User talk:Ryanbomber/Archive

October 2006
Welcome! '''This is not an automated message! This is a friendly hello from one Wikipedian to another.''' Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question on the New contributors' help page or ask me on my talk page. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes, like this: ~. Again, welcome! (Better late than never) -- Steel 12:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to your user page
Just saw your edit to your user page. Don't let an Afd debate get you down, man. Sure, I happened to be a critic of you in the debate. But just think of it as a learning experience. It never makes you an idiot when you stand up for what you believe in. For the record, I probably would have voted weak keep on the debate. Jcam 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. It wasn't really the argument that made me an idiot, it's how I went about it. I was way too much of a jerk for some reason during that. I kind of feel stupid now. But again, thanks for the support. -Ryanbomber 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dumpty
In view of your intervention, I'll reduce the block and slap down a warning. However, I still think there should be a penalty, since nearly all his edits have been acts of vandalism which I've had to revert. I'll think about what is appropriate, and modify the length of the block. jimfbleak 17:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * meanwhile, have a look at Special:Contributions/Dumpty jimfbleak 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reduced the block to a week, and unprotected the user page. jimfbleak 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Etc comments
Thanks for telling me that I will make sure to sigh my name for nowDumpty 13:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Dumpty

I saw you had added some faulty fact in the article Classes in World of Warcraft please refrain form doing so, check up on fact before you add. Also Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a game guide, please beer that in mind.CFCF 15:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What? There is nothing wrong with saying "Druids wear leather armor." It's not guide-based nor is it wrong. -Ryanbomber 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is wrong becuase there is no law forcing druids to wear leather armor, on the other hand they can wear it but sometimes chose cloth for the better stats and so on. Please think before you write.CFCF 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Wow, you're literal. Almost ALL Druids wear leather because it's the best armor they can get. Instead of deleting a miss-worded FACT, why didn't you just change it to "Cloth and Leather?" I'll even do it for you, because I'm such a nice guy. -Ryanbomber 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that you changed a few things again, armor is not strong in that way, at level 60 many people look for stats over armor points. No hard feelings, but it's incorrect.CFCF 20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Class-based armor sets (tier 0, 1, 2, etc) are the highest type they can be. Classes are defined as the highest armor they can wear. Armor types are tailored to the classes that wear them (Warriors won't wear cloth armor because it has weak AP and terrible stats for Warriors. I know you'll ignore this example saying "WELL WHAT ABOUT NEWBIES?!" That's the exception, not the rule.) As fun as semantics are, it's pointless. -Ryanbomber 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your wrong, I have a level 60 Balance Druid that has several cloth gear peaces from end-game raid instances, so don't say that it's wrong.83.233.134.250 19:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever considered being the exception and not the rule? -Ryanbomber 14:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Forget it. I'm not arguing semantics anymore. Any posts on here by you and your IP will be ignored. -Ryanbomber 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

World of Warcraft - Professions
Hi,

It was quite a long debate, wasn't it? :) Deletion review is, in some ways, unlike AfD.  DRV is (loosely speaking) a forum for cloture: it is a place where the community decides whether it wishes to continue discussing an article.  As such, while arguments matter, DRV operates more under the principle of "majority rules."  This doesn't mean that folks should spam DRV (we still ignore opinions from people too new to Wikipedia; or people whose "arguments" are way outside of policy -- WP:ILIKEIT), but it does mean that the "head-count" matters, and that a closer's discretion is limited.  Simply put, more commenters endorsed deletion than opposed it, and that means the case is basically closed.

However, fear not: this is a wiki. I will userfy the article to you, and you are free to provide sources for its text, the primary objection raised by delete commenters. Once you find reliable sources, you may ask to have the article put back in article-space, or you may merge it to the main World of Warcraft article.

The article is now here: User:Ryanbomber/Professions (World of Warcraft)

Best wishes, Xoloz 17:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

=December 2006=

Two cows AfD
I found and added 5 print sources which presented and discussed the joke. Edison 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

=January 2007=

Small world
Goon? Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wacky. Yeah, I am. 'Sup. -Ryanbomber 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew your name seemed familiar. I'm the guy who created that thread about the "violence in video games"-trailer yesterday. Havok (T/C/e/c) 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh hey I remember that thread. Weird how things like this work out. -Ryanbomber 13:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is NOT
I have concerns about your ideas regarding what wikipedia is here for. I believe that we need to apply a fair amount of editorial scrutiy to what we include on Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a repository for all the world's information -- especially not a plot summary for a TV Series. By indiscriminantly including what you describe as Fancruft we open the door to violating some of our most basic principles -- WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Mr. Wales did not start this project so that anyone who finds a subject interesting may have a place to espouse prose (be it plot summaries or otherwise). We are a catalog of notable information, and many guidelines and policies have evolved to distinguish between notable encyclopaedic content and inappropriate "cruft". "The thing is, that's fine. Just because something doesn't interest you 'right this very second' doesn't make it useless." Maybe not, but just because it interests someone does not make it appropriate for Wikipedia. Neither utility nor interest level is a valid metric for determining what belongs here -- verifiability is. We must be judicious in what we include. Wikipedia is definitely not a place for you to summarize your favorite TV show -- stating such shows you don't really understand what what wikipedia is not -- most especially the part about Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot.. I don't know how that can be any more clear. /Blaxthos 15:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're complaining about a soapbox rant that I haven't even coherently started, no less finished? It may be just me not being able to read the internet well, but it seems like you're REALLY angry about this, and you're taking some random person's rant a bit too seriously. If that's the case, I suggest calming down a bit. That said, your input is duly noted. Next time I work on my random complaining, I'll keep your organized criticism in mind.
 * ... That last line was funnier in my head.-Ryanbomber 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)