User talk:Ryttaren

Future violations

A tag has been placed on Future violations, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. andy (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that creating an article to make a point isn't really acceptable, either. The relevant policy here is WP:POINT. Please refrain from disrupting the project to make a point. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the specific criteria under Criteria for Speedy Deletion, which includes the language "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation..." under G3 (Vandalism). The misinformation referred to the fact that "Critics argue..." about the concept, and that "critics demand that the article Wikipedia be immediately deleted...", when clearly no critics have said any such thing in the context of this term. Further, the article was created to make a point in an Articles for Deletion Debate, which you reference here, and which constitutes disruptive editing in violation of policy. The fact that you ascribe certain viewpoints to another editor, and the manner in which you do so, could have been interpreted as an attack page, which would fall under Speedy Deletion Criteria G10 - the fact that I chose not to do so notwithstanding. I doubt it was your intent to be disruptive, but posting that article in that way to the articlespace was itself disruptive. If you wish to write an essay, you may do so in your userspace - so long as you remain civil toward other editors. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

When you remove proposed deletion templates from articles, could you please make an effort to fix the issues mentioned in the template? If you claim that the articles are notable, please make an effort to find a reference that proves that notability and add it in the article. For example, you removed the prod template from Gecad research center with the comment "Strong deprod, very notable." How did you arrive at your conclusion? Where are the sources that prove that it is notable enough for an article? BradV 20:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Another example is Five point scale, where you removed the prod template saying that the reasoning wasn't very good. However, the point was that the article fails the verifiability policy. When you removed the prod it would have been helpful if you added a source that supports the claims in the article. BradV 20:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brad, the {{prod}} tag is only valid as long as a deletion is not contested at all. As wp:prod#Contesting a proposed deletion and common sense dictates, there should be no lengthy arguments in this process, since this would constitute some kind of controverse, indicating that an AfD nomination may be called for. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about an argument, it's about improving the encyclopedia. Saying something is notable and doing nothing to improve the article is not helpful. BradV 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Brad, improving Wikipedia should always be the main concern. I humbly hope to do so by preventing articles I think may be of value to some information seekers from being deleted without discussion. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Candle zombie

The article was deleted at least twice at ko.wikipedia(ko:촛불좀비) by speedy deletion, and now blocked to create the page. The term is not coined by a dictatorship. It is just made by few people who are oppose to the demonstration which held to oppose Korean government's decision about importation of U. S. beef. So, It is not widely used in South Korea. I put {{prod}} because the term is not qualified to be a article of Wikipedia, not for hide informations. I nominated the article for deletion, to follow your advice. Thank you--..TTT.. (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bamboo (military slang)

Thanks for the notification. Since I disagree with your de-prodding, I've brought the article to AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamboo (military slang). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Good Day

Resolved

– image added Darkspots (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir/maam I am a new user here in wikipedia so i cannot edit protected articles like Angel locsin, i am only just concern of the article because it has no image. I am calmly requesting you to Put this image Angel_in_Dubai.jpg click here to see the image, the image was already proven licensed under creative commons and it was already inspected by Flickreviewer,please put it inside Angel Locsin's article with the caption of Angel Locsin at the Lobo Tour in Dubai. Please give me your kindness. Thankyou so much. God Bless You! Watcher Wiki (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AfDs

Good morning. I was referred to the Generation Z AfD by a complaint in WP:AN/I. This was a bad close for two reasons: most importantly, because you had participated in the discussion, but also because there was not a clear concensus. Please leave contentious AfDs for admins to close -- it gets you yelled at less. :-)

That said, I do agree with your assessment, and signed it myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip-based multicast protocols

Someone asked for Gossip-based multicast protocol to be created. I redirected it to Internet Relay Chat, because it carries gossip. Later, after deletion of my redirection, I discovered an uninformative article on a proprietary protocol that doesn't seem to do anything that IP doesn't, when implemented. For example, I know that there are several ways to rank a routing table:

You can measure only the number of hops from yourself to a distant host.
You can measure the latency (delay) between yourself and a distant host.
You can measure the reliability of every hop.
And, finally, you could rank routes based on weights for all of the above statistics.

The more of that work you do, the more expensive your router becomes, but considering the ratio of speed between a CPU (mine is rated at about 27 gigabits per second) and network speed, it's practical.

I didn't make a proposal based on the reality of the subject, because I KNOW that it's real; I'm using a gossip protocol (as I'm led to understand the definition) called Transmission Control Protocol over IP.

gossip protocol isn't notable. I will re-post this possition on the article's talk page. Please don't answer it here. BrewJay (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD participation

Your opinion is valued and respected. - This is a bigee. See new info in AdF deletion - cheers - DustyRain (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WOCP

Resolved

– Server added Ryttaren (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a notice that wp:WOCP is currently revitalizing to conform with new technology standards and there is currently a call out to all older members to come back and help out. You were listed as a member of the project, and thus contacted. If you want to help with the efforts, please make contact on the projects talk page. Regards, Phearson (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3,000 edits

Resolved

– Crit removed Ryttaren (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies/List of servers as the operator of a closed proxy server for the use of people living in areas where Wikipedia access is widely blocked. I do not live in such an area but somehow feel compelled to advocate on their behalf. There appears to be an inconsistency between the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies/Criteria and the instructions at Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall#Need an account & Tor won't let you create one?. My question about this inconsistency has gone unanswered for three months, and I would appreciate your comment there. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Proxies

Hey there! I'm looking to revive the Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies and I was wondering if you were still active and running your server listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies/List of servers, and if you would like to participate within the project itself! I'd love to hear your comments and status,, and I hope you'll accept my invite! Elyeri (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on closed proxies please! :) Elyeri (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]