User talk:Ryan Vesey/Archive 11

WashPo
Thank you for fixing the WashPo problem for Darrell Issa. The WashPo site used to redirect from the older WhoRunsGov links to the new Topics pages, but now none of them work. The CongLinks template should be changed and then each article manually fixed. You have to search within WashPo, click on Topic, then click on the actual Topic link. I can help fix them if you can get the template fixed. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you like the CongLinks template changed? I can't think of a way that will fix current articles.  The relevant code in the conglinks template is:


 * {{#if:{{{washpo|}}}|
 * * Biography at WhoRunsGov.com at The Washington Post
 * since the URL's aren't formatted in the same style, I can't think of a way that would work. Ryan Vesey Review me!  01:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/darrell-issa-r-calif/gIQAaSzFAP_topic.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/{{{washpo}}} Collected news and commentary] at The Washington Post

As I said, they all have to be fixed manually. Updating the template would just make that process easier than adding each new link outside of the template. And I'd put it after the similar NYT entry.

DYK for Barry Stuppler
Thank you from the DYK team at Wikipedia Graeme Bartlett (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ambrose
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ambrose. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard
Thanks for the helpful comments at WP:ANI regarding Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey. NJ Wine (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Callanecc (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Posted a statement
Hi Ryan, I posted a statement in response to your query. It's on the talk page of the proposal. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to give you credit
Hi Ryan. I've seen you around for a while now, but haven't had the chance to thank you for your support of the community. I believe you were adopted by WTT some time ago. WTT is an admin I highly respect and I wanted to let you know that I regard you very highly also. Specifically, I wanted to thank you for helping that IP in distress. I somewhat follow AN/I but don't post there because I'm an IP. I watched that thread, and it seemed obvious to me what she wanted help with. It was obvious to you too, but WOW, the AN/I crowd totally missed the boat and were focused on her IP address for some reason. I saw you post several times what the issue was, but everybody looked past your posts, continuing to focus on her IP address. Anyhoo, I'm glad you took the initiative and asked a crat for a rename and I wanted to thank you for that. And since I'm here.


 * Wow, thank you very much. That means a lot. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  12:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize
I did notice that something I did upset you. For that I am sorry. I think it is a misunderstanding but I'd rather apologize because I know you are sincere. Other than that I know I messed up again, I hope you will believe it is simply trying too hard. On the bright side I really have learned a lot this round, you will see. My76Strat (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I think you're a great editor and I hope that, pending outcome of this RfA, you will be able to make some improvements and hopefully succeed in the future. I do think that you make good decisions and have a clear head; however, in a majority of situations your explanation is incomprehensible.  Even in academic reading I have done, the reading was difficult, but comprehensible.  Perhaps you should adjust what you believe your audience to be.  Particularly when explaining something, your audience should be generalized to a high school student.  In doing so, virtually any editor can understand you, no matter what their level of education is.  That is the same reason that newspapers write at an 8th grade reading level.  They want any literate person to be able to comprehend the material.  Someone suggested a speech recognition software, I don't think that would be a bad idea.  Using text to speech could also help you determine if the average editor will be able to comprehend what you are saying. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right My76Strat (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Chelonoidis nigra ssp. abingdonii (Galápagos tortoise subspecies)
No problem; sorry about the confusion. Ironically, I was trying to UNdo the change that shouldn't have been there (reclassifying it before an official announcement was made); I probably should have just cleaned it up entirely instead of mixing the old & new info together. — George Steinmetz (talk • contribs) 03:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: If everything above should have been a reply on my page instead of a post on your page, feel free to whack it, and if possible, send me the name of the page that describes the correct method of replying on my own page but still notifies you of the reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Steinmetz (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the earlier decision was made to remove the conservation status by the IUNC. In that matter, it wasn't reclassified before an official announcement was made, because it was reporting what reliable sources stated.  I don't have any problem, however, with including the IUNC classification as long as the fact that it is stated to be extinct in reliable sources is mentioned.  The easiest way to reply on your own page and let someone else know you responded is to leave a talkback notice.  You can leave this by typing  optionally you can type .  See talkback for more information. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail
 →TSU tp* 08:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So...
I've just turned Requests for adminship/Ryan Vesey into a blue link. How do you fancy having a go?  Worm TT( talk ) 13:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness, I saw this and my heart rate doubled. How long is that allowed to remain a blue link.  I've got 52 articles I want to create and I'd prefer not to be bogged down in RfA or even admin related tasks until I get them done.  In any case  stated that he would like to conominate me a while back.  Would that be fine with you? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  13:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be honoured to co-nominate with anyone you wanted as a nominator. It can stay a blue link as long as you like, but once an RfA is going it isn't that much work. It's generally better that you don't spend all your time concentrating on it, just checking for questions every so often. There'll be a flurry of activity in the first 24-48 hours, and after that it calms down anyway. Your choice, of course.  Worm TT( talk ) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles will mostly be stubs, so if I get jump started on them it should take me about a week. I've got basically everything prepared for them.  You are correct that I shouldn't spend all of my time concentrating on it.  I'll let Skater know, I don't want to pass him up since he offered.  On a side note, you Brits with your "honoured" and the like are going to cause me to fail school next year because I can't use American English anymore.  I'm consistently writing organisation and using ou in various words. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  13:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right-o. Well, my bit's done, all I need to do is !vote when you transclude it. I'll leave the timing up to you. Don't leave it too long (I dropped you an email as to some reasons why).  Worm TT( talk ) 13:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

talk page stalker You'll be a great admin, Ryan, and if IPs could vote, you'd have my support. You have !voted in enough RfAs that I'm sure I don't have to mention this, but I will anyway. The unwritten rule of RfA is don't comment on oppose !votes. Some of the oppose !votes will be based on 100% incorrect information and you may want to comment. Please resist the temptation. Others will comment for you. Also, RfA is more a reflection of the community rather than of the candidate. Your RfA will probably not reflect the hundereds of hours you have dedicated to the project and all the good you have done. Instead, your RfA may very well reflect how critical the community has become. So please don't view it as a reflection of your efforts here if it doesn't go as planned. This is a much more accurate reflection of your efforts. Best of luck to you and thanks again for everything you have given to the project. Wikipedia is very lucky to have you as an editor. Kind regards. 64.40.54.164 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Looking at my comment above it might come across a bit negative. I hope it's not because I would dearly love to see you as an admin and think it would be very benefitial to the project. Anyhoo, good luck to you. All the best. 64.40.54.164 (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope Ryan takes the comment in the spirit it was meant. It's certainly not advisable to badger opposers, however if something is patently incorrect, I believe you should say something. I don't see a problem as long as you handle it in a calm, collected manner and give other people a chance to comment first.  Worm TT( talk ) 07:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow up, Dave. You certainly have more experience in this area than I do, especially with all the time you put in to WP:RFA2011 and WP:DOIHAVEASHOT. I think your advice is very sound. All the best. 64.40.54.97 (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Thomas Bondhus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you :) Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Umpire question
Do you think an umpire's first career ejection is notable enough to be included on his page? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've never considered it. I'd suggest asking your question at the help desk, or some similar noticeboard that will get more views.  Personally, I think it may depend on how it is commented on in sources.  If it was a big deal by an umpire who rarely ejects anyone, probably, if it was from an umpire who later ejected people very often then it might be better to write about the ejection frequency.  In any case, those are personal opinions not grounded in policy.  In fact, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball may be the best place to ask. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Good news
About a year ago I posted on this page to say that I looked forward to seeing a successful Requests for adminship/Ryan Vesey one day. I have just discovered the good news that your RfA is underway, and the even better news that it seems to be on course for success (87% support when I just checked). Of course there could be a late rush of "opposes", but I see no reason to expect that, and I look forward to your joining the gang soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for your comment and support and thank you for placing the necessary trust in me over a year ago. You were instrumental in helping me in those first few months. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD
Hi, Ryan, I didn't want to continue this at your RfA because it's too much of a detour, but the subject is one that is important to me. What about a system that allows an editor to "nominate" an article that is of poor quality, does not demonstrate notability on its face, and has been tagged for a long time? The idea would not be to delete it (I wasn't keen on your phrase "summarily deleted") just because it's of poor quality, but to push for improvement. Then, assuming a certain amount of time elapses without improvement that also establishes notability, the article could be deleted. In some articles, this process wouldn't be necessary because the nominator could do his homework and add sources that establish notability, but not all articles are amenable to easy searches, particularly if the sources are not online. In those instances, my suggested "process" would be useful, shifting the burden to other editors to establish a justification for keeping the article - and it would also eliminate the hostility I mentioned if such a process was sanctioned by the community. I'm speaking off the cuff a bit - there may a better process to deal with this issue. I, for one, though am disturbed by the poor quality of so many articles, and I'm not sure that better editor retention, even if successful, will fix the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One idea that occurred to me was either a "request for userfication" process, by which an article could be moved to the creator's userspace until it is improved (or another editor's userspace if someone requests it) or a wikiproject designed to take care of it. I'm thinking of something where it would be moved to within the project's subpages until it is improved.  It could be some combination of the article rescue squadron and other editors willing to improve pages.  I don't know that it would be widely supported unless there was a rapid turnaround.  If articles stayed in the projects pages for weeks or months, it could be almost the same as deletion. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  18:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I like the idea of putting the burden on the article creator, there are many editors who would probably object to your idea based on WP:OWN. To the extent you agree with some of my views, I see almost any change to the current system as being an uphill battle, if not downright quixotic.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:OWN would be an issue, that usually applies in cases where the creator disallows other editors from modifying the page. In any case, if you decide to slay the windmills, you will probably want to spend a long time gathering data first and creating a proposal. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think it implicates WP:OWN as many editors create articles almost like placeholders, and other editors see that as a good thing, expecting not the creator to improve it but "someone else". As for windmills, no, I'd rather fight for things that stand a better chance of success. I thought, given your youth and energy, you might be a better person to tilt the policy. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As a comment, I just now looked at your userpage and saw "This user is interested in legal articles" I found that funny, because I had no idea you had that userbox when I responded at my RfA.  As for tilting the policy, I can see what I think, but I don't know that I'd place it as a personal priority right now.  There's a list of other things I want to get done. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, I just figured I'd try a little sucking up, anyway. I agree with your comment about legal articles at your RfA, although I'm not sure I'd single them out. That userbox was once used against me in an AfD where a very experienced editor incorrectly claimed that I write legal articles. Since that time, I did indeed write one legal article, but at the time, it wasn't true. I said as much, and the editor failed to acknowledge his error, for which I've never forgiven him (I'm real big on acknowledging one's mistakes), although I don't let it interfere with my subsequent interactions with him. Back go your regularly scheduled program.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Cempaka Schools Page
Dear Ryan, I'm am the creator of the page Cempaka Schools. May I know why is my page under the Speedy Deletion Contest ? . Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianachew (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Adriana, thanks for stopping by. Your page is up for speedy deletion because it qualifies under our criterion for pages that are entirely promotional.  The entire page reads as promotional material for the school and that is not acceptable in an encyclopedic setting.  You can create the page at User:Adrianachew/Cempaka Cheras School if you will agree to write it in a manner that is not promotional.  You cannot say that "Cempakans are known to excel in every given academic field" or that "Cempaka are well known for the breathtaking annual box office productions".  Even if your school is great, it cannot be rewritten that way.  Just as an example, the current "soul" section could be rewritten so that the heading is arts.  It could then contain something along the lines of "Cempaka has an annual musical production.  Past examples include: Hairspray, Seussical, and Beauty and the Beast.  In addition, the school hosts an annual "Cempaka Voices in Concert" program"  This gives factual information, but does not sound promotional. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  02:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ryan , Thank you for notifying me. I have made some edit about the article. Can you tell me other mistakes in the article thank you =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianachew (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ryan , Apparently after I moved the page to the title " Cempaka Cheras School " I tried to search for the title in the search box but nothing appeared. What can I do ? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianachew (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I don't understand why you moved it again. It is still written as an advertisement. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Care to lend a hand?
I saw your nomination for Adminship (and have voted) and as I was looking at your talk and user pages, noticed your graphic header. I've been trying to figure out how to make one of those. If you have any hints, tips, links or other guidance you can throw my way, I'd appreciate it. Congrats on your nomination and thanks for all your work. I'll probably seek adminship in a while. I just started my own business, so need to get that going first before I have the time. Thanks. Vertium  (talk to me)  18:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can copy the source of mine to get yourself started. You can find it at User:Ryan Vesey/Tabs.  I actually took it from User:Worm That Turned/Tabs.  You can add or remove images as you feel necessary.  Many free images exist at commons:category:Nuvola icons.  Then just change the links as you desire.  If you need any more assistance, just ask.  You are also free to use any other content on my user page or talk page (although I removed a lot of the design from my userpage a month or so ago), see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ryan_Vesey&oldid=488273395. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  18:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Playtime Is Over (mixtape)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Playtime Is Over (mixtape). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Kiefer .Wolfowitz  19:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Adoption
Thank you for your offer. My check is in the mail, when do we begin? ' Ankh '. Morpork  15:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have it set up sometime between now and noon (two hours from now), I'll leave a note on your talk page when it is ready. Ryan Vesey Review me!  15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Under current circumstances, I think that this TB is appropriate. — cyberpower Chat Online  15:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want me to ping after a certain amount of time after my response let me know. Wait 5 minutes for me.— cyberpower  Chat Online  15:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Youth Energy Summit! for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Youth Energy Summit! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Youth Energy Summit! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower678/My Wikifriends
Congratulations. I added you. Please read the instructions there.— cyberpower Chat Offline  07:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bump.— cyberpower Chat Offline  14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's toast to our new friendship and hope you become a sysop.— cyberpower Chat Limited Access  16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

July Wikifier
Hi Ryan, have you got any plans for the upcoming issue (July)? I'd like to know so i can fill any gaps (see the WT:WWF for updates). Regards,  benzband  ( talk ) 11:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Benzband, I've been pretty busy lately and haven't been a lot of help. I've got to run right now, but leave me a message with something that needs to be done and I'll try to get to it tonight. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  12:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem :) i was thinking about the editorial, as well as this. benzband  ( talk ) 13:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Ryan Vesey Review me!  13:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When do you want to get it out by? Ryan Vesey Review me!  04:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking, some time in July (via MDB would be the simplest). Then in August if all goes well there should be another drive? benzband  ( talk ) 07:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankh Morpork: a suggestion
Since this fellow stalks my edits, those of a few other editors (User:Sean.hoyland, for example), and has been asked by editors not to cite on his page opinions about his editing which they no longer entertain (User:Zero0000), could your course look at WP:Hound. And secondly, he has not understood WP:RS, as is evident from his query to me at Yanun today. I do not check his edit contributions, or those of anyone else. I would suggest he learn to concentrate on building articles that interest him, and not try to engage other highly experienced editors in frivolous disputes that are fatuous as they are tiresome, and distract from article construction according to the very severe standards some of us apply in our efforts to contribute to this encyclopedia's most difficult areas. If you think this suggestion unhelpful, please feel free to ignore it. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look into this more and address it later today. Ryan Vesey Review me!  15:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no such hurry. This is a long term matter. I think out of a courtesy to AMP that it is the sort of matter better discussed with him off-wiki, by email or other means, out of the purview of others, myself included. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephane Meer
Thanks for the fix; I accepted it and then almost immediately accidentally closed my browser, so I had to load everything up again...anyway, do you have any idea as to what would have caused that? It was a completely automated edit, and I did nothing out of the ordinary, as far as I know.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't tell you, I've seen it happen before, I feel like it has to do with a hidden comment being missing or something like that. Ryan Vesey Review me!  15:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said
Good on you. As I said at your RFA that looks heartfelt and honest. Pedro : Chat  19:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ryan Vesey Review me!  20:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We're very different people Ryan, but go you! You may well have sunk your chances at RfA this time round, but you won me around, so that bodes well for your next nomination if it doesn't happen for you this time. Either you're a Machiavellian beyond anything I could even imagine aspiring to or you're honest and straightforward; I've plumped for honest and straightforward. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't gotten around to reading The Prince yet, so I'm not a Machiavellian. It's a shame that most people feel obliged to screen their edits during RfA.  In any case, if I don't pass this time, there's a number of things that can be done without the tools. Thank you for your comment. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  20:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's one fundamental lesson in The Prince, and that's to act in whatever way is likely to result in the outcome you're looking for. You clearly failed that test, but for al the right reasons. Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with the support pile-on. Your stance on that whole block mess swung me strongly into the support column. Should have come here earlier and said so... Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have Kafziel to thank for telling us that you had an RfA. Now I am also strongly minded to support. "There's a difference between holding a grudge and having a good memory for names." - I'm sure that nobody would hold a grudge against Kafziel, but I suspect there are quite a few editors that now won't forget his name. But, then, I'm only one of the "baselessly puling masses."Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would certainly hope they don't forget his name. That outburst was beyond the pale, IMO. Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions
I added some questions. And as you noted above that your recent comments may potentially affect your RfA, I asked a follow up question to give you the opportunity to clarify. - jc37 21:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know I intend to answer your questions. I'm just active in some off-wiki things right now, so I'm taking it slowly. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  00:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fringe Theories
Here are some relevant sections to read: FRINGE: "A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable.", also see the sections WP:PARITY, WP:ONEWAY. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

AWB
Can you check my contributions with AWB again? I added more articles, and updated the old ones.--Mishae (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, but it will probably be a while (a couple of days probably) before I get to them. Ryan Vesey Review me!  18:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a preparse, and there are over 500 pages that will be affected. Ill probably do 100 or so per day. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  23:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:H. G. Wells
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:H. G. Wells. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

RFA
Hi! I just wanted to say that I Support your RFA and hope that it passes. Also, great answer to my question. I have seen many people who mess up on that and say that you can indef. an IP, which you can't. Regards, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC).

ThankYou Ryan Vesey!
Thank You Ryan Vesey for taking the pain to visit my page. In reality I am new to Wikipedia and need some help from you to get used to the editing languages. In reality it is true that User:Sohamjava and User:Sohamlive are profiles belonging to one person but unfortunately I realized that my account was also being operated by some other person so I decided to create a new account for me by the name Sohamlive. I need your help on how to redirect people from Sohamjava to Sohamlive. I hope that you will help this novice Wikipedian in future. Please leave a message. Sohamlive (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is User:Sohamjava still being accessed by another person? Ryan Vesey Review me!  11:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, is it still possible for another person to access the account? If it is, you should log into the account and scramble the password, if you can't do that, I'll request that the other account be blocked. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  12:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ryan the other account is still being used by another person. I would be highly grateful to you if you kindly block the account.--Sohamlive (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I discussed it with another editor and we realized that Sohamjava was created after Sohamlive. For the time being, don't make any edits from the Sohamjava account and I'll keep a watch to see if anything new comes up. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  13:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

An apology
I'm sorry that my support at your RfA might indirectly result in sinking it, but if it does, then I'm sure you'll do just fine the next time around. Malleus Fatuorum 12:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, It's an RfA on a volunteer website. I can assure you that my life will go on either way. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  13:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Try secure https://secure.wikimedia.org
In my experience for loading pages; https://secure.wikimedia.org is better then http://en.wikipedia.org which is better then https://en.wikipedia.org. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Additionial vetting question
Q: Explain briefly how a Higgs boson gives a puling its mass.

Oh! (Wrong room.) Sorry! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Almost there!
Hang in there. 18 hours left. Hope for the best.— cyberpower Chat Online  14:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Umpire Controversies page
Regarding this page, would it be considered appropriate to simply copy information regarding the incidents from other articles or does it need to be re-written? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a part of me that worries about the notability of that page, but it is hard to tell until I actually know what will be on it. Everything on Wikipedia is released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License so you could copy as long as you left a note in the edit summary about where it was from and it would be good to use copied on both pages.  It might be less of a hassle to just re-write everything. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I changed the wording somewhat. Does this still resemble the main article too much? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better, and copied isn't actually necessary when there is a direct copy. Since it isn't a direct copy, I'd say it is okay, except you should make sure you provide a link to the original article in the edit summary.  The base edit summary given at Copying within Wikipedia is  .  I'd suggest modifying that slightly to something like  .  You should probably make a dummy edit so the first article is attributed. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for your help! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What was the problem with the image? Was it only for use in that specific article? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a non-free image. Non-free images need a fair use rationale and can only be used in the article space.  We can't include copyrighted material in subpages, talkpages, project pages, etc.  In this case, the copyright is owned by Major League Baseball, and possibly Fox.  When the page gets moved, the image can be retored and a fair use rationale can be added to the image.  It should be almost identical to the one currently at File:Galarraga-Donald play 2010-06-02(small).gif. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA, credit where credit is due
Hello again, Ryan. I've been with the project (on and off) for about 9 years and I've watched hundreds of RfAs. Your RfA was, without a doubt, one of the most difficult I have ever seen. You handled yourself very well, with dignity and respect throughout the whole ordeal and is another reason that I have so much respect for you. You certainly have what it takes to be a great admin. I also see that your RfA has had more people !vote than any other RfA since Drmies in May 2011 (more than a year), so you've certainly made a name for yourself. I'm not sure how your RfA will close since it's in the discretionary zone, so I'll wish you the best of luck.

But I really came back to thank you for being a part of the project and for trying to improve it for all of our editors. People often forget that we are volunteers and that an RfA is a way of saying that a user will help with extra tasks above and beyond what they're already doing. I think it's admirable of you to volunteer to help with the admin tasks and I think your support with the adminstrative areas would be a great benefit to the project.

Anyhoo, I just wanted to thank you for your generous support of this project we call Wikipedia. All the best to you, my friend. 64.40.54.79 (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be disheartened, you received an awful lot of support. Keep doing what you're doing, take into account what the opposers sid (though I disagree with most!) and come back in a couple of months. GiantSnowman 11:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with both the above. Let me say that although I'm sure you feel disappointed (you shouldn't, Adminship is no big deal), how you handle this disappointment will probably have the greatest effect on your next RFA. For example, if you were to retire, scream, or yell then it's guaranteed your next RFA will fail. If you were to create a subpage and list point-by-point the concerns raised and look at them regularly, and ensure you're correcting them, it would show the maturity and self-reflection that would likely lead to a successful RFA. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I thought there was even the chance that he'd DIVA, I wouldn't have nominated him. Perhaps I have more trust in Ryan because I've seen so much improvement, and the potential for more, but I haven't seen a single thing which made that trust falter. Ryan, you handled the whole week exceptionally. Keep doing what you're doing, I'm sure you'll succeed next time.  Worm TT( talk ) 11:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm with you there Worm ... I don't believe he'll DIVA, but just saying that sometimes when people are upset, they go against everything we think we know ... just putting the "warning" out there :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, thanks for the comments. I have no intention of screaming, crying, yelling, leaving the project, etc.  I was happy to receive the support I did receive and will try to improve on the opposes.  I am a bit tuckered out as a result of the RfA, so I'll probably stay away from the "admin areas" for a week or two and focus on some content work.  I've got a ton of articles to create and I need to get back to improving Jim Shoulders.  Sadly, I didn't know about him before interest spiked.  I'll be doing some copyright work with Moonriddengirl as well. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  11:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just saw the close and of course I'm disappointed. I must say this, Ryan, you are indeed a man of high moral character and you command the respect of a large percentage of well repspected editors here. That speaks volumes about you and the type of generous person you are. We are indeed lucky to have you as a volunteer on this project and I'm very grateful for your contributions to making this a better place. Thank you very much. 64.40.54.79 (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I second all of the above, and hope you'll try again in a few months, if the first time didn't kill you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thank you very much. Ryan Vesey Review me!  13:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * I've got to agree with Pedro and the crat above. It was a difficult decision (I hope) but a good one. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  13:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that although I disagree with the close please do not take it seriously where I said the crat closed improperly. As a WikiFriend, you will always have my support.— cyberpower  Chat Online  14:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Thank you very much. Do I get one of those Yogo Sapphires in the mail? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  13:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ask the photographer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know some very reputable dealers with whom you can deal with over the phone and they'll send you one via snail mail. Pumpkin Sky  talk  14:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paradise
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paradise. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest guideline
I've been really busy writing an op-ed for the Signpost, contributing to  a new COI essay, looking at  duplicating the AfC process for request edits (though that may be beyond my technical abilities) and having some pretty lengthy conversations with users interested in the subject of COI, where I feel we're all learning from each other and finding good compromises.

At the end of the day though, the COI guideline is the front and center quarterback and the RfC was unproductive. I actually thought the guideline was fine, until I started hearing all the questions from PR people and realized just how confusing it is. I thought I would poke around and see what the chances are of us organizing a posse to go through it line-by-line and just improve/clarify (not drastically change, but just improve). I'd be happy to help out as a sort of representative of the dark side. Am I just shooting for the moon here in thinking we can organize and mobilize? ;-) User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 21:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering Requests for adminship/Ryan Vesey, I'd say many editors say I am a representative of the dark side as well. In any case, I'd be glad to help.  I haven't really done so much with the COI essay as I would have liked, but I have made a couple changes.  Primarily, Category:Requested edits is now in dashboard and admin-dashboard.  I hope that this will help clear the backlog.  The one problem with it, is that most of the edits are very complex and require a lot of analysis so editors tend to avoid it.  In addition, there are a lot where it appears like a discussion was occurring and just stopped.  It's much easier to be the first responder than to pick up where other editors left off in my opinion. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  21:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed that the request edits tend to spawn long, exhaustive conversations and feedback loops. Some feel that a paid editor shows up and volunteers end up writing the article for them. Also, some that need to be rejected never actually get cleared out of the queue. Some requests are dumb, but that's ok. Half the point is to prevent poor edits from COIs and the other half is to accept good ones. I also find that it's difficult to swoop in on a subject you know nothing about and pass judgement on the article. I've found my best collaborations are with editors who are heavy contributors to the article and have subject-matter expertise. They're also quick to point out if something is missing, are more interested in contributing, etc.


 * One solution to this is asking that editors ask at least two editors that have contributed to the article, before submitting a request edit for major content contributions. Once they do submit a request edit, an AfC like process will create a streamlined process to submit feedback that shifts the burden to the submitter to read relevant policies and guidelines and improve their submission, while creating a concise paper trail. Instead of these long conversations, we can type "d" "adv" and give them instructions.


 * We can make it work, but we just need a lot more elbow grease in establishing the process in a way that puts the burden on the submitter instead of the reviewer. RE the COI guideline, I'll see if I can round up a posse if other editors that frequent the COI guideline Talk page are interested and maybe we can at least get the ball rolling. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 22:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it. When reviewing semi-protected edit requests, there are a series of decline templates at ESp.  If those could be written up for requested COI edits, it would make the reviewers job easier.  I also feel that many COI edits don't state exactly what they want changed.  Instead, it might say, this article should talk about the merger between company A and company B.  I suppose  could be used, but I feel like it would be better to have COI specific ones.  It might also be useful to word Request edit like Edit semi-protected to make sure they are aware.  I'll probably be bold later tonight and modify the wording. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  23:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yah. I actually used some of the ESP templates in some of the early request edits, but I guess it didn't take off. I like the AfC model more, because it also provides the COI with the info they need to improve their request, but either would be an improvement. I have to learn how to figure out all the templates and such. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)