Archives

1

If you leave a message here, I'll respond here.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#POV tag at Israel and the apartheid analogy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, – Fuzzy – 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.

Ronk01 ( talk) 03:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I posted a reply to your question about racial segregation vs racial discrimination and genocide. I also added a note about the ARBCOM remedy on compulsory mediation under "How do you think we can help?". harlan ( talk) 13:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Straw_poll_on_titles. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along. -- Ludwigs2 06:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I am pleased to be able to tell you that I have granted you rollback rights. I have reviewed your editing history and am confident you will make good use of this tool. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, could you please explain why you accepted [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Aleksandar_Kolarov&diff=375190461&oldid=375190274 this edit} Off2riorob ( talk) 10:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure. My understanding of the reviewing process is that reviewers are only supposed to reject pending changes that are obvious vandalism, BLP violations, etc. I couldn't detect that this edit was either - although perhaps if I knew more about football it might have looked like vandalism, I dunno. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 10:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You should not accept things just because they are not obvious vandalism, as a reviewer you should review the desired addition as you would any edit, it was not cited was it so you revert it as uncited. You basically accepted a untrue addition to the article, please in future if you do not know if it is a correct edit do not accept it. If you accept something, go back and have a look at what you have accepted if it is cited then fine if not remove it, reviewing is not, it does not look like vandalism so I accept it, it is having a good look at it and if you support it and it is cited then accept it, you are responsible for all edits you accept. If you do not understand something then leave it for someone else to look at. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Please let me know if you need any more detailed assistance with reviewing. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

What you're saying sound sensible, but it's not what the guideline on reviewing says. It says "You should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find [BLP violation, vandalism, etc]. ... If you find no reason not to accept the new revision, then accept it from the reviewing screen; accepting doesn't prevent you from later editing the article to address concerns you may still have." Now, following the letter of that guideline means that I should have accepted the edit because it wasn't vandalism or BLP violation. However, if I thought it was a bad edit for other reasons then after I accepted it I should then have undone it. I'd be interested to hear where your differing interpretation comes from given that pending changes is a trial process and I'm sure people are seeing it in various lights. In this instance, I would have undone the edit after accepting it had I noticed that the Manchester City connection is controversial. However, my understanding of the pending change review process (as currently written) is that it's only expected of the reviewer to accept or undo the change based on vandalism/BLP/copyright, and that going on to undo an accepted edit for other reasons is desirable but not required. That's what's implied in the wording "accepting doesn't prevent you from later editing the article to address concerns". Personally, I think this "accept and undo" process is somewhat byzantine and will hopefully be streamlined as part of the trial, but I'm doing my best to follow the guideline as actually written (not how I think it should be) to help make the trial meaningful. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 12:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

That is what I have seen discussed, you are reviewing articles you know nothing about and you are accepting anything that is not vandalism..for example..John plays for Man city..and changes it the Liverpool..not really vandalism is it just false addition, so you accept it and move on.. what is good about that? the article now says he plays for another team, do you think you have done a correct thing? Do you think the wiipedia would be more correct after or before your reviewing ? Off2riorob ( talk) 19:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Let's continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback. As I said, I'm following the instructions for reviewing. Whether they are good instructions or not is certainly an open question but I think it's one better asked of the whole community, not as a conversation between the two of us. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 19:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. -- Ludwigs2 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Ryan or Ludwig: I'm wondering if it would be wise to ask a second mediator from the Mediation Cabal to join this mediation, specifically to facilitate the closure (one way or another). Ludwig: I notice you've been off WP for a couple of days. Having a relaxing beach vacation, I hope. But if you are not going to be around in the next few days, maybe we should ask a Mediation Cabal person (there are three "points of contact" listed at the top of the Cabal page) if they would mind stepping in to facilitate the closure. Even if Ludwig is around, a second opinion is always a good thing. .. kind of like an uninvolved admin coming around in an AfD. Or, Ludwig, you could just do the closure yourself, either way is fine with me. Ryan, what do you think? -- Noleander ( talk) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Ludwigs2 will presumably be back some time soon (he probably would have let everyone know about an extended absence), and it can be sorted out then. If not, then your idea might be a way forward. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 21:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Note there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists that you may wish to comment on. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 12:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I have mentioned you at an RfC [5] regarding BlueRobe's behavior. Just FYI. -- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Your efforts to improve Wikipedia - promoting accuracy and neutrality - are appreciated. Noleander ( talk) 23:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply

What's up with this?-- Terrillja _talk 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry! Looks like I must have mis-clicked while browsing too quickly through my watchlist. I didn't even read that post, or notice I had reverted it. Humble apologies. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 00:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Since you have been an active editor on the Talk Page of the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article, I would like to invite you to contribute your opinion regarding the current stalemated discussion under the "'Reverted Contribution' continued" section. I sought a "Third Opinion" on this, but the Third Opinion editor indicated that on pages like this where there is a lot of editor discussion, the views of other editors should be solicited. To clarify just what the current stalemate is about, you can read from Para. 1.1 on in the "'Reverted Contribution' continued" section, that is, from where a Third Opinion was requested. Thank you very much for your participation. Tempered ( talk) 03:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

You said - Introductory sentences should be concise, they shouldn't enumerate the critics, detail comes later. Also removed excessive linking, there is no need to link obvious terms like "critic" or "policy"

However what you removed is - The [State of Israel]'s treatment of the [Palestinians] has been compared by two [[United Nations Special Rapporteur]s, two [human rights group]s and [criticism of Israel|critics] of [Israeli-occupied territories|Israeli policy] to South Africa's

The reason I added the number of Rapporteurs is because there have only ever been two. On the other hand while there are a large number of human rights groups, the article's references to them is limited to two Israeli groups, and volume of criticism is relevant due to the subject of the article.

Note that the wikilinks you removed are not to general articles such as 'critic' or 'policy' as you suggested. Also, you restored the investigative descriptor of the role of the special repporteur, but United Nations does not include investigative function as such in the role descriptor in the sense it is used in other roles that do investigative work, such as law enforcement roles.

Please discuss any reverts of anything I edit with me prior to taking action. Please have a good day Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I stand by my edits and am happy to discuss them on the article talk page, which is the approproate venue. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Please do in that case Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 01:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply

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. 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 Nettrom ( talk), 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. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 15:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I just thought I should make this clear. My question about parapsychologists their delusions and fantasies is not meant to be malicious. It is like touching my grand daugher's forehead, and feeling warmth. Then asking "Do you have a fever? Let's take your temperature." I have genuine curiosity. I would just like to know. Kazuba ( talk) 02:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not concerned about maliciousness, just about keeping talk page discussion on the topic of practical suggestions for improvements to the article. That usually involves the provision of quotes from reliable sources, or summaries of the positions presented by reliable sources. Everything else is original research or just chatter around the topic, which isn't appropriate on talk pages. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 19:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Recently I intended to add some material to the wikipedia that came from limited editions and a small, no longer in existence publisher. In this case "The Psychic Press." I was told I could not use material from a book published by the Psychic Press even if the same material was basically repeated in a book from a more established publisher. In fact I got the impression from this critic that nothing published by the Society for Psychical Research had any validity or a right to be on the wikipedia. Is this the way it is now? Or had I encountered an extremist? Please reply soon. Kazuba ( talk) 03:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

It depends on the context and what you're trying to use the source for. If the context is an article about parapsychology, then statements published in a parapsychology journal/book may be considered significant and worth including, even though in a more general article (e.g. one on psychology) this source may not be considered a reliable source. Generally speaking, it's easier to get a source such as this included as an attributed source of a statement of the opinion of the author, rather than as an unattributed source of undisputed "fact". Ryan Paddy ( talk) 19:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't exactly understand what you are saying. But thanks for the immediate reply. That data was the opinion of one of Leonora Piper's many clients. Briefly the client claimed he felt that he had been manipulated by Leonora Piper and Mrs. Piper was a fraud. This seems to have been rarely recorded from the Piper readings. Kazuba ( talk) 20:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Are you talking about this edit of yours? The problem here may not just be the book you're referencing, but what you're writing about it. You can't write opinions into an article that you formed by reading a source, that's considered original research. You have to just write what the source itself said, straight up, without interpretation. Basically, you either summarise a source, or you quote a source, but you don't write the conclusions that you personally drew from reading a source. I haven't read the source in question so can't say whether your writing is original research, but I would say the the tone of your contribution sounds rather like original research, not like you're summarising the source. That edit was reverted by another editor because they thought it was original research, according to their comment, not so much because of an issue with the reliability of the source. They did note it was a primary source, but that doesn't necessarily make it unusable. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 04:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Wow! Thanks for taking an interest in this problem. I did NOT surmise. I did NOT give my opinion. This was quoted (I can do that?) from the author A.T. Baird. I am interested in what people of the past have to say. I try to stay out of it out as a respect to the deceased. I'm pretty good at that. That is what critical historians do. Thanks again for taking an interest. I feel so lost on the wikipedia. In real life outside of the wikipedia I did historical research and editing for Paul Kurtz. He betrayed me. Martin Gardner understood and was the only one who talked to me and became my tutor. He said I taught him a lot. Randi has always given me the cold shoulder. So far other magicians never respond. I cannot read their silence. But I suspect I make others feel uncomfortable. It is breaking my heart. Did you read my user page? Did you look at the link after the statement "this came as quite a surprise" ? What am I supposed to do with all this knowledge I have collected? It delights me. Just keep my mouth shut? My wife always told me to stay away from the wikipedia. Others would just hurt me. There is a photograph here somewhere on the web of James Randi and Martin Gardner. Martin is holding and has opened Alice's Adventures in Wonderland pop-up book created by Robert Sabuda. I delighted him with that book. Once he delighted me by doing a magic effect with me over the telephone. I cannot remember if he explained it to me or not. I changed it a little bit and came up with my own presentation and I drove my therapist (female of course) crazy with that little gem. I always thought of Martin as a puzzler, magician and friend, not a skeptic. Kazuba ( talk) 21:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply

If you'd like I can give some advice on how to contribute to Wikipedia. We can start with the edit I linked to above, here's the content of what you wrote:

Some sitters by obtaining good results were fully convinced they were in communication with the deceased, while with others with whom errors predominated their reading were of the opinion Mrs. Piper was a cunning, crafty person judiciously "fishing" the the information out of the sitters, then retailing it back. They had no hestitation in proclaiming this in their reports; they stated it in very plain language. ^[1]

Even if this is exactly what Baird wrote in his book, there are probably still some issues with this contribution. If you could fix those issues, the contribution would be less likely to be reverted by other editors. Despite what you may think, most editors on Wikipedia are willing to accept well-sourced, well-phrased contributions, even if they don't agree with the content. So I think you need to work on two things: 1) how you source your contributions, and 2) how you phrase your contributions. Getting content accepted on Wikipedia is not about who likes you, it's about the quality of your contributions.

Let's start with attribution. A clear difference between the statements preceding yours, and your sentences, is that those preceding are attributed to someone: Martin Gardner. Where it says "Martin Gardner published two exposés...", that's the attribution. Your contribution has no attribution. Citing someone in a reference after a statement is not considered an attribution on Wikipedia. Therefore, one improvement that could be made to your contribution would be to attribute it to Baird. Your could therefore rephrase your contribution, thus:

According to A T Baird, some sitters by obtaining good results were fully convinced they were in communication with the deceased, while with others with whom errors predominated their reading were of the opinion Mrs. Piper was a cunning, crafty person judiciously "fishing" the the information out of the sitters, then retailing it back. Baird states that the sitters had no hestitation in proclaiming this in their reports; they stated it in very plain language. ^[2]

The difference is clear. Now instead of the information being presented as if it was "fact", it is clearly attributed to Baird as his opinion. We must always attribute statements to people or groups on Wikipedia, unless the statement is uncontroversial to most experts in the area, in which case we still need to provide a reference afterwards. For example, the article on evolution defines it as "the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in inter-breeding populations of organisms" without providing any attribution as to whose perspective this is, because it's the accepted wisdom among experts in the area, and the article simply provides a single recent textbook on evolution as the source. What's significant here is that your contribution is not of that nature. It is a statement of one person's opinion, probably a somewhat controversial opinion on a little-studied historical area, and the credentials of that person as a relatively undisputed expert presenting the most commonly accepted perspective on the subject are not clear.

I'll stop there, and you can let me know if that makes sense to you.? If so, there's plenty more advice I can give on contributing to Wikipedia. For example, the change I suggest above is still probably not enough to get your contribution accepted on that page. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 00:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I kind of dropped out of Leonora Piper. I didn't think it would raise such a fuss. Leonora Piper is a tough one. There is so much data, so much missing data and data that just does not make any sense at all. I do not think Baird is lying. He is just looking at what Piper's clients concluded. But the only way to verify that is to see and know exactly what Baird is reading. "They stated it in very plain language." William James' sister sure put it in plain language. If I remember correctly she wrote Piper was "that horrid woman." I began to accept all the Piper digging and sharing with others just wasn't worth all the rejection. It wasn't fun anymore. The subject of continuing consciousness after death is a touchy subject to some people. It is difficult for me to understand not everyone else is as curious as myself. It has gotten me in a lot of trouble. Que sera sera. Thanks for helping, Ryan. Oh and you are wrong some people just don't like me and they have stated it in very plain language. "I DO NOT LIKE YOU!" Kazuba ( talk) 06:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm using your contribution to Leonora Piper as an example, but the point I'm making is a general one about the manner of your contribution. There are several problems in the way you wrote your contribution, and they are the kind of problems that will cause other editors to revert your writing (whether they like you as an editor or not). You need to write "X said Y". You need to make sure that the source you reference is a reliable source, and you may need to go to some effort to demonstrate this to other editors on the talk page. You need to phrase your contributions so that it's clear that you're just summarising or directly quoting the source - direct quotes should be in quotation marks. And so forth. These are all points that are covered in various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia articles can't use your personal experiences or anecdotes or opinions, which is why people aren't likely to be interested in your stories and may consider them inappropriate distractions or self-promotion. Wikipedia is about getting across points from reliable sources in a clear, neutral manner. I'm happy to help you learn how to do that. But I think you may first need to get past this sense of persecution that you're expressing here, it's just a barrier you're creating for yourself. Wikipedia is made up of thousands of editors, and they're not all out to get you - but you WILL encounter persistent resistance and annoyance from other editors if your contributions continue to not follow the policies & guidelines. If you change your approach to editing, you may be surprised at the change in the response you'll get. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 00:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I have done that before. If they don't like your stuff it does not matter. If those are the rules of the wikpedia shouldn't the reader expect you are following rules when they first read it. And if they have specific questions the reader will contact the writer before the material is deleted. Instead of first deleting the material before they contact the writer, or not contact the writer at all. Folks like to make those quick decisions. You have too much power on the tube. It is too easy to do it on the net. It is not like you are looking at each other face to face as in real life. Thanks anyway. Leonora Piper is history. And so am I at present. But I'll be back! Thanks again. Maybe when I get the information of how and when Jesus got the popular vote and officialy became God in the 4th century Kazuba ( talk) 23:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I like the way bad edits are quickly removed on Wikipedia, it keeps the quality high. While it would be nice if every reversion was discussed with the editors involved, that's a lot to expect from volunteer editors. Wikipedia isn't about the editors and their hurt feelings, it's about the quality of the content of the articles. If you do come back to editing Wikipedia, I recommend that you try to internalise the policies and guidelines so that your posts are less likely to get reverted. You may also need to grow a thicker skin for dealing with times when you do get reverted, because it happens to everyone and it's not a bad thing. Try to focus on the content, not the personalities. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I no longer take the Wikipedia seriously. I find it fun and amusing. You need to have a sense of humor. Regardless of your quality of content I charge you now and then encounter a small number of dingbats. They do exist you know. Kazuba ( talk) 02:51, 1 March 201(UTC

Notice in the Dean Radin entry there is hardly any information on his individual experiments. You would at least expect to to see some tiny mention about his experiments on intentional chocolate, his experiments with clay dolls for remote healing and his personal claimed success at a spoon bending party. If it was known and documented wouldn't you? Kazuba ( talk) 03:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply

If that content was significant and was covered in reliable sources, then it would be nice to have. Otherwise, it's best not to have it. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 20:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I totally agree. It did. Kazuba ( talk) 01:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Random number generators and world events: Events which capture the attention of many people may affect random number generators. ^[3] Other publications report analytical studies on how lunar cycles may affect psi and winning at one gambling casino. Winnings on slot machines rise 2% during a full-moon. ^[4]

• Presentiment experiments: Experimental tests of presentiment effects in the autonomic and central nervous system.

• Intention research: Radin's research concluded that intentionally enhanced chocolate significantly decreases stress, increases calmness, and lessens fatigue in those who eat it. [6] ^[5] "If the Pope blessed water, everyone wants the water. But does it actually do something?" Radins asks. "The answer is yes, to a small extent." ^[6]

• Remote healing: Subjects constructed clay dolls of themselves. His research showed that the subjects' blood and nerve activity increases when a "healer" 100 yards (91 m) away massaged the dolls. ^[7]Radin also tested Umbanda mediums in Brazil, who attempted to send healing thoughts to American subjects at UNLV. These healing thoughts were not only sent to specific individuals but also back in time. ^[8]

• Psychokinesis: In 2000 Radin attended a spoon bending party. To his surprise the spoon he was holding started to bend. The bowl momentarily felt like putty. Using one finger and thumb he easily pinched the end of the bowl over, nearly bending the bowl to half its length. Dean had decided in advance that the only bend he might find interesting would be of the bowl of a spoon, because to do this without tools and/or leverage is beyond the capability of most people, including himself. The silver-plated soup spoon he held bent as he had previously desired. ^{citation needed [9]}

• Kinesiology: Radin ran double-blind and triple-blind trials with 58 adults using vials of sugar and sand and a dynamometer, which measures a hand's grip strength. The results seemed to show that people's muscle strength decreased significantly when they held vials of sugar. ^[10]

• Robotics: Subjects attempt to manipulate a robotic arm to pick up an M & M. Unobserved, the robotic arm can complete the job in 25 steps. With a human's mental attention to the task, the job can be done in two steps. ^[11]

• Psychics: "The best psychic averages about 3 in 10, like the best baseball hitters .300," says Radin, "the rest of us bat about 1 or 2 in 10." ^[12] According to Ed May, remote viewers in the Stargate Project were wrong 80 percent of the time and correct 20 percent of the time. Radin wrote that the probable reality of remote viewing was scientifically established by the US government's Stargate Project. ^[13]

• Remote viewing and future machines: While Dean Radin was at the Conscious Research Laboratory, University of Nevada, Las Vegas he worked with remote viewer Joseph McMoneagle. Radin conceptualized a future machine that as yet did not exist. McMoneagle used his remote viewing into the future in an effort to obtain information concerning this machine to produce patentable ideas. ^[14]

I'm not sure why you're posting this on my talk page. It's the kind of content that woul dbe bette rposted on the talk page for Dean Radin. I don't have any particular interest in the subject or know anything about the person in question. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 08:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

This is an example of my work that was included in the Dean Radin entry. Not the talk page. I just wanted to show you what I do. And how deep I go. I love to learn new things. (and hopefully share them) I thought my materials fullfilled the Wikipedia requirements. You see I have a slight interest in parapsycholgy and those who call themselves parapsychologists. Others did not share my interests. My materials were totally deleted sources and and all. I contend it was by persons who found my materials worthless. That's all. Kazuba ( talk) 16:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

if you're the acting sheriff of the larp page, what's your opinion on the latex weapon and two pictures of the quebec battles? i try to avoid to using really tall pictures like the weapon one due to formatting, and the other two are relatively low quality and resolution pictures. i have a variety of dagorhir pictures, but only dagorhir pictures, so i can't supply to the article without overloading it. is there a type of picture would be good for replacing them? specific types of larping? Evan-Amos ( talk) 22:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey there. I'm not sheriff, I'm just one of several editors who work on that page, although it is one I watch closely. The height of the latex weapon pic does cause minor formatting issues, but I think we should only remove it if we're replacing it with a better weapon pic. I don't think the quality or res of the other two pictures is too low (they're 600x400), and again I think they should only be removed if we have better images of the same sort of subjects (a large battle and a purpose-built venue). As you say we can't load the page up with lots of Dagorhir photos (or any other single type of larp) because that wouldn't be representative of the variety of larp out there. I'm happy that we have a Dagahir image in the history section now. It would be nice to have an image in each of the sections that don't currently have one, but they need to be relevant to the section they're in. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, the ideal photo of a big battle might show some people fighting in the foreground, with a battle happening behind them. That way it would be clearer what's happening in the picture at the small thumb size shown on the article. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 01:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

not literal sheriff, but it's easy to see people who watch over the pages and keep tabs. as for pictures, i might comb through flickr for something, though the weapons might be hard. there's also a difference between homemade weapons and the type like the store-bought latex ones. do you think one is more common than the other? i'm not sure which ones are more common, as i'm not really that knowledgeable about this community.

Evan-Amos ( talk) 11:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The home-made weapons made with PVC cores are more common in the US, although I understand latex weapons (with fibreglass cores) are growing in popularity. In Europe it's the opposite, nearly all weapons in most European countries are latex, and PVC-core weapons aren't accepted in most games. And then there's Russia and Eastern Europe... where metal and wooden weapons are the norm for live roleplaying. So it's very regional. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, my name is Asinthior and I will be your mediator. I have no prior knowledge of Israel and the Apartheid Analogy, which I think is a good thing as I will be able to provide a pair of fresh eyes and I won't have any prejudice on the matter. I hope we can all actively participate in the solution of this dispute. Feel free to leave a note at my talk page at any time. I will be available through the weekend. Asinthior ( talk) 14:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Okay, thanks for volunteering. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 19:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Could we please transfer the discussion to the Mediation Cabal case page? In other words, all further comments concerning this dispute and how to insert the controversial paragraph into the article should be done at case page until we close the case. If you agree, please state so in the discussion section of the case page. Asinthior ( talk) 12:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I've read the subsection of the discussion page for the article in dispute. As the Mediation Cabal did not have an immediate response, I feel the debate have moved to a new topic. I would ask all concerned parties to make a very short statement trying to define as narrowly as possible what is the topic of the dispute and what would be the expected outcome. Please do this in the discussion section of this page. Asinthior ( talk) 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for jumping into the discussion. I found out about Friar Tuck earlier this morning at one of the reference desks and decided that is the appropriate equivalent to the "Fray" treatment. Looking forward to working with you and the other two users in solving the dispute. Asinthior ( talk) 22:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC) reply

It's been exactly one month since User:Tempered last contributed to WP. I think you can go ahead and do the edits you were disputing about. If he comes back and still has a problem, we can mediate then. Just throw me a line at my talk page. Asinthior ^{( talk)} 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll think on it, see if there's any way to take his concerns into account before editing. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The only argument I could see for your revision was:

"Original text was more informative"

That which is accurate is informative. That which is inaccurate in not informative. I replaced an inaccurate statement for an accurate statement. If you have some special contest for this please message me before you change the definition of an entire profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroofbeam ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I understand you have been editing the osteopathy page for a long time but this does not make your arguments any more accurate than mine. Please outline a better argument for why osteopathy is an alternative medicine before editing the page again.

I'm happy to discuss this on the talk page of the Osteopathy article. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 09:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

A Google search for "wikipedia deligitimisation" here helped me discover User:Ryan Paddy/Delegitimisation. Perhaps the research which informed your work could be folded into the new article I created?

If you have the time, please take a look at WP:Delegitimization as a tactic (and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delegitimization as a tactic).

Do you have a point of view which helps me figure out how to respond constructively to MfD criticism? -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. That page was me trying to help another editor to get a working draft of some text s(he) proposed, it's not work that I'm personally invested in. Personally, I think delegitimisation is a misleading buzzword, most often used as part of propaganda. If an editor believes that something is not "legitimate", then I'm of the opinion they should be able to voice that view without being stifled by buzzwords. I won't be commenting on your deletion discussion, because that would amount to responding to canvassing. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 19:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Ryan Paddy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) ( talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello Ryan Paddy, I've posted an RfC on an article related to the Israel Apartheid analogy article, and am notifying you in case you'd be interested in commenting.

The RfC relates to two official UN sources describing the Palestinians and Arabs in Israel in terms of indigenous peoples. I am somewhat new to editing these pages, but another veteran editor recently made the following comment on the Talk page, so the material seemed relevant.

As per all the other RfC on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indigenous body - so no change from the norm.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the UN sources I've cited is from 2009, the webpage does not indicate a date when the relevant material was posted, but that is general definition of thematic issues related to education issues faced by indigenous peoples, whereas the report addresses the state of affairs at a specific point in time.

Are the references in these sources tantamount to official recognition by the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues?-- Ubikwit ( talk) 05:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit reply

Thanks for the notice, but I don't have time to look at this just now. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 17:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ryan Paddy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ryan Paddy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ryan Paddy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply