User talk:Ryan Norton/Archive6

Wishes
I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 16:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You're back!
I see you're back - welcome! We need honest users like you, so please don't leave us again :-) Izehar 21:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yay!
Welcome back!!! :) Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Welcome back by me also :):) --Jaranda wat's sup 21:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yay! You're back! --Cel e stianpower háblame 22:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hahahaha! Today is a good day for the Wiki! Welcome back! Blackcap (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Welcome back! -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  01:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...
Hello :-) Nice to see you're back. Check your e-mail too at your leisure. --HappyCamper 05:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic/Arabic numerals
Hi RN. I see that you closed the vote with moving the article back to Arabic numerals. I still see people voting. Cheers -- Szvest 05:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Hi RN! Thanks for your contribution to the Hindu-Arabic numerals vote. I would like to point out that the oppose votes were by editors favoring the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals", while the support votes were by editors favoring "Arabic numerals." I understand that it's easy to get confused. I've moved the article names to the state when the voting started. I guess it's time to close voting (of course, it can continue indefinitely with people voting sporadically), but the verdict is for the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals." Cheers :) deeptrivia (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi RN. It was actually a bit more complicated. The title was originally Arabic numerals. After a lengthy discussion, we reached a consensus to move it to Hindu-Arabic numerals, There was a second round in which among ten participants, 7 clearly favored Hindu-Arabic numerals, and none opposed it. Despite this consensus, an editor reverted it back to Arabic numerals, citing that the process was not listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The voting was done again and after a few days, seeing a strong verdict, another editor hastily changed it back to Hindu-Arabic numerals. This called for a fourth voting. Now the fourth voting has gone for over ten days, and I think it is time to close it. I understand that we are still getting a vote every one or two days, but I don't think that will ever end. This issue has dragged on for a real long time, sapping energies that could have been used for much more productive editing, and I would request you to please close the voting now. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, as an admin involved in blocking some members of the edit war on the page for WP:3RR, I have been following the events on that page off and on. It appears that a misunderstanding has prompted you to move it to Arabic numerals. The verdict, as deeptrivia rightly points out is to retain the article at Hindu-Arabic numerals. Please undo your move and also protect the page from moves. Do it asap. Let me know if you need any clarifications by pinging on my talkpage. --Gurubrahma 07:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The voting started with the agreement that "Hindu-Arabic numerals" is the original title. We were denied an opening statement on that ground, which makes a major difference, since many people just read the opening statement and understandably don't bother with the discussion below the votes. This was accepted (even though I still thought it was *extremely* unfair) with the agreement that the article will be moved to "Arabic numerals" only if more than 60% voters favored that title. (see also User_talk:Deeptrivia. Now, despite having 27 votes for "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and 17 for "Arabic numerals", I see no way how I can accept moving to "Arabic numerals" as fair. deeptrivia (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was originally at Arabic numerals but it seemed to have a broad consensus that Hindu-Arabic numerals is a more academically correct title. I guess both the groups got into revert and move wars, but in balance, it appears that the title of Hindu-Arabic numerals (HAN) has found broader consensus. I feel this is all the more impressive since the original title was at Arabic numerals (AN). Also, a cursory glance suggests that most of the people voting for HAN had been around for much longer on Wikipedia than those voting for AN. Also, Britannica calls it HAN and so on (mentioned by the proponents of HAN during voting), so the weight of argument is also on their side. Thus, I feel that it should be moved to HAN. However, I am not willing to do it myself as I respect your judgement as a fellow admin. All I am asking you is to reconsider your decision in light of the above facts that you may have missed. --Gurubrahma 07:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is not just about Britannica, it is the correct name. Also, "Arabic numerals" has different connotations as pointed out by some ppl. on the talkpages. I am ok either way (in terms of my preference for the title) but believe that it should be HAN on the basis of what has transpired (as indicated in the thread above). --Gurubrahma 10:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * HAN was agreed upon as "original name", and AN as "proposed name" for the purpose of this voting at the beginning of voting by all parties. All procedures were followed by this in mind. We are duty bound to keep the name HAN. deeptrivia (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is understandable that you didn't read the my comments on WP:MoS, which are unfortunately, not in the lead text (following WP:RM conventions, which say that only arguments for "proposed name" are in the lead text.) I have explained how the name HAN is in accordance to all wikipedia rules, including the common names rule (eg, it states that the name should be such that "it does not conflict with the names of other people or things", while there's clearly a disambiguation between 3-4 different uses.) In any case, I am sure you appreciate that your opinion counts for exactly one vote. deeptrivia (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sorry I had moved the article back to Hindu-Arabic numerals after you moved it to Arabic numerals. At that time I was convinced it was some kind of vandalism, because I didn't know about your great contributions to WP:RM. I am still convinced that if you properly understand the case at hand, you will at once rename the article back. I still find it completely unjust, unfair and high-handed. At this point I feel either I should lose faith in wikipedia, and leave editing altogether, or feel myself duty bound to move the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals in accordance to wikipedia rules and verdict of the voters. I hope you will at least try to understand this. The title of the article was Hindu-Arabic numerals for many days when the voting was called. I would have strongly preferred it to be "Arabic numerals" at the beginning of the voting, so that I can get to write the lead text, since it makes a HUGE difference. I was not allowed to do that with the promise that there should be at least 60% votes favoring "Arabic numerals" for the change to take place. Now I feel completely disgusted and cheated. Could you explain why I should not feel this way? deeptrivia (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi RN. This was already the fourth time voting was done on this move. All voters that voted for the fourth time would understandably be frustrated by voting again and again. I might decide to leave the issue here, and concentrate on more useful things, but I absolutely refuse to accept that there was even 0.0001% of fairness or justice in this move. I am not able to comprehend what is preventing you from changing the title back now. To me it is extremely clear that all wikipedia policies strongly require the title to be Hindu-Arabic numerals, in light of the vote results. Seriously, I find the move ridiculous. deeptrivia (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

re: User:Everyking block
I don't think there's any danger of me falling into a "just following orders" trap. :-P I think my rationale was both lenient and reasonable, and completely within the bounds of civility, hope of dispute resolution, and the expectation of administrators' rôles (something with which Everyking should be thoroughly familiar, unfortunately). It is unfortunate, as you said, that he's chosen to conduct himself as he has. As I said on his talk page, he is a valuable contributor, something the 3% of his contributions to discussion often threatens to obscure. Tom e rtalk 07:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

MAS
Thank you for moving MAS (Bolivia). Could you also move Movement Toward Socialism (Venezuela) to Movement for Socialism (Venezuela). --Soman 09:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Move of Montreal Expos article
Are you sure you didn't lose significant history in this move? Andrewa 09:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You replied on my talk page

Hi Andrew!

If I recall this one it appeared to be a cut n' paste move to the accented version, so I moved over the unaccented version and performed a full history merge.

Let me know if I did it incorrectly or any other concerns you have.

WhiteNight T 10:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By merge, do you mean that you deleted the unaccented version of the article, moved the accented version to the unaccented name, and then undeleted the history of the accented version? If so, oh dear.


 * That's not to be encouraged when the histories overlap in time. It makes rather a mess of them, and isn't easily reversed. Andrewa 12:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure - I apologize if that happened. I may have had one of the merging policies in my mind wrong and/or backwards :).

I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. Thanks!

WhiteNight T 13:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Talk:Montreal Expos. Is that a fair summary of what has now happened? If so, I think I need to ask for developer assistance to untangle it.


 * My definition of expert is someone who has already made most of their mistakes, so don't feel bad about it. But I think we need to fix it. Or at the very least, I need to ask for some other opinions. And I could be wrong about any of it, the software is continually being upgraded and I don't keep track of all of it. So it's possible I'm maligning you. Andrewa 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that's a fair assessment I guess. To be honest I don't remember that much overlapping history - just the redirects from the unaccented version, but maybe it is best to get clarification on it... WhiteNight T 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

?!
Long time no see. Redwolf24 (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back!
It's nice that you are back! And thanks for performing the I Still Believe (Brenda K. Starr song) -> I Still Believe page move. :) Extraordinary Machine 14:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Cats de-fanged (except not)
Hi, RN. I tried to remove your userpage User:RN/RM from the Category:Requested moves and Category:Wikipedia requests pages (where, as a userpage, it shouldn't appear) by inputting colons. The left-over post-pipe bits turned out to play tricks I couldn't understand, though, so I ended up reverting myself. I hope you don't mind my interferingness. You probably know more about removing the userpage from the category pages than I do! Bishonen | talk 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem - thanks for the attempt :). I just removed the cats now anyway - it's basically a test page :). Thanks! WhiteNight T 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad you're back
Hi RN. I'm glad you've returned to editing here: looking at your contribs list, you've been very busy indeed recently. (I'm on an Xmas break, so have had a few things pass me by.) We've had a spate of departures, and, just very recently, a couple of them return. I hope that the environment is such that you all stick around. If your edit rate here is minor compared to that on Meta, then Meta must be quite delighted to have your greater attentions!

It seems we're in for a period of change on en.wiki in the near future; you've already spotted those that have turned up, no doubt, and we hear rumours of more in the pipeline. I wonder what effect that will have on the community: Wiki is a (dangerously?) conservative place, as a function of the adherence to the ultra-conservative notion of consensus. So when Jimbo decides it's time to experiment...we might find ourselves in fairly unfamiliar territory. I'm hopeful that a shaking-down and dusting-off might make us all realise that we agree far more than we think we do. Should make for an interesting few months! -Splash talk 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not leaving
I'm not leaving, though I am aiming to spend less time editing here (the unfortunate and abrupt departure of user:FuriousFreddy has definitely changed the way I see Wikipedia). It's just that I forgot to sign out of my account and then my brother tinkered with my user page, and I didn't notice. I think the edits you made to KaDee Strickland were fine...I hope it doesn't appear that I am guarding it as if it were sacred scripture, because that definitely isn't my intention, and it isn't "the wiki way", as they say. Also, I somewhat agree with you that the article was "so unbelievably glowing of her" initially, but again that wasn't my intention and I assumed that somebody would have expressed concerns during the peer review and FAC processes. Anyway, I hope that you have a nice holiday as well. Extraordinary Machine 00:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: The Alternative Factor (TOS episode)
Hello; thanks for your note. However, I'm mildly perplexed by it: given the prior backlog of move requests days ago and hoping for some action, I also placed a request for redirect/deletion, and presume the other admin acted on that somehow but not fully.

This really shouldn't be a big deal, methinks: I'm just requesting that the article (history and content) reside at ...TOS... – as with all Star Trek articles and per the ST article naming guidelines - not at The Alternative Factor as it now does. That is, they need to be swapped. I'd do this myself (and tried!), but I don't know how. Please advise, and thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 02:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the confusion: despite my abortive attempts to move the articles/histories, I thought the request was clear. In any event, thank you very much! :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Super duper sweeper
I know, I know...it might be a bit overly dramatic -- but thanks to you, WP:RM is almost cleaned up! :-) Here's a snowblower for you - perfectly tuned for the Wikipedian winters in the northern hemisphere. May it serve you well eternally on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 02:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)



I came here to award you something for cleaning the RM backlog but any image I'd add would pale in comparison to HappyCamper's &mdash; so let me just second that snowblower :) - Haukur 12:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic Numerals.
change it back to hindu-arabic numerals that is the official name..................

Happy New Year
Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 17:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year from me too! :) deeptrivia (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza elections
Hey, thanks. I'm pretty sure I'll stick around... but it's good to see you back! :) Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Communication disorders
Sadly, I have neither the power nor the expertise to provide a better name. I was only trying to provide some order to the category, and as Autism was listed in the communication disorder article, I was unaware that it was contentious. You may wish to remove it from the latter article. In any case, it was not my intention to POVize, and I'm really not qualified to comment one way or the other. Sorry. – Seancdaug 07:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir_Henry_Norreys
Hi. I blankened the page by following the instructions in Copyvio -article. --syvanen 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

World Cup
You moved the page before the end of the vote Jooler 18:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

:) :) :)
Welcome back!!!! Glad to see a sane person return to the Wiki-fold; you have been missed. Xoloz 16:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move
Thanks for the message. :) I agree a topic on such an issue is controversial and will draw a lot of flack. I'm not 100% familiar with the rules of WP:RM (I'm a bit rusty on areas I don't frequent these days), so I don't know the stipulated time period or the urgency for this particular move.

I must admit the move was quite a surprise as the discussion was still underway. From the discussion (not the vote) in progress, only two users seem to be persistent in their effort to get the name moved, whereas a majority of users in the discussion are for keeping the name as it is. 60% is an arbitary number and it gives an unfair advantage to the person who has requested the move. I think the best thing that should be done now is to revert the page move, and lock it from a move till the situation can be more accurately gauged. I know I was involved in the discussion and so was extremely hesitant to revert the change. I'd planned to wait for a day or two to discuss any opposition.

This brings me to another archived debate: Calcutta vs. Kolkata (last March). This was an explosive debate and set the precedent for scores of other name changes for India- and South Africa-related locations. After the a month of debate, the numbers opposing the new name change dwindled. Finally on April 20, I moved the page from Calcutta to Kolkata without too much of a fuss. Till date not a voice of protest has been raised.

I know we all make mistakes, and so I don't blame you for anything especially after you took the pain to clarify things. Would you be amenable to maintaing the status quo and reverting the move till the issue dies a natural death? This would curb the allegations of favouritism. Treat this as a learning incident. Thanks, Regards & Wish you a Happy New Year '06, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/KM
The reason why I, and the admins who keep deleting it, view this as POV is because there has never been another shortcut to an RFC, and it appears to be an attempt at railroading Kelly Martin. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
If people want to put lots of silly little userboxes on their pages, more power to them, so long as they actually make edits (and the boxes don't contain copyvio images). There are large numbers of people who endorsed the RfC againt Kelly who do nothing but patrol talk pages and non-article space, many of them here to do nothing but cause trouble. I don't really like the idea of all of these boxes being used to factionalize Wikipedia, and I wish people would stop, but the big thing is that nobody seems to realize that Kelly was deleting copyright violations. Or else they don't care. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support of my RfA; I appreciate your confidence. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison Talk 13:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

OpenBSD
I don't know whether you are watching the FAC page, so I'll say this here too :-). If you are interested, I have made a lot of structural and flow changes, and efforts to reduce the article length, at User:NicM/OpenBSD, that I plan to use in a few days if everyone can be made happy with it. If you have any comments, they would be appreciated. NicM 21:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Micro-Soft
I believe it is Micro-Soft (at least according to a page at microsoft.com, of which the URL was removed from the references section during that large revert... sigh...) I'll look it up tomorrow. Cheers, &mdash;Ruud 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw you voted oppose against User:SimonP for the arbcom elections? What are your reasons for this? I'm thinking about supporting him, but it's always good the hear some extra opinions. Cheers, &mdash;Ruud 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

E-mail
No idea how closely you monitor your Wikipedia e-mail address... but you've got at least one. - brenneman (t) (c)  02:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
 Francs2000's Bureaucratship 

Thanks for your constructive comments on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Really debates?
I think you are proposing an automatic relist for an unchallenged deletion. I think that would add an unbearable burden to AfD for no clear benefit; an unchallenged article once is likely to be just as unchallenged again (if it gets any further attention at all). If someone has new info, they can always write a non-identical article freely, or run it through DRV if they know the article would otherwise be the same. I don't think we need to feel bad about deleting e.g. an article that is a blatant hoax, or an ad for the corner shop, or such. Debates that aren't really debates are just agreements that are particularly strong. (Usually, AfD messes up at times.) But your remark about "just relisting with the comment from VfU" sounds like you are wondering about something to do with VfU/DRV, so I may just have answered completely the wrong question.

Thanks for your response
Thanks for your response. I'm unclear on a few things. Are you saying that people with AS should lighten up, or is it everyone else? The problem that I see is that pure verbal communication, without the normal social cues is difficult for everyone. I feel this puts everyone, AS or not, in a disadvantage. It takes extra effort for me to understand the tone of what people are writing, where it is much easier in a live conversation. Much of the behavior I have seen looks almost identical to that of a troll. Even though I may understand why someone is behaving the way they are, I still don't know how to react. I'm wondering if we could start a "Request for Refactoring Mentors" or something similar, where people could write the comment they want to say, and the mentor would edit the comments to smooth out the rough edges. Anyway, As I have said, I don't think this is my problem to solve, but I am happy to help if I can. -- Samuel Wantman

Template:User GWB
Him do you think you could remove the "speedy" template from Template:User GWB again. If afraid that if I do it, I may violate the 3RR. Thanks. Izehar 20:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, believe me, I would block him. The problem is, he's wikilawyering/gaming the system and there is support for speedying that template. I have already semi-protected the page (he has a new account), so that should stop him and other vandals. Izehar 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Podcast Alley
I've checked it again, and a few related AfDs I closed. There are certainly a number of GNAA votes, but I haven't discounted them all - some are valid, in my opinion. Three excluded votes were cast by Jamx, Tapir and Forallah; other GNAA users whose votes I counted were Dapakote, Femmina, Hosterweis and Incognito. I think the result stands, but it was closer than I indicated in my closing comments. Mind matrix  15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Autism MB12
I see you have reverted the part about MB12.But It si a vitamin used for detoxification.See Dr. Neubrander's website.