User talk:RyanFreisling

Weird Vandal Count

• 199.0.195.37

Talk Talk

Signing your comments properly is very important. Whenever you reply on a Talk page (or anything except an article), type in "-- ~~~~" after your words. This adds a signature, sort of like mine. -- Netoholic @ 07:29, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Just like that. Two dashes, and four ~ (tildes). -- Netoholic @ 07:38, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Go into your user preferences. Find the form field for "Your nickname (for signatures):". Type in "]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@". You can replace the @ with (talk) or anything else you'd like that link to read. -- Netoholic @ 07:45, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ryan. If you have any more general questions, you can always ask at the help desk or privately on other users' talk pages. →Raul654 08:09, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the welcome. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 08:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic's poll

I agree totally. I just added this to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence page. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great source! Thanks.

Excellent source on vote suppression in Columbus, Ohio! Kevin Baas | talk 19:53, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Re: PHPW-MW converstion

I'll be happy if you can get something useful out of it! Consider it in the public domain. :-) --[[User:Valmi|Valmi ✒]] 00:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy

Hi Ryan,

In 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy#Provisional_ballots_in_Ohio you state that the "ruling was challenged by Democratic attorneys and overturned", yet I see no mention of that in the source link you left [1]. I would be very interested if this was in fact the case, so could you, when you have time, fill me in on what I'm missing? Thanks! noosphere 06:18, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

It says the ruling was turned down? Where does it say that? Are we talking about the same article? This is the one I'm talking about. And it says, "A new rule for counting provisional ballots in Cuyahoga County, Ohio was implemented on Tuesday, November 9". I don't see any mention it was turned down. Can you quote the specific passage where it says it? I'm lost. noosphere 08:35, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Aha! I knew I must have been missing something. Thank you, Ryan.

Your conduct

Do not use edit summaries to convey messages ("Netaholic - you should know by now how to address copyvio issues - it's not outright deletion."), use talk pages. Also, do not label other editors' actions as "vandalism" unless they fit the defined criteria - it is considered a personal attack. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

My apologies if you interpreted as an attack. I saw it as a description of your less-than-positive contribution to the article in question. I appreciate your comment. Have a nice day. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problems with GWB intro

Please help.

On the George W. Bush article there is a dispute that you might be interested in. Kevin Baas | talk 18:57, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

image

Do I rock now? Comments on the colors or other attributes? Kevin Baas | talk 20:54, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

You rock wholeheartedly. I would pick up the blue in the bars and use it or a variant as one of the states' colors. I would also lighten the darkest brown. Last, i would reduce the whole thing's size by about 75%.

It looks lovely, and thanks again! -- RyanFreisling @ 21:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How's that? Kevin Baas | talk 22:10, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

:) :) -- RyanFreisling @ 22:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request IRC chat

I am requesting IRC chat on #wikipedia. Kevin Baas | talk 23:14, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

FWIW, the Boston Globe & the Image

They said $25 a pop. Kevin Baas | talk 21:41, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Who needs 'em anyway. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Election VfD, etc

You're sane; they're crazy. KUTGW.  :-) -- Baylink 19:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

can you handle this?

can you handle this? [2] The day that evidence of preparation for recount fraud is superfluous, is the day that we are royally f****d. Kevin Baas | talk 00:02, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

actions and words

You said:

"I believe ideally it should be, but the allegations and claims that have come out have not yet resulted in action that has changed the process of the election. Should the OH Electoral votes be challenged, or the OH Supreme Court respond in a noteworthy way to the recent lawsuit, or other significant issues arise that are more than testimony and affidavits, etc., then absolutely imho it should be. One can also argue that the filing of the Arnebeck suit, the meetings of the Congressional Forum, etc., are newsworthy events independently of the controversy."

Is this what you truly believe? Kevin Baas | talk 22:40, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it. I don't appreciate the title, and what I'm inferring from this post. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Noted. I just wanted to make you aware of the RFC, for whatever it was worth to you. I was trying to be rhetorical, not offensive. I apologize. Kevin Baas | talk 05:45, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Accepted, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted you. :) I saw the RFC, but I think the current 'Current Events' page is pretty good - I just added a video link for the Dec 13 hearing. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current events

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I'm all in favour of coming to a reasonable solution, so let's deal with this quickly. The House of Reps has not launched an investigation that will lead to the overturning of the results of the presidential election. So we shouldn't have wording in current events that implies that it may have as significant event such as that. I don't know how important the House Commission decision is (I'm British, so I wouldn't). But I can see how any House Commission may be relatively significant - particularly where it affects voting rules. I think both my concern is at the overplaying of the importance and your view that it is noteworthy news can both be accommodated. The lead in "US presidential controversy" should go. The news remain. And a note that it will not overturn the election result is added. I'll add this to current events. Hope this is ok. (As you may have guessed before, I want to keep things in perspective, not suppress noteworthy news.) jguk 21:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not at all - thanks for the response, I feel the same way. I'm not sure what you mean by "the lead in". Which part do you think provides a distorted view/perspective? -- RyanFreisling @ 21:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having thought about it more, I think it's the heading "US presidential election controversy" that overplays it. That implies there is something serious enough to dispute the election results (which I don't think anyone really believes is the case even if they'd wish otherwise). Without that, IMHO sensationalist, heading, based on the last time I read the page, the story is sensibly reported. jguk 22:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I think that although there may be many things serious enough to warrant disputing the results (crime is crime, fraud is fraud, statute re fraud is clear), the likelihood it will actually happen is astronomically near to nil. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd say nil - but I think we're there:) It always takes more than two to compromise, and I think we've come to a reasonable solution. Take care. jguk 22:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ohio recount, Cuyahoga

I found this: [3] But I can't site a blog. Any ideas? Kevin Baas | talk 23:33, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

We happy few

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
   -William Shakespeare

Excellent reference. :) Kevin Baas^talk 05:51, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

html table around organization's list on election contro article

Were you the one that added the html table formatting around the organizations list in the election controversies article? Either way I really think we should remove it as it is unnecessary, it adds size to the article and is ugly because border != 0. zen master 00:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I believe Kevin made that table. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of user pages and the talking thereon

I think you meant this to be here. --fvw* 03:06, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after my mess. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 03:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ehm, I didn't. I'm leaving that pleasure all to you :~) --fvw* 03:10, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

LOL. On my way... :)

Election RFC

Ryan, my RFC summary exactly described the debate. You stated yourself that "No one disagrees that this should be a summary". Thus, there is consensus ("There is currently consensus that the main article should be made into a summary...". The debate is over how the editing should be done ("...but there is debate over the proper editing method.") Please stop reverting the RFC. It is NOT productive. Carrp 03:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You misstate the argument in your summary. That is unacceptable. No one feels the article should not be a summary with detail articles. That is already the model. At issue is the process. Please stop the spin. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In reference to your edit summary on the RFC page: "and have not made good faith edits, as an editor". I would like to refer you to Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Every edit I have made on the election controversy page has been an attempt to take an article that is well below WP standards and make it better. Removing absurdly irrelevant external links are not bad faith edits. I'll leave the RFC statement as it is because I will not get pulled into a revert war. Carrp 03:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My rationale is clear. The bad faith is in your assertion you 'cannot' participate in the editing process, that it is a foregone conclusion. It doesn't connote any motive. I am honestly sorry you were offended, but there is an entire section already in existence, addressing the edits you've made, and the community's response. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The community amounted to about three users, hardly a WP consensus. I do get the sense that some users are claiming "ownership" over the controversy articles, even if they don't directly state such a fact. The harsh truth is: The article in its current state is not a good article. It's far too long, poorly organized and barely readable by anyone lacking intimate knowledge of the subject. Information has been thrown into it over a period over several months and any attempt to remove information is met with strong resistance. What needs to be done now is to stop all this quarrelling over the process and start improving the article. Carrp 03:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed about what's needed next, disagree with your negative assessment of the article. And I'm not sure if 'some people' means me, but I don't object to changing the article - I object to supplanting the natural wiki process with parallel development and outright article replacement. Let's all try to focus on editing the actual article narrative, as the references and links can easily be moved. It's the selective removal of sources, and the absence of edits of substance to the article, that contributes to a slowdown in the article's improvement. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)