User talk:Ryorye

AMA request

AMA request

On the Chaguanas article, I have added a list of Famous people from Chaguanas and included in that list several notable musicians according to WP:MUSIC. Two users, myself and another share different views which we both have stated and unfortunately we still cannot agree. I understand this sort of thing can happen between two editers and I kindly ask for mediation. Thank You. --Ryorye 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you claiming "abuse of admin privileges" when no admin powere were used?
You are misrepresenting the facts - you are continually adding irrelevant material, despite the fact that it has been clearly explained to you why this trivia is unsuitable for the article. Guettarda 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider relevant or irrelevant is clearly your opinion. --Ryorye 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly explained to you what the problem with your trivia additions are. Yet you ignore my explanations. I have tried my best to explain things to you. And yet you persist with your false allegations like those here. Please stop making false allegations about me. Guettarda 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your request. --Ryorye 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ryorye, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties. I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 02:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You AMA Request

Hi. I've accepted your request for assistance. Before I begin, it would be useful to have a link to the RfC, so that we know where we stand. --David Mestel^(Talk) 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a little unclear. Has there already been an RfC on this page? --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC, I requested it but only recently realised it was removed and substituted with a third party's response which I thought was the completion of the RFC. See Talk:Chaguanas.--Ryorye 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. I'll start work either tonight or tomorrow morning. --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Guettarda 21:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure that you are aware of the policy. Guettarda 02:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me of the rule. I guess it doesn't count for you seeing that you only reverted twice. --Ryorye 23:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair Administrator

You, KillerChihuahua reverted the warning by Guettarda on my talk page. However, that warning was a very malicious attempt to scare me from editing on Wikpedia seeing the Chaguanas conflict (see Talk:Chaguanas. It is clear from that article's history, he has reverted as frequently as I did, but he, being an administrator and someone very familiar with the rules, conviently set me up for that warning. I consider these very unfair provocations, and a hideous tactic to get his own way. I would like to formally contest that warning. May you review this for me please. Thank you. --Ryorye 21:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posted from User talk:KillerChihuahua

As you reverted several times, he very politely, and I should add, responsibly gave you the information about 3RRs with a standard {{3RR}} template. This is not malicious, this is information which you can use to ensure you follow the rules at Wikipedia. He did not "set you up", he informed. Please calm down and try to look at this from another point of view. If there is any part of this you still do not understand, or feel was unfriendly, please explain and I will try to clear things up for you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comments

I have no idea what you are talking about. I advised you to file an RFC, but you did nothing of the sort. I asked for input from Grutness and Tony, and I followed Grutness's suggestion. You asked for an advocate to argue on your behalf, but I have not heard anything from this individual. Guettarda 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the advocate issue. But the rest of your comment I find incomprehensible. Guettarda 04:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hrs due to 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 21:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONTROVERSIAL BLOCKS

Blocks that may be controversial are:

blocks of suspected "sock puppets" or "reincarnations" of banned users
Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.

I was already warned about the ignorant violation of the WP:3RR rule and have not violated after being informed about it.

While blocking IP addresses responsible for anonymous, clear-cut vandalism is routine, many other uses of IP and username blocks are contentious. Where consensus proves elusive, such blocks are damaging to the community.

Just reminding you of Wikipedia policy, Thank You. Ryorye 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3rr violation is clearly documented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ryorye_reported_by_User:Guettarda_.28Result:_24_hrs.29. Four reverts in 18 hours violates the 3rr. Guettarda 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close call for "Old Editor"

fact: Guettarda reverted Chaguanas four times in 27 hours.

*1st revert: 21:15, 22 July 2006 Guettarda (Talk | contribs) (rv trivia) *2nd revert: 04:06, 23 July 2006 Guettarda (Talk | contribs) (rv trivia) *3rd revert: 06:41, 23 July 2006 Guettarda (Talk | contribs) (rv trivia) *4th revert: 23:45, 23 July 2006 Guettarda (Talk | contribs) (rv trivia)

fact: Four reverts in 26 hours 30 minutes.
fact: 2 hours and 30 minutes clear of a 24 hour block.

This information courtesy Ryorye 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? It wouldn't be necessary if you weren't out to degrade the quality of the article. Guettarda 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think I was out to degrade the article. No, I was out to upgrade the article. I care about the Chaguanas article, hence I inserted my contribution. What you did was deny the upgrade.

I see a solution coming soon. At least one can only hope. Ryorye 03:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unencyclopaedic trivia, seeking to unbalance an article, adding duplicate sections, adding oneself to an article...all of these are degrade the article. Much like your editing on other articles.

There's a simple solution - you can start following the rules. Guettarda 14:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules/Policy

Assume good faith

Assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

It wouldn't be necessary if you weren't out to degrade the quality of the article.-Guettarda 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing policy

Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid deleting information wherever possible.

By leaving others out of the list you are implying that they are not notable.-Guettarda 16:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

NO, Wikipedia policy cleary states don't worry about leaving them (the list) imperfect. Aslo, may you follow policy and avoid deleting information wherever possible.

Comment on content, not on the contributor

Ownership of articles

You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them.

The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

Four reverts in 24 hours.

Hmmm? Who seems to be breaking all the rules or policies here? How many of these rules or policies have you violated?

Information courtesy: Ryorye 16:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many rules and policies have I violated? None, as far as I know. It's really nice of you to cherry pick things out of context. There's a little difference between "not leaving a page perfect" and not adding "ROMALA GARAI, WILL YOU MARRY ME?! I Love you babe, Rye." to an article. Sure, one should assume good faith - up until the point where a person has proven that they are not acting in good faith. You have shown that. You have said that you don't care about article quality. In addition, WP:OWN does not mean that you should allow junk to degrade an article.

As for edit-warring - I admit, that's a bad thing. That said, it doesn't mean that you should be allowed to vandalise articles, and it doesn't mean that you should be allowed to insert unencyclopaedic trivia into an article where you have said that you don't care about article quality. Someone who vandalises articles and ignores rules, and then lies about having broken them (when the evidence is there for everyone to see) really shouldn't try to claim the moral high ground. It's hilarious.

More vandalism [1], [2]

Guettarda 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second post

IMPORTANT

Please stick to the issue at hand. i.e. Chaguanas, in the event you skew off topic (which you are currently doing).

(1)"You have said that you don't care about article quality..." & (2)"...where you have said that you don't care about article quality." - Guettarda 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(False claims posted on July 24th 2006)

Why don't you use quotes for your claims/accusations?

"...and then lies about having broken them (when the evidence is there for everyone to see)..." -Guettarda 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the 3rr rule, I mis-understood it, I thought 3 reverts in 1 day, and from the records, it was 2 reverts on that day (just like you). However, I failed to realise the rule was 3 reverts in 24 hours (as opposed to on the day, eg July 22nd 2006). Hence, it was an honest mistake and not a "LIE" .

WP:OWN does not mean that you should allow junk to degrade an article. -Guettarda 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Refrain from calling it junk just because it does not suit your agenda.

I also agree that your edit warring is harmful for the article, and the encyclopedia.

I do not believe that this is tackling the issue at hand, this debate is slowly skewing from content to contributor which I believe will not resolve the issue at hand.

I have been blocked by the user who reported me (User:Guettarda) denying me my right to debate fairly on the Talk:Chaguanas page. I refuse to continue 'ongoing battles' on my talk page and I urge all editors concerned with the upgrade of the Chaguanas article to continue their plea in the appropriate place.

Thank You, Ryorye 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: You were blocked by El_C, not Guettarda. [3] KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I have been blocked by the user who reported me (User:Guettarda)..." -Ryorye 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It claerly states that I said "BY THE USER WHO REPORTED ME" and not by WHO BLOCKED ME.

Lets have a read at this line now,:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ryorye_reported_by_User:Guettarda_.28Result:_24_hrs.29

Who did they say REPORTED ME? That's right, thought so.

Try not to choose sides next time based on affilliates on your Radical Environmentalism articles. Its not good, nor is it healthy.

Thanks, Ryorye 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page, where this post was cross-posted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

The reason why I stopped work on your case was that Guettarda had gone on Wikibreak, and I assumed that since the current version of the article contained KMC in its list of prominent people, it was acceptable to you pro tem. If that is not the case, I will be happy to continue discussions. --David Mestel^(Talk) 11:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Asher pro tem, since Guettarda is no longer engaged in discussion. I will, however, keep your case open in case he returns. --David Mestel^(Talk) 07:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Marlon asher-3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Marlon asher-3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]