User talk:Ryan Norton/Archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

the autism page

hi

i'm pretty new to wikipedia, but i really agree w/ the points you have raised about the autism page. would you be willing to tell me how a wiki article usually goes through the process of being re-vamped? i'd like to be actively involved.

thanks adam black 19:38, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Same here and I'm not really sure either... I did some edits of the Autism and Microsoft pages but I'm unsure if the process I used was correct... I've asked an admin at User_talk:Redwolf24 about it --RN 20:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Re:

I replied at user talk:redwolf24. Redwolf24 20:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was instant! Changelingsoldier - feel free to edit what you want... just try to keep all the meaningful content if possible

Thanks

Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA, I appreciate it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Autism

Great article! Have commented. I do suggest perhaps using Wikipedia:Summary style to break up the article though... see Windows 2000 and Architecture of Windows 2000 for an example. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thanks and Congratulations for the marked - and diplomatic - improvements on the autism article! Ombudsman 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well done!

Wow look at the autism page now its a great improvement. sorry i dropped off the net right when this was all going on. all the best --adam black 20:14, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

Clarification

I have no idea where User:AI's award for "being nice" came from, but it's in stark contrast with reality[1]. (Update: He got that barnstar out of kindness, not for his kindness.[2]) If you want to know what led to the RfAr being filed, I'd encourage you to look at the ongoing Arbitration case, and in particular at the events leading up to the RfAr. In a nutshell, AI has been unwilling or unable to take a friendly hint. He's attempted to force his will against the objections of other editors, both on articles and on talk pages. When politely confronted about this, he has removed comments directed at him on the grounds that they are "personal attacks"[3]; and that's just one aspect of the problem. On the day I filed the RfAr, AI had been told several times to stop removing other users' comments [4][5][6], and by the time the RfAr was filed he had made six attempts to remove another user's comments from an article talk page and was showing no sign of stopping. Friendly messages were left on his talk page and rebuffed by AI saying, in essence, that he was right, acting according to (his interpretation of) policy, and unwilling to discuss his behavior. AI was most definitely not working on formulating a response, since he had already replied on my talk page[7] telling me that my messages to him would be ignored. It was abundantly clear that AI was unwilling to listen to the community (attempts to engage him on talk pages and through an RfM were promptly rebuffed), so in my opinion the intervention of a higher authority was required. The fact that the RfAr was accepted (with one recusal and no rejections) suggests to me that my request had merit and was not premature. Cheers, --MarkSweep 08:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey RN, I hope I didn't sound too cranky above. The evidence in the Arbitration case is a bit scattered, and it's not easy to see right away what's been going on. Anyway, I'm glad you changed your mind. Cheers, --MarkSweep 22:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, and thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

test new sig

stolen from jtkiefer --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Antitrust on Microsoft article

Hi, The Microsoft antitrust case was not a mere criticism of Microsoft. It was a HUGE event, not only in the company's history, but in the history of United States and European Union antitrust law. Sun alone settled for $1.6 BILLION dollars -- this is an astronomical amount. If any other company settled a case for this amount, it would surely be included in the company's article.

I tried hard to make the Antitrust section as NPOV as possible, and kept it to factual events. If you feel that it could be more NPOV, then please edit it - but the whole antitrust case is a MAJOR event in the history of Microsoft, and should not be moved to a secondary article. Kwertii 17:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, yes, the article looks much better now. The important thing is that we must mention the antitrust case, as it was a huge event in the company's history. (Please use standard wiki syntax for subheadings - i.e. use === instead of raw html markup.) I have made a few edits, please feel free to edit anything I've changed. Also, I've altered the style a bit - it was rather too conversational for an encyclopedia. Kwertii 01:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree thanks for the edits. I still think the antitrust section is a little long though... I'll see what I can do without losing any info --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

sig

Though I am flattered by the fact that you like my sig so much that you would use it yourself and welcome you to use it, I was wondering if you'd mind at least changing the coloring since at the moment it is the exact same as mine which could easily confuse users who are quickly looking through comments and can recognize a user by their sig. Thanks. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me know if you want me to change it again. Good sig BTW ::). --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No it's fine, I actually like the colors that you chose. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:19, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Autism FAC

Hi, I've just reorganised some sections of the article, including the characteristics which was odd since the article mentioned the DSM definition twice before actually giving the definition. I think the bullet points from the Social development and Communication difficulties sections could possibly be removed since they are described in the text and that the article would read better if the list in Sensory Integration Dysfunction were written as prose. great work on the article so far. A section on genetics and autism might be necessary at some point too, especially as this research advances.--nixie 19:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, its quite a bit list-heavy now - we need to get rid of those and write them out. Also, I think maybe it needs an intro in the characteristics part saying something along the lines of "professionals use a combination of the DSM and these properties combined with statistical data" or whatever. The DSM thing I don't know about though - I wanted to keep it in the same layout as the Asperger's syndrome page where the characteristics came first and then the DSM definition... As for the genetics we should just make a seperate "Genetics theory" subsection in the Models section. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

A genetics section in the models would be a good place to put it. I'll have a go at turing in that last list into prose.--nixie 23:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I know it seems kind of odd having the DSM definition after the characteristics... maybe that's because its often times a lesser part part of the diagnostic than other methods. Also, I'll have a go at the sensory section soon... BTW it looks great now :). --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk

I urge you to rethink your vote in favor of this user becoming an admin. I am confident that if you look into his history more carefully, you will quickly become aware that he is exactly the sort of user who should not become an admin. Despite many good edits, and an ability to cite sources, his POV pushing, vendetta pursuing, cliquish behavior presents an example of exactly what a wikipedian should not be. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply about POV comment in autism article

You said: Bad day? Holy cow! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&diff=20151523&oldid=20134451 That was pretty POV. Anyway, thanks for your help on Autism pages :). --RN 02:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I put that in for reasons of reportage (I did try to be careful to say "critics say"). My source was a number of comments/ editorials on no-cure websites, mentioning the irony of calling something "autism speaks" which seemingly does not want to hear from autistics ourselves as to what we want. Bluejay Young (response written 13:18, August 7, 2005)

Microsoft

I don't know if the article is "weird", but it's grossly overwritten in places, with far too much detail. Six months or a year ago, when I used to look at it, there was a continuing battle between anti-MS people and pro-MS people but that seems to have abated. But there's far too much picayune detail in some places. And, I suppose, POV still here and there. What it *really* needs is a New Yorker-type copyeditor with instructions to cut the article to some predetermined length, I dunno what, 1,000 words, 2,000 words, or *something*. Right now, everyone who has a computer and has MS running on it, has an opinion, or a fact, or *something* that they want to shove into the article.... With a thousand people sticking their noses into the article, I dunno if it can ever be given any kind of rigor.... Hayford Peirce 00:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for your support. --Briangotts (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Redwolf24#Rather annoying wikipedia bug

Click the section heading. Sorry it took me so long! Redwolf24 08:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I will do my best to serve the Wikipedia community as an administrator. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Phew

When I saw a followup to my edit on the GWB article with a description "spelling," I was terrifed that, even though I spellchecked the thing, and the largest word I wrote was "largest" one of the 9 words I wrote was mispelled. Don't scare me next time!Hipocrite 17:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

CRAZY thank you for supporting my adminship, RN! :)

at least I hope its not one of those who require 8 months and 10000 edits.... Of course not, a mere 7 months and 9,000 edits is good enough for most people.... ;-)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 22:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Carnildo

I nominated him. Run to the RfA. Redwolf24 01:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting my nomination. AlistairMcMillan 09:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You're Welcome!

Like alot of things that come to being on Wikipedia, I was curious and just wanted to find out what was going on. That must be a record for vfds, I assumed that agriculture's delete vote was just sulking on his part, but whatever... Karmafist 04:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Asperger's

Hi Ryan, I think I was probably sleeping when things went crazy on Asperger's. Let me know if the problems continue.--nixie 05:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Autism

Congratulations on your article being today's FA. You've done great work on it! Acetic Acid 00:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Congrats

Woo-Hoo. Redwolf24 01:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

David Jasper VfD

I've re-written this to be aboout a different David Jasper. Would you like to reconsider your vote? --Doc (?) 14:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets go Phishing

Hey,

I've made a few last changes to the Phishing article per your suggestion and other suggestions in the peer review. May you take one last look at it before I submit it as an FAC? --ZeWrestler ^Talk

Thanks again for your help and support with this article. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for supporting my adminship request. If you ever have any problems with my actions, please be sure to get in touch with me. Thanks again.--Scimitar ^parley 14:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

User Onefortyone 3rr

They're all equal reverts, the latest two simply have added text to distract anyone trying to enforce 3rr. Identical text has been reverted six times. Wyss 00:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza

Hello, I'm trying to show some people off my friends list a new society, somewhat similar to WP:KC, Esperanza. Its still in its early stages but nonetheless I'd appreciate it were you to join. R e dwolf24 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Wordsmithing

Hi

It seems that you initiated a VfD on this article, but Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Wordsmithing doesn't exist. Did you just not finish, or am I missing something?

Cje 17:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

PS I entirely agree that it should be deleted!

OK I found it - ignore this. Cje 08:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Re!

See my talk page. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza

You're leaving Esperanza? Why? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 00:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I second that. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As even if you're busy all the time it shouldn't be a matter as you're not in the gov... R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush edit

I saw your inuse tag at Dubya. Since this article is so often edited, that may not work. I would recommend copying and pasting the whole article to User:RN/temp and editing there then copying and pasting it all to the article. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

policyvio

After being told that adding that vote was against policy, you insisted on reinstating it. You have been blocked for 24 hours. Kim Bruning 00:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And unblocked. 2 different policies confliced ^^;; Kim Bruning 01:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind word. You're right. Joyous (talk) 01:43, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

I think it's good. You've done a lot to improve it and make it look better. It'll require a lot of updating to maintain the quality since there's going to be so much going on in the next few months, with her new album, but I don't think that's a problem. The only other thing is the image; I think we should only use screenshots or magazine covers because those are uncontroversially fair use. I think some people may complain if they think fair use isn't good enough, but I don't know what we could do about that, because there aren't any free/PD pictures I know of. Everyking 09:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Good advice

Thanks for giving such good advice to zxcv... on his RFA (I use Dvorak, so I can't spell his username easily). That is exactly the kind of help we should be giving newbies. Uncle Ed 15:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Dear RN, thanks for your vote of confidance at my RfA. I'll try hard to make the soggy mop proud! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikifan comment

I do not mind having patience with new users, but said editor is not one and, despite that, makes no effort to have a rational conduct. If and editor wants to become an administrator, he or she has to be able to take direct cricticism; said editor doesn't even reply to the cricticism made to him, which leaves me with a very poor impression. I am sorry you find my style too confrontational, but as a general rule I don't measure my words much when talking to spoiled or arrogant people. If you have further comments, feel free to make them. --Sn0wflake 01:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi RN, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Toby

pillowfight is my brother and k1vsr is my friend. I will continue to revert your removal of Toby from their talk pages. --SPUI (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

Sorry about the confusion in the reversion of Hurricane Katrina. We must have reverted at about the same time and my reversion was just a little after yours in the end. I agree with the reversion version that you reverted to. I was trying to revert quickly and just picked the 68.212.157.198 version since it looked good enough. So I wasn't actually editing the reversion you made; I simply reverted at about the same time. DarthVader 02:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

I don't really have a set standards for adminship; it really varies by user. --Merovingian (t) (c) 03:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hi, RN. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Good Catch!

Thanks for reverting the massive link insertion by 83.205.38.52. This edit was the IPs only edit and follows an edit style used by about 6 other IPs today which appear to be proxies: A single edit on the IP carefully reverting a bulk of the externals to an old version and inserting dozens of links. Several of the links in the bunch are to suspicious donation sites which have been removed due to fraud concerns... so it's possible that someone has an ill motivation. Again, thanks for your sharp eyes!. --24.165.233.150 06:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

NO!

See my Talk page. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wise move

I wish I could say you were wrong, but as you know, I'm not sure myself anymore either. Maybe we can work and help fix things together, or maybe I'll make my wikibreak permanent. :-/ Kim Bruning 22:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigh.

I am very sad to see this. I hope you come back sometime. ManekiNeko | Talk 04:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back! ManekiNeko | Talk 00:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

See my talk page

again. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)