User talk:Ryan Vesey/Archive 19

Talkback
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a sec?
Hello Ryan, have a sec please? I am well aware of your great works and rep here. Would you kindly go to Jeffrey Weise and add a little blue thing “discussion on talk” (similar to the one I’ve seen around “dubious source”) right at the end of the paragraph concerning bullying being the motivation please? Your thoughts? I just opened two new sections on this talk. Please advise if you have time. Thank you.Albeit27 (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Dang it - I'll undo my screw-up, hope you won't mind.
 * Hi Albeit27. I'm finishing up a paper so I'm only viewing Wikipedia in a limited fashion right now (but much more than I should be).  I'll try to take a look at the points of the discussion tomorrow and take part.  As for the tag, have you considered adding Disputed-section to the section in question?  If that doesn't work for you, take a look at Template messages/Disputes.  You should be able to find one that applies. Ryan Vesey 05:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have a more important policy that applies in this case. Be bold.  It's not necessary that you wait for discussion to occur before fixing the problems you mentioned on the talk page. Ryan Vesey 05:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I'll look into Template messages/Disputes and learn more! And I'll be bold. Thanks for your time. I realize you're busy policing impt matters. And good luck with your paper! I do have a great mentor. He'll be happy to guide me. I'm in safe hands and I know that you have more serious things to do. Regards :-)Albeit27 (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does
Re, please read the rest of the paragraph and the sources. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI
Hi again Ryan! No need to respond and I hope things are grinding along fast for you. I put the diary back up and mentioned you there, hoping you won’t mind. My bestAlbeit27 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter
Delivered 00:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Italics
Hi Ryan, I fixed the mistake that you mentioned, and I thank you for it! I don't know about which italics are you talking about, but if you mean Italic title, than I removed it, and continued making articles without it. Stemonitis mentioned that it might be good to use on extinct taxa, but I don't get the point on using it everywhere... Update: I checked the page title and taxobox title, and they looked italicised from my point of view (I mean my eyes, not my opinion :) ).--Mishae (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fixed on my end too. I don't know if it was because of the mistake in the species part of the taxobox or if it was just a problem with my computer, but everything seems fine. Ryan Vesey 02:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Don't want to be rude (I hope you will treat it as a joke), but maybe you need better prescription glasses, I had mine updated couple of months ago, see like an eagle. And you know how important it is for us guys who spend hours and days on computers helping this project and do other stuff as well... :) O' and I am sorry for any original researches. How do you find information on the reason why they named that way? Like I see it happen a lot with species named after their discovererers!--Mishae (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, another thing, don't think that I am sloppy or bad editor, and do let me know when or if I will do anything wrong again. Also, let me know (either you or Kiplong), when will the auto patrol function be back. You see, I kind of worried that my mass production of the articles on various themes, might angry the patrols that will need to check every single article, and I write 30 articles a day (sometimes even more!) Another thing, you mentioned something about copyvio, where was it? Can you show me an example in my recent edits. I know I had some issues with close paraphrasing, but I haven't seen anything as of yet...--Mishae (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Question
Is it just my computer (Windows 7 laptop), or is something wrong with the internet connection overall? My e-mail and Wikipedia page was opening for 10 minutes each starting from 3:07 pm (central)! It only ended by 3:37.--Mishae (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  Automatic Strikeout ( T  •  C) is wishing you a  Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Thanks so much! I need a little Christmas Cheer right now. Ryan Vesey 19:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too. I've said this twice already, but thanks for fixing the WER Welcome unsigned template. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C) 19:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You credit my code skills too much. I know very little about code, I just happen to be very good at problem solving.  My dad on the other hand made a Pong game using a Pythonlike thing. Ryan Vesey 20:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll tell you one thing, your code skills have mine beaten. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C) 20:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Irony award
Come on, between this and this you have to agree Wikipedia needs an Irony Award... 21:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, I think you're right. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's pretty funny. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C) 21:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like five tildes for a timestamp only sig is too few. It should be six with five still being normal.  It's an easy mistake to make. Ryan Vesey 21:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You may have a point there. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C) 21:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Gaijin42 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Sorry for the drama.

Bearian (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 

Sandy Hook
I noticed you supported having an international reactions page/section on Sandy Hook previously. A page has finally been made, but it's been tagged for deletion. It's going to be a very close consensus. Could you lend your support again here?--199.231.184.178 (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Catherine L. Malone
Hi, you decided to ignore my questions above that are 4 days old, but I would like you to comment on the article above. I don't know, maybe I shouldn't have devide it like that, but it have various positions at different places that the current person worked (and on some still do). Also, I tried my best not to have a copyvio, but the chance of close paraphrasing wsorries me as well. Another question, how valuable is this article? The article is not yet done, I will finish it tomorrow, hopefully.--Mishae (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


— ΛΧΣ  21  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. — ΛΧΣ  21  05:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Little Kingfisher
Whats wrong? The references are provided, yet the system doesn't see it?--Mishae (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You forgot to add reflist at the bottom of the page.  I'll add that for you.  As for Catherine Malone, it appears that another editor has already questioned it's notability.  If the only source that exists is the bio, then probably not.  The relevant notability guideline is Notability (academics) or WP:GNG.  In this situation, it might be too soon for an article; although, she may be more notable in the future.  Interestingly, on the question on internet connection, I was having some major problems that day as well, it might have been an issue with Wikipedia's servers.  Do you use gmail?  I was also having trouble with that. Ryan Vesey 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was actually that the reflist was on the page, but not under one of the refs. If there are any refs below the template you'll get an error. Ryan Vesey 23:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I use Yahoo! from my e-mail thing, so I guess its just the internet itself. Do you use DSL? I do.--Mishae (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent(?) voting at wp:AFD
Ryan Vesey,

I know you are very busy, and I also know you have the best interests of wikipeidia at heart.

You voted delete on these two lists:
 * Articles for deletion/List of Nortel related articles
 * Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination)‎

But keep here:
 * Articles for deletion/List of 2012 murders in the United States
 * Articles for deletion/List of Magnum pistol cartridges

Just curious to see if there is something I am missing. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Question, maybe its not my bussiness, but since when did lists became their own articles? Shouldn't the lists above be included in a category, or something similar? Sorry if my English carries some typos, although I fixed one in the List of 2012 murders in the United States article...--Mishae (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lists have a specific purpose and actually are often used in conjunction with categories. If you look here, you can see that there are many articles beginning with "list of". Ryan Vesey 04:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"In response to why I voted delete on the first two, I actually removed my delete !vote from the 2nd article you linked. I think an article for each year might be appropriate.   On the first (the Nortel related articles), the list is less discriminate since it was about things related to Nortel.  I would !vote delete to a similar list of articles related to guns.  As I stated, it is better served with the navbox.  In many cases, the list and the category assist eachother, but this isn't one of those cases. Ryan Vesey 04:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ceyx lepidus margarethae
Apparently thats my first article on birds and its a subspecies as well. The only question I have is should I have used common name i nthe article or should I have left the  title only in it. The problem is is that the source indicates that Variable Kingfisher is applied to species and subspecies alike...--Mishae (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask about that at a relevant wikiproject, I have no idea. Ryan Vesey 06:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Scroll bars in reflists
thank you for pointing that out, i meant no harm. it appears that you (or other editors) corrected all the of those edits i did in that area. Kevlar (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Well, I'm not as festive (or template-gifted) as some of my fellow Wikipedians, but I still wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. It's the most wonderful time of the year! Go  Phightins  !  02:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A question
When you get a convenient chance, could you take a look at this page and see if the assessment chart is up-to-date? Btw, Joe West passed as a GA, so that's the Christmas present for the umps task force. Automatic Strikeout ( T  •  C) 21:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


cyber power is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. As one of my wikifriends, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas. I hope you had a great one.— cyber power Online Merry Christmas 02:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

N. R. Narayana Murthy
Ryan, earlier this month, you again started a discussion on the award issue with this article. Since that time, User:Tib42 has interpolated various responses under each of your entries. At the same time, User:Kkm010, who has not contributed to the discussion at all, has been battlling with Tib42 over the awards in the article. Tib42 has complained on the article talk page and most recently on my talk page about Kkm010's behavior. Honestly, I haven't tried to follow how much of the award disussion is new, meaning awards that were not discussed previously, and how much of it is a "rehash", awards that were discussed previously.

All I'm asking from you at this point is whether you have any time to address the issues (I know your real life is "interfering" - heh), and, if not, when you think you might have some time. Obviously, you're under no obligation to do anything, but if you could tell me where you stand, I'd appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded at AN. Ryan Vesey 17:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You have mail!
Regarding a t-shirt nomination :) Jalexander--WMF 22:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Subotica
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Subotica. 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) 10:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and some feedback
Hi, I only just now noticed your December 9 reasonable and helpful comment at what is now Talk:List of Catholic churches in the United States. I haven't checked the sequence of events of that vs. your expansion of an ANI incident framed against me, but I appreciate this separate reasonable comment. Your expansion of the ANI was damaging to me personally and i wished you had not done it, I thought, giving credence or vent to nasty s*** involving long-running bullying and contention, though I did interpret your personal involvement as not particularly maliciously intended. You were bumping into long-acrimonious, really awful s*** that makes me gag and that I think would make most reasonable adult persons gag if they really considered it all. I did want to get around to giving you the feedback that your expanding the ANI was, well, hurtful. Anyhow, again thanks for your reasonable comment in sideshow of editor Nyttend contending against me while I am basically simply developing reasonable material for the Wikipedia. -- do ncr  am  01:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I don't particularly understand your perspective in new ANI also opened by Sitush against me (presented as a self-report of ad hominem attack against me, but which is leading to calls against me), either. I don't see what you see.  I do intend to request an ARBCOM to address some matters, but it takes time to prepare for that, which I am doing.  And it is not an easy thing at all, to open a legal-type proceeding with a highly uncertain outcome, that is pretty surely going to give vent to lots of nasty stuff said.  Stuff that is going to be disturbing to editors peripherally involved, stuff that is likely going to hurt the NRHP wikiproject which I care about.  And it requires my going through a lot of nasty past stuff, hurtful things said previously that might actually be best left forgotten.  You should not be impatient.  Why should you be eager for an arbcom case?  I don't see how or why I have offended you, if I have.  I don't recall how you and I might have crossed paths before, and I don't get where you are coming from in this stuff. -- do  ncr  am  04:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Outlaw trouts
Too right! Use a serious fishslapping if you must! I'm thinking of asking User:Darwinbish to move her stockfish-whacking template to template space. Now there's a slapping that hurts! (Feel free to use it, or any of the other evil templates listed on db 's userpage. She has the best NPA template evvah, IMHO.) Bishonen &#124; talk 14:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

Redirects
As I said already, these redirects are thoroughly implausible. We do not redirect names of individual products to their creators, because someone who is looking for a product is not looking for the company. Meanwhile, it's inappropriate to attempt to give a detailed list of its products on a company's article, as you can see at PepsiCo, Harland and Wolff, Lego, and tons of other company lists. Doncram edit-warred to keep this inappropriate list in the article and used it as justification for the redirect. Would you argue for creating SS New England as a redirect to Harland and Wolff? There's absolutely no difference between the two. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're correct, there's no difference between the two. SS New England should redirect to Harland and Wolff, specifically the list of ships section.  Under any other circumstances I'd create that redirect myself (it would be poor timing for me to do it now). Ryan Vesey 23:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still strongly disagree with this conclusion, but I'm not participating more in the DRV based on WP:STICK. Of course, if you or someone else ask me for more comments, I'll do as asked; I'm not trying to pretend that it doesn't exist.  It's absurd to have these as redirects, so I suppose I'll have to take a pile of time before long and convert them into articles.  Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Thank you very much! Ryan Vesey 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi you posted my article for deletion
you posted my article for deletion due to a copyright infringement of the website i built, so there is no copyright infringement bc its material i wrote. If you do a who is search on that website you will see me as the owner. ?? I must admit wikipedia has me oh so very lost and feeling just totally defeated. Any suggestions. ALSO i just sent you an email of the same, as you will notice the email address is the specific domain which you state that i have infringed copyright... :-S HELP... THANKS AngelaUAE (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Arun Panchariya. I noticed that the only secondary source that comes up in a Google News search is regarding your license being revoked due to a stock trading scandal. I don't think it's in your best interest to create an article on yourself, seeing that even if it did pass Wikipedia's many other relevant policies and guidelines, this information would inevitably end up being included in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 15:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks CorporateM for responding. AngelauAE, you may hold the copyright; however, that will need to be proven using the system mentioned to you on your talk page by .  That being said, I don't think you should go through that trouble, because the material on the consulate webpage will never meet the neutral point of view requirements of Wikipedia as it is too promotional. Ryan Vesey 23:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok guys thanks so much for your help and advise, like i said am not good at all at wiki and really didnt know what im doing here, so probably went about it all the wrong way. They kept asking for references so i was just posting all that i knew about. Learned quite a bit about wiki. Thanks AngelaUAE (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thank you
I just did what I thought was best :) — ΛΧΣ  21  15:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

speedy
thanks for the speedy speedy decline :) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent work on the expansion of the article. Its exactly along the lines of what I was intending to do after creating the stub. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
TBrandley (what's up) 22:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elio Motors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GM (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) 11:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

dietrich
Sorry about the confusion between the two cases! The stubenville story comes up on consistently when searching for Savannah Dietrich, and several of the stories around conflated them (with several now doing corrections saying so). I however, should have done a closer reading of the sources to identify it. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review
Note that I expanded my comment and edit conflicted with you. I'm not clear from your tone if you're serious; and if so, why you're looking to ask for a ban over months-old issues between the two of us while he's been having deeper difficulties with lots of people. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You should never take administrative action towards any issue involving Doncram and I think it would be even better if you did not interact with him at all. It'll be difficult since you both work in NRHP; however, I have absolutely no trust in your ability to remain objective. Ryan Vesey 17:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See SarekofVulcan's comment after yours, and note that I would have also done this if I had found anyone else doing it. You really should propose that he be topicbanned with Sitush, and Sarek, and apparently Pigsonthewing too, given the interaction going on at WP:BOTR.  Nyttend (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, it is unambiguously not unambiguous as other administrators on your talk page pointed out to you. Ryan Vesey 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, can you please unhat those sections of your archive since the small text and font makes them prohibitively difficult to read? Ryan Vesey 17:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please clarify "it" in your 17:21 comment — the whole situation, or something else? If the whole situation: if I remember rightly, I got no input from others until afterward.  Regardless of what happens, I'll never intentionally delete a copyright infringement.  And no, I'll not unhat, because they make the page simply too large.  Couldn't you just zoom in with the browser, or copy the code so that you can preview it elsewhere?  Nyttend (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being a stellar gentleman. It's so kind of you to take such simple actions to make research and discussion on an active issue easier.  By it, I'm referring to the G12.  WP:CSD  allows speedy deletion of "unambiguous copyright infringement".  The definition of unambiguous is that it is not open to more than one interpretation.  Cbl62 did not believe it was a G12, which means it was most definitely not unambiguous.  The instructions for the speedy deletion criteria I linked clearly say that you should have used copyvio.  Removing only the infringing material was certainly an option.  Being unable to see the stub, but based on your comments at the DRV, there appears to be enough free material that G12 didn't apply.  Sarek of Vulcan contradicts himself when he says the A3 didn't apply but the G12 "was fairly accurate".  If the A3 didn't apply, at an absolute minimum the article should have been restored to that point.  WP:CSD requires that earlier versions without infringement are maintained.  Refusing to correct this error is the behavior I expect from you, but not the behavior I expect from an administrator. Ryan Vesey 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want, I can undelete the pre-quote revisions and move them back to Doncram's userspace. According to the final comment in the "Doncram creating unacceptable articles in mainspace again" section of Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727, the blocking admin here says that a major reason for the block in question was that he was repeatedly transferring the contents of another database to Wikipedia, and that's all that remains of this page aside from the quote; it wouldn't be helpful to undelete a page and leave it in mainspace when that page is seen as being disruptive.  Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I realized that English Wikipedia have a lot of articles without direct references to the species such as this one: Cychrus marcilhaci. I checked the site Carabidae.org to which its linked, and despite all efforts of searching through Google for further description such as size and distribution that didn't yield anything, came to a conclusion: Should I delete the article? I mean, there might be a possibility that it only needs renaming, but I can't find alternative name for the species. Regards,--Mishae (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Another question, is it O.K. to use NCBI as an External link?: Cychrus bispinosus--Mishae (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe Wikipedia has an article on every species or subspecies as long as we can confirm their existence. As for the external link, right now you are using a template that shows the material was copied from a public domain source?  Did you copy the information?  If so, it is 100% okay, if not, the template doesn't belong.  You can use the external link iff it expands on the information in the article.  The link as it is presented does not.  If you are able to use a deep link to something related to the species, you can use it. Ryan Vesey 06:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats the problem, because that is as far as it can go.--Mishae (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Not so subtle hint
Two things: a.) I wanted to thank you for defending ASO from the ludicrous allegations, I tried but was reverted almost instantaneously, and b.) I dropped a not-so-subtle hint at ANI on something I think you should do, if you can carve a little time out of your schedule (which I know is hard, but I wouldn't suggest if it wasn't important). Anyway, Happy New Year to you and good luck in your next semester at Penn. Go   Phightins  !  03:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi GoPhightins! I had actually seen that earlier and I think the same thing now as I do then that I'm just too busy to take on a thing like that.  I need higher grades if I have any hope to make the deans list (3.7) and having a long term project that requires daily attention doesn't work for me.  I need the ability to drop away for a week with no problem.  You can always swing by if you need any help or advice if you choose to take on the case. Ryan Vesey 01:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll certainly drop by if I have questions. Good luck on the Dean's List...if I'm remembering correctly you're into political science...maybe we'll have President Vesey . Go   Phightins  !  20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Steubenville High School
I'm curious, why did you delete references from The Nation for being an unreliable source? It's one of the oldest magazines in the US and has quite a number of notable contributors. From what I can gather, it's a reputable source. Transcendence (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had actually only checked the other link which was a blog. I then looked at the URL of the Nation link which said blog; although, on further review, it might be okay.  Feel free to use the source if you'd like to modify the statement in any way. Ryan Vesey 22:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ryan!

 * D Happy New Year! Kind of late to say that but oh well! Are your exams over yet? My finals are coming soon... but eh, they'll be easy! I miss talking to you! Red Hat On Head (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Sasha! Happy New Year to you too!  My exams are over, I finally got my results in and they're decent, but not decent enough.  To get on the dean's list at Penn you need a 3.7 (A- average) for the year.  I ended up with a 3.6 for the semester so I need to work really hard this semester to make the list.  I hope you do well on yours.  Sorry for not being around. Ryan Vesey 05:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for possible interest
You may like to see my comment at User_talk:Bbb23. Not of immediate relevance to you, but I was thinking of you when I wrote it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Mommie Dearest
Ryan, I take issue with your comment the the words "hundreds" is "likely false. It is not. The ads in Variety show that very clearly. I am not interested in opinions but facts. Your comment is an opinion. What I wrote was factual. Please try to maintain a civil tone and discuss things before undoing as per several comments form the ArbCom. After all, we are here to improve these articles for all people, not ourselves. As far as I am concerned, this is not a contest of egos. Thank you.Tal1962 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Working out the details at Today's article for improvement
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Help
Hello Ryan,

I am writing an article for a friend. The text is pretty much done but I think it needs be be well referenced. I really don't want it to get deleted so can you help out? -- RexRowan Talk  16:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For sure. I can help starting tomorrow.  I see you listed a lot of further reading.  Are you able to scan pdf's and email them to me? Ryan Vesey 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can get some PDF files from Henry himself here User:Henry W. Gould. He is a new user so please be patient with him. Thank you very much! :D -- RexRowan Talk  17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. The article is going to need some better organization.  I'll be able to help out, but in the meantime can you work on separating awards into their own section? Ryan Vesey 18:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course! :D -- RexRowan Talk  20:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

age of the universe
i dont need to cite a Reliable sources im telling you the age of the universe is wrong if you cant understand simple logic that you should not be allowed to edit that page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Toth.uk..essex (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not going to get anywhere with that attitude. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C) 15:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just posted a polite post on the user's talk page about reliable sources. Hopefully that gets through to them.  -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 15:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

yes i understand now this site is not for peoples opinons this site is for people to find other peoples opinions and the copy and paste them here and i guess thats the best way to do things but when someone talks simple logic that anyone should understand makes no sence to me how someone cant understand and say oh yes your right of couse thats so simple.. and leave the page alone... - — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Toth.uk..essex (talk • contribs)
 * John, what you just said didn't make any sense. You can't order someone to "leave [a] page alone" because that is in violation of WP:OWN, which simply states you do not own any page on Wikipedia.  I would suggest backing off the attitude you have right now cause if you continue, you will be on the wrong end of a block. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 16:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * John, in addition, you need to understand that the page in question is about scientific estimates about the age of the universe. All scientists are going to create estimates in years as we understand them.  It would be ridiculous for a scientist to suggest an age in any other form.  The page is not for determining the age of the universe as it would be recognized for some other being or machine.  Personally, I would say that the universe is impossible to age as it is either infinitely old, or is "older" than the duration that it has existed (i.e. the universe may have existed for ~10,000 years but is more than 10,000 years old); however, this opinion of mine does not belong in an article about the scientific explanation of the age of the universe. Ryan Vesey 17:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, creating pages like The Age of The Universe is Wrong when you can't get your way is disruptive. Ryan Vesey 17:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Darold Treffert
Hi Ryan and stalkers, I expanded the article Darold Treffert some time ago and it was edited down and the photos are deleted. Dr. Treffert told me he preferred the old version with the photos back on, is it possible to restored it to a better state like this version ? -- RexRowan Talk  15:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To begin with, the images have been deleted. Your first step should be to re-upload the images with evidence of permission sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or if you upload them to commons (where they should be uploaded actually) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.    Looking at the text of the proposed version, certain sections like Savant syndrome, Genetic Memory, Mellowing, Autism, and Sidewalks, Souls, Sages & Seashores should not be restored.  A biography should not include definitions of these things.  Reading it, I assume that these are things he lectures on and studies.  If so, there can be a section that describes his contributions to the field.  Using wikilinks to something like savant syndrome so readers can understand what it is, rather than explaining it in text.  If Dr. Treffert has made significant contributions or discoveries in some of these fields, those discoveries can probably be explained in full.  Fields that he only lectures in would be best represented in a sentence starting "Dr. Treffert lectures in the fields of...at University X and lectures in the fields of... at University Y".  My talk page stalkers are free to disagree with me. Ryan Vesey 17:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Ryan took a look at the page in question and agree with your trimming back of material. All that stuff in the career section was strange. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It look ok so far and maybe I will just upload the image again. :D -- RexRowan Talk  18:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Proactiv
Hi Ryan. I saw a familiar name in the Proactiv AfD discussion and edit history. They have recruited me to help them engage with Wikipedians properly on the Talk page. If you have an interest in the topic, I would love your ongoing collaboration on improving the page. It may take a bit for us to get our ducks in a row, but if you Watchlist the Talk page you'll see me there. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the page to my watchlist. Depending on how long it takes for your ducks to get in a row, you might need to ping me again when discussion occurs.  I generally scan my watchlist for the pages I'm really watching and might not always notice everything else. Ryan Vesey 18:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. My first request edit on a related article is here. This is just to purge the article of prior COI editing and back to a relatively blank slate we can rebuild from. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tea House New Users help
Hello Ryan. A user has started demanding an article layout be changed according to his desire against the vote of everyone else who has reverted the changes. It is really odd. I am a new user and have no idea how to handle the situation. And is this type of thing a regular occurrence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_people_who_have_been_called_a_polymath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhalluka (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bhalluka, common practice is to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle which states that an editor should boldly make a change, if it is reverted the editor should not restore it until consensus is achieved on the talk page. He is correct that consensus is technically not a vote, but may be applying it incorrectly.  As advice, I would suggest that you don't attempt to sum up discussion in the way you are doing, whoever closes the discussion should be able to do that on their own.  Instead, just make reasoned arguments for why the version you support is better. Ryan Vesey 19:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. So he should not be restoring. How often do people update an article then bully everyone else into the changes despite no one agreeing with them?Bhalluka (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Ryan is incorrect, the bold, revert, discuss cycle is merely an essay (an opinion or suggestion from a Wikipedia user or a group of users). It is not a policy nor a guideline and it does NOT need to be followed. Typically, in cases like this that involve a MAJOR edit, whoever disagrees with such change brings it up to the talk page or to the editor that performed the change rather than reverting. But that, too, does not need to be followed. The thing here is that on Wikipedia you typically only revert if doing so prevents vandalism or removes information that could cause legal harm to Wikipedia if it stays. Stuff like this, which is merely based on style, is highly discouraged to be reverted as you are supposed to assume good faith on such edit. The only thing that covers cases like this is WP:3RR which states the cases in which a revert makes total sense. This case does not. So, for your own good, just don't revert any more. I noticed that you stopped doing it so it's all good. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I highly suggest that you stop using defamatory words and stop accusing me of doing this or that. That's a personal attack and could have serious consequences on your account. Keep everything rational and state your arguments using logic, facts, evidence, precedents, policies, and guidelines. When you start accusing me of being a bully and a vandal you are causing more harm than good to both yourself and your arguments. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I explained to you that it is only an essay; however, it is common practice, and attempting to restore your edit against that practice when multiple editors have suggested that your edit is incorrect is disruptive and possibly pointy. Ryan Vesey 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't the same thing be said about such editors since there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page when such reverts were made (of which they were aware of)? See brother, not everything is black or white. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that edit-warring is or isn't black and white (it isn't), it's that edit-warring isn't a zero-sum game: both sides can be (and usually are) guilty of it. And edit-warring isn't dependent on 3RR, either. hint hint. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never thought of non-zero-sum games as being anything but positive (positive sum that is, depending on the theorist you ask positive sum games can be harmful to one of the parties). Would edit warring be considered a negative-sum game (everybody loses)? I see that negative-sum doesn't have an article, and actually (inappropriately IMO) redirects to zero-sum

Talkback
Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: deletion review
Just occurred to me that I could fulfill your request about the hatted chunk of my talk page archive without modifying the archive — see User:Ryan Vesey/Nyttend. Feel free to do whatever you want with it; I won't care if you have it deleted in ten minutes, if you keep it indefinitely, or if you do something in between. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ( X! ·  talk )  · @808  · 18:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)