User talk:Causa sui

Hi! Welcome to my talk page.

Please read these policies before posting.

Always sign your messages with --. Please do not post if you are not going to do this.

Please do not respond to other people's messages here. This has the effect of spilling disputes from other pages onto my talk page, and it is very distracting for me. This talk page is for messages to me, not to the other people who have written here.

Please create a new heading for new subjects. To respond to a message under the same subject, find the applicable heading below, press the "Edit" button on the right, and add your message to that section.

I will always respond on your talk page.

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

Archive 1 2 3

Ficus elastica: an in-depth look at the rubber plant

I tagged this delete as I've merged the text of this non-standard name duplicate article with the existing Ficus elastica page - MPF 21:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan page dispute/mediation

I did not refuse mediation in this dispute, and it was incorrect for you to say so on the article's talk page. I asked you to clarify comments you had made regarding the dispute, which I believed called into question your suitability as the mediator. Rather than having the courtesy to explain the comments, or otherwise respond substantively, you made statements on the article's talk page which misrepresented my position. Those comments were entirely inappropriate. Monicasdude 22:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for Ryan to minutely spell out the reasons for mediation. You have at least two editors-in-good-standing who have unequivocally stated that your actions over months on the disputed page have stultified contributions from them and almost all other editors. You are being called to answer the numerous charges of those editors with Ryan as disinterested 3rd party-- you are not called and have no authority to vet Ryan, an Administrator-in-good-standing, beforehand. It's your choice to accept mediation or not. Ryan has done nothing inappropriate. JDG 08:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam J. Pearce

How is this guy notable? I would not expect to find his entry in any encyclopedia pertaining to any degree of completeness. Regards, Cdyson37 23:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was fast! KK will do, the zeal of antivanitism got to me! Cdyson37 00:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence (Public controversy)/Galton Report

We need to delete this page, which is purely source material and never should have been uploaded here. (And the title is poorly formed). I noticed you'd deleted a speedy tag. Though it is not a 100% proper tag, the original uploaded applied it. There's no significant edit history (except for the tags). We could VfD it, but that seems like overkill. How do you suggest we proceed? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Monicasdude

Started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude. Please help certify it and flesh it out.

I think your involvement in this has not been as productive as it could be. I think it would be appropriate, for one, to indicate that you are not offering to provide formal mediation in the sense of Wikipedia:Mediation because you are not a member of the Mediation Committee, which only takes up mediation through its own process. Second, you passed over a clear opportunity to get this under control. Monicasdude asked whether NPOV was self-sufficient as a controlling policy, guideline, or principle; if that point is contended, which you appear to believe, the simple answer is to say that lack of agreement as to this point is exactly why you are offering your good offices. There was certainly more than one way to say no, and I have to say that I believe the way you chose to say it reflects poorly on you. By meeting an objection put as a question with a solicitation of an RfC, you appear to be railroading Monicasdude (I don't think this is the case in fact, but read on about the implications taken away by Lulu and JDG), which unnecessarily impugns your impartiality and, more importantly, forecloses on the easier option of informal mediation; a more severe measure like an RfC undermines the good faith that is preferred to cement a solution and continued participation in Wikipedia by all involved parties. The fact that JDG is posting on Lulu's page talking about a ban tells me that the situation is being allowed to run out of control. I would offer that you ought to intercede again with a mediation offer to forestall an RfC. Buffyg 21:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not respond to other comments on my talk page. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. I just had you on the watchlist, since I had commented here. And I saw the comment by Buffyg that made statements about my own likely perceptions. I thought I'd clarify in the same place; but I'll snip it out now, and put it over on Buffyg's talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:04, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

I added this sentence to my description: I accept the conclusion that Monicasdude's behavior does not qualify as vandalism. I want to make it clear that an allegation of vandalism is not part of my RfC complaint. However, I continue to believe that Monicasdude's edits constitute bad faith, so I do not withdraw that aspect. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:11, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Latest wrinkle

As you have, I have been attempting to format the RfC according to the RfC guidelines. In part this is putting all of the signed comments Monicasdude has scattered throughout the RfC into his response section. Unfortunately, just like with the article that started this, he is doing exactly the same thing: blind and automatic reversion of any change I make, accompanied by rude comments in the changelog. In no case, of course, have I removed any single word that Monicasdude wrote, but just changed the structure to match an RfC. Do you think there's any chance you can do anything to put the format right? Or should I just give up with Monicasdude deciding the RfC is also "his personal page?" Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:16, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Melechesh

What about CSD7? brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well don't close our wiki :P

Empty accusations

Please do not come on my talk page and accuse me of doing things I have not done. I have not added any commercial links or any links to my own private website. The only links used are those used as references as required by Wikipedia policy in order to avoid copyright violations. I will not discontinue adding content or references where they are required. If you are going to make accusations, you need to be able to back them up. Uriah923 15:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you wait more than 2 minutes before suggesting deleting a page?

I was working on the article on the Michelle Thomas character from Matlock, and not 2 minutes later, you put it up for deletion! Can you wait so that I can add content before doing that? It actually takes time to write an article. Patience is a virtue, last I heard. And I think many articles started small - did you suggest deleting them too, or did you give them a chance to get larger? I apologize for my terseness, but give me a break. --JamesR1701E 06:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SubstBot

Any news on the autosubster? R adiant _>|< 16:41, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not much of a botscripter myself. You might try asking User:AllyUnion though, if he's got time. R adiant _>|< 07:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

James Dean

Would you please have a look at the James Dean article. User:Wyss is ignoring the additional sources I am presenting which undoubtedly support my view. He has repeatedly reverted my version of the text without discussing the facts. Onefortyone 00:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an RfC. Wyss 00:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why User:Wyss is constantly denigrating all independent sources (books, articles, etc.) which undoubtedly support my view. This user is biasedly suppressing facts. Onefortyone 00:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to clutter Ryan's talk page any further than to say 141's sources have been extensively examined and discussed on the associated talk pages and have proven to be mostly fabricated one way or another, with one or two remaining items looking more like sloppy research based on the former. Wyss 00:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wyss, this is what you frequently claim, but it is not true. And you already know that. I have cited several independent sources supporting my view, among them Gavin Lambert's Wood biography and a recent Dean biography. You are unable to provide sources which prove that these sources are wrong. Furthermore, look at the biased wording Wyss uses in the said paragraph. Onefortyone 00:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crowns and rebels

Hi Ryan, you recently took the speedy delete off Crowns and rebels, stating it was "not a speedy". I think I might claim otherwise: it appears to be a vanity page and the site it links to seems to be non-notable. The creator of the page was, prior to this, vandalising Kings of Chaos, and created two pages Century 21 (real estate), and an earlier Crowns and rebels, both of which were speedily deleted as being nonsense/vanity pages. (They appeared to be referring to the creator's parents). Thanks, --BillC 00:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find such other users actions rude and unsettling.

I find other users blatently stupid actions rude and unsettling but I aint complaining. --Arm 16:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and further more you can use the WP:Civil link on me all you want but your being hypocritical by not following Wikipedia guidelines too. For what I mean, read this. --Arm 05:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia widow

As its author and after further reflection and under more sober circumstances I have tagged this article for speedy deletion as I believe it meets the criterion of General article 7 (1.2.7) at WP:CSD. Why do you disagree? hydnjo talk 22:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I created this article during a whimsical moment. I'm not a vandal and I prefer to go "by the rules". I have nominated this article for speedy deletion because I feel that it meets the criterion mentioned above. If you feel that the article deserves the scrutiny of this community for several days then I would only ask for you rationale. Thanks, hydnjo talk 23:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bot approval

Please request for any approval at Wikipedia talk:Bots. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter trolling

Ryan, for my edification in regards AfDs, just wondering why you'd voted keep here? Thanks—encephalon έγκέφαλος 08:33:56, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan. I understand the sentiment. I voted delete myself because the reference base for the article seems to me to be original research, of a kind. A possible exception to this is the Encyclopedia Dramatica reference, although I'm hard-pressed to view that as substantial. Thanks.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 09:09:43, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

The Student Revolution novel

You're right it's not nonense. But I still think it should still be listed as speedy (non-notable, vanity or advert). I can't find any listings of the author Warrick Hutchinson. It looks like a promo for a first book. CambridgeBayWeather 09:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will do that. Still learning. CambridgeBayWeather 10:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop nominating schools" advice

Ryan Delaney,
I've noted that on several recent school AfDs you've encouraged people to stop nominating schools to AfD. I've posted my reply at the ones on my watch list (they showed up all in a block and raised my curiosity). I'd prefer not to wikistalk you (^_^) so can we discuss this here and stop posting our conflicting advice until we work something out?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three people are in now - I'm going to locate/create a centralized discussion. Please hold any your thoughts. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subst Bot

Is there anything I can assist you with? --AllyUnion (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Town Records

Hi there. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Town records as a delete tonight, but only deleted its redirect, not the article itself. —Cryptic (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]