User talk:Ryanjunk
oubliette
[edit]~Oh please excuse me then. I thought this site would be based on truth and facts. I had no idea it should be based on another persons feelings instead... You’d think a sentence with truth in it wouldn’t need an argument ten times it’s size about whether it should exist or not.
FNORD
[edit]Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for being an avowed Discordian Wikipedian! Keep it up!24.176.20.60 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Re:Earthdawn
[edit]Being a fan of the game, I am happy to see somebody working on it :) Btw, why do you blank your talk page?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I blanked out the welcome message from my talk page, just seemed silly to keep it around. No messages since then apart from yours. Oh, one brief suggestion about tagging my vandalism reverts properly also. I read since then it's not considered good to do that, but I think it's no great harm for what was on it. Ryanjunk 21:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
DRV
[edit]Please stop disrupting DRV. I've closed and archived a debate and there is no need to resurrect a debate that has already gone on for too long. This is your only warning. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is not your unilateral decision as to when debate has "gone on for too long". What is this my "only warning" toward? Ryanjunk 19:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is now on the talk page where it belongs. The "Global notices" section is, not surprisingly, for notices, not for discussion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
popups?
[edit]I see you reverting changes at Middle East, and using a comment about popups. While you are certainly reverting vandalism, I don't see how it relates to popups... am I missing something? -Harmil 19:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I guess my question was: how did your edit comment about this JavaScript tool relate to your edit (which was a reversion of vandalism)? -Harmil 19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Stubs
[edit]Thanks for the reminder. However, using specific stubs usually is my practice, but the article literally no indication of what it weas at all. It could be a road, team or building for all the article stated (which it said founded, so figured it wasnt living). I considered nominating it for deletion, but tried to give it a chance.--Esprit15d 16:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You nominated this article for speedy deletion with the reason "Dictdef". However, "Dictdef" is not currently a criterion for speedy deletion on Wikipedia, so I have removed the tag.
You may use any of the following tags if you prefer:
- {{move to Wiktionary}} if you feel that expansion to an encyclopedia article is impossible
- {{afd}} if you feel that the article should be deleted
Thanks for helping clear up Wikipedia! Stifle 17:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Stubs
[edit]- Hello, Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can. Thanks! Ryanjunk 16:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I quickly review many articles and stub them if needed - preferring to leave a polish of the stub type to someone with more time/interest in this type of house work. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 12:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
FORscene
[edit]I believe that some time ago you nominated my article on FORscene for deletion for various reasons, one of which was a claim of non-notability. Following discussions with a number of people on WP, the consensus is that, although the article didn't make it clear, FORscene is notable. Now I have been on Wikipedia a bit longer, I have also come across the relevant WP guidelines: WP:CORP is the existing guideline and WP:SOFTWARE is the proposed guideline. As FORscene verifiably meets both these guidelines, would you consider amending your position on notability of FORscene? Alternatively, please could you explain the basis of your assertion. Stephen B Streater 20:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
???
[edit]Hi this is Louisvillian and there is currently an Edit War on the Southern U.S. page between myself and user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.168.88.158 or Gator (his login name and I noticed you've already warned him of is highly opinionated edits)and if I'm not mistaken you are an admin and I was hoping to put an end to this. This war is involving the Cultural variations section about Kentucky. It's basically about is Kentucky more Southern or Midwestern and what not, and me knowing opinions mean nothing on this site provided a few sources to back what I put into the Article here is my Edit
Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while the vast majority of Kentuckians (79%) consider themselves and their state to be Southern, a considerable amount of Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, most of whom who are opposed to the term Southern opt for the term Midwestern.[1] [1] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville [2]. Louisville is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character.
Here is his edits
Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that many Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South or consider themselves to be "Southern", opting instead for the term "Midwestern" or more neutral regional labels. [2] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is highly Southern when compared to most of the Midwest, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville. Louisville, viewed as a Midwestern city in some analyses of the region [3], is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character.
The other user is having alot of problems at the part where it states that the vast majority of Kentuckians identify with the South (which was cited with The Southern Focus Study). He just wants it to say that Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, without mention of the source that I've provided. This stems from a debate as to which of our sources is more reliable, My Southern Focus Study which has been conducted for the past decade and is still running, or his pre 1990's study that was conducted for only one year. So I tried to incorperate both of our sources (which you can see in my edit above), But he is using his opinion to counter this source. There is also a problem at the part where it claims that Northern Ky is more Midwestern than Southern (as it was not cited) so I cited it with a map created by this nation most reknwon georgrapher DW Meining's. The problem he has with this is that it proves that Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern (which is against his opinion). He continues to edit the Southern Indiana claim without touching the Northern Kentucky claim, which are cited by the same moer than credible source. I've lately tried to compromise with him on the edits, however he continues to take out my more than qualified ( much more so than the little sources he has provdided to support his opinion which is in the minority might I add) and preferred (by the concensus on this current and old Southern talk page) sources, without cause/ his opinion.
Now he is also making a claim that Louisville is considerd a Midwestern city, and attempted to cite it with a JSTOR, that's fine, But what he claimed was not in the Exert from the JSTOR to prove Louisville was a Midwestern city is not in there at all. It doesn't even mention the state of Kentucky on the JSTOR. If you aren't too busy can please take time to resolve this matter, if you can please send me a message on my page Louisvillian 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Agility
[edit]You tagged the Agility page for deletion while I was in the process of editing it and adding sources. Agility is a globally recognized company, and is in fact a company providing much of the military logistics for the US Armed Forces.
Allibreton 20:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you help me out? I'm new to this thing and I really want to subscribe to standards.
Allibreton 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Grammar
[edit]Rather than clutter WP:AN/I I thought that it was better to talk here, if that's OK. "Out" can often be used as an adverb, but:
- out
- prep.
- out of (looked out the window).
("out adv., prep., n., adj., int., & v." The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press, 1999. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University. 16 March 2007 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t21.e21611>)
"Eat out" is surely elliptical for "eat out of one's house".
"Stretch out" is a phrasal verb, which is normally defined as a combined verb and preposition — but I'm less confident of that one. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow
[edit]Hey Ryanjunk. I'd just like to congradulate you on beating me to 19 vandalised articles (including Jim Henson, which was just vandalised) Ryan Got something to say? 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
This message is due to the speedy deletion of the "Peter Glickman" page as spam.
Since the Master Cleanse is a valid topic and its developer, Stanley Burroughs, has a page, I thought it would be an acceptible addition because I am listed as the author of a book on the Master Cleanse page, am credited by a reliable and verifiable source as popularizing the Master Cleanse again (along with Beyonce--although there is no comparison between her and I as to popularity) and have an existing link on the Master Cleanse page that was put there by someone else some time ago and the page is empty, waiting for data.
As for importance, my book or I have been mentioned in or on the NY Times (Dec 10, 2006), London Times (Jan 24, 2006), NY Daily News (Aug. 17, 2006), Geraldo's web blog (Jan. 3, 2007), NBC Today Show (Dec. 2006), Us Weekly magazine (Jan. 2007) and CBS News (Feb. 2007). In addition, my book has been on the Amazon.com Alternative Medicine bestseller list for 2 years and is on the shelves and available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, Waldenbooks and hundreds of health food stores. In addition, the book is currently also published in Hungary and the foreign rights have been sold to India, Russia, the Czech Republic, and Turkey.
In an effort to save time and keep the Peter Glickman page verifiable, I simply included the book and CD I wrote and my webpage as those were the items on another author's wiki-page. I am not and was not seeking to promote my website. I did not link my commercial site with products (therawfoodsite.com), but instead linked my straightforward biography site (peterglickman.com).
Would the page be more acceptible if I added all the above? The problem with some of it is that many of the media pages are no longer available and the Amazon bestsellers are dynamic, so there is no way to see how long it's been on the list.
Please reply to my wikipeter55 talk page. Thank you.
Editor review
[edit]I reviewed you over at editor review. Due to the backlog, I regret your request was not responded to in a timely manner. --wpktsfs (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Deplorable
[edit]Deplorable is a synonym for aweful, and an antonym for excellent. I felt that you were being overly aggressive with the other editor, cutting him off at nearly every thing he said, using nothing more than really your own opinion. You don't like the Washington Post? I have never read it, and apparently Rush Limbaugh doesn't like it either, but if someone wants to quote it, it is a published source. To say that it's not a fair representation of how this case has been perceived by the masses...well, that's what newspapers are. They represent the masses. If it was in a newspaper article, and I heard it on the radio, and it gets 2,400 hits, then it's out there enough to be in the article. It sounded like you were against its inclusion at all, or you wouldn't have knocked the source, but rather just it's manner of placement within the article. You were summarily taking charge of the argument on the talk page, rather than allowing a give and take. It was as if you were on the offense, and he was on the defense. Now, your debating methods might be stronger, and that is laudable, but if your premise is incorrect (in that he has to find something better than the WP), then your argument loses its credibility prior to it even being judged on its style. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- And now I ask that you review your behavior. To assume good faith means to approach each edit and its editor as though they are presented with good intentions, even if they are or appear not that way. I did nothing to assume bad faith -- I simply perceived your tone as overly aggressive and suggested a calmer approach, assuming that you were acting inappropriately, albeit with good intentions. I have done the same many times before as well -- in the heat of an argument, it is difficult to look at things objectively. That's what 3rd opinions are for, and that's all that I did, and I justify my opinions and edits thusly. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is being blown out of proportion and is beyond reasonable. My recommendations as a 3rd party opinion are quite separate from my personal views expressed on you editorial review page, and they are not meant to reflect the same purpose. My translation of the word 'deplorable' was not to insult your intelligence, but rather to emphasize its usage in a less severe manner than perhaps it came across, and my strikeout was to indicate that, subsequently, I realized that such a word is often used only with said level of severity, even though it does possess the other words, seen as milder, as synonyms. My purpose was two fold -- one to help out in the dispute, suggesting that you were being too aggressive in defending your position. I was not suggesting that you were holding a position near to Rush Limbaugh, whose outlook I happen to admire. I was merely giving you some feedback on how your stance was perceived by a third party, namely me. On your editorial review, I intended to give you some feedback as to how this might not be an argument that you would like highlighted (and in fact, you made no mention of it in that page) as to how you interacted with your co-editor. Let's put this to rest now. I apologize for the hateful words I used when meaning to use words of lesser severity. I apologize for coming off too strong against what I considered you coming off to strong against your co-editor. I apologize for insulting you in any way that I do not perceive, and I hope we both continue on, whether we meet again or not, to edit wikipedia into a better product. Good weekend. :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Your Editor review
[edit]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hi, Ryanjunk. I've just finished my response on your Editor Review. Sorry for the long wait, you've been very patient. If your thinking of going further, you should check out:
Which are both excellent resources. Keep up the good work, Dfrg.msc 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
1The box is taken directly off the The Virtual classroom page.
As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)