User talk:Ryan Paddy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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