User talk:RyanRP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How do I get the images I posted on here to a smaller size? RyanRP 03:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
Thank you! :) So, yeah, {helpme} How do I get the images I posted on here to be smaller? RyanRP 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- You need to specify the size, like [[Image:Flag_of_Canada.svg|100px]]. Wikipedia:Extended image syntax explains this more and has examples.--Commander Keane 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks alot, I really appreciate it ok thanks RyanRP 04:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Accidental Sockpuppetry
It is against Wikipedia convention to use an anonymous IP address such as User:66.183.219.95 (talk) as a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet for an account. It is not necessary to log out of Wikipedia, which makes it easy to always make edits legitimately with one's registered account. Hu 07:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not do that to abuse wikipedia, I was just browing through pages and editing, because I forgot to log in, and was too lazy to do so. I will log in EVERY TIME now then. Sorry. RyanRP 07:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I accept your statement that it was done is good faith. The period was brief (about a day) and I accept that it was not intentional. Hu 07:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, man! good on ya! :D :D :D RyanRP 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Percentages
I explained some things about numbers and percentages in two separate posts on Talk:White Canadian. Hu 09:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Madagascar Plan
again, the whole people did not. They did not even consider it ever. Just the person(s) mentioned. It was never in the government ever either, and the exact idea was not the same. Maybe you can change the page accordingly?
[edit] Insulting me
Britano pheliac is not a word and does not make any sense, and you are being extremely rude and intrusive and making a broad assumption to say such a thing. Screw you. Give evidence of British people inventing this sick idea if you want it to be on the page. Otherwise why should it be there, how does that make it not POV? Also I myself am not British, I am Canadian. I have no personal inclination to defend them. I have a personal inclination to defend my home country, CANADA. You are quite the rude person to be saying and doing such things. Also please, stop monitoring what I do. If something I do causes a problem, people can say that to me, and change it themselves. RyanRP 09:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"Britannophiliac" is of a similar construction to "hemophiliac". It means "one who has Brittanophilia" which has the same root as Philadelphia and means "the love of things British". That describes you, your love of Canada notwithstanding. Also, please stop deleting my comments on your talk page. It makes the discussion disjointed and makes your replies appear nonsensical since they have no apparent antecedents. Hu 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop labelling me, and assuming me to have certain beliefs, etc. Do you personally know me at all? No. Not even one bit. You don't know what I look like, if I have an accent etc., and the word Britannopheliac really does NOT make sense, because nobody uses it and it also implies that I have some sort of unholy obsession with Britain. Which I really really really do NOT. I do love things that are British, but I am not obsessed in any way. You don't know me, I'll say again. It comes off to me as rude because of how you think you can just go ahead and state such blatant things. Maybe you should think twice before you speak, or better yet, don't talk to me! I have a great love for my home country, Canada, and I am not from Britain. I am from Canada. My country is a part of, and influenced by things that are British. To say I am a whatever pheliac is gross labbeling and you would not know anything about me. I can not say what I may have done to you by now if you were talking to me in real life, "Hu", or whatever your real name is. Now you're probably going to focus on one sentence from this whole message here, and reply with some abstract statement that has nothing to do with the subject, trying to insult me. Well, I don't CARE. Just stop talking to me, and I am definately NOT a britanno pheliac, or whatever. Stop assuming what I am, and insulting me (Because I am not a britannopheliac, if that even is a real word which it ISNT), because you DONT KNOW ME. Stop with your personal attacks and stop constantly monitoring what I do. Maybe you are a Ryanpheliac? Also I fail to see how your accusation of me is positive. RyanRP 10:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop harrassing me. Thank you RyanRP 10:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just stop!
Please stop harrassing me. Thank you RyanRP 10:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] how is the term britannopheliac positive
how is the term britannophelaic positive. It implies some sort of obsession or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RyanRP (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Sympathy
I am sorry, Ryan, about how Hu is treating you. Does the same thing to me. He deleted an article that I wrote. And then another Wikipedian reverted it because the town was real! Feel for ya man, and by the way I reregistered in a new name so Hu wouldn't wipe me out, --Wizzzow 15:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not an administrator, so I have no power to delete articles and never have. Hu 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
hahahaRyanRP 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is that he labelled one of my articles a candidate for speedy deletion and put about 15 posts on the other one pushing its deletion. What does Hu do all day? He tracks people like crazy. Why does he call RyanBP a British-fanatic? Look where the British are today and then look at where the Chinese are, under a Red Flag. --Wizzzow 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] White Canadian
Hi Ryan - I wanted to give you a heads-up. I've listed White Canadian, which is an article that you've been active in contributing to, as an article for deletion. I'm sure that you and I will disagree about the outcome, but I thought you should know, because there's no way that it could be a fair discussion without you at least knowing it was happening. AshleyMorton 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Why delete it? Do you wish to delete "White American" or "White Australian" aswell? I dont get the point. What is wrong with the article? I am merely using it as a trainer pretty much so I can start improving other articles aswell. RyanRP 03:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, I am not sure why you think I have a personal grudge. I hope that you read my last, lengthy, comment to you on your talk page before you deleted it. That was an attempt to give you some guidance on working with Wikipedia. I think you have a lot to contribute, if you can learn to work a little better with the other editors here. We all have the same goal. - Eron Talk 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I read it, I just find it sort of odd how you can go on talking to me as if I was a person, quite rudely, then all the sudden act as a robot and post some set rules that I 'm already quite aware of. RyanRP 22:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize if you found any of my behaviour rude. That certainly wasn't my intention. If you'd care to point out to me where I was rude, I'll try to be more careful in future. As to posting rules, as your conduct suggested that you were not aware of them, I thought I would try to help.
- I really think you need to take the chip off your shoulder. You seem to think that you have something to teach the rest of us; that may be true, but you also have things to learn. - Eron Talk 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you shouldn't complain, RyanRP. When you remove so many comments from your Talk page, what little remains confuses people and makes them post sets of rules that you may already have been made aware of, but the poster isn't alerted to that by your talk page. Hu 22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh thank you SO much hu, for enlightening me. You know your comments are always so helpfull. I'll now keep that in mind. Thank you hu!!! :) :) RyanRP 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
In no way do I see that RyanBP has offended any minority. There are articles for "White Americans" and "White Australians" and even an article describing various European stereotypes (it calls French cowards and Germans Nazis). I am of European descent but I do not find any of this offensive. Neither do I find the article "White Canadian" offensive. I think it is Hu with the chip on his shoulder since he continually reverts RyanBP's changes. Even if they are minor. And no, I am not RyanBP who created a new account. I was accused of that before on my own article. (That article was about a small town, a very controversial item, you know). --Wizzzow 12:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not "continually reverting RyanRP's changes." I have made only a single one[1] of the last 20 or so reversions made to RyanRP's edits and his various IP address accounts. Wizzzow has made his or her false claim because of continued resentment from losing overwhelmingly the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eclectic Chauvinist as 12.109.193.99 edits and other accounts. (talk). Hu 12:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disruptive edits to Black Canadians
You need to stop disrupting other articles to prove a point. That could be construed as vandalism, and certainly isn't helpful in dealing with your concerns. We are having a content dispute at White Canadian. These things happen. There are ways to resolve such things, but the way you are behaving isn't one of them. - 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not disrupting the article. It's just that the exact same points being brought up by people at "White Canadian" are just as applicable to "Black Canadian". So "Black", even though someone from India can be considered black, or someone from Europe, just exclusively means African or Carribean descent? Well, that goes against all the points being brought up in White Canadian discussion. So, that is quite hipocrytical to call me a "Vandalist". I am merely applying all of your quite relevant points. RyanRP 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't call you a vandal. I suggested that you were making a disruptive edit in order to prove a point, and that action could be considered vandalism. I personally don't think it is; but some editors might and that could cause you some difficulty. See Wikipedia policy here for more information. - Eron Talk 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits to Canada
Ryan: Thanks for your edits at Canada. Unfortunately, the previous version was more concise, conveying the same information in less than half the amount of text. When dealing with Wikipedia articles, particularly the lead section, it is important to be concise. Your changes also introduced a duplicate link and some repetition of information. However, your text about membership in the Commonwealth has been retained as it was new information for that section. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 06:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I've brought across your changes to better discuss them:
Inhabited first by aboriginal peoples,
and later colonized by the British and French, Canada was founded as a union of British and former French colonies.
- - Saying "British and former French colonies" establishes that the British and French colonized Canada.
Although it was a British colony after confederation, and later became a Dominion, Canada has been its own seperate nation from the U.K. since Canadian Confederation. Canada gained full independence in its government (I.E. National Defence policies, etc.) from the United Kingdom gradually between 1867, 1931, and 1982. Canada has ceased to be directly ruled by the U.K. since the Statue of Westminster in 1931, when it was granted full home rule (Canada has since had full control over its Army and government since then).
- - This text is rather long and involved; it was much more concise in the original form: "Canada gained independence from the United Kingdom in an incremental process that began in 1867 and ended in 1982." Again, given that this is the lead section, you don't want to go into extensive detail. The material is well-documented in the "History" section, and in the separate "History of Canada" article.
Officially, Canada is a Dominion. Canada is also a British Commonwealth Realm to this day, alongside nations such as Australia, and New Zealand, to name a few. For more information about Commonwealth Realms, please see "Commonwealth Realms".
- -Finally, you might want to read through the Talk archives about the "Dominion" term. There has been a lot of debate as to how to approach the word in this article, so it would be best to get up to speed on what the consensus is. I've left your mention of Commonwealth membership in the lead, as it wasn't there before. However, there's no need for the "for more information" text as it runs contrary to the style guide, and the article is already linked.
Hopefully, you'll find this helpful. As you get to know Wikipedia, you'll probably notice that the older, more established articles have already hashed out a lot of discussions about how to present material. This doesn't mean that the page has to be static, by any means - but it does suggest that it might be easier to discuss changes on the talk page first. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 06:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Concur with above. Please try to discuss substantial changes in the talk page first. Canada article is FA, and it is so because it is concise. Your last edits duplicated some information, created unneccessary sections, and reinterpreted the information in the culture section in a way that changed its message and neutrality. And, by the way, did you actually make this edit or am I dreaming [2]? Liberated "mainly by Canadians and other Allies"? If I weren't living in Normandy, I could actually find it funny. If anything, it should be simply "by Allies".Baristarim 13:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You guys aren't very good with citing your sources or being neutral either, jees, I can't believe this is happening... you people don't let anyone else say anything in a way different from your point of view, ever, and just be, well... kinda jerks and hipocrits I guess! Now I know why people all say Wikipedia's a bunch of unreliable crap..... and dont bother to reply to this just leave me alone i'm not even likely to read it, 'cus I just don't care. RyanRP 06:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
