|
User talk:Ryan Vesey/Archive 5
Miners
Please see discussion on article talk. Rough translation reads: Charles Kamau was born in Keyna, specifically in Kitui province of the 1994th He spent the first four years of life with her grandparents in Nairobi, where he grandfather worked as a postmaster. The grandmother has therefore emerged as the main educator of Charles in the first year of life. It is quite normal in many places in Keyna that a large part of the education takes place gos grandparents. Family relations are quite different than here in Denmark. Then retrieves his then Danish married mother Charles and elder brother to Denmark, where it proved very difficult for the mother to take care of the boys. After a insitutionsophold Charles becomes so as a 7-year-old, at his own request, contained in private pjele with a Danish family. He has been so since - so far now to his 17 years. I think this qualifies for A7. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
CoordinatorsTheoretically, the elections were intended to take place on a regular basis, based on the much more impressive results at WP:MILHIST in the same area. I would have no particular objections to that continuing. The only reason they really weren't is because of the lack of interest of others in running or acting. Probably the most significant problem for such coordinators in Christianity related content is the almost impossible breadth of material, and the frequency that articles are related to only one or a few separate groups within the larger Christian tradition. Ideally, I personally would like to see there be individual coordinators for each of the major subtopics, maybe including the bigger extant groups and maybe Christian history and specifically early Christianity as well, with one individual serving as, more or less, "first among equals" as lead coordinator. Ideally, that is. Finding the people to fill those posts has been the problem in the past. If it were done, however, I tend to think that my own personal skills, such as they are, might be best used in the article review, maybe copyediting, and again maybe dealing with verification and weight related issues, as I have access to a lot of really good libraries. Considering one of those schools is a Catholic one, if I were to be an assistant, I think I might be best in either theology, history, or Catholicism. I would welcome seeing you "take over" as lead coordinator, if you believe you would have the time and energy to do so effectively. If you could, I think, at this point, maybe trying to find active editors who might be willing to take on the "lower" coordinator positions might be a particularly useful thing to do. Unfortunately, if those prove to be difficult or impossible to find, the amount of work involved might be too much for any individual. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
kudos
Adrian von MynsichtHello Ryan, I've removed the translation tag you put on this article. There is nothing to translate in the main article body and the rest are all titles of publications in either German or Latin. If you'd like to have a specific phrase translated please use {{translate-inline}} directly inside the text for an inline tag. Regards, De728631 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify's open positionsHello Ryan! On behalf of WikiProject Wikify, I would like to invite you to be the first Administrative Officer! The main role of the position would be working with our outreach area, such as spreading the word about the project and posting notices on the various announcement boards. If you would like to help fill this position please let me know.(I've got your talkpage watchlisted) Sumsum2010·T·C 00:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 Here's your badge! That should be alright, we've got a few people that can help out if you become too busy. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Blue sky thinking award
A barnstar for you!
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. "Hi"All I ask is that others here leave me alone, please! For some time now, I've only been signing in to see if someone has contacted me, or to do some very occasional editing work. I think I began editing "Wikipedia" in '07. But, I do very little of it anymore, because of the multiplicity of a-hole, "know-it-all" editors on this site. One of the strengths of this site is that anyone can be an "editor" here. One of the downfalls of this site is that anyone can be an "editor" here. And, I've had it up to my eyeballs with raging, control-freak editors, or, with "geniuses" who don't know about a given subject I'm writing about, but, then, who try to tell me what and how to write the article. And, then later, I've found that what I've put down on the site is changed, deleted, etc. While I'm mad about it all, I also don't want to waste my energy in a protracted virtual argument/disagreement/discussion among me, the other person and an administrator. I don't want to do it. Plus, I'm a college-trained writer, with an undergrad degree. Everyone across the country who wants to write for career is trained one way in an accredited college, in AP style. So, another reason I've decided to walk away from "Wikipedia" is that for some odd reason this site has its' own writing style, which I'm not about to learn and later be conflicted about the correct way to write when I'm writing professionally (Why "Wikipedia" has to create a new writing style is just bizarre.). Thus, having said what I've said, I'm not interested in anything anyone has to say to me at this site, even though I go look to see if people have contacted me. But, that's because I once was much more active on this site. And, lastly, you have a lot of nerve putting any kind of picture on my talk page, if you did that. Don't do that again! Now,.... Have a wonderful day. P.S. I just came back from your user page where you list your schedule. But, you'd better change the wording concerning that, fast, before somebody virtually "beans" you for not using the "Wikipedia" writing style. You said the times on your schedule are based on the CTZ. No, no, no. You can't say it that way. You're on "Wikipedia." you have to use UTC on "Wikipedia." And, since you're in the North America's Central Time Zone, you'll have to say, "UTC-5," during Daylight-Savings Time, or, "UTC-6" during the rest of the year. Canihaveacookie (talk) 22:59 (UTC-5), June 19, 2011
New money boys clubHi there you recent catalysed the deletion of a page that i create afew hours ago? im wonder what exactly was wrong with it - im new to wiki - but still think the content on the page was informative and deserved to be on the site. . However i am total open to criticism, and i would very much like the page to be userficated? and email back to me if possible - i thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporatedestiny (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Duplicate AfDI created an AfD for Edultery but you got there first. I was wondering how to remove the duplicate AfD as there is obviously no need for two. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Smashball (Sport)Hello Ryan Vesey. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Smashball (Sport), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 doesn't apply to sports; PROD or AFD if you wish. Thank you. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 15:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Duplicate AfDI created an AfD for Edultery but you got there first. I was wondering how to remove the duplicate AfD as there is obviously no need for two. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Smashball (Sport)Hello Ryan Vesey. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Smashball (Sport), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 doesn't apply to sports; PROD or AFD if you wish. Thank you. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 15:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
barnstarFirst barnstar! Thank you very much! Totally made the rest of my week! A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
AWBHowdy Ryan, I've just reviewed a sample of your AWB edits and I'm satisfied that you've not and are not likely to abuse the tool; so, in short, you can keep using it. Discussion at ANIHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding It doesn't appear that the block is warranted. The thread is Block of User:Since 10.28.2010.The discussion is about the topic User:Since 10.28.2010. Thank you. —Mlpearc powwow 17:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC) When citations are in another articleA claim made in Natural language has no citation in the article Natural language, but it links to the article about the claim itself (A language is a dialect with an army and a navy), which has five citations. What's the best way to indicate in the article Natural language that citations verifying the claim may be found in A language is a dialect with an army and a navy? Or does verifiability require that an article be verifiable in isolation, that is, it must remain verifiable even if all other articles on Wikipedia were to be deleted? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for nothing. A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 23:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thanks for helpingI think you know.--SPhilbrickT 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
signI would just like to drop a friendly line that I have changed my username. I believe that you were requesting that I change my username. Thank you. An editor since 10.28.2010. 02:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Advice on edits for Menthol CigaretteHey Ryan, I'm not sure if you've watch-listed that talk page, but I've responded to your remarks - would you mind taking a look? Thanks a ton! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloccoli (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Speedy deletion contested: Extension nippleHello Ryan Vesey, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Extension nipple, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not an advertisement. I will retag is as A3. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. --Σ talkcontribs 05:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Nelson QuanNelson quan AFD should be withdrawn so the article can be redirected to Nelson Quan. New editor created two articles by mistake, and Nelson Quan has a little more meat on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Administrators' noticeboardYou just may be interested to read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Asher Heimermann, as it has some similarities to another case that you have an interest in. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Merge discussion for Christianity - A Journey from Facts to Fiction
The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Commitment to real-life identityHi Ryan. The commitment scheme used on wikipedia is pretty well explained at the template - {{User committed identity}} - but basically, you think up a phrase that you will be able to recall, but other people would not guess, put it through a "hash", which is a 1 way encoding. (IE it's not possible to work out what the original text was from the output). And that's what you commit. If your account is ever hacked, you can confirm you are back in control of it by proving you are real by giving up the phrase that matches the hash output. WormTT · (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
tbYou can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Just look for my signature. An editor since 10.28.2010. 01:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC) helloHi. I am notifying all users in the section that I am deleting this unless you object or dispute it by 06:00 GMT/UTC. I have noticed you “HATE” it when I delete sections, so I am notifying you, if you are still in the discussion. It has been a full week since any comment but mine and it takes up space. Thank you. An editor since 10.28.2010. 05:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC) hello, again
Thank you again for the barnstar. An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC) My RFA and 3RR questionHi, I didn't really want to badger you on my RFA, but seeing that you moved to neutral made me pause. While the community would likely accept a 3RR violation block, if I had previously been involved in a sharp dispute with the user, it would almost certainly appear to him to be my method of "getting even" with him, and other users might feel the same way. I fully understand that WP:INVOLVED allows previously-involved-with-the-user admins to take action in obvious cases (i.e. blatant violations of WP:3RR); however, I do not believe that they necessarily should take action. Rather, my opinion is that they should just fill out a report on WP:AN3 and let an uninvolved admin deal with it. Despite my personal beliefs (which is what the question asked for and what my answer was), I would not complain about an admin blocking another editor for 3RR. Anyways, despite our disagreement, cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkbackhi ryan im new here can u tell me how i can contribute in wikify project and please advice main steps to wikify article Sehmeet singh Talk 13:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
August 2011 Wikification Drive
IRCHave you ever considered IRC? There's often a lot going on there, you may be able to help out. I'm online now too if you fancy a chat. WormTT · (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
SPI caseI've deleted your SPI case. In the future you can list the case with the IP as the master. In this particular case, though, it's clear this person is a troll, and they were blocked anyway - so an SPI was a bit superfluous. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC) TalkbackMessage added 22:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Do you know what's wrong? Nathan2055talk 22:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC) ApologiesSorry about the whole Rorscach thing... is there some hidden meaning in me seeing a knife and my roommate in one of those tests...?
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. DYK for HMS Doterel (1880)
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Xerotine siccativeRyan
Ryan, I don't feel terribly strongly about it either. If anything, I think the lead acts as a taster for the article - those who wish to find out more are drawn in to read the whole story. And it looks tidier! I looked really hard for this stuff when we first started on the article - and couldn't find anything. Now we have an embarrassment of information. Even some underwater video of the ship, if you look in "external links". Please don't stand on ceremony - if I get something wrong, just change it. And thanks for all your work & help. Yours, Shem (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 01 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Reference Desk Removaluser:Looie496 has removed one of your contributions of the reference desk [2]. It is being discussed on the Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Removed Section. Buddy432 (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Good job
TalkbackYou can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC) TalkbackMessage added 21:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RequestHi Ryan, is their anyway you can restore the webpage of Theophilus Pashkovsky back to the way it was? Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Defender of Orthodoxy (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Theophilus (Pashkovsky) ArticleHello Ryan,Can you please restore the original article for Theophilus (Pashkovsky) before I made any changes to it? It would greatly be appreciated! I made a mistake with the article and I need help. Thank you and hope to hear from you soon! The Defender of Orthodoxy — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Defender of Orthodoxy (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Salty Dog BluesYou have things turned around. Wikipedia does not allow posting of lyrics on the assumption that the lyrics are not copyrighted. Take a look at articles on songs. Virtually none of them have a source that the song is under copyright, and virtually none of include the entire lyrics to the song. The default assumption is that the lyrics are copyrighted until evidence is provided otherwise. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and errs on the side of conservatism because of the serious legal implications. And a talk page discussion does not become "outdated" if all of the comments continue to be relevant. So please: provide a reliable source that the lyrics in the article are not copyrighted, and please take your issues on this matter to the talk page. Thank you. 24.163.39.217 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC) ryanRyan i would rather have you only put content on my User page only with asking.TheBestGuyHi 21:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Tim Pawlenty good articleHello, Ryan. I have had a look at Talk:Tim Pawlenty/GA1, as you asked me to. Before saying anything else, I should state that Good Articles are one of the many areas of Wikipedia that I have never had any involvement in. Before you asked me to look at this case I had never so much as looked at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and had no idea what the criteria even were. I have now looked over the article, your assessment, Wasted Time R's comments, and the Good Article criteria, and am willing to make a few general comments, but I have not studied it in great depth, and everything I say should be taken as a general impression. You were generally positive about the article, I think, but you pointed out various areas where there is need for improvement. My fairly brief look supports your assessment very closely. Both the positive comments you made and the suggestions for improvement seem to me to be perfectly reasonable. I did not notice anything in your comments which I disagreed with in any way and I will say no more about them, but will move on to what Wasted Time R had to say. There are two questions to ask: "how far do the criticisms relate to the Good Article Criteria?" and "how far are the criticisms valid?" As far as the first of these questions is concerned, my answer is "not very far." There are essentially two criticisms: the lack of chronological sequencing and the amount of space given to different parts of Pawlenty's career. I can't actually find anything in either the GA criteria themselves or the pages linked to from them that lack of chronological sequencing is directly relevant to. The issue of how much coverage to give each section is related to criterion 3 ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). However, even here, the relevance is limited. Wasted Time R does not actually suggest that significant points are not addressed, only that the amount of space taken up in addressing some points may be too small. So, how valid do I think the criticisms are? I do agree that the present structure needs improvement. "His governorship is somehow considered outside his political career" is a good point. However, I do not think it would be helpful to move the coverage of his governorship into the middle of the section "Political career", where it would rather swamp the rest of the section. The section on his governorship is different in character from the "Political career" section, and is better kept separate. The "Political career" section does not, in fact, cover everything about his political career, and its title is not totally appropriate. The criticism that it jumps from 2002 to 2006 seems to me to come from the fact that a large part of the section is not really about his political career, but rather about his political campaigns, so naturally it jumps from one campaign to the next. It seems to me that the section should at least be retitled, and preferably significantly restructured, perhaps breaking it into several sections. The first subsection "City and state legislative positions" could be retitled and expanded into a brief summary of his whole political career to date, the next few sections could be retitled to acknowledge that they are actually about political campaigns, and so on. Then giving more detailed coverage to his governorship outside the brief career summary would be reasonable. Alternatively, it would be perfectly possible to more radically restructure the whole article, but what I am trying to demonstrate is that even keeping the present overall structure of the article, some fairly straightforward rearranging of one section would make a substantial improvement in the coherence of the whole, so that I think it is a mistake to think that the whole structure is irredeemably perverse. What about the criticisms of the amount of space afforded to different sections? Certainly there is room for improvement, as you noted in your comments ("There is no information in the article about Pawlenty's tenure as House Majority leader. Information on his work in the House of Representatives should be improved.") I find comparison with other articles of limited relevance, as there may be differences between the two cases which justify the differences. Also, Wasted Time R tells us that Pawlenty's eight years as governor get 35 paragraphs, i.e. 4 and a bit paragraphs per year, compared to Mitt Romney, whose four years gets 12 paragraphs, i.e. 3 paragraphs per year, which is not a huge difference. In any case, a count of paragraphs is a very crude measure of the amount of content. Comparison between the amount of coverage of Pawlenty's time as governor and of his time in the state legislature is more relevant, and I think there certainly is a case for an adjustment there, as you acknowledged in the quote I gave above concerning Pawlenty's work in the House of Representatives. However, I am not convinced that the number of years should necessarily be closely correlated with the amount of coverage given. Someone may spend a lot of time doing a job in a fairly routine way, with nothing much of note to record, or spend a short time doing a lot of very notable stuff. I think a much better test is how much significant stuff there is to report, as compared to how much coverage of minor matters there may be. As far as that is concerned, I do see some details which to my mind are given excessive coverage. For example, consider "Pawlenty was visited in 2004 by Mexican President Vicente Fox in talks to strengthen trade. Fox announced that his country would open a consulate in Minnesota the next year, removing the need for Mexican residents in the state to travel out of state for identification papers and other materials." I think the second sentence there is only of very marginal significance in Pawlenty's career, and I would have left it out. I am not even sure how significant the first sentence is in relation to his career as a whole: I don't have the relevant background knowledge to be able to make that assessment. I have just given one example which has caught my eye, but my impression is that there are probably numerous details which might be viewed in a similar light, so I think there is probably some justification for the view that the section on the governorship gives too much weight to minor details, and that is relevant to the GA criteria. However, that must be assessed on the basis of how significant the details given are, not on the basis of a count of paragraphs. My conclusion is that there is certainly some basis for some criticism in the two areas mentioned by Wasted Time R, and room for improvement. However, I think the terms in which Wasted Time R expressed those criticisms go beyond what I would regard as justified. For example, the structure of the article could do with improvement, but "the structure of this article is absolutely perverse" is, I think, significantly overstating the case. The issues could be addressed with a moderate amount of work. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hope...I've just seen your latest edit to your user page. I hope so too. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop at CMU (Aug 15)In the past you expressed interest in the teaching with Wikipedia and ambassador program. You may want to check the Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop that will take place at CMU on Aug 15. It will also cover how to become a Wikipedia:Campus Ambassadors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC) ERI hope you don't mind but I added a couple of comments at your editor review. Kindly Calmer Waters 22:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Now that it's over...Hey I wanted to debrief a little after the most recent GA nomination. It was certainly contentious and there was one occasion in which I had a strongly worded response that I deleted before I hit save. I just noticed your posting on his talk page acknowledging that you may have gone to ANI a bit too quickly. I think that is admirable of you and I agree that we could have handled it between the three of us. I also appreciated your support when he claimed I was the toughest reviewer in London, I didn't want my notice of your support to go unmentioned. Honestly I think this was a case of an editor who didn't quite understand the GA nomination process and who initially felt as though a hold was a fail, and that my critique of the article was in some way a critique of the editor. I think he had expectations that were unmet, which also led to frustration. Cooler heads prevailed and I'm glad that we were able to work together to see the nomination through. I felt as though the article was improved and met the GA criteria so I passed it. Thanks for your work and I hope you feel better soon. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
