does this make sense? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think mediation means any kind of literal meeting in the middle, unless middle is understood metaphorically as neutral territory. I am certain page protection is useless, it does nothing to lead us to a resolution. I am not sure the problem is tyrrany of the majority, I think it has to do with issues of "ownership" of the page too. I think the parties in conflict need to take responsibility for their being in a conflict and formally request official mediation, or one of them needs, as you suggest, to take it to ArbCom. Protecting the page will mean they will never do that, they will just keep generating endless pages of uselfess talk instead. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New seduction community template

In light of the recent nomination of Template:Notable Members of The Seduction Community, I've began work on a new, broader template in my namespace (here). The intention is that it is placed at the bottom of the page. — Sasuke Sarutobi 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rybka edit?

This is not a marketing tool for rybka, the criticism section is merely stating what they have said on their website.Siegbert 06:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Siegbert[reply]

race and intelligence - explanations

All due respect, but I do not think that there is any point to protecting a page unless people also enter into mediation. One reason this article was created was as a content fork to help resolve conflicts at "race and intelligence." I agree that there are seemingly intractable conflicts among some editors but at this point I think they either need to request mediation orr go to ArbCom, I do not see how protecting a page is going to solve any of the problems. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hi. I don't understand your reason for unprotection of the February storm article. Don't one of those guidelines state that all images and articles that link from the main page should be semi-protected? I have seen that most articles linking from the main page were semi-protected. The page is currently experiencing vandalism from anons. Could you or another admin reprotect the article, or is there a reason it shouldn't be protected even during heavy vandalism that I didn't know about? Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that isn't exactly what I meant. I've included further reasons on the talk page of the user that made the original protection. I did not say I wanted it fully protected, I made the request because of vandalism, and WP:NOPRO is for featured articles. I'll check the article in my watchlist later, hopefully the problem got better. Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

METALLICA

Do you likeMETALLICA,please get back to me on this (I understand you are a METALLICAfan,I would like to ask you about a message you left on the discussion page of the black album,by METALLICA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.16.81.23 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Race and intellegence

In January you protected this article, but it was reopened to editing about a week ago. The article has been completely pulled apart and turned into an off-topic debate. I suggest that you revert it to the point where it was unprotected and resume the protection until some mediation can be accomplished.

Sincerely,

--Kevin Murray 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, thanks. Arbitration might be the only solution. I have brought that option to the talk page as an alternative, with a further request to work together. I've never seen something this big change so quickly. I know that WP is fluid and subject to change, but something seems wrong for an article to evolve so well and then melt down like this. I need to stand down from this for a day or so, as I need to regain an objective perspective. Thanks for your advice. --Kevin Murray 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Fountain

Thank you very much for the barnstar! It's nice to get some recognition for this film, though I'm hardly done with it. :) I don't believe I've exhausted all my resources (especially offline ones in the form of magazines), so I'm hoping to continue expanding with production and theme detail. The reception section, I hope to address as well, despite my lack of experience in presenting what reviewers thought of a particular film. I'm hoping to nominate it for FA status sometime in the next few months... do you have any suggestions of your own? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Samjhauta Express bombings unprotection

The Main Page protection rule says that Today's FA cannot be protected, but says others can be protected if there is heavy vandalism. As one of the writers of the article, I saw that the page was not being watchlisted by many users because it took nearly 4 hours before someone (me) noticed that half the article was missing. Due to nonsensical IP edits and the lack of people watching the article, I had to protect it temporarily (2 days). Had this been a protection to TFA, I would have protested for obvious reasons, but since it is in ITN, protection can be utilized. Nishkid 64 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paris protect

The Paris page has to be one of the most-vandalised articles in Wikipedia. Too bad that there's no way to "soft protect" it in a less visible manner - is this possible? Anhow, cleaning up all the vandalism takes the time of many a contributor - I think the article should be protected.

Thanks,

THEPROMENADER 12:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood. I guess it will be one of the banes of being French on English Wikipedia. I can't say that 'non-vandal' period wasn't bliss though : ) THEPROMENADER 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough"

"Enough" what? -- tariqabjotu 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hahaha

Stop peacocking. You don't have the muscularity for it, Nancy. Also, don't you dare go see 300. Ikilled007 16:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Asking for help against vandalism

Hi Ryan, recently we've got a disrupting user working on the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu article. He was blocked for a week for editing the article anonymously thereafter. He seems to be the creator of a few vanish articles and he seems to be using a few accounts as socket puppets. I don't know how to deal with this and since you are a counter vandal ;-) you may know how to work it out better or at least give me directions. These are the pages related to this case: User:Kbenton User:Jamesthorburn User:Kentkent Barry Ley Blaggers Andrew Mears. What can we do to prevent further damage from him? Regards Loudenvier 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you changed my edit, the phenomenal and noumenal distinctions are again reversed on the Catagorical Imperitives page.

Your redirection of the Kantianism article to Immanuel Kant

There's a category for Kantianism. There's an article for Neo-Kantianism. I would say that your two attempts at redirection of this article do not reflect consensus and thus should have been discussed on the talk page before carrying out the redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.134.110 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This was actually a post by me from a different computer.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bolonkins

Please note User talk:KillerChihuahua#Bolonkins which is also addressed to you. -- RHaworth 09:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Mystery Method

I thought it would be a OK since it's relevant to the subject (Mystery Method) and it doesn't contain any commercial links. --Newkjh 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Corporate Creations

Why was the page I'm working on deleted? Corporate Creations is a valid company as well as a Big 4 registered agent. Corporate Creations is listed on every SOS site. I do not mean to offend anyone, just trying to get our information on this site as I use it on a personal level all the time. I am an officer of the company, so there should be no "Copy Right" issues. Please advise what it is I need to change. Jimsfins4 02:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been reinstated. Please add your input as we need some more cooks. Also, Jimsfins4 has rescinded his assertion that Corporate Creations is a Big 4 agent (it isn't - lol). Anyway, for or against, please review discussion thus far and add your input. Dougieb 09:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marxian economics

I was interested in your recent edit of the Marxian economics article. I have been trying to sort out some edit warring that has been going on between some of the editors of that page.

Some background: There has been a dispute for the past six weeks or so on the TSSI page, which is now protected. The edit warring began to flare again on the Marxian economics page. My approach has been to put a talk page header on the page and then enlist the support of all editors of the article to follow those basic policies and agree to only make changes to the article by consensus. There is a "Sign-on" section and two of the main combatants along with two other editors and myself have agreed to abide by those basic groundrules. Watchdog07 has refused to agree.

Despite this, we went through one of the issues (a hoax tag that was placed on the article by Watchdog) and resolved it by consensus (Watchdog dissenting but, curiously, not disputing the result). I have been attempting to reduce the number of accusations and attacks made on the talk page and have tried to get people not to make changes to the article absent consensus. We are about to begin working through the neutrality issue. However, there has been a recent tussle over the need for civility. That has temporarily sidelined the work on the article. With some levelheaded folks lending a hand, we just might get some resolution of this matter. Your participation would be most welcome. Sunray 07:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to Sunray's version of events.

To begin with, only one of the main "combatants" signed on to the process that Sunray suggested (and that was only because if Sunray's procedure was followed then the version of the article that would be in place while we discussed the matter would be the one that "combatant" favored).

As Sunray knows - and as you can verify by examining his user talk page and block history - another party, which Sunray evidently is referring to, is actually a meatpuppet. See WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. This is not merely my evaluation - it was a determination by a member of sysops.

As I explained on the talk page, the issue of the hoax tag became moot when the reference to COPE was deleted from the article.

When he first participated in this exchange, Sunray reverted the article first and then asked me for explanations on the talk page. I did as he asked. He then reverted again and asked me to give "succinct reasons" for my placing the tags on the article. Once again, I did as he asked. From that moment onward, Sunray has not helped the dispute be resolved. Far from it!

I have explained over and again (and over and over again!) what is wrong with Kliman's edits. I especially explained repeatedly what is wrong with the "N_O_M" paragraph which used "slanderous and incendiary" expressions regarding a living person in extreme and blatant violation of WP:NPV and WP:BLP. No meaningful or coherent response from Sunray. I also addressed Sunray on his user talk page about these issues. No response.

Sunray's chronology conveniently omits mention of Andrew Kliman's editing of the David Laibman article. It is not an accident that the controversy over the Marxian economics article concerns, in part, the reference to that scholar. Kliman is a theoretical and political opponent of Laibman and he attacked the Wikipedia article on Laibman. For that reason, the article was put (temporarily) under a lock and reduced to stub by a member of sysops. Once that happened, Kliman brought his hostility to Laibman over to the article on Marxian economics. Frankly, I think that he has used Wikipedia as a venue to harass Laibman.

I want to thank you for reverting the article. You had every right to do so. It is my opinion that any fair-minded person would agree that the article needed to be reverted to increase its neutrality. Watchdog07 12:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sunray: "With some levelheaded folks lending a hand, we just might get some resolution of this matter. Your participation would be most welcome." andrew-the-k 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repentance

Ryan,

The day of the Lord is not far away.

Listen to the message of Our Lady and accept the word of God and His Holy Mother.

FannyFanny Flapps 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF kind of psycho babble BS is that? Eek! All that invisible man in the sky shite. Scary. Dougieb 21:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan's Blog

Hi Ryan,

I recently restored a source you removed from Fedor Emelianenko, which you rationalized by saying "blogs are not reliable sources." Normally this is the case, but WP:V#SELF says that self-published material is permissible when it is by a "professional researcher in a relevant field." Ivan Trembow is one of the lead writers for MMA Weekly, an editor-in-chief for IGN, and a respected journalist in the field. Additionally, most of the articles on his blog are copies of articles written at MMA Weekly, since their articles expire from public view after a while.

Some community discussion took place a while back here and a consensus was reached that Trembow's blog does qualify as a reliable source.

Please reply on my talk page if you have any concerns. Thanks! east.718 19:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Vandalism information

Hello. Thank you for your update here. Unfortunately, I meant to leave it on level 2, as I made almost 50 reverts in almost 30 minutes. Please don't change the level without changing the comments made by the previous contributor. Thank you. Yours sincerely, E ddie 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Emelianenko.png

I've already sent it to permissions-en, but included a note explaining as such to be safe. Thanks! east.718 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Women

Hello. You added a npov tag to Radical Women. The tag says "please see the discussion on the talk page", but you have not commented there. Could you please explain what you think needs to be done to the page? If you don't, I don't think having the tag is all that helpful. Thanks. Doctormatt 06:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Anand-2.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Anand-2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sicko (film)

I'm guesing you haven't seen the film? The content regarding the WHO's ranking of the American health care system features prominently in the film, is covered in dozens of sources, and is discussed extensively by reliable secondary sources in direct relation to the film. I'm surprised you would consider it "advocacy". —Viriditas | Talk 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply, you wrote, "Please confine comments about edits to this article to the relevant talk page." I asked if you had seen the film. That has nothing to do with the article talk page. I was also questioning why you would personally consider it advocacy, which again, has nothing to do with the talk page. And since there was no discussion regarding this topic on the talk page to begin with, my query on your talk page was perfectly reasonable. —Viriditas | Talk 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, and you still didn't answer my questions. No worries, I'm dropping this. —Viriditas | Talk 19:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ryan Delaney! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. ^∆ 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sicko RFC

Please weigh in on this if you have time. thanks. Ripe 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Unprod Internet suicide

Take a look at what I added to its talk. I don't think this is a non-controversial deletion. In fact, I think if you want to AfD it, I'll probably vote keep. I'm not vehement on that matter, and might be convinced otherwise. But it at least deserves an AfD discussion. LotLE×talk 03:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Kingdom of Ends

Hi, I'm looking at improving this article and saw (and agreed with) your comments there. I've left more on its talk page and am looking for a little assistance maybe. Cheers. --Kylemew 10:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please tell me what you object to on my Sicko edits

I have been editing W pages for years, there are more blatantly bullshit entries in articles than you can shake a stick at. I'd like to know what you object to in my edits. -- Jeff jmathias or jmathias1216 not sure which

Since you are making improvements to Sicko, may I ask, does Jim Kenefick's personal opinion and response to the film belong in the Synopsis section? I wouldn't have thought it notable. And on the same subject, Moore's gesture was a very, very short part of the film, yet it takes up 146 words. Might it be trimmed down a fraction more? smb 22:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

OOIDA

Just Curious as to what the issue was with the page. I know at first, I was using their about page from their website to add in here, and realized you all dont like that and plus why put a lot of redudant info in here. Anyways I got rid of that last time I logged out, and left only a small ammount of info in the page so i could get more accurate info of my own doing.

When I left though i didnt leave anything that might be concidered vandalism, seen less details on other pages and plus obviously it wasn't finished and it is a legitamate organization like PETA or any other group you come up with.

Lazoris 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

SubstBot

Hello Ryan Delaney. I was just wondering what happened to SubstBot; it's userpage was created back in 2005 but it never has been approved and running. Happy editing, ♠TomasBat 16:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Theodicy

You've added a merge tag to Theodicy, but the "discuss" link doesn't lead to any discussion of the idea newer than 2005. If you think it's a good idea, shouldn't your reasons be on the talk page? .. dave souza, talk 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Anand annotated games

Hi there Ryan

I have taken time to annotate the four decisive wins which enabled Anand to be now Chess world Champion - these games were played in the last few weeks.

What exactly is your issue of free multimedia annotated games done by an Internationally rated player of these crucial games to be in the External links section of the Anand page?! Is this really such a big crime in terms of advertising - they are freely available for anyone to see the videos in their entirety on Youtube.com.

One of my videos has become a sticky-note for the Rest of world consultation game at Chessgames.com - which is heavily used within Wiki chess player pages. If Chessgames.com thinks my video annotations are good, then what is your problem?

Frankly as an Internationally rated player, I resent your removal of my work from Wiki.

Best wishes Tryfon Gavriel Fide 2170

Kingscrusher 12:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Mystery Method

Please find the references *before* restoring. This type of assertion needs such referencing in order for it to be put into proper context anyway. -- SiobhanHansa 13:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. I've made the comment on the talk page - hopefully that will also bring it to the attention of other editors who might be able to source the claims. -- SiobhanHansa 21:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Edits

Dear Ryan. To avoid controversy, several readers requested that the sprawling Bible article be divided fairly into articles for the various bibles of the world. The Christian Bible did not have any independent article, though the Tanakh already had its own article. Without losing any information, an already-existing (redundant) disambiguation page (Bible (disambiguation)) was pointed to separate articles for the various bibles. This edit was high-quality, conforming to all of Wikipedia's standards. Without discussion, the administrator Shirahadasha‎, reverted this refinement for no given reason, possibly a bias for his religion of Judaism, redirecting the Christian Bible article to the general Bible article, effectively deleting several high-quality additions to the Christian Bible article. The general Bible article does not adequately treat the Christian Bible until its second half, focusing its first half primarily on the Tanakh and Jewish interpretations of it. I noticed that you are an administrator with some interest in Christianity. Please assist with this refinement so that everyone can edit the article of the Bible of their interest, instead of struggling through a long, sprawling, biased article about the Bibles of select religions in order to find the topic of interest. There will be endless controversy with inevitably biased results until each Bible is allowed to have its own article. Deleting and redirecting articles for the various bibles, without comment, surely violates Wikipedia's policies. For an administrator to delete the new article on the Christian Bible and redirect it to a long sprawling general article for no reason other than personal point-of-view is an abuse of power as an administrator. Shirahadasha‎ has also locked the general Bible article after reverting all of my edits, even simple edits such as alphabetization. It would not be good to lose my high-quality edits and to waste my work implementing requested changes because of an administrator abusing power. Please help by editing this article to allow high-quality requested improvements, or refer me to the proper channels by which I can address this abuse of power. How does one become an administrator? Luqman Skye 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Global Warming

I noted with interest your removal of the phrase "described by some as climate change denial" from Global Warming, which has been there for some time. Your edit summary for your edit goes "snip weasel words," even though they weren't exactly weasel words per se. Would you care to explain your reasoning here or, preferably, on Talk:Global_warming? -BC aka Callmebc 15:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

'The Game"

Hi, I see you have fully protected the article about Neil Strauss' book. Wouldn't it have been a better idea to have gone for semi-protection instead? (if protection is even needed... ? Perhaps) As from looking over the history of the page it appears the edit war was with a random IP. Thus semi-protection would have stopped the edit war while allowing established editors to continue on working with the article. Thanks. Mathmo ^Talk 08:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Would you consider semi-protecting this article again?~~ The anonymous editor will not quit with the spam and vandalism. I'm trying to get the link blacklisted, but I don't know when an admin there will get around to adding it. I made a request over at WP:RFP the other day for semi-protection, but the admin only protected it for one day. Since you're more familiar with how long this has been going on, perhaps you'd consider a longer period until the blacklist discussion gets settled. Thanks. dissolve ^talk 05:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been blacklisted by AntiSpamBot, so no need for protection. I'm going to take this article off my watchlist, between the spam and trying to deal with the people over at WP:RFP, this has been nothing but a headache. Best wishes. dissolve ^talk 21:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R&I – a new approach

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Atypic

Please stop making Atypic point at Aim (musician). Although they both have the same name, Andrew Turner, they are different people. --Dala0 8:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Prod

Friendly fyi: Orion4 is blocked as being a sockpuppet of Sm565, so it's doubtful that he'd be able to contest the prod even if he disagreed with it. Ante lan ^talk 02:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Philosopher8

Hi Ryan. Good shout on dealing with Philosopher8 over at Talk:Garry Kasparov. I was a little hesitant given previous dealings with him/her (and possibly just made things worse). I reckon the best bet is to just ignore them. They seem to just want to draw people into going-nowhere discussions on talk pages - after a short flurry of edits to the article on the pseudoscientist Richard C. Hoagland they switched to extended ranting/rambling meanders on the talk page there. They also seem completely impervious to directions to bone up on policy or guidelines (then again, they clearly know The Truth). Anyway, I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you've not already worked out! Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

prod2 tags

Just a heads-up, the prod2 tag shouldn't be substituted. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Notability and Deletion

Hello Ryan Delaney!

I noticed some comments you made in a few AfD debates, and wanted to ask a question. You seem to have been at this a lot longer than I have, and want to make sure I am not missing anything.

You stated in a few arguments "Notability is not a deletion criterion."

As I understand WP:N notability is a deletion criterion. I am quoting from the opening of the statement defining notability: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article"

Am I misunderstanding something about this? If so, please feel free to reply on my Talk Page. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm aware of the guideline. I disagree with it, so I ignore it. I realize that's a bit snobby, but there it is. Eventually, since I anticipate getting more queries like yours, I'll probably write my own thoughts about this in an essay to point people to a more clear explanation of my thoughts on the matter. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, looks like someone went and did it for me. Check out Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Arguments_against_deleting_articles_for_non-notability. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please take this to an essay or something. Your frequent and blatant lies on this matter are nothing but disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. If you have an issue with the policy, take it there, don't make bold-faced lies about it in project space, and don't simply violate the rule because you disagree with it. Thank you. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than a little harsh (Oni Ookami Alfador's comment) - no need to be so mean or use the L word. But I do agree, if you know you're arguing from a position that runs against current policy or guidelines you should make that clear, or at least don't say it so emphatically that people think you're saying what (you think) the current rule is. We have a number of people promoting their own essays and opinions in AfD. That's fine, we just ought to know where it's coming from. Wikidemo (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The purpose of my comments/votes/whatever you want to call them is that I don't think it's right to delete anything based on it's notability, but instead only on its verifiability. Since the notability guideline is there to explain the current convention, I don't feel obligated to follow convention. It might be better if I said something less bland, but I'm not sure what the proper wording would be to quickly express my views. I'll try some other ways of saying it in future AFDs to see if they result in fewer confused responses. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do to change it from being a deliberate mistruth to a rational is replace the phrase "is not" with "should not be." In doing that you get across your message that you don't think it should be a criteria for deletion, and as a result you think it should not be deleted (or at least not for that reason depending on what your actual input is). It would work to your benefit as people might actually listen to your side of the debate, wheras its pretty clear most users are thrown off by the statement and it seems to ruin your credibility with them regarding anything else you would have to say. I do still feel however, and diliberately arguing against a rule every time someone attempts to impliment it is just a case of WP:POINT and that you should really be taking your case to the WP:N page or the deletion page itself.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 02:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your objections, and I'll take them into consideration. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Singh