User talk:Ryan Norton/Archive10

Prod tag added
Will need to watch this. Neurodivergent Sandy 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft business culture references
Can't say off the top of my head since I read about half a dozen books specifically on MS over the years, and they were all library books, but I'll check on a few of them tomorrow or the day after, that is the next time I set foot in a big enough library. It shouldn't be too hard, unlike SUN and Apple which have the fundamentals of their business cultures spread out over several unlikely books. --AlainV 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes/References
RN, where did you see the thing about merging notes and refs? I follow FAC and haven't come across that. Do you think this is an exercise in futility? Will the article just go back to being a repository for original research once it's out from under the microscope? Hope not ... good job, anyway !! Sandy 03:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * yep, yep, and yep. Well, maybe it will do some good this time.  There seem to be some committed editors.  We'll see !  Sandy 04:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

attracting more copy-editors
Thx for your message. I've noticed your contributions to the FAC room, which have a ring of authority; so please don't hesitate to continue! I suspect that the so-called "professional" copy-editors here are exaggerating about that if they focus on the clerical stuff. Real professionals are fascinated by language, and are usually anally retentive enough to want to make their mark on WP's prose. Tony 08:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

reversion
Recently you reverted an edit of mine on the Asperger's syndrome page. Why did you do this? You gave the reason that it's uncited and "possibly OR". What the heck is OR and how is this uncited? I know the information put in here is true because some of my family members have this disorder (including my dad, who does do the "ssssssaaaaaaaayyyy" bit). I have also had friends who had AS and repeated a good many weird sounds that they had learned from films, so it is a fact and shouldn't be deleted from the article. Scorpionman 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft
Dang, I can't even sneak in a space (accidentally) without you blasting it away! -/- Warren 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

AS template
Hey ! Left you a question on the template on the AS talk page. Sandy 12:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks RN, it'd be nice if that stuff was codified rather than being just "in the eyes of the perceiver", but whatever. All I care about right now is occasionally voting in rfas and that table on my user page. Editing article space makes me sick right now. Karm a  fist p 13:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Angela Beesley 3RR
Please note that you are perilously close to violating 3RR on Angela Beesley.--MikeJ9919 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No? I only reverted twice. It also caused a few more (albiet some very suspect) references to be added, which means it was for the better, IMHO. RN 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I counted three, not including your reference fix. At the article's now been deleted, it's a moot point.--MikeJ9919 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I can't check now but if I did I take that back and apologize :\. RN 19:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that Inshanee's reverted Tony, I can see I was incorrect. One stubify, two reverts. Since it's at the moment questionable whether this will be deleted (the "vote" seems to swing back and forth), I'd welcome your opinion on content. I think content about an organization's Board member from that organization (whether press releases, official bios, etc.) are both verifiable and notable. They are, of course, only one point of view. However, WP:RS is quite clear that self-published sources are allowed, subject to certain restrictions.--MikeJ9919 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC) I should note the relevant section is "Self-published sources in articles about themselves." Perhaps even more appropriate is "Company and organization websites", which says, "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias." Basically, we should use it, but be careful about using it.--MikeJ9919 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

AS
Text is being blanked: you might want to have a look. And, please ping me if you ever need any help on other articles ! Sandy 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, there ... Marskell is asking for a status update on Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. I offered my opinion, but I basically defer to you, as you've "been there, done that".  I'll go with your judgment on this one. Sandy 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * AS has moved to FARC. I'll vote to delist if my list isn't addressed, but wanted to lay it all out.  I suppose this is a dumb question, but why hasn't ArbCom been brought into this, especially considering that message board post?  Sandy 20:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)
Thank you for your comment. Large scale modifications have taken place since you made it. For more details, please refer to the link above, and to the article itself. :N i k o S il v e r: 12:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Boy Scouts Membership Controversy FAC
A couple months ago, you commented on FAC that the article "Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America" seemed unlikely to pass FAC (your exact words, "opposes of death", has been a mainstay of my wikipedia vocabulary ever since). Indeed, it didn't pass. Since that time, we've done a lot of work on it to try implement the suggestions you've made. We changed the title of the article to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies so as to focus on the membership controvery, so that the article doesn't become a clearhouse of BSA criticism. In line with that, we've moved criticism of BSA over other issues into other articles. We've also done more research on Support for the BSA, and added alot of quotes from its supporters. Then we undertook a huge citing campaign and more than doubled the number of cites used in the article.

We're thinking of putting it up on FAC again, but since you're already familiar with it, would you take a look and see if you can spot ways it still needs to be improved and maybe see if you think we've addressed your earlier concerns? --Alecmconroy 07:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page, that user seriously needs banning - he also goes under the name User:Antimac, both accounts simply registered to vandalize Wikipedia. — Wackymacs 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Avneesh Saxena
This edit is kinda funny. I originally typed in "Avneesh Saxena stated that", but after doing a "Show preview" I decided to change it to "Avneesh Saxena is reported to have said that" because David Legard didn't include a direct quote in the Linuxworld article. Not that I'm complaining about your edit, I just thought it was funny. AlistairMcMillan 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, RN. I hesitated to enlist you, so I'm glad you found it on your own. He has moved it here. We were all doing so well on getting the work done. The referencing is looking good, but the prose has gone all to heck. Sandy 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Linux
I thought you might be interested. Best wishes, User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza
Hey, I've been in Esperanza for a while, but haven't done anything! I do not understand what I can do for Esperanza, other than just following and promoting Esperanza and its ideals in daily Wikipediaing. What can I do?

WP:REVIEW
Hi RN, thanks for your note. Your post wasn't too harsh; it was fair comment. I do agree that any review guidelines should include, or even be weighted in favor of, the experienced reviewers, and I have done my best to get them on board, but a number of them moved from being in favor to being implaccably opposed when some of the Hilary Putnam-related editors arrived to edit it &mdash; fearing it had been "hijacked," it seems. As I see it, the obvious solution is for the experienced reviewers to start editing the proposal themselves; then they can weight it in their own favor if they want to; I wouldn't oppose that so long as it didn't go too far. My only aim is to introduce some consistency, and to ensure that people don't base objections on trivial stylistic points or issues of personal taste. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Apple II images needing deletion
There are several Apple II-related images that need deletion. They all lack proper source information, and they are all tagged as orphans, as they have been replaced by me with free-use alternatives from the Wikimedia Commons.

I am not an admin, So I cannot delete the images myself, otherwise I would. I thought Carnildo was an admin...obviously not though.

The ones needing deletion are: Image:Apple IIe middle age.jpg, Image:AppleIIc2.jpg, Image:Apple IIc.jpg, Image:Apple IIGS.jpg, Image:The Apple II.jpg.

If they haven't got an orphan tag on them, then its because someone already removed it because there are on-going edit wars.

— Wackymacs 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Images
Hi RN, deleted as requested. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kernel (computer science) FAC
Hi, I addressed the concerns you mentioned on this FAC and would be grateful if you took another look at the article to see whether it was worth it. Candamir 21:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I also responded to your objection about the description of the NT kernel. Candamir 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Open Letter to Hobbyists
This revert is abusive „Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?“.The citation thing is the equivalent of fair use for images, ther's even a preformated fonction for citations (that i forgot).--Pixel ;-) 23:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hum, i just notist the citation was alredy in the paragraph--Pixel ;-) 23:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

salmonila at birth
I raise my now 5 year old grandchild,he was born with salmonila poisioning invitro,due to mother haveing a reptile in home while pregnant,it too a few weeks to find why newborn was having fever,he was given multitudes of antibiotics,normal until 2 speaking behavior and etc.then he stopped talking,and became hyper now is considered autistic or pdd.The poisioning cause the walls of his intestines to be eaten away,he had experience bleeding in bowel movements very severe.high fever,now this.He is on med. at this time restidone,but i don,t agree,as he has had no medical evaluation at this time to check intestines which i am in the process of getting done now as soon as a med. appointment can be made at houston childrens hospital,he craves bread,all the time,and appears to have stomach problems,so i am going to alliminate bread from his diet and see how it effects him,what is your input on this,he he bright ,loving and beginning to talk a few words now.66.118.35.244 00:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)delores smith

AS
You might want to look in on this page. Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi ... Sandy 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism on Vista
Regarding your edit comment on your revert on Windows Vista

revert - pointless criticism not directly related to vista (this whole section is really out of control for a product that is not even released yet...))

Read the reference - you will see that the criticism is directly related to Vista - across a range of topics.

Criticism is just that, I don't think that anything is "out of control"

--Peter Campbell Talk! 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ripple Guy block
Contributions look valid... RN 21:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I know. MascotGuy made good edits and bad ones, but the final decision was the indefinitely block him, and therefore all of his socks.  See Long term abuse/MascotGuy for more information. — Mets 501  (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - that is too bad. Thanks for informing me :) RN 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem :-) — Mets 501 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Nogus

 * John Reid 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Youtube referencing
Thank you for your XNA reference work. Gentle, kind and instructive. Nice to communicate with you. RoddyYoung 20:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Megatokyo FAC
Your suggestions have been worked into the article. Your re-evaluation of the article would be greatly appreciated. JimmyBlackwing 02:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Vista edit summary
I found it sort of patronizing - why exactly was the revert for? An explanation would be nice - something like "it messed up the infobox", because that would be correct :). RN 08:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it offended you. I'm still trying to figure out what the difference is between User:Lupin's different reverts.  :-)  — Alex (T 08:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And I realized I made a mistake after I reverted it, but you can't edit edit summaries, right? — Alex (T 08:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not - don't worry about it though :) RN 08:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what happens when you edit at 1 AM. :-) See you around! — Alex (T 08:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

JzG's "Nastiness"
If you want to see some nastiness, have a look at the other editor's recent contribs, or just check my talk page. --kingboyk 08:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (a bigoted idiot, apparently :))

Just as a note to myself I said his comment came off as kind of nasty, not that he was nasty :). RN 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:3RR - Rebecca
Hi RN, good to hear from you again. :-)

I agree that Rebecca did violate the 3RR, and that I made a conscientious decision not to block her for it. Some other admin could have blocked, and since a 3RR violation had arguably taken place, I would not have complained about it (which I also said in my comment). My reasons for not blocking were: On blocking users in general, I have taken a rather mild position when it comes to blocking people for anything else than pure and simple vandalism (I am fairly strict with blocking vandals). My experience and observations show that blocking people for disruption (often with the blocking summary "give them a chance to cool down") has a tendency to escalate conflict, rather than diminish it, The blockee will often spend the block duration to plot out ways of getting even, and not on cooling down and focusing on resolving the conflict. Case in point: I remember that I blocked Tony Sidaway for repeated undeletions of a couple of articles, and while I still stand by my decision as one justified in policy (wheel warring, complete ignorance of AFD result, reposting of deleted material), I would have taken a different course if I had seen the same situation today, and the problem would probably have diffused without a block ever being necessary. I wound up voting "keep" on both the articles afterwards...
 * 1) Rebecca is a good contributor, and a look at her contributions shows that she was on active RC patrol. With that in mind, a block would do more harm to Wikipedia than good.
 * 2) I am a bit uncomfortable with the way the 3RR works in situations like this, because it does give one side (the one who wants to enforce the edit) a distinct advantage, they just need to insert it four times, (which amounts to three reverts) and if it's reverted all the times the opponent gets blocked. I have a hunch that this was not what the 3RR was intended for. I feel more comfortable enforcing the 3RR if two people are both guilty with 6 or 7 reverts each, or if there is a single person edit warring against a large number of people who are telling him that the edits he are trying to insert are dubious under NPOV.
 * 3) In the article "ping-pong" edit-war situation with two people, I cannot say that either side has behaved appreciably better than the other side, and I just feel... uncomfortable blocking only one side in a conflict like that.
 * 4) I looked at the conflict, and it was an argument over whether to make some article redlinks. A candidate for lamest edit wars perhaps, but not really a significant conflict over the article's general structure and content.
 * 5) Now the thing is more than 24 hours in the past, and a block at this point would be more punitive than preventative.

I agree with you that the AN/3RR is not a fun place. I usually avoid it as well. Thanks for your kind words by the way. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

SharePoint Server
Hi. Thanks a lot. The Office article was made possible only by a harmonious collaboration among editors. But that was a long time back. I have taken a long sabbatical since then. (I am actually trying to return :) ).

Sharepoint Server is actually a content management platform, tightly coupled with Office 2007 applications. It provides a centralized way to manage documents and associate workflows with them. It provides a shared repository for document archival with rules to automaticall categorize documents and take certain actions (like purging after expiry date etc). It also allows access controlled user accounts to access the files, via a web based interface. It allows most office documents to be edited collaboratively (more ability attained by integrating with groove server, including better shared workspace management), and also track changes. (InfoPath Forms are hosted in browser, ready to be filled in, with all InfoPath validation rules applied). Documents for which it has intrinsic support (like Excel sheets) are collaboratively edited in browser itself (via Excel services). Actions (like sending email notifications) can be associated with edits. It also allows Office apps (like PowerPoint) to retireve style and theme information from documents in the repository. It can also create Libraries, which are like virtual folders. (It comes with PowerPoint slide library). Plus, it allows comprehensive metadata, as well as full-content search, across all documents in the repository. Feel free to contact me for more info or clarification.

And all the best with your article. I will chip in as much as I can. -- soum সৌমো yasch  10:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started using SharePoint at work recently... I still have a lot to learn about it, but I'll try to contribute something in the next couple of months, maybe a screenshot too. So much to do, so much to do. -/- Warren 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiServer
Nothing personal, you understand :-) If you can fix the article please do, I'll forgive you the WP:AUTO violation...  Per the nomination, what's missing is credible evidence of significance / innovation / importance.  If you can supply that, all will be well. Guy 11:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I even asked an admin at the time if it was an WP:AUTO violation and the answer was no... :). I had a feeling I'd regret it anyway though. For a long time, I thought about nominating it myself just to get it over with :). RN 12:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Two pages deleted
I deleted the two pages in your userspace as you requested. --- Deville (Talk) 08:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) RN 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Micros__t
Sorry for the revert. Seems to me that the redirect should be there in the same way Mickey-D's is - I knew and expected someone to delete - and hoped they would do so quickly to start debate. So let's see where this goes! No hard feelings! Nfitz 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

a vandal's rant
It is vandalism to remove an AfD message until a discussion has been concluded. If you oppose the deletion, you may discuss it on the article's talk page. (unsigned comment by 71.250.179.101 14:30, 11 September 2006)

My company impacts the rock entertainment industry as much as any major label. We run their sites, we manage their data, we design the industries highest selling CD packages. Because some asshole administrator- perhaps, or perhaps not, like yourself- doesn't know anything about the industry doesn't mean the company isn't "notable."

I've contributed lengthy articles on complicated medical topics to Wikipedia, but to be clear, never again. You, and your fellow admins who assume to know everything but know nothing can keep this site for yourselves. I will not ever contribute again, and will be happy to reside among those at "notable" encyclopedias who concur that Wikipedia is a joke.

I am very sore about this. In my free time, I will vandalize and disrupt Wikipedia as much as possible. I'll make minor technical edits that are inaccurate, that your know-it-all admins won't know enough to correct. I'm almost done with a PHP script that uses proxies to automate the vandalism of Wikipedia pages. To refuse the discussion of deleting my company is vandalism? I'll show you vandalism. I'll be sure to distribute my script to all that I can find, so that all useful articles are forced to be permanently locked for vandalism.

If you want a war, you got it. You can thank your fellow admins for knowing everything. (unsigned comment by 71.250.179.101 15:11, 11 September 2006)

Redirect RFDs
For any redirected nicknames that are likely to be contentions, such as Microsloth, etc. i.e. those that have been around forever, and are not offensive, can you just hold on issuing any more until the results of the current ones are dealt with? Thanks, Nfitz 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not if you are going to revert my edits on the others. I have no idea why you are so determined to keep attack redirects, but I garuntee you I am just as or more determined than you to delete these things. RN 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine your trying to delete them; that's your right. But the process would be simpler if you followed the advice for this kind of situation on the Articles for deletion page and either "bundle" all of them together into a single nomination or for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group.  I realise you are trying to follow general Wikipedia polocies and procedures ... and as there is already one to cover multiple deletes, then it would just be simpler for everyone, including the moderators, to get through the exsiting test cases first.  Which is why I've recommended withdrawing the Microsloth RFD at this time.  Thanks,  Nfitz 19:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility
In response to your recent post on Talk:Analysis of Microsoft "Please bring your crusade someplace else". These comment is not polite, and not called for. Please follow the guidelines in No personal attacks. Thank you, Nfitz 23:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it is slightly uncivil; which I apologize for, but it is not a personal attack. RN 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the overtones involved with the word Crusade, I could only assume it was an attack, as I would doubt that anyone would use it in any other way (excepting Dubya of course :-) But I'll accept, and hope we can both keep civil. Nfitz 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorial advice
Consider this stuff, some of which I learned the hard way - some of us (half the people in lot of RFDs there) have worked a long time on Microsoft and related articles. I was the one who personally got it up to featured status, which took many, many weeks; nearly a whole year. Meanwhile you are coming in, persistantly claiming you know what it is best for them. It is fine to make suggestions, but wikilawyering around and claiming each of us has some sort of axe or POV to grind, especially which clear evidence of knowing NOTHING of the history of the pages, is not cool. In the future, please ask questions, read the history of the pages and talkpages/afds, and try to work towards a COMPROMISE with other editors; otherwise you'll just drive them away, and then you'll have no one left to help you out... RN 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't done a single edit to any of those articles. Nor have I said anyone has axes to grind; though I've been accused of that by some.  And I'm not the one who started the wikilawyering .... Nfitz 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "And I'm not the one who started the wikilawyering " - well, that is too bad that you have chosen that path... RN 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But it was you who started the wikilawyering, by issuing the RFD on Microshit, rather than starting to build consensus on my Talk page. Given that it was brand new; and from my edit history, I'm clearly not a vandal, I don't think that it was necessary to go the full monty. Nfitz 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

September 14, 2006
Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Nfitz 01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nfitz, don't be a dick. RN doesn't bust his ass improving the encyclopedia to have people like you come around leaving subst'd warnings on his page that are completely irrelevant.  Focus your energy on improving the encyclopedia instead.  Thanks.  -/- Warren 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)