User talk:RyanParis

Welcome!

Hello, RyanParis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! El_C
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

May 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
Please do not remove material from articles without explanation as you did with White people. There is a risk that your changes might be interpreted as vandalism. EdJohnston 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.  Third warning.  WLU 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tabercil 04:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Excessive Wikifying
Please stop wikifying every little item in lead sections of articles, such as science, pseudoscience, etc. etc., (see you own edit history). There is a purpose to the links, which is to allow links to a reasoned selection of topics pertinent to the topic of a particular article. Please see WP:MOS, for guidance on how to approach these. In the interim, I will be reverting those that come to my attention. Thanks. ... Kenosis 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you also did it to: Astral projection. siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 05:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And also to Sleep: you wikified bodily.  You removed it right afterwords, but such unnecessary experimenting requires anyone watching the article to investigate.  That steals time from more constructive work here.  Please do such experiments in the common Sandbox or in your very own sandbox.  (Just click that last link, start your sandbox and experiment away!)  Thanks.  --Hordaland (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Spirituality
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. El_C 11:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Science
I do not believe that the deletions you have made to this article reflect consensus or indeed accurately reflect the nature of science. You should explain your edit on the talk page and try to convince people. --Bduke (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to continue to revert your edits. I leave it others who spend more time on this article than I do to see if they find them acceptable. However, would you please use edit summaries so we all have some idea of your thinking behind a particular edit. Edits to the lead are usually best discussed first on the talk page. --Bduke (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jan 2008
You have removed the following edit from the definition of Science:

A not entirely compatible definition is that Science is the attempt to create procedures to predict the outcome of experimental situations. Such definitions become increasingly relevant at the microscopic scales of Quantum Mechanics. Ironically the latter is often considered to be the foundation of all (at least Natural) Sciences.

Please explain why.

Any description of Science is not complete without a Positivist understandins. At the moment the article is biased towards realist models of the world. This is particularly inappropriate for Quantum Mechanics.

Keith Bowden (Theoretical Physics Research Unit, Birkbeck College, London) ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbowden (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Subconscious
Hi Ryan, you added some material and references to the Subconscious article and then removed it minutes later. Why did you remove it? JD Lambert(T 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. I investigated further and saw that it wasn't you who added the references. Since your edit had no comment to explain why you removed them, and because they appear to be appropriate references, I restored them. JD Lambert(T 16:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OCD
Hi there. I see that you've made several edits to obsessive-compulsive disorder. While most of these have been helpful, this removal of information confuses me. You should consider explaining your actions in edit summaries or on the talk page at Talk:Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Thanks. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Homelessness
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your Good Faith edits to Homelessness have been reverted as they did not improve the article and introduced links to disambiguate pages. —Sladen (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries warning
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 04:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

wikilinking
Hi RyanParis. Thank you for your contributions! You've made some nice additions to west coast cities. In that grand scheme of things, this is a fairly minor point, but you are enthusiastically linking many words in prose that you modify. See WP:OVERLINK for some guidance on what should be linked, and what should not. Alas, this is a difficult concept to communicate. Have a look at some featured articles with a close eye to how little is actually linked. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifying plurals
Hi, RyanParis! Recently you wikified "belief systems" on the God page. I noted that you apparently aren't aware that such plurals will automatically be applied to the int. link. So if you were to make the link like this: belief systems, with the plural just outside the double bracket, the plural s will appear inside the link on the page, and the link will still go to the nonplural article, such as in belief systems.

I like to do what you did for possessives. For a link like, say, Peter Wolfe's, the apostrophe and the s don't automatically go inside the link. So I would make it like this: Peter Wolfe's in order to get the possessive inside the internal link. Thank you for your help to improve this encyclopedia! .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  08:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.  Teapot  george Talk  09:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You have never added an edit summary to any of your edits even though you have been asked about this many months ago. Please read edit summary where it says "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline". Changing well watched articles like Evolution and Abiogenesis without using edit summaries just makes your edits look very odd. Ttiotsw (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing Style
Ryan, I've noticed many editors are confused by your editing style. I'd suggest reading the links posted at the very top of this page. -- King ♣    Talk    13:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to drop you a quick note of thanks. Your contributions are appreciated: keep up the good work! Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 04:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re. minor edit to Soul article
Unless you are reverting vandalism, please indicate the reason for your edits in the edit summary box, and if it is a minor edit such as the one you made here, please click the "minor edit" box. Thanks! :)  DQweny (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Theory and fact
You might find the evolution as theory and fact article informative. Evolution is the observation, the modern evolutionary synthesis is the theory that explains this observation. Much the same idea as the theory of general relativity explaining the observation of gravity. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to communicate with us
As we are a collaborative project, it is vital that you begin to communicate with other editors here, especially in your edit summaries. If you continue to make controversial edits to pages like Creationism without edit summaries or even discussing your edits on the talk page, you can be blocked. Everything we do here is a result of consensus and it doesn't work if all parties aren't communicating with each other. Thanks, Auntie E.  04:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please mark revisions as minor edits only if you are correcting typos or making style adjustments. Making phrasing changes shouldn't normally be marked as a minor edit, especially if the substance of the phrase has been changed, as it was in this edit. Mind matrix  19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Evolution, you will be blocked from editing. ''It is apparent from your talk page and edit history that you make changes, sometimes controversial, to articles without providing edit summaries, and that you never discuss any of these changes on the associated talk pages. This has to stop. Please contribute constructively, or you may end up being blocked from editing.'' Favonian (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As several others have told you, it would be very helpful if you'd A) stop marking major edits as minor, and B) start communicating with your co-editors. At the very least, this would involve using edit summaries, especially when you make those non-minor edits. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and collaboration involves people having some idea about what other people are doing. It involves responsiveness. It involves feedback, counter-feedback, and counter-counter feedback; in other words, it involves dialogue. Please consider engaging with your fellow editors, so that you and they have some idea of what each other is up to. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Creationism. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Arbitrarily removing citations and text from an article, as you did with Spirituality, is not helpful. Discuss potentially contentious changes on the talk page first, please. hgilbert (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Spirituality. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. See above notice again. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, looking at your history...
You seriously need to quite removing sourced information and replacing it with your own personal commentary. Wikipedia does not publish original thought, it requires sources. It doesn't matter if you think what you're adding is "true," verifiability is what matters, not "truth." The contents of the Spirituality and Soul article are about what has been written about those subjects. Written thought is verifiable, the "truth" of those matters is not. You've been told repeatedly not to do this, I'm guessing you might not have felt the reason why you shouldn't do it was properly explained, so I'm going to assume good faith for now. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for for your persistent introduction of unsourced changes and refusal to discuss these on talk pages. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)