User talk:Causa sui/Archive 7

Opium
Hey thanks for reverting the discussion page. I never wrote that first sentence on the discussion page. I am not sure why someone would edit that and put my name under it. May I ask how you caught that? Rayana fazli 18:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The IP address 167.128.54.82 keeps vandalizing the opium page. Is there any way to get him blocked, or to only allow users to edit the page because it seems that it gets vanalized a lot by people who are not users. Rayana fazli 17:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

New Ball of Wax sockpuppet?
— Based on his name and contribs I'm highly suspiscious. You have any ideas on this? 68.39.174.238 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have created, and  since WBoW likes to reverse letters (EG.  and ), all can be safely blocked forever. Also, I find it interesting that the initials of Ball of Wax are also those of the "Bank of WikipediA", however I suspect that's an accedent. 68.39.174.238 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Shame what happened with the arb. case, thanks for leaving by the message (and regarding this edit, I really, really like messages) I may revert it back! ε γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  01:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That is fine
Yeah it was willy on wheels again. I replaced your tag with the {Wow} template but then thought that maybe it was just an imposter of willy so I just removed the page. However later sockpuppets showed that it was willy. Probably should have reverted instead but I saw your message on his talk page and thought that was enough and that I probably shouldn't encourage him since that was the only one he used to edit something. Anyway thanks for restoring it. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did I mess up?
You erased my referral to the vandalism on Defense independent pitching statistics, where I am again in danger of the 3rv rule with a vandal who keeps trying to erase someone else's name from the article and add his own. Please let me know what I should do since he refuses to stop his vanity campaign. OverInsured 03:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

protection of Defense independent pitching statistics
Can you explain this one to me? I don't see any edit war, but I might be missing something. We have a request for unprotection on RfP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorical imperative
Good work. You could try to make it a featured article.Ultramarine 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein warning.....
take care on einstein - it's a current subject of an edit war, where the lone voice for rewriting history has currently given up modifying the article, and has gone back to ranting on the talk page. Anything you edit will probably be interpreted as siding with one or the other part in the dispute. See the talk page, as well as Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories, for details. - and no, I don't think the edits you did were controversial..... --Alvestrand 10:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Defense Independent Pitching
Hi Ryan. Sorry to bother you but I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and I'd like to know how to proceed in editing the 'DIPS' page. As you can see from my post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Defense_independent_pitching_statistics, I'm doing research on this and have a lot to add, but every time I added it, it got over-written -- I assume by this 'Tango Tiger' that I haven't heard of -- but I don't really know.

Anyway, I see now that simply re-doing my edits was the wrong way to go about things (essentially violating the "3 revert rule" or something similar). Nevertheless, I see that the page is unblocked now and I would like to continue my work. But I don't want to write a long detailed page and then have it erased.

Thanks!

--HatTrick


 * I merged the new content on this page so that both researchers' work is now present, as you recommended. My Google on "Tangotiger baseball" just now yielded 68,000 hits, so I believe prospective editors will have ample opportunity to evaluate his work.  "Dreslough baseball" yielded over 3,000 hits, so the same is presumably true for him as well. OverInsured 07:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * After another round of reversions I believe this issue can now be called an edit war, as is documented on the talk page. If you have any advice on how I can follow Wiki policy I'd be grateful to you. Your prior advice made sense and I have tried to follow it. OverInsured 08:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For now the current version meets the criteria I stated for not reverting it: it does not delete the original researcher and does not pronounce anyone as the great new wise sage. The page is going through lots of small changes by the same editor, some of which are subtly diminimous to McCracken or Tangotiger, but none of them a smoking gun.  I will maintain hands off so long as the spirit of not erasing others' work and not making conspicuous vanity posts is retained, though I will intervene if 100 different posts gradually produce the POV/vanity results sough by all the prior edits.  This will hopefully calm the waters of the edit war.  If you have any more advice please let me know.  OverInsured 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

regarding your comment on AIV:
As in, this one; If you check the talk page, Damicatz already gave the user a and a  before I came onto the scene. My was 5 minutes after Damicatz' test3.

Just clearing it up. Also, not implying you don't know templates, just making sure I have the right format since it's the first time I've tried. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list posts to BJAODN?
Perhaps, perhaps not. But it can go straight to Requests for Adminship. Jkelly 23:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Improper warning template
Please note that '(test2) ' is the improper response template for the actions taken. Please resubmit your statement using the proper template. mssg: PCLOADLTR --mitrebox 22:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Making life easier
Hi there, regarding Priory of Sion, you entered a 'cleanup-verify' window. Can you indicate some one or two areas you are concerned about? Also, where in wikipedia do we find these 'windows'? thanks and enjoy you weekend. Politis 14:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Again
Unfortunately the issue here won't seem to go away. Can you log into meta and add your comments here to help lock down the issue with the least additional wasted time? Thanks. - Taxman Talk 14:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Emelianenko ITA
Ryan,

Thanks for adding IPA IPA: to Fedor Emelianenko's page. Shouldn't it have an "o" in the end, though? Thanks! -CF

Follow-up on effects of earlier decision.
A few days ago, you rejected my request for Protection of Objectivism and homosexuality. At the time, I stated that I would try to avoid edit war and would instead repair the damage when I see it, piecemeal. This is what I've done, leading to the improvement of the article through use of more cited material and external references. I also stated that I anticipate both an edit war and false accusations of 3RR violation aimed at me. That prediction has turned out to be true.

As I see it, I've been cooperating with everyone who's willing to Talk about the article, while they "keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first". Despite this, I'm the one being threatened with a block, not them. One of them, LaszloWalrus is a die-hard Randist and has edit-warred over this issue before and is continuing to do so now. Another, known only as 64.167.172.163 has a only handfull of edits and has never done anything but fight to protect Rand; I suspect they may be a sock puppet. In the meantime, Billyjoekoepsel has left in a huff after his attempt to get me blocked failed. The only person who's said a word in Talk since then is a civil newcomer named TJFrazier, who is trying to reconcile both sides and I've been cooperating with even though he's an admitted Objectivist.

At this point, I'm likely to get blocked for any continued effort to work on this article. In contrast, none of the edit warriors has been even notified of a possible block by an admin, much less asked to back off. As far as I can tell, they have no intention whatsoever of joining us in Talk and will continue to revert until they win by tricking me into a 3RR violation. This is precisely what Laszlo did on Ayn Rand, which is why that page has been Protected since. I'm doing my best here, but I feel that the Wikipedia administration is letting me down. Alienus 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reconsidering your earlier decision. I hope that, now that the article is protected, this will force everyone to come to the table and talk it out. Alienus 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Best of all, the block seems to be working. Tx much.
 * Although I'm a newbie, I intervened in this because of unique qualifications (commitment to civility and NPOV, background as student of Objectivism). So far, my success in mediation is mixed, but I remain optomistic. Al & I will produce a good, NPOV article, hopefully with help from the other two.
 * (If you think I'm bucking for (far-future) admin/mediator status, you're probably right :-)--TJ 14:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup einstein?
could I ask you to put an example of what you object to on the talk page?

As a non-native English speaker, I sometimes find it hard to know what tone is being sought.... --Alvestrand 14:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism etc
Thanks for your patience & helpfulness - still new-ish and trying to learn as I go :) Longshot14 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation
Sure, I'll add the IPA pronunciations. Bulgarian pronunciation could be different from Russian, though, so I'll leave that one alone. :). CasualFighter 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. So far, I got Mikhail Tal and Botvinnik.. This will keep me busy for a while, though. :)CasualFighter 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hey-- I have a message saying that I vandalized Wikipedia. The IP on it is 68.163.222.84. I haven't edited any wikipedia pages in a while. I'm not sure what happened; our DSL goes down occasionally, so maybe I now have someone else's IP?

-- J.P. (jtuttle@gmail.com)

Kant -- better late than never
Hi Ryan,

you asked, --- A bit of a dispute between me and User:Ultramarine has erupted here. In particular, he is suggesting that our discussion about the criticism section of categorical imperative was resolved not by agreement, but by your giving up after being too frustrated to continue arguing with me. As that was not my appraisal of the situation at all, would you please have a look at my discussion with him, and maybe share some of your thoughts? --Ryan Delaney talk 17:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC) ---

Thanks for leaving your message. I haven't logged in in a while! And thanks also to ultramarine for his concern.

I frankly ran out of time -- busy teaching load and all that -- to try to resolve the discussion. At the time, I recall disagreeing with your approach to the Categorical Imperative because I thought it should be tied to a more specifically Kantian discussion. But I didn't have the time to argue for it, and thought it best to let you take the lead, especially because of your overall work in the philosophy section.

I'm also not an expert on Kant, so I thought it best to let others go to bat for the issue if it was important.

In short, I was mildly frustrated (2 on a scale of 10), but I wouldn't say that I got so frustrated as to quit. Rather, I got so busy as to move on in life. OTOH, it is fair to say the discussion wasn't resolved by agreement exactly. No blood, no foul.

For what it's worth, I like the article pretty well now. How about you?

Regards, jrcagle 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. what is the "right" way to respond to messages?

Einstein
Hi, I removed the cleanup tag on Albert Einstein thinking that it was added by the recently blocked (and soon to be banned) neo-Nazi Licorne. After a look at the history, I found that you added it, so I reinstated the tag. But can you just pop over to the talk page and confirm whether you think it is still needed? Thanks. –Joke 04:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jews, Jews, and more Jews!
"[Ww]orld[\s_]+[Jj]ewry" yielded 31 results as of March 7, 2006:
 * Jew, Khazars, Zionism, Timeline of Jewish history, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Abraham Isaac Kook, Philo-Semitism, Amin al-Husayni, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jewish state, Pale of Settlement, Arthur Hertzberg, Yevsektsiya, Erich Priebke, Karaite Judaism, Abayudaya, African Jew, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Jewish population, Birthright Israel, The Culture of Critique series, Henry Wentworth Monk, Schechter Letter, Yehuda Bauer, Semei Kakungulu, Chronology of Jewish Polish history, History of the Jews in Spain, March of the Living, Komzet, Religious significance of Jerusalem.

— Mar. 15, '06 [23:41] 

World Jewry
Ryan, I see you're removing "world Jewry" from articles and replacing it with "Jewish population," which often doesn't make any sense in the context. There's nothing actually wrong with "world Jewry," in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion started at Talk:Jew. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Loyola Vandal
Is he going to get his own page soon? I think more admins need to be aware of this clown. 144.126.76.16 01:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Analog Pussy
The user Analogpussy only posts on articles related to the band Analog Pussy. Plus their contributions do not conform to Wikipedias NPOV standard at all and they post copyrighted material. I feel this user is nothing more then a spammer.

I was going to post this on the adminstrators noticeboard first but I wanted an opinion of an adminstrator before I tried to do anything. Do you think this user is a spammer or not? --Arm 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about?
why are you calling me a vandal? explain yourself before hurling insults! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.176.18 (talk • contribs)

New York English
Hi Ryan,

I'm wondering if you could help me with some questions. I'm a linguist at Queens College, and i'm probably better at the linguistics than Wikipedia editing, so what I am asking may be obvious, but here goes

1) I didn't start but did most of the contributing to the article New York-New Jersey English. This combination makes no sense. New York English is one unitary (more or less) dialect. New Jersey contains a number of different dialect areas, one of which is New York Dialect. Also, New York refers to the city and surrounding metropolitan area. New Jersey to the state (Upstate NY is a completely different issue). I'd like to suggest that the two be split, but I'm not sure how to do that.

2) I also didn't start a page called Nuyorican English, but again did most of the contribution. This is my research area; so I know more about it than probably anyone else on the planet. However, the name is not a good one. A better name would be New York Latino English or New York Hispanic English. The reason is that the variety is spoken by New York Latinos of all heritages, not just those of Puerto Rican origin. How can that name be changed.

3) I'm having terrible trouble with IPA, which is what brings me to you as opposed to another administrator. I can't figure out how to use it from the instructions. I have a Mac, and it's all so easy when writing with it on my computer, but the minute you work with a PC, it all gets a lot more complicated. With the codes, well I just can't figure out what to do.

Thanks,

Michael Newman mnewmanqc.

my e-mail is mnewman (at) qc.edu

Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed decision
You are apparently clerking this case. The decision is badly confused within itself and yet there is a passed motion to close. I wonder if you would take a look? -Splash talk 00:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My message on the talk page. Unless I am the one badly confused (entirely possible). -Splash talk 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Benapgar on list of banned users
Hi, you added Ben to the list of List of banned users. The date was obviously just a simple mistake, but I'm wondering about the "The Arbitration Committee confirmed that he has been banned by the Wikipedia community." Is that really true or was that just copy-pasted from somewhere else? &mdash;Gabbe 16:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I was just wondering if there's a decision text or some sort of statement or something available online. I'm not accusing you of lying, I just think verifiability is nice. &mdash;Gabbe 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks! &mdash;Gabbe 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Over on Slavoj Zizek...
...please help! (I quite concur with your comment on the philosophy project page, of course). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Einstein Quote
Hello,
 * I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and am still learning some of the fine points. I noticed that some quotes of Einstein's were embedded in the text, and felt this one needed to go in - most especially in light of its relevance to this very moment in time. I feel this quote would be more powerful in the Article itself, than in another link altogether.


 * Regards,
 * Michael David 22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway
Hi, looking at the above arbitration case, I notice that you are the clerk who closed it, and that in doing so you listed "Tony Sidaway has acted in good faith, but upset others" as "passed 6-2". But the majority for that case was 7. Was that an error, or do you only count the arbitrators who have voted on a proposal in deciding the outcome of a vote? It doesn't seem unreasonable, but the thought just hadn't occurred to me in case that I have closed. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi Ryan,

My article on Cutmen is currently undergoing peer review: could you let me know if you have any feedback?

Thank you! -- CasualFighter 21:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

MonicasDude
I'm assuming you removed my comments in the RfArb because it's argumentative, and I understand that. Just lemme know if I'm right about that. T  K   E  04:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

DanielPi is back causing trouble at the Topalov page
Danny Pi Is back causing trouble at the Topalov page. I noticed that you told him back in January to not re-insert the "cheating allegation" because it is controversial. Alas, after months of peace he has decided to place it back into the article. I and others believe this allegation against Topalov is unfair and does not deserve to be in the article at all, what purpose does the "cheating allegation" serve other than to inflame people or to give the wrong impression of Topalov? Dionyseus 08:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus is an impartial nuisance on the Topalov page
The majority of the discussion on the talk page supports inclusion. Dionyseus is uncommunicative, and has not responded to admin Cyde's request for discussion. I don't see what your justification is for removing anything negative about Topalov. As long as the included statements aren't opinions, I would say it's part of the information about the person. Should we not mention child molestation in an article about Michael Jackson? Should we not mention Watergate in an article about Nixon? I can provide innumerable links to sites reporting the cheating allegation, so it IS in fact widespread. If you wanted to resolve this in your capacity as an admin, I would have appreciated if you took formal steps to that end- like other admins- rather than simply "deciding" the issue yourself without hearing both points of view. Dionyseus, anyhow, is regarded as something of a nuisance on chess sites like chessgames.com, and I hardly think you should be acquiescing to people like him. It seems that he's finally given up on his atrocious grammar argument. If only he'd give up on his crusade to use wiki as a Topalov promo page. By contrast, look at Kramnik's page, and ask yourself if THAT's NPOV. Danny Pi 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please restrict this discussion to Talk:Veselin Topalov. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All right. Also see: .Danny Pi 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Virtuoso, misconceptions and etc.
Hi! I´ve argued (against you :-) on the virtuoso article about your removal of an entire section. Before you told me to restrict the "discussion" to the article let me say I´m not here to discuss it! (I´ve read your guidelines before posting and I´ve used the subject only to make a connection...) I´ve enjoyed reading your user page. We have many interests in common! It´s always amazing how people who edit similar articles have similar interests: Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu (I´m a purple belt under Rolker Gracie academy, here in Rio de Janeiro), Dream Theater (have all their albums, and you are wearing a DT T-Shirt :-).. Did you know Pain of Salvation? If you do not, take the time (DT apology :-) to listen to them. Also listen to Symphony X (they´re from USA) and Angra (their latest releases are very progressive). And do not easy your arguments in the Virtuoso article, if you convince me you are right, then I´ll be as glad as if I had convinced you back, like Voltaire said I may not agree with what you´re talking about but I´d rather loose my life to protect your right to express it (I don´t know the phrasing in english but in portuguese it is: "Não concordo com nada do que dizes, mas defenderei até a morte seu direito de dizê-lo"). Regards Loudenvier 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Death for blocking?
Hey Ryan, I notice that you added "death of the user" as a reason for blocking on WP:BP. I'm curious, where was the discussion for that one? I don't see any anywhere, and I'm not convinced blocking dead users is a good idea, mainly because of the potential for collateral damage. Thanks! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

1 Week Block
This is Leyasu. You recently blocked me for violating my ArbCom ruling (albight an accident, i still did it). However i have just used two Ip's against my block, in violation of WP:SOCK and my ArbCom ruling. As such a one week block is required and i ask for this to be imposed on my user name at the earliest convienience, thank you. 86.132.133.113 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dream Theater = Godly
I love that shirt! Dream Theater are in my top five ;) &mdash; Deckill e r 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu again
Leyasu has violated his arbcom ruling twice since you blocked him (no one else has blocked him since). I'd prefer not to block him myself since I'm still in a dispute with him at Talk:Gothic metal. I did post on WP:AE about the most recent violation, so please check that out and tell me what you think. (I'm also watching that page, but it doesn't look like many other people are.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Veselin Topalov
Hi. I have taken the Veselin Topalov case listed at the Mediation Cabal page. I'm reviewing things now. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have posted a response in an attempt to mediate the Veselin Topalov case. I hope we can arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
Can you please explain this edit? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So the fact that what I was responding to was in fact a threaded response to my statement doesn't seem to matter? Wonderful. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration query on Monicasdude
Just letting you know that proposed enforcement #1 ends "All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude#Log_of_blocks_and_bans." This implies that yes, there is a log of blocks and bans requirement. Additionally, it's usual for only arbitrators to edit /Proposed decision in ArbCom cases. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

archersofdave
archersofdave - my bad, i'll pun no more.

Toward a ban under ArbCom decision
Hello. As you can see here, I left what can only be called a polite and encouraging note on Monicasdude's Talk page, which he deleted a short time later. I'd say this deletion pretty clearly shows incivility and an assumption of bad faith, and the ArbCom's ruling states "1) Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.". Since "repeat offenses" are needed for a ban, is there somewhere you or another Admin can keep a running tally of edits that may then be considered "repeat"? Thx. JDG 08:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Intimate relationship
Hi -- I deprodded this because I think the article isn't original research and has potential as an encyclopedia article. It's dicdef-ish, but a LOT of articles link there, including several redirects (such as Sexual relationship). I'd probably say "keep" in an AfD on this article. Mango juice talk 04:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Saladin1970
Ryan, I've recevied several emails from user:Saladin1970 requesting that I unblock him, or at least investigate the claims made against him (I don't know why me, I've not been involved with any of the pages he edited). I really don't have time to do any checking of the issues, but I note the last entry in the block log realting to him is from you: But you haven't apparently reblocked?
 * 17:32, 19 May 2006 Ryan Delaney unblocked Saladin1970 (contribs) (Unblock to reblock)

He has outstanding unblock requests on his user page, so if you would be so kind as to either investigate yourself (as you appear to have at least a basic knowledge of what the issues are) and put a note on his talk page, or make a note on the admin's noticeboard asking that someone else do it. Thanks, Thryduulf 18:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Real Social Dynamics Vandalism
Hi, I see that you have noticed the vandalism of the Real Social Dynamics article, and reverted the vandal. I and several other people have been reverting him also. It seems to be one person (or several) using a different IP each time. The person either deletes the Criticism section, or blanks the page and replaces it with text taken directly from the website of the company! There is a good chance that the vandal is affiliated with the company. I documented this on the talk page the first few times it happened, and I tried leaving messages on the talk pages of the IP addresses used. I was content to just keep reverting the vandal, but he seems to be becoming more persistent and doing it every day now, which is getting annoying. Perhaps you could protect the page for a while, or maybe you know of a better solution? Thanks. --SecondSight 19:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Archers Of Loaf
I am just wondering why you decided to give the Archers Of Loaf page a cleanup message. Labelling it as "ridiculous", I did not feel, as an avid Archers fan, that that comment was really fitting in regards to the article. For mine, I did not and do not see much wrong with the article. It is short in content, but they were a notoriously publicity shy band, and hence accurate details are hard to gather. So I guess my final point is; what needs to be done to actually get it up to standard? --Chops A Must 18:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of Saladin1970 to Arbcom
Saladin has requested to appeal his indefinite block to Arbcom. I have entered his plea on his behalf at Requests for arbitration (making no judgement as to its legitimacy) and have named you as a party in the request. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Query Re: "Canvassing Votes" Decision
Mr. Delaney, would you be able to advise me what decision Template:Canvass refers to? I did some searching to locate the decision, but could not find anything on point (there did seem to be some November 2004 comments that marginally addressed it). I'd like to add a link to the ArbCom's decision to the template. Thanks. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs) 01:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Heard anything yet? Thanks again for looking into it. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs) 22:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hopefully my edits to Template:Canvass better reflect the situation.  If not, I suppose I'll hear about it. :) &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs) 23:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

AMAZING SHIRT
Sorry, I realize that this is a little strange, but I just saw the picture of you wearing a Dream Theater shirt on your user page. Good choice my friend. Again, sorry for the randomness :~) Thetruthbelow (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Assistence of an experienced wikipedian is needed
Dear Ryan, I would be very greatfull if you answer my question concerning the NPOV policy. Regards,--AndriyK 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Mixed Martial Arts active again
Just to let you know, since you're a signed-up user, that Wikiproject Mixed Martial Arts is active again. Are you still interested in helping out? Cheers. &mdash; Es  tarriol  talk 12:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Neologism
Nearly all the terms that we've listed have been widely used within the community for about twenty years. Is there an explicit policy that specifies how long ago the term must have been coined?

Mystery Method 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand the guidelines on neologisms, I don't see how they would prohibit the pages (at least, not Peacocking. "The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate." If the articles are expanded, such that they don't "simply define" the neologism, it seems like they would pass this criterion.  User:Mysterymethod claims that he is planning on expanding all three articles. "The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." Yet the articles are verifiable. The terms are defined and explain in the glossary of the the book The Game, and there are many news articles explaining "peacocking" at least, which can be cited. Hence, if the articles were expanding (which I think is possible at least for "peacocking"), then I don't see how they would violate the policy on neologisms. --SecondSight 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mysterymethod terms
Hi, I noticed the AFDs on the new articles User:Mysterymethod started. I agree it might be better, for now, to incorporate an explanation of those terms into the Mystery Method or Erik von Markovik article. Perhaps Peacocking, though, could have enough information to warrant an article. I would be fine with deleting the other three, and expanding Peacocking; how does that sound? --SecondSight 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass AFD on Seduction Community pages
Hi, perhaps you have noticed the mass AFD by User:Kchase02. I do think Owen Cook should be deleted, but Mystery Method, Erik von Markovik, Juggler (seduction community), David DeAngelo, are definitely notable enough to stay (I don't know why deletion is being proposed on those articles when they have sources documenting notability). Real Social Dynamics, and Badboy Lifestyle I am not sure. I really find this mass deletion both frivolous, because many of the articles do assert notability, and underhanded, because it's going to be very hard for me to defend them all at the same time. Perhaps you could take a look? Thanks. --SecondSight 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Topalov arbitration
DanielPi has sent in an arbitration request for the Topalov page, claiming that the cheating allegations were "widely reported." Seeing as how you were one of the involved parties for the Topalov mediation case I thought you should be notified about this arbitration case. Dionyseus 00:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RSD
Ryan, you made the right decision to restore RSD Criticism (perhaps not in it's present form but at least some version of it). But we do need a consensus or there will be countless edit wars for that page. Given the size of the article, Shell Kinney has a point about (relatively) lengthy criticism biasing the RSD entry. But she made an incorrect assumption regarding prevailing community views on RSD. I did some additional research and found much evidence to support Neil Strauss' version of the events. Strauss was a journalist for Rolling Stone at the time and was assigned to document the events of Project Hollywood and investigate the seduction community as a whole. His views on RSD IS held by a significant majority, in fact. At the very least those who lived at Project Hollywood. But to prove this is much more difficult and perhaps beyond the scope of the RSD talk page.

There will (hopefully) be some balanced criticism restored to the RSD page. We just need to work out the details. Automata 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RSD Criticism
Ryan, the RSD Criticism section due to Bluecrush seemed to have struck the right balance, but has since 'evolved' into a monster (seemingly reflecting the agenda of some members) and has now disappeared completely. I have read The Times article and what the reporter describes is an incident at an RSD bootcamp:

"We meet, not entirely by chance, a group of early twentysomething men on a “boot-camp” (workshop) with a renowned American PUA who calls himself Tyler Durden, after the Brad Pitt character in Fight Club..."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20029-1766167_1,00.html

I am in favor of restoring the Criticism. Wikifly 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Three second rule
So.. you didn't think you'd merge or anything - just go ahead and redirect deleting all content? How about a proposed merge on the talk page? Might that have been better? THE KING 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)