User talk:Ryan Paddy/Archive 1

Thanks for research on Spearhead LARP
Regarding this discussion on List of live action role-playing groups. Thanks for taking the time to assume good faith and do the research to back up notable items. It's more work than simply deleting content, but far better for Wikipedia. I sometimes feel like I'm spending as much time defending good content as adding content, and it can be discouraging. Indeed, I've basically given up on the list, as most LARP group coverage tends to be in small newspapers who don't have online archives visible to Google. It's good to know that other editors are like minded. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. There's a fair amount of coverage of larp organisations in the mainstream media when you go looking for it, although some otherwise prominent groups do avoid being covered because of quite reasonable fear of poorly informed press, a subject I've written an article on. Definitely worth searching for media coverage though, and the groups' websites are often a good place to start as they sometimes have links to online articles about the group or scanned-in copies. --Ryan Paddy 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You continue to be endlessly polite and rational. Thank you for all of your time. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bicolline
Hello,

If you need any help in translating stuff from the news articles about Bicolline, just let me know. However, it may take some time as I'm very busy with my new boy who is just 10 days old... ;-). Don't hesitate to let me a note at my french talk page.  Cordially, Boréal (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, and congratulations. ;) I am working from Google translations of the French pages, which seem surprisingly good (I guess because the languages are so closely related). But I really appreciate your offer and will keep you in mind. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Origin of the notability concept
Sorry, but I can't take credit for it. The idea predates my edit by rather a lot. For as long as I've been with the project, we had a page on the "criteria for inclusion of biographies". (The page has been moved several times.) That first version didn't use the word "notability" but did try to establish some useful rules of thumb that met the same ends. I wasn't very involved with creation of that page but did watch it and tried to apply it.

Someone then created a parallel page for businesses. Having some experience there, I did help with the crafting of that page. What we discovered on the predecessor to WP:CORP was that absolute standards of inclusion didn't work very well - that any objective measure of revenues, headcount, etc. made for a very poor proxy of our ability to predict whether adequate sources existed or that we would ever find enough interested and informed writers to keep the article neutral and free of advertising. (Bias was a particular risk for articles about companies because they could afford to pay marketing agencies to write purely favorable content.) We found, however, that we could write reasonably objective standards for sourcability.

Over time, we discovered that the WP:CORP "primary" criterion worked really well. And it fit perfectly with the core attribute of an encyclopedia as a tertiary source, synopsizing the works of others. If there are insufficient secondary sources to work from, that's a pretty good indicator that we shouldn't have an article on the topic. I did, at one point, start to advocate for a generalization of that concept back from WP:CORP to some of the other pages that talk about inclusion criteria and I think that it's worked well.

But I can't take credit for the concept of "notability" or even for the WP:CORP wording on sourcability. I built on the work of much smarter people. Rossami (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your analogy to archeology was right on - in Wikipedia terms, you are talking ancient history. I remember that the concept was scattered across several different pages which were moved, merged, unmerged, moved, remerged and so on.  And at the time, the WikiMedia software didn't automatically document pagemoves.  You had to trust to the editor making the move to document it by hand.  Here are a few more pages to check that I culled from my Watchlist but some of the documentation also occurred on people's Talk pages and some of the most important conversations evolved out of individual AfD (then VfD) discussions.  Sorry I can't be more help.  Rossami (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Talk:Articles about ongoing enterprises
 * Wikipedia Talk:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines
 * Wikipedia Talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies
 * Wikipedia Talk:Notability/Historical/Significance
 * Wikipedia Talk:Notability/Proposal
 * Wikipedia Talk:Notability (companies and corporations)
 * Wikipedia Talk:Notability (organizations)
 * Wikipedia Talk:Notability (organizations and companies)
 * Wikipedia Talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive1

Come join the party
Requests_for_arbitration Inclusionist (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

problem
that's your problem. your perspective on the world is molded with "criticisms of the west", so every time you see an article that even slightly pokes at those good for nothing oil hogging capitalists, you immediately throw in support. as was the case with allegations of israeli apartheid. the problems were clear, obvious, and spelled out quite simply...yet you felt the article was well within the range of neutrality and quality.

i respect your opinion because im supposed, doesnt mean i have to like it. good day. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * whatever. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sayoni
Just as an FYI, you responded to nearly a month-old comment so s/he may not have seen it. It's now at AfD TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Lush
This was the entire article when it was deleted:

Marcus Lush is a Radio and Television personality In New Zealand. Born in Remuera Auckland. He is Notable for his off beat humor and love of all things Railway.

Feel free to repost with the sources you mentioned. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment
You can't seriously think that it's okay for someone to... All of the above of which are the kinds of things myself and others experienced from Eyrian and a few similar accounts that also ended up blocked. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * call fellow contributors "acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys obsessed with keeping every single piece of crap ever written"
 * claim insultingly that "nobody cares" about an article that obviously those who created, worked on, and argued to keep care about
 * make another "Acne-ridden teenagers" comment
 * claim something with sources is "unsourced"
 * assume that another editor doesn't read the posts in the discussion
 * thinks being engaged in disucssion is "harassing"
 * another hypothetical remark about teenagers
 * making assumptions that dismisses teenagers and insults adults
 * thinking raising concerns about suspect behavior is "wikistalking"


 * I thought you liked to keep discussion in one place? Feel free to refactor this back to your talk page. As I see it you're having a major over-reaction. Pressing your button isn't a crime. His userpage text is in poor taste, but poor taste doesn't violate WP:NPA. He's not attacking any particular user. You might have an outside chance at it being an ageist group attack on contributers, but you'd have to see it as something other than satire first. His comments on the AfDs are extremely mild, and your over-reaction to those in particular is weird, which is what made me comment. I read your comments on them first and thought "man this incivility sounds serious", then read everything he's posted (not much) and found it extra-mild. You're totally mischaracterising the degree of incivility. He's being a bit teasing of people who defend fannish subject matter, but apart from his user page it's all very weak tea. I just think you're in danger of coming off looking knee-jerk and over-sensitive here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His edits are insulting, whether or not they are to a particular user or to an ageist group doesn't change that fact, and the account is declared to have a singular purpose (trying to delete articles that the account considers to be "cruft") and I am concerned that it may be a disruptive sock based on the incivility and single-purpose nature of the account as well as the expressed unwillingness to actually discuss in AfDs. That practically everyone else in the alternate account category acknowledges who their main account is is also odd since this account seems unwilling to do that.  I understand from personal experience what it is to get trolled by certain accounts, but even I also acknowledge my two now-defunct alternate accounts at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.  AfDs can be immensely frustrating for editors on both sides of the discussion and it doesn't help when someone comes to the discussion saying right off the bat that those who want to keep the articles must be teenagers.  How do you get such an account to compromise and be open-minded?  Notice Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis where I initially argued to delete, but listened to the reason of others and changed to keep.  Imagine if I came to the discussion with an attitude of "I do not wish to have acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys obsessed with keeping every single piece of crap ever written pestering me on the talk page of my main account because I vote to delete whatever crap they are obsessed with saving, so this account will be used instead" and said the article should still be deleted anyway and used some other account to do so?  So, my concern is that we do not have editors being called names in AfDs or discussions influenced by anyone who is unwilling to argue to keep (yes, I know I usually argue to keep, but even I have nominated articles for deletion) or who is unwilling to engage in discussion in the AfDs or be open-minded to revisions to the articles in question or new evidence that turns up in the discussion.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's too early to judge the account's reasonableness in AfD, but so far he's just given opinions that articles that don't have evidence of notability should be deleted. That's entirely in keeping with Wikipedia consensus. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think accusing editors of writing "whiny essays" is reasonable. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not very civil language, but the point is reasonable. Policy is more important than verbage. Ryan Paddy (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid
I have a problem on Allegations of Israeli apartheid with Tirpse; whom I can't get through. Please see those edits and talk page and straighten it out. He seems not to understand that the West Bank and Gaza are not the same and you can't lump them together on the mattter of exit and entry points; thanks, I'm leaving for the day. Itzse (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not online much at the moment, will have to look at it again when I'm back home. Ryan Paddy (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my sloppy copy-paste error with this edit. It was a subtle mistake, and would have been easy to overlook. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apartheid in Israel
As a regular contributor to the article "Israel and the apartheid analogy" I would like to ask you to respond to my message on talk asking for explanation of the title. This message is at talk:Israel and... Thanks for your time --AreaControl (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ryan, I commented on the page again. Please replace the article-level tag asap. Thanks very much, best wishes, HG | Talk 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, nice, measured and friendly response there! Thanks, I needed that. I replied, too. HG | Talk 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "I'm more interesting in fixing the article than tagging it." Implying what about your conversation partner? HG | Talk 01:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
I just wanted to say that your good will in Parapsychology is making it increasingly easy for me to (re-)assume Good Faith. --nemonoman (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (We're still on different sides of the road, however)

I think that final collaboration on the lead of Parapsychology provided a pretty good example of WP working well. Thank you. --nemonoman (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bicolline
A tag has been placed on Bicolline requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs /Improve 07:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

bulk LARP deletions
In case you didn't notice, User:Daedalus969 bulk marked the LARP groups for speedy deletion, allowing him to avoid the AfD debate that probably would have gotten many, if not most, kept. A helpful admin who clearly isn't familiar with LARPing deleting most of them. It's going to be a long, long day. I believe step one is to ask the admin to reconsider, and only if he refuses to escalate. I've started my request here — Alan De Smet | Talk 15:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I gathered something of the sort was happening. Unfortunately, this comes just as I'm going away for a week and won't have much internet. There's a number of the groups I'd support keeping on the grounds of evidence of notability from news coverage. Others, like Maelstrom, are notable for their size but avoid publicity (they don't want photographers at events, and probably don't want the typical poorly-considered larp press, etc). And the list is an obvious keep. But I won't have much oppotunity to help defend them, so all the best~ :) Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nero international logo.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nero international logo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Owbn.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Owbn.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Profound Decisions Maelstrom logo.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Profound Decisions Maelstrom logo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Agerboern.jpg on Live action role-playing game
Re: Adding this image to LARP. Nice image! Good find! — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I saw it in the larp book Playground Worlds, and followed the publisher back to the photographer and asked them to release it. The photographer very generously agreed, and the models did too. I like it because it captures some of the excitement of larp in an accessible way, and the genre depicted isn't one of the stereotypes (fantasy and vampire) but is still representative of a lot of larp out there - costumes, weapons, "genre fiction", etc. Happy that the larp article has a face now. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello,
I know that you know that I was the one that mass-nom'd various articles on LARP groups for deletion. At some point, someone claimed I knew nothing about LARPs. Well, that is mostly true. I know virtually nothing about them, but I would like to.

I was brought to the wikipedia LARP page after a good friend had informed me of the existance of it. Simply, it looks quite fun indeed, and I actually wanted to try it out, some point in my life.

Unfortunately, this doesn't exactly seem possible, as every group I have come across exists over-seas(I live in southern California). Since you have not specified an email address through your preferences, I can only contact you here.

Thank you for your time.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs /Improve 07:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Heya. I'm in New Zealand, so I'm not personally familiar with larp groups in California. There is a list of US larps here, but some will no longer be active. There are a couple of forums that you could ask on like Shades and rpg.net, but it would be best to have an idea what sort of larp you're looking for first as the various styles appeal to different tastes. There are a lot of live combat fantasy larps in the US, but also World of Darkness (modern horror), Cthuhlu Live (1920s horror), and theatre-style (varied genres, usually with abstract rules for combat). And there are military-style larps using airsoft guns, too. You'll find a lot of larps in your area, and my advice is to think about what would appeal to you and research an event to make sure it seems well-run before trying it, and if it's not to your tastes then try another. Larp can be done appallingly badly, or amazingly well. It mostly depends on the skills of the arrangers and players involved.


 * In terms of the mass nominations, I agree with the general principal of deleting articles that do not demonstrate the notability of the subject. I've been quite active in AfD, I'm familiar with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and I usually agree with them. So my take on your nominations was that some were consistent with policy & guidelines but some were not, and my only disagreement on some articles was regarding whether they demonstrated notability. It might be worth spending some time in AfD discussions before doing mass nominations, it's a good way to get really familiar with notability and the consensus on how its usually interpreted. My understanding of speedy deletion is that it should only be used in totally clear-cut cases, if there is any room for argument then the AfD process is preferred. Also, the nominator should look for themselves to see if they can find evidence of notability before nominating, except in obvious cases of hoax or IP violation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Debaters
Look, I now you mean well, and I notice you even began adding footnotes to the list page. My question is "are you really going to be responsible for this article from now on?". I ask it because the people who have to this point been willing to add stuff to this list and monitor it have had to do massive editing and removing in order to keep it viable as an article. The criteria were added in order to make this job manageable. Now, I appreciate why you've removed it, but those who edit here feel some sort of guideline helps make the article workable. I don't mind rewording it so it doesn't violate WP, but removing it entirely will create alot of work for us. If you're happy to put your hand up to revamp the entire list and monitor it, then I'm fine with that. But I really doubt you are. Can you let me know what sort of disclaimer you are willing to allow on the page, so we can stop what was happening prior to the criteria (mass spamming of debaters names).JJJ999 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi JJJ999. I hope you took the Eeyore comment in the light spirit it was meant. ;) The thing is, the article in question is a stand-alone list of people and the guideline for such lists clearly state that the people must be notable as a person of the specified type, in this case debaters. That's the criteria for inclusion in all such lists, and this is no exception. You're quite correct that I have no ongoing interest in monitoring the list. But I'm happy to help cull it, and once we get it down to the tiny number of people who actually fulfil this criteria, then it will be clear to new editors that this is a list for only notable debaters, not all winners of major competitions. Your objection applies to all list articles, they all have to be culled regularly and that's just the nature of list articles. Once this is a small and suitable list, it will be easy to recognise unsuitable additions (they'll be the ones that don't come with an article link or citations demonstrating notability, which will be most of them) and cull them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I normally propose deleting lists actually. If you won't allow me to provide some sort of guideline, which everyone else has supported, then I am going to AfD the article.  It's up to you.  I'm going to put up a revised guideline to simplify the new entries.  If we can't have something there then the list will be unmanageable, and alot of work for us, because it's constantly updating by anonymous IPs.JJJ999 (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my point that my guideline follows WP:stand-alone lists, and yours violates it. There's no use having an easy-to-maintain list that's contrary to Wikipedia usage. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me be as blunt as possible as I form my reply. I, and a few other debating related editors, have made this list viable to this point.  Here are the realities about the people who edit this page
 * They don't understand notability at all
 * They do not see any discernible pattern when they view the list. What the do see is "Joe Bloggs from X is on the list, and I know someone much better than Joe from my University, so I will add them"
 * There are no footnotes on this page (aside from the ones you added) because nobody cares to add them, and nobody cares about notability. You can scoff and say what you like, but I've edited this page alot longer than you, and even the debating editors here are not really aware of notability (they vote keep for every debating AfD, and they only really edit debating articles).  I've killed about 8-10 of their articles, and irrespective of logic, they always vote to keep it.
 * With the above in mind, it is necessary to have some sort of meaningful guideline in place beyond "entries must be notable", because new editors here don't understand what that means. The guideline is only a guideline of what the bare minumum the person is going to need to be notable is, it doesn't necessarily have to mean the person is notable, only that this is the prima facie starting point.
 * If you oppose a guideline like this, the list will become a massive amount of work for us. We will need to fight each entry one at a time, arguing about notability on a talk page with people who don't even know what talk pages are, let alone read them.  I won't subject myself to that amount of effort, so I'd rather get it over with and AfD it.  As you say, you're not here for the long term.  I've been here long enough to understand the list is impossible to maintain without a minimum bar, which is why we've thus far been able to cull hundreds of irrelevant namesJJJ999 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't think there are any people in the world notable as debaters, then AfD the list. I'm amazed if that's the case, but then I haven't found any really solid evidence of notability for anyone on the list yet, even the world champs - just passing news stories about their wins. Perhaps university debating is such a transient and marginal pastime that, unlike chess champs or sports champs, debating champs never become notable from it. I don't know, because I don't know the debating scene. As for the rest of your argument, as I've said before: the same is true for most Wikipedia list articles, most are edited by people who don't understand notability. And yet they find their way. I've edited the inclusion guideline again to try to find a compromise between our two positions. It now essentially says "they have to be notable as debaters, and if they haven't won an international champ then it's unlikely they're notable - so don't add them". I think that covers the best of both our ideas on it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The compromise is fine. I think that the notability of the individuals is very problematic (though it probably exists for some people).  Look, Kim Little for example has excellent coverage, including by the 7:30 report and other news outlets.  The difficulty is that the internet is a limited mechanism for sourcing.  How does one justify giving notability to one person (on whom a few sources happen to exist), but no notability for someone who has done twice as much at debating as the person who just happened to have an easy to locate google source?  It is obvious that if X is notable for winning EUDC, then Y (who has won EUDC, Worlds and australs twice) is clearly notable as a debater, but sources may not be apparent.  That's the problem, and it's one that demands a guideline, to prevent list spamming.JJJ999 (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether specific achievements in debating automatically makes you notable is a good one. I'm inclined to think that it probably doesn't. Becoming the world champ at Chess may make you notable because the media and public at large takes note of you as a result. But from what I can tell by trying to research the world champ debaters, not enough notice has been taken to even result in a single news source on the internet for most of them. That's a very low bar, and they're not making it. That's why I edited the criteria to say that if you haven't won XYZ then you're probably not notable as a debater, rather than saying if you have won you probably are. If the only people who care that you won are other debaters, your university, your friends, and your family then winning hasn't made you notable. Debating is somewhere between chess and tiddlywinks in terms of how much notability it imbues winners with... the question is where. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been changed again... I told you, the editors here don't know or care about wiki rules or consensus or anything. They're just going to keep changing what you've done, until eventually the whole list is restored.JJJ999 (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Props for the Live action role-playing game
Just another thank you for your ongoing work on the LARP article. It seems like every time I review my watch list, you're busy digging up great citations and generally improving the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate. We'll get it to good or featured status yet. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say,
Nice job maintaining the list.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Socially speaking
Better here than there. These are only social observations that I think you will find of interest. I have a suspicion the appeal of parapsychology, at least in the US from the 1960s till today, is due to a desire of idealism, anti-authoritarism, openess to change, and self-empowerment. I suspect parapsychology is looked upon as something that willl make everything right in the world. There are many similarities between parapsychology and the desire for a new [scientific?] religion linked to the religions of the past. If I remember correctly Charles T. Tart has a special interest in the presumed transcendent experiences recorded in eastern religions, and lately ancient gnosticism. There is certainly a desire to awaken and acquire mysticism. What ever. Kazuba (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian psychologist and parapsychologist Michael Thalbourne has written extensively on the concept of transliminality; his early work suggesting that this could be a trait linking variables such as personality, mystical experience and belief in the paranormal led him to describe this as a "common thread" linking these variables. His later work has looked at the relationship between religiosity and transliminality and also how transliminality may relate to traits such as psychoticism Thalbourne said in a 2006 interview,"When he (Uri Geller) is on stage performing he does have a bag of tricks which he resorts to when the rather unreliable psychic phenomenon doesn’t occur." Some people never learn. Kazuba (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think your perspectives on parapsychology are pretty interesting. The crossover with "magic tricks" is an interesting one, and so are your ideas on the mental states of believers. My point on the talk page is entirely about how to edit Wikipedia, not about who is right or wrong. Wikipedia should read like an encyclopedia, not a personal essay. One of the cornerstones of the project is neutral point of view. It's really not that onerous, just find good references and use them in a direct manner, without elaboration or synthesis, and only in appropriate context. Any statement that people who are pro-parapsychology would object to should be attributed, it should read something like "X has said Y", with a citation. It's Wikipedia policy, it ensures that it is clear where all points of view come from, and it allows readers to follow up the sources themselves. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sifton House Associated Gamers Live Action Role Playing
Found this regarding our post on Sifton: 19:03, 4 December 2008 Ryan Paddy (Talk | contribs) (10,076 bytes) (→S: Removed Sifton house, from shaglarp.com it appears to be a community portal not a group that runs larps itself. See criteria for list at top of page.) 01:55, 4 December 2008 Ryan Paddy (Talk | contribs) (10,472 bytes) (Tagged Sifton House as needing evidence of notability. Removed web link as WP:advertising.)

Actually we do run LARP, every first Saturday of the month. We have an event calendar that shows this. Please see our next six LARP dates of: January 3rd, 2009 February 7th, 2009 March 7th, 2009 April 4th, 2009 May 2nd, 2009 June 6th, 2009 We run LARP first, and the portal is in addition to what we run to network gamers.

Please also let us know how we can provide "evidence of notability". I would be happy to provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.106.60 (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, nice to hear from you. Sorry if I misunderstood the nature of your organisation, I had the impression that it was a portal for other groups that run the events in the calendar. The requirement for notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In other words, you need to be covered in news stories, books, journal articles, or other such sources. Private websites are seldom considered reliable sources, because a certain amount of editorial oversight and fact-checking is desired. Notability is actually a difficult criteria for a larp group to fulfil. There are only a few groups on the list that show clear evidence of notability, the remainder have some work to do, and a number of them will probably be removed in time as it becomes clear that evidence of notability is unlikely to be provided. Unless you know that your organisation has caused some amount of stir and been covered substantially by journalists or other writers (and not just passing mentions), I would personally recommend not adding it to the list. It would just be frustrating when it gets removed. If you're interested in the subject of larp on Wikipedia in general and the purpose of policies and guidelines such as "notability", I've written an article that might interest you, which you can read here: http://www.larpguide.co.uk/pages/larp_articleview.asp?ID=65 . Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

List of psychic abilities
Thanks for your efforts on this page. Verbal  chat  22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. A list of supposed psychic abilities seems like perfectly useful and easily-achieved thing (much easier than editing Parapsychology, which suffers from issues of definition and determining RS), but difficulties do arise due to strong pro- and anti-psychic editing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Vanadlism
I am familiar with the NPOV policy, and I double checked that page to make sure that I am not in violation of it. Please refrain from vandalizing my edits; add a topic to the discussion page if you would like to dispute them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamChirnside (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I didn't vandalise your edits, I reverted them. You removed a reliable source, and you made a change that violates NPOV in a really obvious manner. There are very many perspectives on the scientific status of Parapsychology, so changing the article to refer to the field as "pseudoscience" in the opening sentence is a clear breach of NPOV, because that is only one of many points of view, and rather an extreme one. The existing formulation of the opening sentence was far better balanced, and therefore my reversion was entirely appropriate. And now I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert it again. You may want to take this up at Talk:Parapsychology. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The "reliable source" is a dead link. I do not see how classing something using a well-established definition counts as a "point of view"; the scientific method has to count for something if one is going to call something a science. The existing opening sentence was in blatant disregard of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamChirnside (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, have had another look at the source. There appears to have been a mix-up in the referencing, the article "Does psi exist?" is attributed to two different sets of authors. It looks like the Dunne & Jahn (2003) article that you're referring to is supposed to be Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research, as that matches the journal, volume, authors, date, page numbers given. Good spotting, let's fix it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In terms of the scientific status of parapsychology, this is something that has had considerable discussion on the talk page. I'm a sceptic in regards to the paranormal, and like yourself I came upon the article and was surprised by the opening definition, which used to be "Parapsychology is the study of paranormal events including extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death". I thought that definition unduly implied the existence of the paranormal. Over the course of a long discussion about this on the talk page, I read many sources by scientists about parapscyhology. Some (although few) labelled the field pseudoscience, but many suggested that it was in a grey area, often using valid scientific methods but studying a subject the existence of which was unsupported. I think the present opening sentence reflects this range of opinion well, by implying that parapsychologists are attempting to use scientific methods to investigate the existence of the paranormal. This describes the field in a neutral manner, leaving the debate over its exact scientific status for the second paragraph of the lead. I think that's the appropriate approach. While the wording always open to change, I can tell you with certainty that the wording you're suggesting will never stick, because it promotes an extremely contentious point of view and therefore violates WP:NPOV. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My main contention with parapsychology is the use of meta-analysis in every area of its existence. Fact is, meta-analyses can be used to "prove" anything, as long as one ignores counter-examples. Besides which, it falls under every criterion used to define a pseudoscience (plays itself up as science, sidesteps disproof, etc.) But I suppose wikipedia is not really the place for establishing that. It just seems like a case of too much devil's advocate, seeing as there isn't much offered to establish it as a legitimate area of study. Oh well. AdamChirnside (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a valid concern, and the article does cover it in the Criticisms section with references. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteopathy
Thanks for input at User_talk:Osteocorrect. If you have any further input regarding how to handle the issues with Osteopathy and WP:NAME please let me know. I've tried to explain my rationale. Bryan Hopping T  04:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience template
Hi,

I was wondering about the reaction to adding it to parapsychology; the only reason I did so was due to parapsychology's presence on pseudoscience. I won't re-add, no worries. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The demarcation of parapsychology is problematic, much more so than many other more clearly pseudoscientific fields. Various reliable sources call it a pseudoscience, a fringe science, a protoscience, a real science, etc. So adding the template on the grounds that "it is a pseudoscience" would be problematic. Alternatively, the template could be added purely as a tool for further research into the question of whether it is a pseudoscience. However, in the past the addition and removal of such templates has caused upset on the article that tends to lead away from productive editing. Which is why I removed it. If you wanted to discuss the template discrepency on the talk page, I'd be up for it, just bear in mind it's a very divisive subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. I can see why it'd be problematic and I don't care enough for the long, drawn-out edit war/talk page discussions that would be required.
 * Though I've actually got a quote here that's of interest, from :

The essential problem is that a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists, regards parapsychology as a pseudoscience, due largely to its failure to move beyond null results in the way science usually does. Ordinarily, when experimental evidence fails repeatedly to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis is abandoned. Within parapsychology, however, more than a century of experimentation has failed even to conclusively demonstrate the mere existence of paranormal phenomenon, yet parapsychologists continue to pursue that elusive goal.
 * Reliable publisher, quite explicit, unfortunately no google books link. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, that's an excellent reference. If you don't mind, for now I'll add it against the current statement in the article that some scientists call parapsychology a pseudoscience. Then at least it won't get lost, and will be available for demarcation discussions.
 * As far as the template goes, or giving greater emphasis on the view that parapsychology is a pseudoscience in the article, I for one really am open to that discussion and think it depends on a review of a broad range of reliable sources like the one above. It's difficult to describe the view of the "scientific community" as a whole, because there are always exceptions, but if it could be established that parapsychology as pseudoscience is as well accepted among scientists as say the theory of evolution, or anthropomorphic climate change, then there would definitely be a strong argument to make that view more prominent in the article and apply the template. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have at thee, much as I would love the extra edit to my credit, t'would take doubtless way too much time on the talk page, and my other interests call. Have you tried a google books search?  There's some neat stuff, , .  I love google books.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Have edited it in with a hat-tip to you, and updated the statement to be more strong to reflect the stronger statement made in the source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The middle google books link is by Bunge and Bunge, it would also add some more weight to the "parapsychology is pseudoscience" argument. It's a bit old, but I can't see parapsychology advancing much since 1983.  There's more stuff from Cordon that might be handy, I could scan you the pages if you're interested.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a good reference to Bunge's position already. Interested in any new sources that discuss the position of the broader scientific community on the question though. I'm bringing up the question of the template on its talk page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Parapsychology efforts
I appreciate very much your careful efforts editing Parapsychology. I applaud you. Please continue. I know it gets tough. --nemonoman (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: I am not a skeptic about psi, so I admire your determination to be as factual and even-handed as possible despite your own skepticism.


 * Thanks, that is my intention. Call me a dreamy-eyed believer in the policies of reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, and so forth. I often find myself defending descriptions of perspectives I don't agree with. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A pity more at WP:FTN don't give more than lip-service to that. Artw (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus massacre
Hello! I see that you have been keeping an eye on this article. I only now came across it, and, since there are evident problems with it (its name is problematic, as there is no single event called "Cyprus massacre", and the article is unlikely to ever grow out of a stub subject to POV edits), I have proposed to move the statement of the massacres to a more general article on the Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573). What do you think? Cheers, Constantine  ✍  23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the new edition of the Cyprus massacre. You wrote exactly what I wanted to tell. Thanks; it was just my grammar and language were not enough.--hnnvansier (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your last edit is better, yep, your current edit is actually what I tried to say by 'historical'. However, instead of 'not mention', cannot we use 'does not agree'?--hnnvansier (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can say "does not agree" because the sources don't mention it at all. Not mentioning something is not the same as disagreeing with or denying it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI
You may be interested in this since you commented in a talk page thread related to it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits in Osteopathy article
Your reversed my recent edits in this article. Why? There is no claim of lack of notability for Andrew Weil or Robert C. Fulford, and both would easily be kept in an AfD discussion, in my opinion (Weil’s is certainly more notable). Also, if you look at my contributions, you’ll see that there is no COI issue here. The edits are meaningful and well intentioned, and will ensure that Fulford’s article will not be tagged as an orphan soon (which I am also trying to avoid). Having said that, Fulford’s article will grow in the future, but it will take some time. If you have suggestions for alternative actions I can take, I will be happy to hear them.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Osteopathy, and reply there. Please give an explanation of how your edits improve the osteopathy article, not how they make some other article more prominent. Your reasons above are the opposite of convincing, they just sound like you're trying to artificially inflate the importance of these people by mentioning them in other articles. Notability only applies to whether a subject should have an article, not whether it should appear in other articles. I have no idea whether you have a COI, it's impossible to tell because the internet is largely anonymous, so I just have to go by whether the edits look good and have good explanations. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I replied in the article’s talk page. And, thanks for improving Fulford’s article. By the way, I love New Zealand and have fond memories of visits to Rotorua, the village of Whakarewarewa, Lake Taupo, and Whangarei up north, among other great locations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Folie a deux
When parapsychologists finally get around to critically studying the evidence of shared visual hallucinations in folie a deux. If that day is ever to be. Parapsychology will cease being a psuedo-science. But still parapsychologists will disregard the reality of emotional contagion and prefer psychic ability. Kazuba (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandpit History
Did you find any sandpit history on internet? I came to the sandpit page for the same reason as you. There are interesting cultural differences in Europe, the sandpit is perhaps a 20th Anglo-Saxon invention. Gill110951 (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a brief search but didn't find any sources about the history of the sandpit. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured lists on the main page
I recently started a discussion about nominating featured lists for the main page, and wanted to know if perhaps you would consider contributing to the discussion happening there. ---kilbad (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, but I don't have a strong opinion on that. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Park
The Park source definitely does say Pathological science, indeed, that's pretty much the main point of his short interlude. You could possibly argue including his views in one or two other places, and he does cite one or two other people), but the other places you removed it were thoroughly justified, as they confused the main reference. That said, I think the one place I readded it is quite sufficient for our purposes. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure
I'm glad I had the pleasure of bumping into you. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

'Live-Action'
I agree with your statement on the 'Live-Action' page that the hyphen is used for adjectival phrases. If the phrase is a noun, it shouldn't be hyphenated. Seems to me that a page title should be a noun, all other things being equal. A reader will assume the page title is a noun because it stands alone at the top of the page.

Relatedly, wouldn't this logic mean that 'Live Action Role-Playing' should actually be 'Live-Action Role-Playing'??? --MasterPlan (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2009 (EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.187.217 (talk)


 * Grammatically, yes. But WP:NAME applies, which states that the common usage should be used. It appears at this time that "live action role-playing" is the common usage, even if it's arguably not as grammatically correct. There is some discussion on this on the larp talk page. It could be revisited there, perhaps by doing a systematic review of the spelling in the most mainstream publications available. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Second sight.
A couple of days ago, I made changes to the List of psychic abilities, only to see them promptly reverted by Verbal. Although it initially caught me by surprise, I believe that I have since gained a much more comprehensive understanding of the situation. The truth is that I did not even think to look at the lengthy behind-the-scenes deliberations in advance of editing this article; more importantly, I did not initially communicate my intentions to you or Verbal, as it is the both of you who seem to have the highest degree of investment and share the responsibility of oversight. Being instructed to "discuss on talk," I found myself uncertain as to whether I was supposed to initiate this discussion on the article's talk page or on Verbal's talk page, instead. I decided to post a comment on the latter, although I later realised that the former may have been the more likely of the pair. In any case, I have not yet heard back from Verbal; consequently, I do not have the slightest notion of which step I ought to take next (ignorance does not necessarily confer innocence, but all of this is relatively new to me). Any advice you might provide in regards to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Apo-kalypso (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. First off, don't get too worried about the right way of doing things on Wikipedia. While there are commonly-followed approaches, in the end it's largely up to each user how you approach editing (within the boundaries of the policies and guidelines). Having your edits reverted is a normal, common occurance. Other editors may revert your edit if they don't think part or all of your changes are appropriate. If you wanted to take it further, you would then typically discuss your difference of opinion on the article's talk page.


 * There is also no need to find out who the common contributers to a page are before editing, because nobody owns a Wikipedia page. Just make your change, and then don't be surprised if it gets reverted and you need to discuss it. This process is described in the essay Bold, Revert, Discuss, which describes a common approach to editing. In this case, I suggest that you re-post the comment you made on Verbal's talk page to the article's talk page, and we discuss it there.


 * Having said that, I've read your comments to Verbal and with all respect I'd suggest you may want to start by reading some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. First, you may want to read the reliable sources guideline. This will answer some of your questions to Verbal about what sources are considered appropriate on Wikipedia. In relation to the article in question, if reliable sources state that a psychic ability has been ascribed to real people then that psychic ability will be suitable for inclusion in this article. The purpose of only including abilities ascribed to real people is to prevent the article turning into a list of comic-book and science-fiction superpowers, as such lists already exist on Wikipedia and because it is important to clearly distinguish articles about fictional settings from articles about the real world. Even if psychic abilities do not actually exist, if reliable sources report that they have been attributed to real people then they're suitable for the article.


 * You may want to try making your changes one at a time, so that it becomes clear which changes other editors object to. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

LARP sources
Thanks for adding LARP sources to the RPG article. Sorry if it seemed like I was edit-warring a little, restoring the Kim source - the points further down still needed sourcing and your second new source does that far better.

I will defend the Kim source a little - I don't think it fails WP:RS just because it's self-published; although he doesn't describe himself as an expert, he is one of the big names in RPG theory. While I admit we shouldn't rely on his pages, they'll do until something better comes along.

Regards, Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I think that as self-published sources go, the Kim web pages aren't as bad as some. However, they probably don't pass WP:RS unless he's been published elsewhere by reputable publishers and so passes that objective test of being a recognised expert. And even if that is the case there are a lot of better sources out there, like journals articles and books from reputable publishers. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed - thanks for helping to find some. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Role-playing game
I've just gone ahead and removed the move-protection from the page, as it's been there for over a year and it should be okay now. I'll allow you to perform the moves, as you're familiar with the situation. Best. Acalamari 16:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you should view the discussion on my talk page before doing any moves. Thanks. Acalamari 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of larp page
you removed my contribution to the larp page and marked it as vandalism... here is the wiki quote

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.Bold text Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.

so i request that my post be re-instated. i have a masters in social science with emphasis in child development and see many of you, and your buddies who are all mal-adapted for social interaction with the real world. so to imply that LARPing has any social contribution is ridiculous.

i find it hypocritical that you would instruct me to "following the rules", when you, remove my informative and constructive edit to the post on LARPing. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it un-true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendrickmeadows (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Kendrick. It's remotely possible that your edit was intended in good faith, rather than being vandalism, and that your comment here reflects genuine confusion about how Wikipedia works, even though it looks a lot like trolling. However, your addition was still not appropriate content, as it is not a verifiable statement.


 * I'll post an introduction to Wikipedia to your talk page, I suggest getting familiar with the policies and guidelines before you continue editing. The personal opinions of contributers are not relevant on Wikipedia, so controversial statements in articles should reference reliable sources. Also, I suggest your stop with the childish insults as personal attacks are not welcome here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)