User talk:Ryz05/archive1

Momochi Zabuza

 * It's not that I didn't like it, it just seems... inane to point out that Zabuza actually has teeth. Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

--Ryz05 01:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not just that Zabuza has teeth, it's that he has sharp teeth as opposed to normal teeth, which is unusual and explains why he's covering up his mouth.

Cannibalism in North Korea?
Wow that is extremely disturbing. Where did you hear about this? --69.232.218.27 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Image Candidate process
Hi there. I've noticed that you have added two featured images today. However, both of these nominations were listed incorrectly. Each individual nomination has its own page and then is linked to from WP:FIC. The actual text for the nomination doesn't go on WP:FIC. Please read "Nomination procedure" for a step-by-step process on how it is done. While I realize the instructions say you can list it the way you did, by doing it yourself, it will just save someone else from having to do it. If for whatever reason, you want to keep doing it the way you have been, you may, as someone will fix it. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them for me on my talk page. Happy editing! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

World of starcraft
April Fool's day was yesterday. Stifle 00:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Abortion. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Dakota  ~  °  18:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove anything, but just added a link.--Ryz05 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It looked like a blanking on the very wide diff. Slide it to the right to see. My apologies. Thanks. -- Dakota  ~  °  02:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

NYT link on abortion
I noticed a recent edit of yours got reverted on abortion. There is a long standing policy to cut down on the number of external links on top tier articles. I believe that is why your addition was reverted. Perhaps it could find a home on one of the secondary pages such as abortion debate, pro-life, or pro-choice?--Andrew c 04:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is that this article is supposed to be about the medical procedure. I cannot comment on your link because it asked me to register before I was allowed to view it. The way you describe the article, and the title of the article, seem to suggest it belongs more in abortion debate. However, I personally do not have a big enough hand in this issue to either remove it or defend it. Just warning you that it will probably be removed again, and I felt that you needed to know why. Maybe, if you really feel passionate about having this link in the main, top tier, abortion article, you can take you case to the talk page and try to get consensus from the editors? Changes in the first paragraph, the "suggested effects" paragraph, the external links, and a couple other places are highly controvesial and usually have to be hammered out on the talk pages for awhile. If not, like I said before, there are clearly other articles that would be more willing to accept the links. Good luck!--Andrew c 04:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

History of the United States
I would have agreed with your revert if the total article size were 35KB or so, but the size is 98KB and definitely needs some way to keep it short. Georgia guy 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)