User talk:Ryan Norton/Archive 1

hello!
Good to see you again! :-) -/- Warren 07:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been keeping pretty busy around here. The release of Windows Vista has brought a lot of attention to Wikipedia's Windows articles so I've been helping keep things sane.  Thankfully the vandalism hasn't been too bad... I think we're going to aim for getting the Vista article up to FA in a few months.  It's already been nominated twice but turned down because of concerns that the article wasn't going to be stable until after its release.  -/- Warren 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Macintosh
Thanks for your help. It's been a long FARC and I have ben persuaded that there are problems too big to fix, both mechanical (references) and abstract (organization, structure, focus). I've told them I'm throwing in the towel, but if you want to hold the nom open while actually work on the article, go ahead. Macintosh is the forgotten older brother of the ever popular iPhone and iPad; iPod receives even less attention. I'm going on Wikibreak soon for several weeks, so I guess our timing work out pretty badly. There's a lot of suggestions on the FARC page that you can work on if you like, but I think it's going to require some more in depth discussion - what is a Macintosh? What aspects of it are important? Shame I won't be here for that....although the cynic in me says not much will get done when I'm not here. HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. You said it should focus more on the history, when I've seen it slammed before for having too much history. This is what I meant by "What is a Macintosh" - is it one of a finite number of models, or is it one that is designed with care and detail, or one that resembles Justin Long more than John Hodgman, or one that runs OSX no matter who makes the hardware? Thank you for your compliment. I know you're not technically part of WP:APPLE, but we're being reported on for the Signpost Wikiproject report and I think another experienced voice would be beneficial. Up to you. HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're emphasizing the hardware too much. Apple makes its money on hardware, as witnessed with the clone fiasco, but a Macintosh really is a synthesis of hardware and software (and even netware). So case-in-point: everyone has a different vision of the article. HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(Note to self: bug HTH in September when he returns so we can try to get Macintosh back as an FA :)) RN 23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your mop
I've given back your mop. Please be sure to read the reading list again. Should you have any questions, feel free to ask me or any of our active admins. Welcome back. :)  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Lots of buttons smashed in the new interface; going to take it slow for a while. RN 23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The salting was pretty standard. I don't think a block is needed either. I see you left a personal note on their talk, so that's fine.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Have fun with your newly restored mop and let me know if I can be of assistance. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and it's good to see an 'old timer' returning. Look forward to seeing you around!  Best wishes, Jusdafax   22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. It's good to know I have several people wanting to help me get familiar again :). RN 23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I do not know you from before, I do welcome you back. However, I'll warn you that the current contention at WP:BN is only a small taste of how things have changed in your absence. I advise you to avoid the drama noticeboard if possible. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - I'm avoiding my re-instatement debate even for fear of stirring up the unrest even more. There were some heated debates when I left, but usually over page deletion; heh. RN 01:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Image on page Microsoft
Hi, I see that you removed an Image named "Plant maintained by Microsoft, Bangalore, India.jpeg" from article Microsoft. This image was uploaded and originally added by me to this article. While I didn't think that this image would stay more than a few minutes on the page, it did survive 8 months! Which makes me believe that this image does add some encyclopaedic value (or a bit of humour, probably) to this article.

So, may I ask you to restore the image if you do not feel too strong about it?

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft&diff=prev&oldid=372172617 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant42 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

PR
Thanks for the thanks - I will take another look at the PR and respond to your comments. Welcome back too, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you found a useful book, thanks again for keeping the article up to standards, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Apple Inc.!
Hello RN, welcome to WikiProject Apple Inc.! We aim to create and improve articles related to Apple Inc. Feel free to post ideas at the general forums and look at our "how to help" list for things to do. Happy editing, — m o n o   02:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC) — m o n o  02:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Schools
Thanks. yes, I must have slipped up because I know full well that  schools, at  least  high  school are de facto notable. I'm not a drive-by - it  was a forgiveable 0.9% error I guess.--Kudpung (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename
I'll go ahead and take your word for it and waive the remaining wait period, but could you log out of all projects first? I think that being logged in while the 'crat changes the name is sometimes what causes contribs to get split for users with larger edit counts. Make an edit here saying "Logging out now" and then log out immediately and I'll go ahead with the rename. – xeno talk 18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Logging out now (wait 1 minute just to be 100% sure :)) RN 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're all set =) – xeno talk 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU! Waited years for this! Ryan Norton 18:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Happy editing, – xeno talk 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh! An admin with only one edit, ever ;-)
 * ...by which I mean: congratulations on the new username! (I'm a talkpage stalker over at and WP:BN is on my watchlist, so I realise you may have slightly more than one edit...!)
 * TFOWR 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry those contribs will catch up soon =] – xeno talk 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, if I need to log out at any time let me know - I noticed it first from checking my admin log - only to see it empty, LOL. It's caught up already, awesome. Thanks again :). Ryan Norton 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The RN account didn't get auto-recreated so it looks like the log out trick worked, at least in part. We'll see how long for the contribs to come over. – xeno talk 19:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, just the contributions at this point, log is fully transferred already. Considering I had over 10k edits the delay probably isn't that unusual... Ryan Norton 19:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Contributions are showing now :). Ryan Norton 02:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dick Cheney's health
FYI, in case you are interested and not yet aware of it, your close of Articles for deletion/Dick Cheney's health is being discussed at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. --B (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

someone
someone asked me to talk with you. Should have done it earlier but I didn't know.

You made a big boo-boo by re-opening the AFD. Some say it can be done but all of those people have failed to point out the policy allowing it after I asked.

The proper thing to do would have been to suggest deletion review instead of re-opening it.

Further, it looks very bad that you had off-wiki "consultations" (your term) then you re-opened it and a flood of delete votes came in.

I think the best and most admirable way to act now is to close it as "no consensus originally and a can of worms since then" and then have one of the delete people consider nominating it for deletion review. That is the most honorable thing to do. I was trying to be polite by not editing it or voting. I did not vote until the whole thing erupted. MVOO (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, you asked Jimbo and he told you that the close and open were totally in process. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 01:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and now it's been deleted. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 01:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick!
I wrote on ANI how you can resolve this matter in a good way. Seriously consider it and consider doing it right away. My solution is not what I like but a wise and impartial one, I think  You are the best person to defuse this situation. Be wise and smart. Sitting on the sides is not leadership and actually hurts this website. MVOO (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

MS
writes a lot of FAs and follows computers and stuff. I'm not up to speed with tech blogs, and in general, blogs aren't acceptable anymore, although tech blogs are apparently considered as cutting edge by computer people. I'm afraid I'm not up to speed with computer content  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've been working on a rework on of the article history using real book sources, but a lot of them aren't up to date past 1993 and actually are inaccurate most of the time on obvious details and fail to give specific release dates. You are right about blogs; especially with tech blogs as it's hard to tell if its a blog or published report as the leading tech sites often categorize stuff under "news & blogs" now ;p. Strangly enough,  is the best general source I found so far - actually uses inline cites with page numbers (several..) for each point, I'm unsure how it falls under WP:RS since it's a straight website and the magazines it cites are lost in time. RN 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WHY!?!?!
I do not think that the page "Lenore Raphael" should have been deleted i was not finished working on it and i was about to put in the notes and references. Lexiegirl103 (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an unfortunate fact here that an article has to assert some claim of significance to avoid a speedy deletion - don't take offense. Articles for creation is a great place to create an article that should avoid most of these hazards.  Also, I've copied the contents of the page to your userspace at User:Lexiegirl103/Lenore_Raphael - you can work on it there; then, once you have some claim to how the subject of the article is significant (and preferably some references as well) you can move it back to Lenore_Raphael. Ryan Norton 03:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Robin Murphy article
This is the second time this article has been deleted to my knowledge. It was previously restored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Murphy&action=edit&redlink=1

Why does this article keep getting repeatedly scrutinized? I don't know why it was deleted before or the realization that caused it to be restored yet the fact that it was restored should speak to validity of the entry. I defended the delete suggestion with information as requested yet it was completely ignored by labeling Dr. Murphy as "questionable notability" yet even in the argument for deletion a quote was referenced from a book written by the Vice President of the National Center for Homeopathy (at the time) in which the Vice President (Edward Shalts) describes Dr. Murphy as "prominent American homeopath Robin Murphy". The National Center is the largest Homeopathy organization in the United States and has been around for over 70 years. If anyone is qualified to point out who is notable in the field I think it is safe to say the Vice President, who is elected to the position, of that organization does. That point alone should negate the opinions of wiki editors or contributors who have no affiliation or experience in the field of Homeopathy.

I understand the article was a short one and more information could have been added but I see no reason why that would be cause for deletion and not being listed as a stub.

Were he not a homeopath of note would there be numerous books that cite, reference or quote him or his books in the fields of homeopathy and naturopathy? The following are just a few of the books from the first page of the google book search that one person claimed they also did and couldn't find any mention of Robin Murphy which they used as a basis for "questionable notability" and the proposal for deletion. When was the last time a non-noted person's work was referenced so many times that you know of (and these books listed below are just from the first page of results alone)?

Google Book Search Results Page http://www.google.com/search?q=robin+murphy+homeopathy&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=bks:1&ei=OupHTIHiAYL78Ab4wYGpBQ&start=0&sa=N

Easy homeopathy: the 7 essential remedies you need for common illnesses and ... By Edward Shalts, Stephanie Gunning http://books.google.com/books?id=hCQgQCs1KmwC&pg=PA177&dq=robin+murphy+homeopathy&hl=en&ei=_OZHTJLzJIL68AbwjeWpBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=robin%20murphy%20homeopathy&f=false

Homeopathy, a Manual for Mothers: How to Treat Common Health Conditions in ... By Janee Niebler http://books.google.com/books?id=-CL6c4gGCJ0C&pg=PA130&dq=robin+murphy+homeopathy&hl=en&ei=_OZHTJLzJIL68AbwjeWpBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=robin%20murphy%20homeopathy&f=false

Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy By James Tyler Kent http://books.google.com/books?id=ADAtbPP8HkYC&pg=PA12&dq=robin+murphy+homeopathy&hl=en&ei=_OZHTJLzJIL68AbwjeWpBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=robin%20murphy%20homeopathy&f=false

Practical homeopathy: a comprehensive guide to homeopathic remedies and ... By Vinton McCabe http://books.google.com/books?id=GbU3uTrvak0C&pg=PA574&dq=robin+murphy+homeopathy&hl=en&ei=_OZHTJLzJIL68AbwjeWpBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=robin%20murphy&f=false

The Homeopathic Emergency Guide: A Quick Reference Handbook to Effective ... By Thomas Kruzel http://books.google.com/books?id=ag7FFm8Qae4C&pg=PA321&dq=robin+murphy+homeopathy&hl=en&ei=_OZHTJLzJIL68AbwjeWpBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=robin%20murphy%20homeopathy&f=false

A Guide to the Methdologies of Homeopathy By Ian Watson http://books.google.com/books?id=-Fc0aOvaO6UC&pg=PA115&dq=robin+murphy+homeopathy&hl=en&ei=_OZHTJLzJIL68AbwjeWpBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=robin%20murphy&f=false

Naturally There's Hope: A Handbook of Naturopathic Care of Cancer Patients By Neil McKinney http://books.google.com/books?id=JXMFZg7kqykC&pg=PA118&dq=robin+murphy+homeopathy&hl=en&ei=_OZHTJLzJIL68AbwjeWpBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=robin%20murphy%20homeopathy&f=false

Aspects Of Homeopathy: Musculo-skeletal Problems By Ian Watson http://books.google.com/books?id=U2muDIXMDWkC&pg=PA2&dq=robin+murphy+homeopathy&hl=en&ei=_OZHTJLzJIL68AbwjeWpBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=robin%20murphy%20homeopathy&f=false

The Healing Enigma: Demystifying Homeopathy By Vinton McCabe http://books.google.com/books?id=zcrWi4r5sV8C&pg=PA348&dq=robin+murphy+homeopathy&hl=en&ei=oulHTNvCCcKC8gbbysmZBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=robin%20murphy%20homeopathy&f=false

Hhpedia (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For my reference the afd in question. Ryan Norton 07:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hhpedia. The article was most recently deleted as a result of an deletion discussion. Ryan Norton did not play any role in this, except for "closing" the discussion once it had run its course, and performing the deletion as mandated by the participants in the discussion. I would imagine that Ryan had no view on the article's merits whatsoever: as an administrator Ryan's role was purely to assess the outcome of the discussion, and take any action required.
 * You may find more information at Articles for deletion/Robin Murphy, which is where the discussion took place. However, I realise you did participate so you will presumably be familiar already with the views of the participants.
 * There is a "WikiProject" dealing with homeopathy (WP:WikiProject Homeopathy), however it appears to be inactive. Its particpants are listed at WikiProject Homeopathy/Participants, and some of them may still be regular contributors. It might be worth asking for their advice, as they may have experience of creating articles about homeopaths.
 * Just to reiterate: Ryan's role here was purely procedural: to assess the result of the deletion discussion, and perform the deletion as mandated by that discussion.
 * TFOWR 07:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * thank you :TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> for your feedback. I do understand Ryan's role was not part of the discussion. However as an administrator I'm assuming he has a broader view and experience than a contributor. This is more of an appeal to those sensibilities to review the discussion and past history of this article and to get it reinstated, as I question the qualifications of those in the discussion to make an informed judgement about deletion in this case. I don't know what ability an administrator has to that end but as he was the deleting administrator I would think he has some discretion in matters such as these.

Hhpedia (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Hhpedia - just to add to what User:TFOWR said, administrators are just normal editors with extra tools that are trusted by the community; they are not generally an expert in every subject (much as we would like to be). As an administrator in an article for deletion debate, our job is to make sure everyone is following guidelines and policies previously accepted by the community; in this case there were quite a few people voicing their opinion, and none of them agreed with you.  In a way, they tried to help you by pointing to specific guidelines commonly accepted for the type of article being discussed - perhaps in hope of you coming up with sources that brings that article to meet those guidelines. Even after your second comment there were several people that specifically disagreed with it, citing the guidelines for inclusion yet again. Perhaps, rather then assuming the commentators are not qualified to make a judgement on the article (as you said "You obviously are unaware of Homeopathy and it's history and therefore not suited to make a claim on who is notable and who is not" et al.), you should Assume good faith and try to discuss it with them on an equal level.
 * Also, just a tip - you don't have to comment with raw url links. You can make links like this to save space and help highlight points in your arguments.  Help:URL has more info if you are interested. Ryan Norton 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ryan, the links i pointed out in that debate and in this talk page are in direct response to the reasons the original person cited as a reason for deletion due to him/her not being able to find that sort of needed information. Obviously their original statement was incorrect and showed an obvious lack of knowledge of what they were searching for, as I found that little bit of info quite easily. The facts are being glossed over to the point where it almost seems there may be bias in regards to either Robin Murphy or Homeopathy articles in general. Answer me this if you will, how can a lay person refute the printed statement of notability of Dr. Murphy by the Vice President of the National Center of Homeopathy ("prominent American homeopath Robin Murphy")? How is that critical thinking? When was the last non-notable person or their work that you know of cited in some many legitimately published written works? I know nothing about the field of theoretical physics but if a person pointed out a book in which Stephen Hawking named some guy I've never heard of as a 'prominent theoretical physicist' and there were 10+ other books that cite that guys work as sources would it not be a correct assumption to say he is notable in that field even if I could care less about theoretical physicist? Just those two points alone were the main substance of the argument for deletion (questionable notability and lack of appearance in google book reference search). I've cited references, given search links, even a description of his work and why it is important in the field and yet it's being judged by those who have no interest or experience in the field so it ultimately means nothing to them. I'm asking your opinion, did I not disprove their argument and adequately prove mine? I didn't even mention the books for which Dr. Murphy is noted for and how they are a staple for Homeopaths and standard texts in Homeopathy Colleges throughout the world. What am I missing? Hhpedia (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again Hhpedia. "how can a lay person refute the printed statement of notability of Dr. Murphy by the Vice President of the National Center of Homeopathy ("prominent American homeopath Robin Murphy")?" - that was in the opening statement for the discussion, and 6+ people came in and basically agreed with the opening statement's assessment; also, avoid assuming any of them are a "lay person" - you really don't know unless they explicitly say so. This is the Internet after all.  "What am I missing?" - That fact that, as already mentioned, my role is mostly per procedure; also, consider reading WP:FRINGE and WP:GNG if you haven't very carefully; consider that perhaps the people in the debate are right in regards to the article not meeting Wikipedia's guidelines.  Also, if he really is notable the article will likely be created again at some point in the future with sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines, as Wikipedia is a very popular website. My suggestion would be to take a deep breath and re-read Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and editing, and simply move on from this subject. Ryan Norton 06:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

MSFT
Can you expand on your edit summary reverting the updated figures for MSFT? These are widely reported earnings figures for the company and have been filed as an 8K with the SEC (which was a source for the three figures I updated, at least). Is your concern that the numbers may change materially with the quarterly filing? That would seem to be a fairly unprecedented occurrence. No rush to add them, to be sure; I think the 10Q is Tuesday or so, so no problems with waiting. I was just curious about your comments. Kuru  (talk)  18:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They weren't sourced! I'm already trying to avoid a FAR on MSFT ATM, don't want unsourced content - I'm adding the correct figures in anyway just to prevent edit wars for 6 days or so :). Ryan Norton 18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand completely. If I can help with anything, please let me know.  :)  Kuru   (talk)  18:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Rev Deletes
I have some issues with your recent revision deletions (namely, they look like fairly standard vandalism / personal attacks that shouldn't be removed) but I don't have time to discuss that at the moment, I'll leave a longer note later, but in the mean time could you review those deletions? Thanks. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  19:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I did misread R2 it appears.... apologies. FYI this was the event that broke the camel's back for removal of access; thank you for pointing out my mistake. Ryan Norton 20:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great shame (and not just because it was edits to my talkpage you were removing). I believe you have a great deal to bring to Wikipedia as a veteran admin, and that the (IMHO) minor issues you've had returning to mop-wielding would iron out quickly. Things have changed - and will change - but you've obviously got the skill and intelligence to quickly adapt. I hope you'll pick up the mop again at some point (hopefully soon).
 * In the meantime, happy editing, and - if you don't mind - I'll continue to stalk your talkpage!
 * <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do, I like talk page stalkers :). Ryan Norton 20:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Noooooooo! I agree with TFOWR, I thought you were doing a good job and everybody has a few minor issues- I was no different when I got the bit a few months ago and I imagine it's no different coming back after such a long break. I'm sorry to see you resign your bit, but I hope you'll stick around as an editor. I've given you rollback, autopatrolled and reviewer rights and if you need anything else, just ask. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I hope you will reconsider. Wikipedia can very much use a voice of experience like yourself. The mistakes you have made aren't nearly enough to justify losing you as an admin. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to badger RN here and !vote twice in order to agree with HJ and NW... WP:REVDEL is very new. None of us are comfortable with it yet (except maybe oversighters, who presumably aren't using revdel anyway...) and there aren't the clearly understood community norms that exist with our other tools. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made less-than-brilliant revision deletions (I've also come close to totally buggering up the Main Page. Twice!); it's not a big deal. We learn from it, we move on and we try not to f*ck up again, but if admins resigned every time they made a mistake, we wouldn't have any. I hope you'll at least give some thought to asking for your bit back. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to express my surprise. There was simply no reason for you to ask for your bit to be taken. While such an action is often suggested to embattled admins, nothing you have done gives me pause as to your quality, either as an admin or as an editor. Please reconsider. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 02:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of access
Ryan, as per your request I have removed your sysop tools here. We thank you for your work as administrator. Regards, --Dferg (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, this was totally unneeded, I wish you hadn't done that. Certainly doesn't make me feel very good, I wish you'd reconsider. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, this seems totally unnecessary and I also hope Ryan will reconsider, this is imo not at all under a cloud and Ryan would be able to pick the tools back up whenever he feels to. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc. August 2010 Newsletter
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 11:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Apologies for the slight bot malfunction in the edit summary, following redirects from renamed users was a new feature. - EdoDodo  talk 11:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - thanks! I updated my name yesterday on the project so this shouldn't be an issue in the future anyway :). Ryan Norton 11:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay :). - EdoDodo  talk 17:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft
My thought is that if someone is working on an article, it is probably not time to send it to FAR. I think of FAR more as for articles that have been "abandoned" by the authors who brought them to FA status, with no one else taking up the slack, or for articles with major problems that no one is working on (some really old FAs had very few refs, for example), or more rarely for articles that are stuck somehow (some articles are resuced in FAR, though not as many as used to be). I did not think the prose failed 1a; I think that it is more difficult to write about technical / business subjects in many ways. If you really think you have done all you can and no one else is working on it, then yes. Otherwise I would wait and see, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)