User talk:Ryan Norton/Archive9

The reason that the article is formatted so weirdly is that I (gasp) actually just copy and pasted a lengthy research paper I had written in the subject while in school. The numbers actually refer to source footnotes in the original text. I've been working on wikifying it, but I have trouble finding time. ShortJason 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which CSD do you believe this falls under?

A1 ("It is a very short article providing little or no context"), with a touch of A3 (the spamlink). --Calton | Talk 08:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the source in Dymphna Cusack. I don't think that book is deletable at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I would advise you against deliberately reposting libel" - *sigh* a warning/threat in response to a question/proposal, not my day I guess :\. Also, for future reference, you could have asked someone like me with at least a decent track record in related subjects to help clean the article up, rather then deleting a year's worth of work. Anyway, I'm moving on to other articles, lest I find myself on the receiving end of another "piece of advise" - cheers :).

This was neither a warning nor a threat. It was advice, meant sincerely and with good will. I think that reposting the history of the article should be avoided precisely because it was such a mess. It is well known that Merkey is highly litigious, and a quick review of the article will reveal a number of very serious problems. I think you have an exellent track record in both related and unrelated subjects, and your help in fixing this article would be most welcome. All I am saying is, that in my opinion, I would advise against reposting the old article. It was highly problematic. --Jimbo Wales 22:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the Wii discussion page, I went and archived the Wii -> Nintendo Wii debate under its own subpage. The Wii talk page is archived reguarly, and the name issue has come up in at least two of its previous archives... is that notable enough to warrant its own entry in the page's archivebox? I was unsure whether to ask you first about archiving the section (since you added the "please do not modify" label to it), or just be bold and go create the subpage. --Stratadrake 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I was sure there was consensus that they're not includable... FYI, there are three more in

Excellent work. It looks like most of what needs to be in the article is in these sources. :-)--Jimbo Wales 15:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the Fair Use for that image. I haven't seen anybody write it out as clearly as that before and I'll keep that in mind for the rest of my images (I think I have quite a few that could use some proper reasoning).  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reference as requested - you'll have to scroll down in the reference article to actually find the statement about fewer blue screens than previous Windows editions. ;) Your aussie wikipedian --Rcandelori 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for closing off on FARC. Looks as though we need to take the situation into our own hands.

I wonder whether you can advise whether Johann Sebastian Bach can be blocked from editing by anon users. We suffer a continual stream of (presumably) teenage boys who vandalise the text is really silly ways. Several contributors are in favour of this move; none has objected. Are you able to implement the move?

Tony 01:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, RN. I'd appreciate your feedback on my article "How to satisfy Criterion 2a" when I've cleaned it up. It will be ready in about a week. Tony 10:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I remember you! Thank you for your kind, encouraging words on meta, along with your support on my nomination. I'm always around if you need my help, :-) (PS: Your signature isn't that lame!) Jude (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notcied that you participated in the Michael Woodruff featured article discussion, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in the Rfa for Cool3, the creator at

It is not pleasing to see such remarks from a valuable contributor like Calton. Asking questions, as RN has in the noble tradition of

Socratic discourse, should be encouraged, rather than turned inside out and upside down into a Catch-22 no-win conundrum. Judging the merits of what goes on at Wikipedia Review based upon personal opinions about two contributors there is one thing, but extending the complaint to judgmental name calling is to challenge the foundation of assumed good faith upon which the Wiki stands or falls. It would be much nicer to see Calton set an example of tolerance for the stand up boldness it takes to simply read and reflect upon the wide range of critiques at WR that may help the Wiki smooth out npov debacles and escalating community justice double standards that are part of the Wiki's predictable growing pains. Of course, WR is going through its own initial shakeout pains, but it won't do any good at all to blame the new forum for the Wiki's problems that spawned the need for such a venue. Ombudsman 09:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for fixing the plural problem on Torchic, I believe you may have finally ended a feud with your edits. I hope that you can continue to contribute your thoughts to this FAC, and perhaps vote on it. Thank you, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 08:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RN

Because a few nominators of FACs have appeared to need/desire a formal explanation of how they can improve their prose, I had the idea of writing an

I don't want to continue until I have other people's opinions of the approach.

Thanks Tony 05:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

The list of administrators says you turned in your sysop bit last month. Maybe I missed something while I was out with the flu, but I had no idea this happened or why. I hope it's an error, as I'd be sad to see one of WP's best turn in the mop. :( Best wishes, Xoloz 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page, bud, I appreciate it. :-)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Daniel Davis 10:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have asked this user before and after this to explain his/her reverts on the

RN 11:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Widely established statements of fact (such as "the world is round") are in no need of any form of citation- it is widely known that Nintendo's buisness practices include selling consoles at a profit (as opposed to other manufacturers that sell at a loss and make up the difference via software), and they have been cultivating a "family friendly" image since the UltraHand, another widely known and indisputable fact. Pokemon solidified their hold on the children's market. Again, this is all common knowledge. You are throwing random "fact" tags into various places in the article, places where it quite frankly doesn't make sense whatsoever. Given that you appear to have a good edit history, only a small warning was warranted, and quite frankly I'm surprised that you would be doing this kind of behavior at all, for the love of Pete. -- Daniel Davis 11:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply :). "You are throwing random "fact" tags into various places in the article, places where it quite frankly doesn't make sense whatsoever" - No, I was quite precise, actually. Take for example - " it was estimated that Nintendo lost the least amount of money on each sale of a GameCube compared to its rivals." - who is doing the estimating - wikipedia? Sources need to cited here. Also in the other places, but I'm busy ATM :).

RN 11:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you think "cf." is any more "nonsensical" in a general audience article than "i.e.", "e.g.", "etc." or "ibid."? If not, why not? I think these are all common abbreviations that anybody who has used a dictionary should be familiar with. Just curious! MFNickster 21:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No tool that I know of. I simply copy all the displayed text in the printable version of an article, paste that into an edit window, trim out the headers/footers and list-like sections, and hit preview. It is hackish but works well and does not take too much time. What we really need is a tool that tells readers the number of words of prose in an article. I asked Brion about that and he said it is possible but currently not planned. --

Thanks for your feedback, RN—much appreciated. In the next stage, I'm thinking of including an intermediary "hint" button to put users on the right track for some of the exercises before they hit the "show solution" button. Could enhance the learning potential. Tony 06:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of July 2006

What do you mean by that? It's still June 2006, and the DSM-IV came out in 1994. Please explain. --Dubhagan 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article BTW. --Dubhagan 05:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About your comments on this article: The lead is sufficient per

Most FAs don't even have a footnote in each paragraph, and indeed most GAs as well. This REALLY fits the criteria, I'm going to get someone else to review it... —

Wackymacs 18:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]