User talk:Causa sui

edit count | edit summary usage

Click here to leave me a new message. Also, remember to always sign your messages with --~~~~

Leonidas I

Yes sir, I apoligize I was just testing it out. I had no idea of the "Sandbox." I love history trust me I have been getting A's in history class. I just did some more editing to Leonidas I today. I was serious this time, adding stuff I found necessary to add. Check it out and please let me know if you like it. If you would like to talk about history email me, i love history, "Williamkid123@yahoo.com"

Richard Gaiser

Why did you delete the page? All of it was true. We have had to go back and redo his page 3 times now. It is getting very frustrating. We are simply trying to add honest promotion for our band and you are deleting our pages.

--Evan

UFC 84

A discussion is happening right now on the fate of UFC 84. Because the outcome of this discussion could affect other MMA event pages and how/when they are created, your input would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is happening here. Thank you for your assistance! Gromlakh (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Indiana, right?

WikiProject Indianapolis		An invitation to join us!
		Your recent edits seem to indicate that you have some local knowledge of Indianapolis. If so, perhaps you would like to join WikiProject Indianapolis, a project for the creation, expansion and improvement of articles related to metropolitan Indianapolis. Check out our project page, and if you like what you see, join us by adding your name to our membership list. Hope to see you at WikiProject Indianapolis!

Are you a member of the project? If not, join us! Cheers, Basketball110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Magnus Carlsen

Hello,

In this diff dating april 2005, you have added a game Carlsen-Ernst with annotations from Carlsen. However, the source is not clearly mentioned, nor the fact that Carlsen allowed this contents to be published here, and under which licence.
Could you be kind enough to clarify the source of the comments and mention an authorization and licence  ? Thank you. Mro en (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Weasel

Hi, you redirected the Weasel-inline Template to Template:Who. This caused a problem for those articles that reference the Template:Weal, which is itself a redirection to Weasel-inline. Wikipedia does not resolve the double redirection correctly. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and see 'ya

Belated note for you on my talk page. 69.60.114.162 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

article on EU Microsoft case

[1] Corporate whitewashing? On whose part? I see no pressing need to include this aspect of reaction to the decision, but your summary confuses me. Also the section summarized the position in the sources, it wasn't editorializing. It was reportage. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly would we confine our talk on article content to article talk pages? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Right to vanish request (feedback)

I don't mean to disrespect all of the work you've done for wikipedia. But, I want to tell you that the language and tone you chose here really pissed me off. I know that may not have been your intention, but here are some things that bothered me.

You said: "It looks like your user talk page was protected because you continued to post unblock templates despite your unblock requests being declined multiple times."

I looked, but could never find any documentation that said using the unblock template three times was considered abuse, but I could have easily missed it -- it would have been nice to cite if it's out there. I was using it in good faith each time, and I all ready the reason given for protecting the page was that I had "abused" it.

You said: "Blocks and page protections are not punitive."

That doesn't prevent them from being used in a way that is punitive. I haven't been around wikipedia as long as other editors, but I've seen a lot of politics and questionable uses of authority.

You said: "It would be wise to look at the history of your actions and learn from how your behavior has lead you to the situation you are now in."

Of course, that's always wise -- in any circumstance. But what I was concerned about was minimizing the damages.

You said: "If you abuse this opportunity once again, do not be surprised if your future bleatings about how unfairly you are being treated fall on deaf ears."

No one ever explained how I "abused" it before. I don't know the value of scolding someone is if you can't explain to them what they're being scolded for. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:In the news

1. Please understand that ITN is not a newswire. Its purpose is to link to articles that already have been substantially expanded (or newly created and brought up to a decent level) because of recent news. A stub that provides virtually no information beyond the ITN blurb fails to qualify and is not of value to our readers. The article should be added to ITN after it's been improved to the point at which it provides a reasonable amount of information, not before.
2. When editing a main page section, please make use of the "Show preview" button, and always check to make sure that an image still exists here (hasn't been deleted and isn't being pulled from the Wikimedia Commons) before reverting to it.
Thank you. —David Levy 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Hermeneutics Structural Marxism Democritus Analytic philosophy Young Hegelians Marxist literary criticism Proletarian revolution Evgeny Bareev Central Military Commission Neo-Marxism Antihumanism Anglo-Chinese School (Independent) Curt von Bardeleben Marginalism Coprophilia Jan Timman Four Modernizations Michael Löwy Medieval philosophy

Cleanup Market socialism Property Relativism Merge Socialist law Classlessness American Empire Add Sources List of chess world championship matches Three Represents The Communist Manifesto Wikify Attilio Gatti CRY America Feral children in mythology and fiction Expand Scientific Socialism Fédération Internationale des Échecs Richard Lindzen

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tornado article

And what do you suggest to protect the Tornado article that seems to be the target of a concerted attack lately? Pierre cb (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

hi5.com article remains

The hi5.com article remains, wasn't it suppoused to be deleted?

It smells of astroturfing. The fact that I avoid social networking sites makes me -ironically- very aware of them, and yet this one simply passed under my radar. I didn't know of this site a week ago and now i have two request from frends, users of this service. Also the article states it is one of the most popular social networking site in latin america? It smells of astro-turfing. Maybe is a self-fulfiling prophecy but the truth seems to be that they are advertising on Wikipedia and profitting from it.

hi5.com article remains

The hi5.com article remains, wasn't it suppoused to be deleted?

It smells of astroturfing. The fact that I avoid social networking sites makes me -ironically- very aware of them, and yet this one simply passed under my radar. I didn't know of this site a week ago and now i have two request from frends, users of this service. Also the article states it is one of the most popular social networking site in latin america? It smells of astro-turfing. Maybe is a self-fulfiling prophecy but the truth seems to be that they are advertising on Wikipedia and profitting from it. --Requiem 18th_(email) 23:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem

I was just about to leave you a note to ask if someone had gotten into your account. It didn't seem like a typical edit for you. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for cleaning up my talkpage. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just a heads up on [2] concerning some of your edits. --BozMo talk 19:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

bnetd

Thank you for improving the bnetd article by deleting suspected original research. Unfortunately, some portions of the text you blanked were properly cited to third-party references, or could easily have third-party references found, and these portions have been restored. I invite you to participate on the article's talk page if you have further suggestions for improvement. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Brenham texas

I live there. The people that were deleted are very minor as members of the community. If fact, Michael Bishop was just a football player in the junior college in Brenham. Gus Mutscher was convicted of a felony. Most of the people in Brenham are not really proud of him.

KALZOID-73-20METER (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Undelete

I saw you were the closing admin on Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss, could I get it copied over to my userspace so I have the info on-hand? Thanks! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sicko

Hi. I don't know why you think I didn't watch the video, but I assure you, I did. The word he used was "have", not "having". I actually replayed that particular moment at least three times, in fact, because it was one of the things I noticed that was different than in the article. In addition, a direct quote is preceded by a comma, not a colon (unless one is using a quote template), and the number of periods in an ellipsis should be consistent, and is usually three. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry man.

sorry man

my bad.

Oh, sorry I forgot.

go and eat yourself you curly haired lesbian bitch,

www.mylazysundays.com

I am in awe

I had no idea vandalism reverting could be so fun. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverts - Trivia

Hi Ryan

I have your message regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Vear

I am a little confused here??

The page clean-up stated that is discouraged Trivia, so I have edited the page, amended and added it within Personal Lide section.

Your assistance would help, thanks

--81.149.59.93 (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Francisco J. Santamaría

It's redundant to have 2 boxes providing information of gubernatorial succession? That's my explanation for removing the less informative of the two.72.221.92.43 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note.

Which article did I add unsourced material to? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

How wqas I vandalizing on porosity I was giving info that there are pores everywhere including your skin

All I wrote there is pores on your skin._71.112.203.21 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that he made 3 edits, the first two of which were WP:vandalism and the third of which was as he described. How about this: if he vandalizes no more pages then get rid of the third warning, but if he vandalizes more then block him? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

R.E. Last change

Have you read Macmillan's King George: What was His Problem? I believe that if you do you will find that my edit was correct. I am offended by your refusal of this. 86.18.119.97 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism re Quahog (Family Guy)

I would like an explanation as to why you have put a vandalism warning on my talk page regarding my edit to the page. It was in line with the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quahog (Family Guy). Shereth 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful with what you are reverting. You also reverted this which was very clearly marked as an AfD result. Shereth 20:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OOOOPS

Ryan,

You're right - I left that message on the wrong page. That's some accomplishment consdiering I was using a script too! When I mess up, I really mess up. ANyway, I removed it, and I appologize. I'll be careful with the scripts in the future!

If I cant add no copy writed original document informatio that is cited what is the point, how are people to see the truth...??? Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.170.37 (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle reverts in Wael Abbas

Hi Ryan, did you mean to make this revert? The version you reverted to had probably been edited by the same person as the one you reverted, and I don't see the reverted edits as vandalism. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

reverted to wrong info..

hihi ok...so how does wiki work then,....the article i was editing and am about to again was tampered with some antifans for the group or whoever put in ridiculously bogus info... changing names and countries... so i was righting the article... how/who exactly looks over all of this...are you a moderator? You should realize you reverted the right changes to the wrong info...so how do i make it so it stays and the right info doesnt get changed to wrong info? Telling me to looka t intro to editing doesnt help..

ElementalMissHap (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)ElementalMissHap

Template:Peacock

The image is unuseful and should not be in the ambox without a very good reason. 'I like it' obviously doesn't qualify. user:Dorftrottel  19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I did also comment on your edit summary, appropriately at your talk page. user:Dorftrottel  21:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Btw, there is a thread here. user:Dorftrottel  21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your VandalSniper application

Good day, and thank you for applying to use the counter-vandalism tool VandalSniper. I am pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted, and you are now approved to use the tool. You are now welcome to download the program - and be sure to read the features guide, if you have not already done so. Please bear in mind that VandalSniper is a powerful program, and that misuse may result in your access being withdrawn by a moderator. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, and once again welcome to VandalSniper! Kind regards, Anthøny 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:District of Columbia v. Heller

... have been reverted. Please show more good faith before deleting other users' contributions. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ad tag on Cray

Some time ago you tagged the Cray article with an advert. Can you explain this? There's no mention of your reasoning in the edit logs or the talk page. I'm inclined to simply remove it, but figured you might have some concrete examples. Maury (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Easily done! Cray Maury (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for your help on Bacterial_conjugation. — 69.134.122.144 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Will do! The thing was that the CSD I requested won't go through because the articles assesses that they are professional athletes, so I'm replacing them with prod-s. - Aktsu (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

user cat removal

Per a recent UCFD, you may want to remove the associated user category from your page.--Rockfang (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelligent design. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Ryan. I didn't realize I'd reverted the links to (Category:Denialism and Category:Pseudoscience) twice on the same page. I found that some zealously sophomoric Darwinist had categorized several similar pages with the same naively pejorative POV. I had no intent of engaging in an editing war with anyone who's interested in TE. Thanks again for the note. Keep up the great work. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

political society

helping hand needed. someone put again AfD on political society article. thanks in advance --77.114.201.83 (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A very minor point

Thank you for making this change in wording. I used "intensely" because I prefer informative to strictly correct¹, but getting both is even better. --Kizor 10:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

¹: And silly to dull, but that's another can of worms entirely.

please read- question

Hi!

I'm Joe Hamilton, I was wondering why you deleted my page Mike Kerr? I took a long time interviewing people, researching and perfecting that article. It's OK if you don't put it back on here, but I would like to have the article so I can keep it for personal records. SO PLEASE re-consider re-posting my article or simply sending it back to me so I can keep it in a file. It took a long time to get all the info in with I have gotten.

Thankyou, Joe Hamilton --JoeHamiltonIs111 (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposed text addition to the policy

I see that you've worked on the Wikipedia talk:No original research page. Would you care to comment on this proposal? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Investigate and Inquire

My partner Marthaerin1812 was unable to even edit her talkpage; she confronted me and represented that somebody marked a protection on her talkpage. I investigated and discovered some Wikipedia edit guy named Spartaz had put Marthaerin1812's talkpage on protections for "time-wasting" which was NOT true: Marthaerin1812 wanted to only make requests of unfair blocking which also happened around my other partners account and pages-she was demanding clean beginnings across Wikipedia on editing. How would Marthaerin1812 have wasted time? Please tell me? Not mentioning her talkpage was put under protection three weeks ago without any proper reasons.

Making matters worse, certain Wikipedia crew got into the habit of accusing us of sockpuppets and "vandalizing"-problem is it's harder to edit Wikipedia without Wikipedia people popping up and unexpectedly saying Please do Not sentences and accusations of sock puppetry even though these were actual partners editing Wikipedia were coming out like wildfire. We would NEVER be vandalizing articles over Wikipedia. How could somebody be under accusation of "sockpuppetry" when people face harassments on every level causing people to disguise their names-you have certain Wikipedia editors harassing you left, right, back and forth.

12.210.198.245 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This person has used many, many accounts and has done so abusively. They seriously need to stick to one account - Alison ^❤ 21:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP special sanctions

Hi Ryan - regarding the special enforcement subpage you were editing, are you aware that its a copy of the remedy in the footnoted quotes case? I'm not sure that its open to community editing given its status as an ArbCom remedy. I'm also not sure that your edits have introduced more clarity - the sanctions, for instance, aren't limited to page protection and review isn't limited to "abusive unprotection" of articles. I'm going to restore the version of the page that is identical to the ArbCom remedy. It may be worth contacting an arbitrator to determine whether or not the page was intended to be open to general editing. Avruch ^T 12:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see you are an ArbCom clerk - perhaps you know something about this that I missed? Avruch ^T 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You

Is this Ryan Thomas Delaney? Did you at one time live in Corona Ca? If so I would like to hear from you. Email me at norcorocks@sbcglobal.net Its Quentin Cuellar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.214.211 (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi Ryan, please note user:Kleinzach keeps changing the name of the opera article, "A Noite do Castelo" to reflect the wrong spelling. I have already undone his changing the title spelling once while also answering to his [discussion querry], as he obviously was later still in doubt of my undoing his changes. Yet, he has now, once again, renamed the page to reflect the wrong spelling; even after my careful explanation to him in the discusion page where he asked for input in the subject he clearly and self expressedly knows nothing about (ie. Brazilian Portuguese ortographic rules). I have finally undone this last change and requested him again to read the WikiProject Opera rules which clearly states that "Operas: original language titles"): "When listing operas by their original language title (provided that language uses the Latin alphabet), the spelling in the original language, including any accents and diacritics, should be preserved". This opera is in the Brazilian Portuguese language, not Italian, Spanish, nor French (or Portuguese from Portugal which uses a different rule than the Brazilian one). The title must not obey any other language ortographic rule, but the Brazilian Portuguese one. I have even given this user the sources and references for my saying so. yet, he seems to disregard what I have shown him, while trying to show me some non-existent rule for his doing such changes. Please help user understand that this opera is in the Brazilian Portugues language, while its rules calls for capitalized spelling of the whole title (as I have spelled above). He is starting to stubbornly behave in a manner-like to vandalize the said page. Your input would be greatly appreciated (all he needs to do, actually, and if in doubt, is to look under the pt interwiki of the page in the same article to notice how to correctly spell the article in that language). Thank you, much. KerrBr (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fay Weldon

Hi i notice you have reverted vandlaism on this page before now. an IP 195.128.251.167 has done a whole bunch. I don't know how to revert the whole lot - I started doing it one by one but there must be a better way. can you help please? 86.136.31.188 (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

Please reverse your unprotection. The page has been vandalised by a long-term abusive sockpuppeteer for over a year, with attacks as recent as two days ago. The minute he realises the page has been unprotected he's going to have a field day. --Hut 8.5 06:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You can see the complete list of socks at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join. Did you ask anybody who is familiar with the history of the article before you unprotected it? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warnings. We can discuss this further on Talk:Evolution. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thief (chess)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thief (chess), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thief (chess). Thank you. Schuym1 (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Help, again, please

Ryan, I have asked your help before. Could you please try and take a look at A Noite do Castelo, as user:Kleinzach not only continues to change the original language spelling but he also has found company (user:Voceditenore) now to obstruct the original and correct article title (capitalization spelling)? Perhaps you can talk to these guys who keep making up different excuses every time against my valid arguments. I have shown them sources and references in Wikipedia to no avail. Thanks for your help. You can look at the WikipediaProject Opera for the policy of foreign language operas as well as the links I have left for them in the talk page for usage of capitals in different languages/cultures etc. (Does Wikipedia uses "sentence capitalization" for foreign opera titles, at all? I donot seem to find that mention any where, but that is their latest excuse for changing the opera spelling form the correct foreign language style). Anyway, thanks again, KerrBr (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 22:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

delete edit?

Thanks for removing this [3], may I suggest that you delete it from the article history as well? As you noticed, the source does not name this person, and neither should we (similar actions have been taken in the Norwegian article). You might also concider a less informative edit summary in this case. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keith Murray (singer)

Thanks for the suggestion and the removal of unsourced material. I was told of the newspaper article through the English Wikipedia mailing list and immediately put an alert on the talk page. Sincerely, Willking1979 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Watts

The admin who removed the db template was Zanimum. I did point out the policy but to no effect. I found the page whilst doing a bit of New Page patrolling. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

RE NPOV tag: The same problem is repeated on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy‎. I tagged the "Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence" section because it breaks elementary Wikipedia policy (see this one diff for example). JJJ999 keeps removing the tag, even though I have explained my objection in detail on the talk page. Tension is high and both myself and JJJ999 have reverted the page more times than is permitted. Without wanting to increase your workload, would you mind offering the same advice, very briefly, so that the tag is not removed until the dispute is settled? Dynablaster (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would recommend non-intervention at present since I have already asked Lars to intervene, someone I am sure Dynaguy knows is an objective admin. We don't need a 4th admin asked by Dynaguy to look at it, and certainly not unless they intend to read the massive backstory with this, which is anything but simple as Dynaguy disingenuously claims here, and in which he has anything but clean hands. I have left a summary of the situation on Lars talk page.JJJ999 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• JJJ999 (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)I just removed it because I wanted to prevent another admin jumping to conclusions as you told me you almost did. Since I've just asked Lars to look into it all, I don't think I can be accused of trying to hide it. I thought blanking the whole talk page might be extreme.

Lar said he is too busy to intervene. (diff) Dynablaster (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I really need you (or a third party) to take a quick look at my proposal. I have highlighted areas of concern two posts below (in boldface). If you tell me that I have no serious objection, then I will respect that. Dynablaster (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have a question unrelated to our dispute. Since you are already involved, I thought I should ask you though. In the article one of the defenders of Moore is Chris Parry. Now I have no objection to both sides getting their say, but does this guy really qualify as a source? Some e-critic? I've linked his article here, it seems almost like a blog, with lines like "I dunno where Hitch is getting his crack". He's certainly not a journalist. http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=1150 JJJ999 (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on. Will you look at this obvious meatpuppet he is now employing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Themeatpopsicle

At best this is a meat puppet, at worst a sock.JJJ999 (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate you commenting (I will ask others too). Not only on the Parry source, but also on the text I proposed which DGG (as usual) has not replied to. He wants it all ways, of implicitly challenging the text, but not engaging in actual proposals for text. He has also added an "unbalanced" tag (which he keeps readding) with no more explanation that his edit summary. The section he was tagging was approved by an admin earlier, even Dyna concedes that, and all that's happened since then is more sources and facts added. If he wants to put in contrary views, then fine, but it is ridiculous for him to just tag like this.JJJ999 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This guy is just gaming the system. I've seen you in other conflicts like the sicko page tell editors who want tags there that they need to engage constructively to resolve conflicts. He once again has not done this. His reply to a severely edited paragraph I made (now that he has finally replied) is literally a single sentence, which effectively says "no good, go read wikipedia rules". This is not constructive. This guy is just gaming the system. In fact the rewritten paragraph attributes views to Kopel & Hitchens instead of as facts (his main criticism), and now sources everything by quote. His reply is "it's just more critical". I'm sorry but that isn't an objection based on rules here.JJJ999 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Should I be expecting some input from you anytime soon?JJJ999 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If Dynaguy has not provided any sources to support his position that the article is imbalanced by the time the page protection expires, I hope you will support the removal of the tag. He has had a very long time to be constructive over this dispute, and I think he's lost the benefit of the doubt that allows the tag to stay.JJJ999 (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied on December 22 ("Moving forward"), in the hope that we might approach the longest running dispute first. (diff). The second area of dispute can be corrected without too much effort, but we need guidance on the first. Dynablaster (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC).

{{POV-section}} issues

Hi,

I've left a reply here, including a link to a fixed version. Can you sync the {{POV-section}} template with its sandbox, please? Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Given Dynaguy just made it quite plain that he has no intention of responding anymore than he already has (ie, not at all), I assume you will support removing the tags once the page protection expires until he establishes a case for the tag to exist? I'm happy for you or another admin to judge the question of whether he does this at some point in the future, but for the moment I think it is very obvious he isn't interested in engaging, in which case the presumption of a tag with a non-engaged party should be rebutted.JJJ999 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, if you do not have the time to liaise, which is understandable, how might we find a willing mediator? Dynablaster (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• ryan in all fairness I really do not want to search out for yet another mediator. I really think by your own terms this is cut and dry and doesn't require much of your time. Dynaguy has refused at length to engage, so the tags should go until you decide a real case has been made.JJJ999 (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, as I understand it you came in and said flat out to Dynablaster "we would appreciate your thoughts and input" (as I have been saying for months), outlined how he could provide that input, and the reply has basically been a few sentences to the effect of "I've already replied, so I don't need to any further". He has provided zero sources, and zero reply to my text. When applied to he has claimed he's "busy" and "already replied" (both false, given he obviously is following this and keeps editing on wikipedia). I have to say I'm losing faith in your credibility here. I think I have been very patient, and I don't think I'm asking much of your time. All I want is for you to enforce what you already asked for, and what I've seen you insist on in other talk pages (that there be engagement in order to justify a tag). Given Dynaguy has not done as you asked, why have you not called him on it? I would appreciate it if you expediated the process by telling Dynaguy that the tags should go until he establishes a prima facie case to you. You cannot seriously expect me to leave the tags up when the protection is removed in a day or so. Dynaguy has made no progress on engagement since then, to either you or me. I understand people are busy, but this really is not a serious demand on your time. You asked for something, Dynaguy has not provided anything in response. Are you really going to have this fobbed off to yet another admin because nobody feels like wasting their time on Dynaguy again? This is the work of 5-10 minutes (eg "you can't keep the tags until you actually produce sources and reply to the offered text to me").JJJ999 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is not about who has the most time to say things, it's about the fact that Dynaguy has made it clear he doesn't feel he needs to say anything further. You are not being asked to "resolve" the dispute, you are simply being asked to be consistent. You told someone who argued against Dynaguy on another talk page that if they were wanted there to be a tag, they needed to contribute constructively. Now you are here, and Dynaguy has basically refused to offer any further reply, and you're fobbing it off rather than follow the same approach you did elsewhere. This does not need to go to yet another admin. The outcome is clear. Dynaguy hasn't engaged, so the tags go until he does.JJJ999 (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You are letting this process get undermined. One of the 2 main issues I'm trying to get resolved is the claim there exist other sources which would balance the article. This claim doesn't need mediation, it needs Dynablaster to produce sources! You asked him too, and he's made it clear he doesn't feel like it. You're letting it slide, and it's annoying to say the least. Dynaguy has not engaged here, and should not be rewarded for it.JJJ999 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on the relevant talk page. Dynablaster (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind admins stepping in, but honestly I can't for the life of me see what constructive help you have provided to this dispute... I've asked for all manner of input, or forcing engagement, and you've been invisible right up until the moment that the dispute has become heated enough to sanction or warn people. Don't take this personally, but I'm going to ask another admin to intercede. It's obvious you don't have the time or inclination to help the dispute move forward.JJJ999 (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:JJJ999

Hey Ryan. User:JJJ999, whom you blocked, is requesting unblock. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw, since I have been watching his talk page for awhile since this whole thing started. Do you have a question about it? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, just wanted to inform you. :) — Aitias // discussion 01:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock notification

Hello Ryan Delaney. User:JJJ999, whom you have blocked, is requesting unblock. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  07:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a new template. I'd appreciate your comment on the unblock request. Personally, I think the block was appropriate, but it may be a bit long for a run-of-the-mill content dispute and a few reverts.  Sandstein  18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration

Hi Ryan Delaney, I was wondering why Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration was changed from semi-protection to full protection. I was in the middle of editing the page when you switched the page from semi-protection to full protection. Thank you. OCNative (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! OCNative (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you let that protection expire? What the hell were you thinking? Only Today's Featured Article has to suffer from the lunacy of that rule. Anything else should be locked down. Especially something like that. Geez. Don't you know anything about how vandalism works here? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any idea the amount of work it would take to keep that article clean by blocking people? Approximately everyone in the United States, and a good number of people in the rest of the English-speaking world, are interested in politics right now. And an extremely high number of those will visit that article. Even though an incredibly low percentage of those vandalize the page, there is still no way that we could possibly keep up with it unless we had a bot automatically block anyone who is not autoconfirmed. In the time it took me to fill out and submit the protection form (~20 seconds), the article was vandalized twice. At what point do you draw the line between following process for process' sake and facing the reality of absolute necessity? And even past all that, why on earth did you remove my move-protection? Do you want Grawp to smear his glory in front of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, and I apologize. I'm just frustrated at everything now. I think I'm going to go offline. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry

hey,i'm sorry about the Alpha and Beta page.that is not my work,i think someone hacked my account.i will be more careful to protect my password in the future13:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akadama Satoshi (talk • contribs)

Interference with TalkPage and then with ANI

Can you please explain why you thought the ANI here was a "content dispute"? The issues originally raised were interference with TalkPage messages (and edit-warring). A third issue arose when the editor concerned editted the title of the ANI from his own name to the name of the article. At that point, most people would have thought there was serious disruption going on, meritting action on the editor doing it - what made you think differently? Later - Jayjg has now taken to doing the same thing to a different editor. PR^talk 13:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)