It's just the normal thing to do. You wanted a deletion review, so you're entitled to have the deletion reviewed. As I said in my reply to your nomination, the band Wild beasts doesn't yet pass the notability guidelines set by WP:MUSIC. Perhaps I also need to explain what I meant with "without prejudice", because that's a bit of jargon. It means that I don't oppose an article about Wild beasts once they are notable enough, or an article that asserts their notability right now. It means that I agree with the deletion of this particular version of the article. I believe that at this point in their career, Wild beasts haven't achieved enough for a wikipedia entry. While the deletion review is underway, you might also want to have a look at our list of requested articles. A lot of bands, singers, music genres, record labels etc. are still without an article. Perhaps you know enough about one or more of them, so that you can help fill in the gaps of wikipedia. Yours, AecisDancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.13:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not believe that all changes are sandbox games or vandalism. Your presence in the Wikipedian world is rather recent.
82.250.60.102
Wikipedia is about facts and should not be used to canvas personal opinion like you did on the page, this WILL be classed as vanidilism, I have also responded to your talk page Ryanpostlethwaite17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If this is not vandilism you are wrtining in a completely biased unencyclopedic style, if you want to edit it, I have no problem with that, just change your style to be unbiased and make encylopedic comments Ryanpostlethwaite 17:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)".
You cannot even spell words correctly. How can you tell what is encyclopedic and what is not? Wikipedia is not the right place for you. 82.250.60.102
I am glad to see you found back reasonable ways of acting. 82.250.60.102
I don't know if your question has been answered yet, but since it doesn't seem to need administrator intervention, if it hasn't been resolved, I suggest posting to Wikipedia:Help Desk instead, since that type of help is more in their realm. Good luck! Anchoress01:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Lakeland.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Welcome, Ryanpostlethwaite, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.
Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.
In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.
If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our administrator generalNatalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!
This template [{{sprotected2}}] should be used for pages that are semi-protected for longer periods (for brief semi-protection please use {{sprotected}}) or where the other semi-protection template may be untidy.
Saddam Hussein has been, and most likely will continue to be, semi-protected for a long period of time. Perhaps un-protection may occur when the article becomes linked from the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Anna keo.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
why Save the Amazon Rainforest was deleted and what i can do to stop it getting deleted in future. Thank you
Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. Regrettably, I have declined your request as you do not have 500 mainspace edits. You are welcome to apply again at a later time. Feel free to contact me with any questions, alphachimp15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please shorten your sig. In markup, it's incredibly long; in fact, it's probably the largest sig I've ever seen. It could potentially make it very hard to edit a page when eight lines of text are taken up by a signuatre. Thanks. -- Kicking22222:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. I honestly enjoy the coloring of your name- I love the alternation- but it's simply very long in terms of markup. Have a good night! -- Kicking22222:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Half as long = twice as good! Bravo. I have one issue, which I know is very, very pedantic: "let's" should have an apostrophe. If you prefer it as "lets", or if this was intentional, then completely disregard this comment. (It's picky as hell, but my mother was an English teacher, so blame her!) -- Kicking22216:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all an English student- my majors are Math and Econ- but I do love copyediting. It's just in my blood, I guess. -- Kicking22219:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to have the save an amazon rainforest page translated into different languages... i tried to manually do that... but it now says it is not in english and will be deleted?!
Basically you can only have english articles on english wikipedia. There are loads of different wikipedias in different languages, so if you want to add the page in different languages, it has to be on the wikipedia for that particular language. To be honest, it would be far easier just to leave it in english, unless you can be bothered to register with every single language wikipedia that you want to put it on. However if you do want to put it on I'd suggest looking at this as it has a lot of the most comon language wikipedias on RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or lets have banter10:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. I see you've tagged Risparmi l'organizzazione del Amazon Rainforest as {{db-notenglish}}, which puts it in category WP:CSD#A2. Since that category is for "Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project" could you let me know which other project it exists on? I'd assumed it would be the it Wikipedia but l'organizzazione del Amazon Rainforest comes back as "no such page". If your intention was just to tag it as "delete this as it's not in English" please note that WP:CSD says: "If the article in question does not exist on another project, the template {{notenglish}} should be used instead." The instructions in the notenglish tag request that the page be added to WP:PNT for translators to take alook at it. Regards, Tonywalton | Talk14:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. I don't envy Kelly, registering with ever-such-a-lot of Wikipedias! (Whatever did happen to the mythical "single sign-on"?) Tonywalton | Talk15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigegossmallminds is blocked. I await his next sockpuppet account with interest… Don't bother going insane with him, just sigh with exaggerated patience and WP:AIV him. Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have WP:SALTed the article about Ghaffar masomi. I will check the user contributions and block if necessary. In the meantime, please consider shortening your signature, it is over three times the maximum of 200 characters that is suggested at the guideline. Thank you! -- ReyBrujo01:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They mightn't be new, but they are relevant. If Jade Goody can have a page (bad example, but I dont know anyone else who's been in Big Brother), they should too.
Hello, by the way. I'm Kevin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Admiral K (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I can't prove it yet. Give it 2 or so weeks...
Yeah, okay. Thanks. Stupid technology! All we usually have in Ireland are really big hamster wheels that do simple arithmetic...
Do you just go around contesting other people's contributions. I do not see the problem with allowing this page to stay. It helps raise awareness for those with celiac sprue. I would like to see you handle the situation of not being able to digest gluten. I can't believe you would crush victims of this disease in this manner. You must be one horrible person. Maybe you should delete all pages that reference cancer as well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.107.226.133 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If you take it upon yourself to seek and delete pages you deem as "irrelevant" (which, I might add, can be a noble endeavor), how can you justify having a page about yourself? Are you that important? Oh, and I think your vandalism count is at 10 now. Someone's posted a picture and caption that reads something to the nature of "Ryan drunk." I would hope to you wouldn't have posted that yourself. Just a friendly observation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.194.150 (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, I would appreciate very much your help. Iam new to wikipedia as an editor, even if I am an old internet user. Such, I find it hard to understand the tags and how I should explain it better in a more objective mode. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demostene (talk • contribs) 02:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hello Ryanpostlethwaite, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Before heading into your first case, please take some time to familiarize yourself with the AMA FAQ's, the Guide to Advocacy, and the AMA Handbook.
Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is {{AMA alerts}}. The AMA also has it's own IRC channel, which reports new cases and alerts to us. It can also be used as a place to ask for advice on an issue. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out AMA Requests for Assistance, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocate's talk page, including our coordinator Steve Caruso or deputy coordinators Wikiwoohoo and Aeon. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
eh bro u ain't no gangsta. Why you gotta' jone on my page, fool?
You is a straight up nerd, bro, i can't believe that you already knew about in 5 seconds!
well, I didn't know about Uncyclopedia when I made Myke's page. and believe me, to the people I'm sending it to, it's funny, even if it would seem insulting. I;ll try posting it there, but if it's anything like wikipedia, I doubt it. Looks like you guys are going to lose business to Encyclopedia Dramatica. :X
It's only rubbish to whiny little bitches that can't grasp the concept of a personal joke instead of simply pointing me to uncyclopedia and not commenting on my post.
continues to ponder what Ryan doesn't get about "point me to uncyclopedia and shut the fuck up" instead of criticizing his post, because he knows Wikipedia is about facts*
In the wikipedia guidelines, it states that as a patroller, you must be kind. You, however, have referred to my friends as "trolls" and "sock puppets" and gave me an unjust final warning when one was not merited. They ought to block YOU from wikipedia, it's evident that several people have a problem with YOUR recent conduct. Just throwing that out there...
Why do you hate Rock Slope? They're from Manchester! Okay, so they were never "baggy" and they hot-footed it to Canada for $100 and the price of the airfare, but they're living legends!Cravenmonket01:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Report me for vandalism?? How is voicing my opinion on a discussion page vandalism (note the correct spelling). You keep overstepping your boundaries. You are a wikipatroller, not the king of the world. You do not need any talent nor brains to be a patroller. Kid, you have no power at all. I hope you don't act this senseless in the real world, because I'd fear for your life if I were you. Some meat head will take your witty humor the wrong way.
as a beginner, I am allowed to experiment...it's stupid to punish for something that someone corrects immediately, you just like to feel that power since you lack gonads.
I semi protected your user page. This prevents new or anonymous users from editing your user page. Remind me in a few days to remove the protection. :) Hope it helps. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I made a page on Wikipedia a group of people on YouTube called OO17 who make hilarious videos about James Bond music videos and when I add the page it gets deleted! I don't even break the rules! The reason I want this page on Wikipedia is that these guys are pretty popular in the YouTube universe and this would probably help them even more, so could you help keep the page I want on Wikipedia.com please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Lipson (talk • contribs) 13:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You ask if there's a way to tag articles for speedy just because they're in a foreign language. I'd pose the opposite question - "should an article be tagged for speedy deletion just because it's in a foreign language?" I see your point, this is the en Wikipedia, but if a perfectly good article fulfils the other criteria for inclusion, does it improve Wikipedia to delete the article immediately without giving it a chance to be translated? Remember that by tagging an article as {{notenglish}} and placing it on WP:PNT you're exposing it to a large number of editors who can, potentially, translate the article or who at least can read it and say "this should be tagged as {{db-something}}". The "notenglish" tag also says that if the article remains untranslated after 7 days on WP:PNT it will be deleted, so the maximum time an article in a foreign language remains on the en Wikipedia is a week, plus during this time it's clearly tagged as "we know this is not in English and it's awaiting translation", so it's not a case of the casual reader coming away with the impression that foreign-language articles are dotted all over the place willy nilly.
I'd be careful about tagging foreign-language articles as {{nonsense}}; in my view that's verging on a lack of civility in that you're basically saying "this language is gibberish", which is getting on for saying "people who don't speak English talk gibberish" (Yes, I know that's not your intention, but your experiences with talk page vandals probably shows you how touchy people can get at perceived slights!)
As per usual, of course, this is one for common sense. An "article" in, say, German, that says (in all) "Johann Strückmeyer stinkt und fickt seine Schwester" is very likely to be empty anyway (in fact it's an attack) and a nonsense tag might be appropriate whereas something in German (or Farsi, or whatever) that looks like it might be an article is more likely to be a candidate for a notenglish tag and listing on WP:PNT.
I hasten to add that this is all my take on this; I'm not aware of any fixed policy on foreign language articles but the existence of WP:PNT makes this a good way to go!
I guess the page I was working on got deleted before I could finish it. I (sort of) understand your point about biography. However, as the new Headmaster of an important school here in the US, there should be some info about him in Wikipedia. Would you prefer that I include that info on the School's page as a sub-category? B. Bfreitaswiki21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the Randolph page got deleted I'm afraid, he didn't meet WP:BIO which is the notability guidlines for a persons inclusion in the encyclopedia. It would be a very good idea for you to put it in the schools page as a sub section, theres no need to write loads about it though. Do you want me to see if I can get a copy of the deleted page for you to work from? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to see if I can get a copy of the deleted page for you to work from? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bfreitaswiki"
Hi Ryan, I usually prefer not to salt pages. I'll keep an eye out and if the page is recreated, then I will salt it. Thanks -- Samir धर्म23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there and thank you for reviewing me. Look for a review on your page in a bit. I must say that you have very good edits for such a short membership. Now please don't take offense to this, but I don't say thank you to good luck. I have a kind of superstition that it jinxes me out. Let me say that I appreciate your wishes. Odd eh? Cheers, PhilipGronowskiContribs00:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Just so you know, if a speedy tag is removed without explanation or reason then just re-insert it. If a page has been recreated just tag it for what it was deleted for. It saves you the trouble of doing an AFD and is much faster. Persistent tag removal can be warned with {{subst:Drmspeedy}} and removers can be blocked. Cheers, PhilipGronowskiContribs04:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just warned me then!!! Yeah i know about the speedy removal, it had happened 3 times and I thought I'd give the aurther his credit for creating the aricle so I put it to Afd. I missed a few of the recreations as well so didn't want to tread on anyones toes. At least the matter got resolved (JUNIOR!!!! :-P) :) RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to take an objective look at a case of severe harrasment, a few months ago, a user called Osfan made a few comments insulting my abilities as an editor. This was a direct insult and not in anyway a professional criticism, with no reason backing it up. I promoptly deleted his comments, but he sadly took exception to it and continued to return when I had strictly told him not to, he did'nt even try posting anything that would warrant the comments to remain, he just continued to post insults. So I continued to delete them until I reported him to a mod.
Now, he's up to his old tricks again, the mod I reported him to previously is unavailable, and I've picked you specifically to help deal with the problem. I've done my homework on "deleting comments" and when and when there not permitted in certain cases. You can find Osfan's comments in my talkpage "history" archive.
Hello Ryan. I would gladly attend to your request, but this article has apparently never existed, it has no deletion log/no deleted history. I've also tried variants of the name such as Dominic randolph and DominicRandolph but they've also never existed. Maybe you could ask that teacher if he can recall the exact name of the article he had created, because it was none of these for sure. Regards,--Húsönd16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr RKZ is a terrible user. Now I'm not going to continue talking to him. I used up my warnings on him, so I'm not going to bother any more. However, you along with others need to see that he's detrimental to Wikipedia. Look at all the complaints the guy has. I'd also like to bring up how RKZ is constantly deleting messages that go against him on his Talk Page. The guy probably has more junk that what's displayed. He needs to be taken care of and fast because he's going to get into a big war at some point with another hothead.
If I get banned for this, oh well. I don't care. I could easily just create another name. Gotta love how Wikipedia doesn't rely on e-mail. :) OsFan20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hush. I should point out that with experiance, comes mellowed behaviour, secondly, and I'm sure Ryan's going to agree here, deleting comments such as yours is permitted so long as the comments in question are detrimental themselves. The mods are fully aware of my talkback archive and know about my deletion of comments, so really, before you assume you can tell them to do their job, don't bother, they know it, and you've suffered for it, and will again at the rate you're going.
All the "complaints" I've gotten are from people who
Don't do their jobs properly
Are immature in their approach to criticising me
In your case, harrass my talkpage without anything really constructive to say. Criticism is meant to be used to help improve an editor's prestige, not be used as an excuse to troll someone whenever you're bored. That's the mark of a REAL user.
Indeed, the fact you're threatning to come back under a new username just to keep posting pages in the talk page of someone you dislike proves that you are a far worse user than I allegedly am, the kind that simply does not end an argument, especially when he's on the losing end.
I would come back to do edits, Sir, not to merely mess around with you. Look at my edit totals. You're not even a bucket of spit in terms of what I do here. OsFan15:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.
A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.
Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.
I can understand why the source may not be notable (and since no one else has started a page on it I have all the right to), but the truth is, I created it, it's my team, and it's my site which has attraced over seventy members, and many of them are notable and experienced miniature hobbyists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AinuLainour (talk • contribs) 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
But this is to create AWARENESS for miniature painting as well as it is an organization, just because it is not recognized by the public (which miniature painting has practically NEVER been) doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article! This is a team heavily involved with Games Workshop activities such as Golden Demon, so you may look that up. You must realize that this kind of group isn't going to be well-known, it will only be well-known within figure painting. It deserves a page.
I'll explain a few things, wikipedia has rules and guidlines that must be followed for creating new pages. I've already directed you to the links that show notability on wikipedia and I quote you "You must realize that this kind of group isn't going to be well-known" - you admit yourself that it is never going to be well known - therefore it fails Wikipedia:Notability. Miature painting has already got a page which can be found here so there is no need for another article to bring attention to it RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
shut it Poss, you don't know anything about Kendal. I am the only one qualified between us to write about stuff. Dont comment on what you dont know. Put My Stuff back.
Now listen up homes!!! I aint gonna let you or any of your nerdy wiki-police, deny me of my civil liberties. You cannot deny the freedom of information. As far as reliable sources go, try 21 years of experience. Now et off my case dog, before i make you my bitch. Mc Wilko —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willy Wilkinson (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I can't see where to comment on your decision to delete (in record time) my new article on MyNollywood.com, so I'm doing it here after going round in circles. Why did you delete it? Did you even read it? Not that I'm too bothered, I've given up now. I don't have any affiliation with the company and wrote the article as it's a revolutionary site from what I can see - it's not just a plain DVD-selling company (of which you have articles, by the way, e.g. Amazon.com - if that's not an advert then what is?), it's actually set up to revolutionize the Nigerian film industry, which many people care about. Films are available in good quality for the first time, and profits are going to the film producers, thus fighting piracy and improving the industry from within. What part of that is an advertisement and not worthy for publication? I've rapidly gone off Wiki after this experience, and will stick with Encarta thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zedexis (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I especially like the bit about "buildings around the world". Let's see - Dallas, Atlanta, New York, Chicago, California. Oh, and Montreal. Even Del-boy covered more countries with New York, Paris, Peckham! Tonywalton | Talk08:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. The text on the tag doesn't say anything about "major edits," (if you can even call adding two wikilinks that) and I've never encountered the user who created it before. -P4k11:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. An article that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable can be speedily deleted under criterion A7, however. A mere claim of notability, even if contested, may avoid deletion under A7 and require a full Article for Deletion process to determine if the subject of the article is notable.
In the long run it will need to satisfy those criteria, but to avoid speedy deletion it just needs to display a "claim of notability," which I felt it did. -P4k11:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I don't plan on making personal attacks a habit. But since we went to all the trouble to take the picture, the least you can do is laugh.Shathaniel21:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is a notable Dr of forestry mechanics... as mentioned in the 'save the amazon rainforest organisation', the thesis is important as one of the papers published about non-timber forest products. What can be done to put these two up?
I suppose I could protect mine... Nice picture above BTW - you're doubly honoured, a Barnstar and a special personal attack picture all of your own! Tonywalton | Talk23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for sorting out the above page that started. It was my first ever edit back in October and I only added details so they would pass WP:MUSIC in order to get it relisted. I was going to do the cleaning up after it had been accepted back - but you've now done it for me!!! Just out of interest, how did you get all the info? Thanks again RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan - I added the info from the reference and then footnoted the info using the reference (some of which were already in the article and some found via Google). Also, if the added details to pass WP:MUSIC to get the article relisted were the ones I placed a "citation needed" next to, the article would be improved with a citation to the information on the internet. I'm glad I put effort into saving your first Wikipedia efforts, especially on behalf of a fellow member of Wikipedia Class of October 2006. -- Jreferee21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well lets just say you did a better job on it than I would have. I've been a bit side tracked lately doing new page patrol and vandilism reversion so I guess I havn't had chance to learn all the tricks of the trade when it comes to actually creating quality articles. I set myself a little challenge now today though, get the Kendal page up to featured article status. I've created a subpage (Kendal/featured article) an I'm going to do all the work their then move it onto the main article so the article isn't messed up as I'm changing it. Might have to ask you to have a look at it when its near completion if thats ok? (It's in its very early stages at the minute) You seam to know the business! Thanks again for the Wild beastsRyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heck yea! My second Barnstar. It was very thoughtful of you to give me a Barnstar. It really did (and does) make a difference in my outlook on things. Thank you again. -- Jreferee00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might I recommend something? I think it would be a good idea to remove the vandalism counter. In my experience user-pages with vandal counters tend to get vandalised more. I think they treat it like a high-score or something. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, as there is already a page for Uncyclopedia on WP (are starting a new project to improve that article)? In any case, thank you for letting me know -- I won't add a deletion tag again. Cheers, Black Falcon01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put it up for MFD for the reasons listed in the MFD nomination. I do not believe this to be a valid use of userspace. You saying this was an article that was moved to userspace makes it seem, to me, even less likely that this would be notable enough to include in Wikipedia. A "video project" on myspace is hardly notable for Wikipedia. Further, I was not aware of some of this. To be honest, I was surprised that you had this in your userspace seeing your userpage listing your valuable service to Wikipedia. With your explanation, it makes sense now. I will decide shortly if I withdraw the nomination, but please consider if this actually has a chance to be an article, notable and encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. --MECU≈talk18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many appologies about my previous comment, I was just a bit annoyed, but we've obviously had our wires crossed. Do I think the aricle has a chance? No, not really to be honest and I've said this to the original author, but he is insistant that we at least try. My main plan was to do the best job we could with it and try and show the editor (User:Jerry571) why it fails, and how wikipedia works and why it probably isn't an acceptable article, if he agrees with me then I would have it speedied, but if he doesn't I would put the new page for deletion review, and let the commuity decide (as I've previously stated, I'm fairly sure it will fail, but its only fair on the editor). I've already directed him to WP:WEB and WP:RS in a bid to show why he fails, but he really does want to give it a go. Anyway, its upto you, but if you do remove the MfD, I will have it sorted within a week anyway (and in my opinion deletion review or consented speedy by the author is a much better road to down RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I'd probably be frustrated too. Hearing these comments makes me believe you are working for the best of Wikipedia and trying to help this new user understand. I will withdraw the MFD in a few mins. Thank you for your help in clarifying what has been going on. I'm sorry I kinda prematurely listed for deletion, but in the end, no harm done. Good luck! --MECU≈talk18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert me on this? You've created a double redirect for a start - but more than that you used an anti vandal tool to revert a good faith edit. Explanation please? Glen 11:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about reverting you. What happened was even though you had redirectd it, the original page was still showing (well on my computer it was), so I redirected back to mine so the page wouldn't show, I wan't sure if the original author had removed your redirect and reposted the page, but it had been missed off the history. Looking back on the history, the page should have been redirected with your edit, but the servers must have been slow. Really sorry for reverting you, hope theres no hard feelings RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter17:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I'm off-Wiki (pretty much) for a week or so from tomorrow as I'm off to see relatives. It's The Land Beyond Broadband, so I'll not be using the laptop much (I can recommend Apple iBooks though, this one fell out of my backpack today, went "SLAP g'doing g'doing g'doing rattlerattlerattle slssshhhhh" across the pavement and seems none the worse for the experience, save for a few battlescars on the casing). Why did I have the laptop in the backpack? I was doing my /expletive deleted/ tax return in the pub, of course.
Also, please raise a glass to John Schmitt, a good mate of mine. Though he was as non-notable as me in Wiki terms, I heard just this evening that he hung himself over the weekend. Bipolar disorder is not a good thing. (John's sad end is unrelated to my Wikibreak).
Hi Ryan! To be honest I'm now quite satisfied with the Wild Beasts article. I've never even heard of the band before, but the combination of citations seems to be good for a few months at least - by which time the Domino Recods website may well have been updated to include them. I'll keep an eye on the article and try to find some further sources as time allows. Thanks for your interest. QuagmireDog17:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah, thanks for keeping an eye on that one. Do you use ARV or another tool like it? I love it, I'd try it out if you don't. See you around vandal hunting no doubt. Peace, delldot | talk23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I think valid criticisms were raised in areas that I need to work on, so I've withdrawn my name. I intend to work on addressing the concerns that were raised, and think I need to work contributing without allowing myself to become as stressed as I have been at times, which did result in some inappropriate behavior. Perhaps I may re-explore adminship at some point in the future, but it's a little early to consider that. Again, thank you. Fan-196721:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely give it some thought. I need to figure out how to deal with the tasks at hand without letting it cause me to get too stressed and start snapping. A cool head is needed, even when dealing with the vandals and children. Fan-196721:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering going for adminship in a few months time (when I say a few, I mean about 6!) and the issues brought up in your Rfa were something I'm going to have to consider myself. Civility is an important issue on wikipedia, but it is often very hard when talking to blatant vandals or people posting nonsense or peronal attack pages and often these cannot be distinguished from new users not understanding wikipedia. Maybe the most important lesson for everyone to take out of your Rfa is to assume good faith with all editors RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the new users can be hard. Maybe they're just putting their User page in the wrong place, maybe they really can't accept that this is not myspace. Sometimes they'll get all huffy and insist that everyone is notable and deserves a page. Sometimes they're really just deliberately trolling, but you can't be sure. I guess the proper response is stick to cool civility at all times, and pretend to AGF even when it's totally implausible. Fan-196721:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the edits without explanation! (Club Buggery)
A poor newbie attempts to fix a glaring omission, only to see his work disappear in a puff of nothing.
Not so much as a 'by your leave'. His work may have lacked quality, but surely deserves a word of explanation.
Or preferably an edit, rather than deletion. If that is too much work for you, then let it stand.220.233.109.17009:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You explained nothing. A condescending form letter with no reference to the article content. There's something un-Australian about that. Is this because I didn't log in? 220.233.109.17014:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was not meant to be condescending in anyway. I'll try and explain now - Basically the line you added was not relevant in the article, and it was more of a point of view than a fact and these aren't allowed on wikipedia. Its nothing to do with you not logging in, the context of your entry was just not required RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for that. I disagree on relevancy in this particular context, however the facts may be wrong, or not as public as i believed. My bad.220.233.109.17002:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted my edits without historic fact checking. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani was a self-proclaimed prophet touted as a British agent by Indians fighting against British Rule. A praise from a die-hard anti-British like Mr. Sindhi for Mirza Ghulam is like Bin Laden reported as praising George Bush or Ben Goriyan praising Adolf Hitler. This very claim is idiotic. Please do some historic research. I am not a fan of Mr. Sindhi who was an anti-Sufi Wahhabi but I want to keep wikipedia clean from nonsense Hassanfarooqi17:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well what you did. Yes the history somehow does not show you reverted and re-reverted the changes of the main article but it does show you reverted the discussion and then re-reverted. Here is the link. [1]
Well tell me its the discussion next time instead of just letting me assume, that was down to rolling back another edit, which I much have pressed rollback for your edit by accident, which I have now sorted. I think next time you confront a user about something you should consider toning down the way you speak to people and assume good faithRyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter17:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I sounded confronting in my first post, it was supposed to be pure technical. Maybe you should have assumed good faith before retaliating ;) No hard feelings from my side, so let us get over it :) Hassanfarooqi18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ryanpostlethwaite, I see that you recently advised User:Jaakobou about how to warn me about vandalism [2]. As you have seen fit to intervene in this editors dispute with me, could you please be so kind as to explain to me which of my edits to my own user page constitute vandalism? Thanks Abu ali19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Abu, I simply moved the warnings from your user page to your talk page as I simply thought you would not want them there. With regards to advising User:Jaakobou on his talk page about giving final warnings, this was because he posted a comment on WP:AIV asking for help regarding your edits. The reason why I advised him was because 1)AIV should only be used to report users not get advice regarding them and 2)users should only be reported once they have been given a final warning. I wasn't in anyway implying that I thought your edits were vandalism, I was simply advising on the appropriate course of action to take with regards to reporting users. Regards RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter19:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving the warnings from my user page. I do definately prefer them on my talk page. But if you advise editors about leaving warnings in future, I would remind them to only use vandalism warnings when vandalism actually has taken place. In the case of User:Jaakobou, I personally would have advised him to calm down a bit. Regards Abu ali21:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please, dude, im not spaming my school page. this is all information relevent to the atmosphere of my school. i would appriciate it if you would stop removing it. thank you.
Wikipedia is retarded ####### site. It's so ###### pointless and it's pages constantly change. A free-content encyclopedia has got to be the dumbest idea ever mostly because people in general are dumb and will do what I did to pages. And just for being a bitch about it, heres a gold BITCH STAR.
oh man, you've never even been to my school. i have permission FROM THE PRINCIPAL to post this about the school. And what about you? you got nothing better to do all day than go through the thousands of wiki articles and complain about them? how pathetic. you need to get laid. BIG TIME.
oh man, you've never even been to my school. i have permission FROM THE PRINCIPAL to post this about the school. And what about you? you got nothing better to do all day than go through the thousands of wiki articles and complain about them? how pathetic. you need to get laid. BIG TIME.
-paulthegreat103
This is hilarious! Paul, wouldn't you be better off doing constructive edits instead of constantly reverting to your POV version? - Alison✍00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't YOU be better off with plastic surgery? I've seen your picture, and I think you would. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by paulthegreat103 (talk • contribs)
Ha ha, I think you just got me back for beating you to AIV that time, I think you just beat me to reporting that IP that was stalking you. BTW, the above conversation is hilarious. Why don't I get a bitch star??? delldot | talk01:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us avoid double-standards. Others are allowed to curse Hezbollah, some curse Muslims in general, some curse Arabs. How is my userbox provocative? Is it because it points out to Israeli hostilities? I barely contribute to Wikipedia because I have see what they do to pro-Arabs. Wikipedia is largely subjective. It seems this person wants to provoke me, because I have been inactive for some time. Tell him to leave me alone if you will, and I hope you would do the same. Embargo10:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Ryan, let us avoid double-standards, again. There are userboxes with "I support the State of Israel". Its opposite would be "I support (Hezbollah)", isn't it? I also indicated that I support armed resistance in case there were Israeli hostilities. I think the last part is what disturbs you most, the fact that I point out to Israeli hostilities. Something the whole world has witnessed this summer. Until every userbox that shows support to any party is removed, I will remove mine. Just to be fair, and logical. Also, please notify me before deleting my userpage. I do not think it is allowed. Embargo15:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, thanks for your comments. They are the first that actually describe what is objectionable and/or offer constructive advice about how to improve our submission. Without going into the long explanation you thought was coming....The University of Washington did indeed trademark (not copyright) register the NeSSI name, mainly to keep it open and avoid it being hijacked by some commercial interest for their product. However, trademarks and copyrights are quite different beasts -- although I now completely understand why you initially flagged it as an advert (does kinda look that way to an outsider). I will try to edit the page to disclose more fully the nature of NeSSI and its relationship to the University, companies involved in commercialization, end-users, and the public. I will also see what I can do to incorporate your other comments and make it more generally accessible to those not involved in the technology. I am at a conference this week but will do the edits early next. Thanks again for your comments. Veltkamp18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since we passed the delete vote, I made my edits directly to the NeSSI page. Hopefully there is a better context for the page now. 2 questions: 1) is there a way to re-link a photo that was deleted due to not having a use or copyright tag? The original was subbitted by a collaborator and he is unavailable for a few days...if I could add the "use" info, I wouldn't need to re-upload the photo I don't have right now (although I do have the ok to post the photo). 2) can I remove the line(s) below -- they don't pertain to this subject? This is mostly a "point-of-policy" question, as I'm fairly new and unclear about editing someone elses text. A more relevent question might be "can I delete other's (or my own) posts on the NeSSI.talk page that are no longer relevent?" Thanks,Veltkamp19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the "Israeli atrocities" because I really don't have the time or the patience to argue. Why is my userpage protected? Looks like you guys really do want to provoke me. Ask them to unprotect, if you will. Embargo23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Lakeland.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of a newspaper called the Western Mail?
This is a message to Ryan. You either have comitted vandalism, and you reverted it, or you didn't. It seems that you are not a trustworthy source either, seeing that many people made strange remarks about you and gave you a very appropriate star. Anyway, if there is a problem, contact me, but if you really did not vandalize or anything, accept my apologies.
--This was posted at the place you reported me. Read it carefully, don't skim, and play attention to the last sentence.
Well, as i was using Lupin's filter, it caught you for some reason. What editing have you done to cause this? Ill check your contributions now.
Ok
Well then, accept my apologies. I'll look into that. Isn't that what Christian brothers and sisters are supposed to do? p.s. please stop adding a ToC.. sheesh -.-
Thanks Ryan! Ill do that, but for now, ill do hwk xD.
Hey, i was just wondering on how to use subst.. i've read the guides.. but they aren't really illuminating.. thanks. Lemme try something. {{subst:|article}} i dont get it lol..
I sort of get it.. SO you are replacing with special characters. Do you mind if i do something? I am going to try something. Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the shark page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. .. meh, im such a slow learner xD (P.s. ryan, ignore what it says, i was merely testing :))
<nowikie>WoW! it worked! Thanks Ryan. Ill incorporate it into my regular warnings. Once again thankS!</nowikie>
wait a sec.. i dont get what nowiki does.. im sorry that im such a slow learner F=IV3 [[soul-mine]] 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
p.s. how do you make a link to your user site in the signature section? F=IV3 [[soul-mine]] 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) <---- i only get this
hmm.. let me try..<nowikie> </nowikie> wait a sec.. is wiki spelled like "wiki" or "wikie?"
F=IV3 [[user:soul-mine]] 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I wasent trying to be offesnive or what not. Trust me, your work is much aprpeciated! There are many nam,es that you catch that are blatant and just need to be blocked on site. For those, I would like to thank you with the barnstar below! For the other, i am just concered about new editrs (but I think you get my concern)! Thanks again for the hard work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You handle difficult situations well. There are many wikipedians who could learn from you. I would also give you a resilient barnstar for that but I already gave you a barnstar. Perhaps another day! Keep up the more than excellent work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I think many of us have been there. I was not trying to sound like an ass complaning! Hope it did not come across as that. If you would ever like a quick second opinion regarding a username, or anything for that matter, please feel free to let me know on my talk page! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.
Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, and thanks for understanding why I didn't protect it. It seemed that the most recent vandals repeated their efforts a couple times, which was why I mentioned it. Keep up your good work reverting the vandalism; if things get significantly worse, definitly re-report it. -- Natalya16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, just being unbearably Southern. Thanks for the congrats and the support! I was always so scared to put in an RfA, but it wasn't as horrible as I feared :) Let me know if you need anything or have any input about my use of the tools. And feel free to drop me a note if you notice AIV get full or anything. ('Course, I'm still waiting around right now, I guess the 'crats are busy after that downtime). See you around! Peace, delldot | talk00:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the Chacor thing, no harm done anyway. Thanks for sticking up for me though! I'm glad to have you as my wikifriend! :) delldot | talk02:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message and offer of help on the EVP page deletion. I put that edit in when there was an edit conflict. I think I'll see if the unsupported skeptical -or pro- claims and weasel words can be taken out before I propose deletion. I just don't think that this can be treated fairly. I don't have any reason to believe in EVP, but it seems skeptics can't be prevented from putting in supposed, scientists say, self-proclaimed, etc. etc., and making one scientist into many (seem my most recent edits). I really think that Wikipedia may not be equipped to deal fairly with such a controversial subject.
Thank you. If you would like an informal editor review or a consult before you may be interested in an RFA, let me know and i would be glad to peruse your contribs and make a reccomendation, maybye even nominate you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Chris, thinking in about 3-4 months, need to address a few issues first though (I've been trying to be more civil with vandals and sometimes I interpet policy in my way, not the wikipedia way), but an editor review would be much appreciated before I'm thinking of going for it, and trust me, I am making an active step to try and sort any issues out. Lets face it, it can't be nice to be laughed off an Rfa and only truly deserving editors should be given the mop RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I found it quite amusing, not to mention succinct. Perhaps it should be universally adopted. But I thought I should tell you nevertheless. Tyrenius23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, may you explain me which part of WP:USER the userbox
This user supports free and independent state of Israel.
is violating? I do aks you for quotation of the section, because I can't find there any prohibition of expreessing support to same state or political belief. Thanks --ja_6218:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part of WP:USER that the userbox violates is this section;
-Well, reading what you wrote me, I must assume, that I understand english better than you - I don't campaign for someone or against something, and my support for 'free and democratic' Israel does not attack any one or anything - in my userbox I just express my support for the state of Israel - it's just like to have tag {I like Spinach} - and been vandalised by devoted Carnivore - and t if Embargo was AGF, why he did not write me anything on my talk page? He just had vandalised my page. --ja_6218:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC) BTW - What you see polemical on fact that I support Israel?[reply]
I did some minor modifications. The article looks nice, but with a section about insurance, it will surely attract spammers and advertisements, so watch out. -- ReyBrujo16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, nah, nah, don't worry about it. Honestly, I find the whole thing kind of amusing ;) Anyway, like I said before, no harm done, right? I could tell you were joking around on WP:BN, but I figured you might feel bad about it, which is why I left you that earlier note. Anyway, it's over now, hopefully! See you around. Peace, delldot | talk02:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit Wikipedia very often, and I was given a warning from you for editing a page on Robbie Savage, but I certainly did not vandalise it, and I edited it with intentions to try and improve it. I apologise for any misunderstandings, but I really edited it with the best intentions, and since I don't edit Wikipedia articles very often, I'm not entirely clear on the rules of editing a page. 213.40.140.11820:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about your message to Jimbo: I posted a message to his talk page less than two weeks ago regarding a reporter; Mr. Wales settled my situation easily, and even posted a message to my talk page (a message which can be viewed on my userpage too). Acalamari23:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your question about opening an RfC, it looks like more than one person has asked him about it, so feel free to go ahead. ShadowHalo21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I can see why they were blocked, but the use of .com in itself is not explicitly forbidden in WP:USERNAME. It is only forbidden if it promotes a company or a website, and I don't think that's the case here. It could be an idea to bring it up neutrally at WP:RFC/NAME for review. AecisBrievenbus23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your good work, especially with this stuff involving betacommand, the RFC and WP:RFCN. This has been a fairly intense situation and i think you did what you felt was the proper course of action! YOu had only wikipdia and the fellow editors in mind and i understand that! Dont let the pressure get to you, you are doing a great job. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, this username thing with Betacommand has been going on for months. It has been raised with him before but he just continues on his merry way. [4]. I share your hope that he learns, but I'm not convinced that this time is going to be any different. Sarah06:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I was unaware it had been going on for so long. However, with the RfC being filed (even though it was subsequently removed) I think betacommand understands the seriousness of the issue. There will be plenty of people looking out for it now though, so if the problem persists further, it can be sorted RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter07:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A mop, hmm? I use my vacuum cleaner for a coat rack already. God knows what non-standard purpose I might find for a mop. Alphachimp has also recommended I accept a nomination for admin. I'm interested, but I need to read more about it. I also need another few weeks (or months) to practice (apply) these new skills. I've been working on them for the last few weeks, and I've really noticed a difference. To wit: "bugger off you silly twit" has now been replaced with "See also WP:V and WP:RS for more information about appropriate sources." Yesterday I found myself correcting an AfD comment I'd added so that it conformed to WP:AGF. This only required I change one or two words, but I could really see the difference in tone. The point is, Wikipedia doesn't need another rouge admin, and it's going to take me a bit more time to sort out all the acronyms. I'm actively working on it, though. And thanks for the vote of confidence. I really appreciate it. Rklawton02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template
What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected) is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter: {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}} you get:
Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
(and the rest of the template stays the same)
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a checkuser clerk, I should be careful to avoid commenting directly on the merit or lack thereof in a particular case (doubly so when I haven't checked to see if I've clerked on the case in question, just yet), but you're certainly as welcome as anyone to submit a request and see if the checkusers will run a check on it. – Luna Santin (talk)06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I might ask, any idea why Estuary put up an {{indefblockeduser}} template on my pages? I ask because you removed it. Was this just vandalism or something? Adam Cuerdentalk22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As his only contribs were to add {{indefblockeduser}} to other users, I'm guessing he must be either an IP user who has created an account or a sockpuppet of another user that you have reverted or warned in the past! I gave him a warning and he vandalised my page! RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness you were not targeted by an impostor :P. Unblocking the account is ok I guess since you verified it is yours. However, Wikipedia has a doppelganger policy that you might want to read through first before making any contributions under that account. Next time I recommend that you try making a doppelganger without spoofing your name. Usually you have less issues when editing with it due to it not resembling any editor and would less likely be mistaken for a false imposter.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edits by 68.127.37.6 on Interstate 630 have been rather disruptive and, as I see it, vandalism. I wouldn't have thought much of it the first time (detailed below) as I assumed a good-faith edit gone bad, but as of this second time, and after reading his talk page, I'm concerned and feel that action should be taken. Your thoughts? For all intensive purposes, I've copied this to User:Rschen7754.
First occuranceSecond occurance
Cheers, --MPDT / C04:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
about 2-3 weeks ago there was a cordnated vandal attack. most had qwerty in the username, those accounts were sleeper cells that were created over several months. this is about the time when autoblocks and AC would have worn off, That is why I blocked. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, and thanks for the reminder. Every couple of months I get an urge to do new username patrol (so to speak); that's not frequent enough, unfortunately, to have ingrained that I should also notify the user involved when I find a possible problem. I'll try to do better next time. -- John Broughton(♫♫)15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Chrislk02, award you this barnstar of dilligence for your hard work at WP:RFCN. You always make sure that the editor in question has been notified, remain involved in the discussion, and add considerable value to the process. Your hard work is much appreciated and does not go unnoticed! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm - nothing seems obviously wrong with this username. If not obvious need to give a good reason when speedy closing the discussion? Cheers Lethaniol21:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh of course - thanks for the explanation. Suggestion in future that even if it is a speedy delete an explanation is given in the edit summary so people who are not in the know, know. Cheers Lethaniol21:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know when my next contrib will be, and I don't need any help, but thank you for asking. Please sign my signature book, and if your impressed with how much I know about pi, click here, take the test, and tell me your score there. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user may earn a vandalism block, but that doesn't mean the name is bad. Bonnie Kim could come here with the same name (without the numbers) and make good edits, yet if this guy got a username block then likely she'd get blocked as well. Let's not stretch to find every conceivable bad meaning to names. That's too easy, and not really fair. -- Ben21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find the disputed name that you trialled on RFCN. Which one was it? To jog your memory, the conversation where the name was mentioned is below. Thanks :) --SeansPotato Business19:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed users who you have posted on AIV for their userames, as one hasn't eve edited yet, and the other not for 3 years. The general cosensus is to not report to AIV unless they are editing, you really don't need to go through listuser and dig out every name RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter19:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! I was just doing some research before voting for Jesse's RfA and have been trying to get an idea of their understanding of policy. Seems a little shaky but they tend to respond well enough after a little discussion. I'm unconvinced re: the whole username issue. On the one hand, you seem like you at least ought to know what you're talking about (I can't be bothered to research into histories of people that interact with the people I'm researching!!) but on the other hand some people did vote for block despite not being used logins. I'm gonna lean toward 'support' I think, in spite of his recent removal of red links.
Thanks again! It's actually the first time I've bothered with RfA for a long time (the actual first being when I was asked by someone). I figure that if it's gonna work, people need to look into it properly or otherwise better not bother. In the end, I wound up on neutral. Pretty pointless! The disadvantage of my thorough checking is, after trouble of voting for that one candidate I don't feel like going through it again for another - not for now anyway.
I prefer to contribute to the Mainspace and the only reason I'm looking under the hood (I should say bonnet I suppose but I'm being subverted by all the American media) of late, is 'cause of my concern regarding vandalism. I figure I could stand a better chance of making a difference if I understood how the politics worked.
I do wonder how someone can do a degree and be so heavily involved in WikiWhatNot! My idea is that if I concentrate on my area of study (not a student until September but can't hurt esp. since I havn't been interviewed for my preferred uni. yet) then I'm helping Wikipedia and I'm helping me, all at the same time. Maybe editing pharmacology articles would satisfy some of your WikiUrges? --SeansPotato Business23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd like to see these names banned by WP:U, I really wish we could get our proposal in to limit usernames to a certain number of characters - it would by far decrease the ambiguity and there would still be the fall back of apparently random letters. It would be easily to police as well - names would be banned upon creation if they were above a certain length. I'm taking this name to be islamic, and most muslims would simply call themselves User:Abu al-Makhiri so I don't understand the need for usernames to be this long. Whats your opinion on these names? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the policy talk page...that I feel we need to come to agreement on what "extremely" means. I really don't care how long, personally. It could be 50 characters, for all I care. We just need to not be randomly subjective. --Kukinihablame aqui00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the article, I remember the DRV, but I only found out that it was you when I found my message in your archives :) I'm glad you didn't decide to leave Wikipedia altogether, because you've learnt a lot about Wikipedia in the few months since. I hate to be modest, but I really don't see how my messages contributed to your decision to stay here. But I don't mind if they have :) AecisBrievenbus00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was getting a lot of flack because I wanted to post an article that I was "sure" was notable enough for inclusion, and when it was deleted, I thought "sod it", why should I carry on, but when you posted on my talk page explaining things, I realised that there must be policies involved in what is notable for inclusion and hence I investigated! I'm still here now, and truly loving being on wikipedia, and thanks to you, I also welcome a lot of newbies, even when giving warnings, so that they might decide to stay and contribute appropriatly. However - If I fail my degree because of wikipedia I will be holding you personally responsable` ;-) RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the opener/closer of this, do you have any objections to it being re-opened? Since the same issue has come up again, it seems appropriate to me. Friday(talk)00:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it's the same issue, to me it seems better to keep it on one page. I'll take a stab at re-opening it, please help out however you see fit. Thanks! Friday(talk)01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey -- thanks for the heads up. I can't endorse your summary, though, because I actually didn't semiprotect the page, I took my request to WP:RFP like a normal editor, and it was granted. :) But thanks for the support. Mangojuicetalk21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your welcome message (no problem,if automatic or not:). I try to contribute more in Turkish Wikipedia; but I obtained username for English wiki, for sometimes adding some edits, photos etc. Take care of yourself... Ryesiloglu17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another one in Jap, claiming "this is not trolling", but in two different languages, it's hard to make one point (that he supposedly abused rights on jpwiki - why Chinese then?)... – Chacor13:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suspected as much, thats why I proposed an indef for all 5 of the accounts that were posting stuff for trolling, harrasment and socks. I asked them for some evidence - basically to put up, or shut up, we havn't heard anything since! You better go and learn Japenese for when they come back! RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use would be the only way to go. However, it's important to make sure the images meet all the criteria listed under the policy, especially replaceability and decorative use. You could mention to him that releasing under GFDL or CC license don't cause him to lose the copyright on the images, he's just stating how others can use the images. Good luck! --MECU≈talk20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting the changes made to Great Neck Village School. The user 209.177.21.6 has been making a bunch of changes to pages they need content deleted. I want to make sure the people in the AFD aren't confused about what the 'correct' version of the article is. I hope that no one is confused during the time the page had most of its content deleted. MrMacMan23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are never "butting in" to be involved in conversations on my talk page. You are a quality editor and I value your input. Thanks. IrishGuytalk23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..."*Disallow As country names go (or province names, depending on your point of view), "Macedonia" is famously controversial.Proabivouac 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)" not a new edit? I really don't get why we have to close this controversial issue so fast. Can you please respect five users expressing concern there and wait for the new sober ones to see what they have to say? Thank you. NikoSilver00:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but 2 admins and myself both feel it is a clear cut case and worth closing. Consensus is not simply about vote casting, but value of comments, it seams like you and other editprs that have been against it have personal reason for this, however, this point asside, even if there was no consensus, it would still default to keep, there is no chance that conensus would be to disallow with the comments for allow RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan is correct. Consensus is not vote casting. It is based on the number and strength of the arguments, especially in the situation based specifically on policy. If you have issue with my decision process on closing this, I will gladly explain why the consensus will not change and show previous situations where, re-opening did nothing but escalate the situation. Ryan, thanks for closing this, it was the correct thing to do., -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said it is votecasting. I still haven't heard a legitimate reason why this username is not "inflammatory", and I have given numerous reasons for that! Again, what's the itch? NikoSilver00:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is consensus, and consensus isn't going to be reached to disallow the username, its not fair to keep a user hanging on as to whether or not their username is going to be blocked or not when the end result is going to be to allow it, I'm sorry that you have reservations about the username, but consensus at WP:RFCN is not going to turn to disallow RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you let "consensus" evolve then normally to allow me to see that please? All I see is people blindly reverting a well argued case and I still have no response: "Why is it not inflammatory given my comments?" NikoSilver00:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To remind you:
Name is "Inflammatory": an international dispute that has escalated to the highest possible authority: The United Nations
Name is "Inflammatory": Precedents, all other country names already blocked on account of WP:U.
Discussions: Many admins agreeing to not let any more country-usernames exist.
Misrepresentation: User repeatedly makes userpage as an article. Confusion with article(s) Macedonia. The username is a reason, and WP:U explicitly prohibits that.
Implies authority: Naturally, as a state that it is...
What more do you want? That his every edit is a reason for a block? That his every upload is a reason for a block also? That watching "Macedonia" over and over in watchlists and histories makes you think a whole country edited? A government? Jesus! NikoSilver00:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns that you posted we merely based on the editor in question making POV edits, this is no reason for a username block, if the user makes these edits over a matter of time and post warnings, they can be blocked for that, the name of a country or province isn't offensive, if the username was User:I support the province of Macedonia, this could be seen as inflammatory, however User:Macedonia doesn't, as I said, it simply states a name and no political feeling RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter01:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Tomorrow" will be too late. Please revert yourself and we see until tomorrow what happens, if you let it. If you don't then it won't be able to happen, and I'll seek further action (including rfcs, arbitrations you name it). This is a clear case to me, and another four users agree. It's too early to close it. NikoSilver01:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned him that threatening other people to get them to do certain actions is innapropriate. I am sticking by the decision. IF something goes down, I will take the fall for it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I'm not threatening, I'm merely pointing out that if you don't let it finish, then it will have to continue, and that is additionally lost time for everyone. I apologize if my comment could be misinterpreted as a "threat", but it is actually trying to let you know that it can be settled normally, without us having to re-post all comments. Ryan, you can't seriously suggest that I am in any position to threaten you (or anyone). NikoSilver01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was a threat, hence, I am leaving this completely, you want this to still be commented on? By all means revert me, its your choice, other editors may decide to close it and I will support their decision, but I personally am not going to revert. I did leave a friendly message on your talk page explaining I was going to bed, this could have simply been sorted tomorrow, RFCN's can be opened at any time RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter02:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed you, but I've been having trouble sending email on here recently, so could you let me know as soon as you receive it? If you ever do... cheers. Majorly(o rly?)00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Majorly to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan Postlethwaite. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I wonder if anyone has university contacts to find out if GC-MS has been done on the samples? Normally this would have been one of the first tests when something unusual like this turns up. The silly space spores story has run long enough, and it's time for the nonense to be grounded. Unfortunately a number of people who didn't know any better ended up believing it. I'm not sure that an April Fool will do much other than give yet more unwarranted publicity to the fringe astrobio community. Davy p04:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening (GMT time); hope you're well! I've read your above comment, so let me answer for the committee. User:The Transhumanist, User:Audacity, User:FrankB and myself were the four original users who both revamped the welcome page, and TT proposed a bot to do exactly what you were suggesting.
Unfortunately, it was rejected by the other WelCom Welcoming Agents; I still think it's a great idea, but there is simply no way we can go against the community consensus.
how do i place icon-based links to Wikia sites on WP articles?
As this is different than placing a simple link, could you please clarify?--Rlakshmipriya17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for trolling, and by looking at the contribs, the user is a probable sock puppet (Due to going straight to WP:AN/I with their first contrib). Asside of that, username wise, well, I count 36 characters, in my opinion its a bit long, even if coherant, I'm not sure how I'd go on WP:RFCN - this is why WP:U needs to be clearer, how would you go? Allow or Disallow? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter01:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see, if we ever really had a discussion about what "extremely" is defined as, I think I would move us more towards 45 than 35. But, it seems that there are people who would rather have the power to decide what "extremely" means based on their own "common sense" despite the fact that not defining this allows them to vary their definitions based on how much they like or dislike another person. So much for rule of law and transparency in practices. Oh well...I have a feeling it will all work out eventually. --Kukinihablame aqui01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ryan. Just a quick note (I know you are busy right now with something ;)) - thanks for your support at my RfA. Much appreciated, and the very best of luck with yours. I'm sure it will be ok in the end. :) Bubbahotep21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For twice reverting tests on my user page, and making such a neat job of it, I, Anthony, award you, Ryanpostlethwaite, the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar.
Congrats! And thank you for reverting some vandalism to my talkpage. Seems I was far too busy at RfD to notice.... Ooops! WjBscribe03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I find it fairly ridiculous that someone can be revealed as a plagarist and still pass RFA. It sends entirely the wrong message about what the community cares about (or perhaps the community has some pretty strange priorities). Regardless, you have tried to be pretty contrite about it and clean things up, which is a good thing. Keep in mind though that some of us will continue to check up on your contributions from time to time. Dragons flight20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Ryan is an ex-plagiarist, in fairness. It's hardly fair to brand someone for life given that he's contrite and has done his best to make amends - Alison☺20:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For journalists and publishers, plagarism is a career ending event, and so in the real world it often is a life long brand. On wiki perhaps it shouldn't be so bad, but I feel we certainly ought to have a heck of a lot longer memory than 3 weeks. Dragons flight20:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think Dragons flight was right to bring it up at the RfA, without a doubt. And I do think it was a major mistake on Ryan's behalf. But believe me, the people who voted support will be keeping a much closer eye on him than the ones that didn't – me included. Bubbahotep21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Short term block is {{subst:uw-block1}} while an indef block is {{subst:uw-block3}}. I believe block templates can be found with other warning templates at WP:UTM. Congrats on your RfA. :) IrishGuytalk23:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, congratulations one more time. Thanks for your note on my talk page, you asked if I was planning to run for admin soon. Well, for interest's sake, I ran in January under my old username of Budgiekiller (ask if you wish...) and failed - read it here. I would be happy to run again but suspect that, for one thing, renom after just two months would show an unhealthy desire for the mop! So, in short, yes I'll run for adminship in the future. But when, I don't know. But this is your party, so nice one, enjoy, congrats one last time and hope to bump into you many times in the near, middle and distant future. The Rambling Man20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you hadn't noticed I responded in my talk. (I do that frequently to preserve continuity). Your input will be appreciated. Goodnight. ;-) NikoSilver00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I slept before you did! Well, you're probably right: I have devoted a lot of time to this minor issue. IMO, the particular name is "potentially offensive and inflammatory", either if used by Greeks, or Slavs, or Bulgarians or whoever (check the citations in the subpage). Further, its use despite all other country/usenames being blocked is double standards. Finally, 5 admins blocked all other countries, and 4 users/admins agreed that this would be wise because they resemble "speaking on behalf of a country" ("imply authority"). Should we unblock all the rest, or should we block that one in particular? We have a problem with consistency, you know... NikoSilver10:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find some time around noon UTC. We have two problems: "Implies authority" and "consistency/double-standards". The only problem is not only with this particular username, as e.g. User:Australia is free and not blocked. The fact that a large number of countries (113/~200) is blocked, gives an advantage to those not blocked in certain disputes. Among others, they can fool new users that they edit with authority, they can confuse in watchlists ( contribs)), and they can create article-like userpages with POV that the community has proven that it fails to police. The latter can also confuse absolutely unfamiliar readers (non-editors) for being the respective WP article. We definitely don't need these problems, and the utility of solving them surpasses whichever liberties may be oppressed (to those who don't deserve them in the first place). NikoSilver00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to shorten the blocking period of that IP. It appears to be a shared IP, and has in recent days also had some very constructive edits that I've checked on. --Auto(talk / contribs)21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Ryanpostlethwaite, there really is no point in me ever having an RfA. You see, other users won't trust me when it comes to usernames. They're likely to think I'll block names like mad. I really should abandon RFC/U completely; I seem to cause nothing but trouble every time I list a user. Acalamari23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also leave RFC/U alone in case I'm blocked for reporting too many users...which is my I don't think I'll report anyone there again unless I have to. Acalamari23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Good Humor barnstar, Ryan! I'm not much of a comedian (or at least I don't try to be), so I was pretty shocked when I found out what kind of barnstar it was. Well thanks again, Ryan, and happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Ryan. I was wondering if you could do me a favour and protect Groanio's talk page? I keep on getting badgered by him and it seems unlikely to stop. I kinda wanna end this quickly and don't want to take up space by filing a report... PhilipGronowskiContribs00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, thank you for your message, I really appreciated your very kind comments. However, I then saw your conversation with Allison on Acalamari's talk page and I realised that you're just a charmer and you're on a roll with charming the Wiki-ladies! ;-D LOL
Seriously, though, I know that you won't abuse the tools. I would never have come back around to support if I'd thought that was a possibility. I have been impressed with you and your work for ages now and when I saw your name on the nom list I went straight to the RfA page with the full intention of offering my strong support. If the diffs had all been from your early days, it really wouldn't have been such a concern to me. But it was the recent incident that really threw me. I didn't feel let down, though, so don't worry about that. I do understand that happened was a mistake and not some malicious thing you deliberately set out to do.
I hope your first days of adminship have been all you hoped for. Please feel free to give me a yell anytime if you ever need any help or support. All the best, Ryan, Sarah13:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent co-nomination; you wrote about some things that I missed/didn't know about. I don't know about you, but I'll give my support as the nominator if she accepts. Acalamari19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing those additions with the edit counts; I thought they had to be put in when the candidate accepted. Obviously not. Acalamari20:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ryan, and you Acalamari for being so supportive with the nom and for updating my counts. I've to keep a low profile during the process and get back to business here but I just want you both to know just how much I appreciate it :) - Alison☺22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I just noticed as I was patrolling the changes using VandalProof that you were having problems on your user page (or user talk page - I can't remember lol) anyway I'm glad to see you have sorted it out! Tellyaddict19:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome! The IP address blanked the warnings on there talk page so I reverted it, I'll keep an eye out there too incase he does it again. Again - your welcome! Tellyaddict19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep leaving messages but he she is requesting unblock but has also removed there vandalism warns in the process, you may wish to review it and posibly revert it so his/her warnings appear to other editors! Tellyaddict19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce indent); thanks, once again, for helping out. That IP had no business in posting business like that to the public, and I thank you for speedily reverting it. I'd give you a barnstar, but consider the original seconded! anthonycfc[talk]19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hehe, yeh no probs, wikipedia isn't the place for the stuff maria was putting - shes got a 24 hour cooling off period, and if she wants to contribute constructivly, she can do so after that. Hope everythings ok Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk19:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe it; neither of us were the first to give out support to Alison, and we're the ones to nominate her! :) Not only that, but it seems some joker has vandalized the RfA already. --sigh-- How nice of that person to do that; at least it shows that the vandals know they'll have one more vandal-fighter to worry about. Acalamari16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ho ho ho! Go ahead, copper, run me through WP:RFCN. You'll never find my hundred socks, a majority of which are now part of the Cabal! De-sysoping will be the least of your worries. (although I must stress I am not threatening you with legal action. because that would be wrong.) Anyways, be of good cheer and try to not get bogged down. --Pigmandialogue18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your input. As you saw, I also asked Kukini for input and got essentially the same response. I also don't have a problem with his name. I guess I was more concerned about how others might react, since there seems to have been a bit of that lately at RFCU. I'll let the user be. Thanks again. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ryan. I know you're still a baby administrator, so I'm going to try not to bite. :) In handling the User:PeterMarkSmith page, I think that blanking it probably wasn't the best idea--the objection was to the whole page, not just one personal attack that could be removed. CSD under G10 might have worked; going straight to MfD would have been better. And when the user retaliated by vandalising your page, I think you may have wanted to give a lower-level warning than the one you gave. It's one thing if he did that and I gave the warning, but given this user's disposition, I think he would have interpreted your warning as more posturing/wikinazi-ing/whatever. It's just something to think about when the next unpleasantness hits. At any rate, you did fine overall, and I think you kept calm and solicited others' opinions, which is always good. And it's good that you didn't hit delete and then block, like I might have done when I was first an admin. ;) I've MFD'd the page now, so we'll see what happens. Keep up your very good work. -- Merope03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you'll have to excuse me, i thought the RfA was a request for adminship with regards to server monitoring and soforth; i got the impression that from her contributions and soforth that she may not have been suitable, but i see it's for the sysop flag on mediawiki. I'll vote in the reciprocal; put me down for Support instead. J O R D A N[talk ]15:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh no problem at all, I thought there may have been a misunderstanding, by all means keep it as oppose if you wish or I'm more than happy to help you change it (although you'll have to actually put the support bit on yourself! Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk16:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that as I sent that welcome. I am not sure why that is a rule across the board. I have seen many exceptions to this rule out there. My thoughts, delete my welcome and put it into the process. If the name should be blocked, we should run a search for all other names with @'s and ask them to change usernames. I gotta go, but if you have time to deal with it...I would appreciate it. Best, Kukinihablame aqui19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan -- I was away from the wiki during midterms and somehow your RfA completely escaped my notice. I'm sorry I missed the chance to support you, and I have no doubt that you will be a responsible admin and continue to be a credit to the project. Rock on - A Traintake the19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, once you've got some water and aspirin in your system to moderate that hangover, want to give mentoring another shot? Here's the gouge. If and when you make the approach, make it clear to WikiLoco that you're approaching on the behalf of a concerned group of editors, and that a community ban is on the table if his overall editing doesn't improve. Let me know what you think. A Traintake the15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening (GMT time); as requested, I've drew up a quick something in the form of a possible new user page design. It's located at User:Anthony cfc/Sandbox/A; let me know what you think!
Anthony, you should credit the person who originally had that layout, FireFox. I think he was the first one to have that design (see his userpage history around September 2006), but it was "stolen" by others afterwards. By the way, you basically copied Arjun01's userpage and substituted it with Ryan's information. Try to be original? It gets boring when everyone has the same userpage. Nishkid6422:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it was someone else's, so I crossed out my message. As for my own user page/user talk designs, I'm going to keep them as they are; even If other users' think they look boring. Acalamari23:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow. That seems like the sort of situation checkuser might be able to shed some light on, you could submit a request. As to whether the CUs would make the check, I couldn't (and, in the interest of neutrality, really shouldn't) say. I guess, if we're trying to see if Ed = the other account, then you could try and apply code letter F (community block evasion). – Luna Santin (talk)02:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry for asking your opinion about it as I know you should stay neutral, thanks for the advice, I'm going to submit one with code letter F as I think it should be done before any blocks or unblocks are made Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, good research! Can't believe I'm not leanin towards disallow on this one now! Still, not striking my allow comments out until theres greater reaction! (I've commented all the same) Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk03:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As this remains an interesting shared issue for us, I thought I would pass it along. I am heading to bed. If you want to run it up the flagpole, let me know what happened...as it could effect the wording of policy, no? Kukinihablame aqui08:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrrrggghhh, I havn't got time to do it now, I'm going to work! If it hasn't been blocked already (for name or vandalism) we'll put it through later on - although it seams likely theres going to be a vandalism block on the cards! Nighty night Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk08:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one isn't acceptable either! I actually thought you might have gone through a minor username change at first! would you like me to bring it up at WP:RFCN for you? (Think there might be a conflict of interest if you do it!) Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I leave that up to you. Hey I have an idea...what about we create an "institutional memory" page for RFCN? On it, we would list historically blocked words, such as "retard," under various categories, based on policy. That way, we might have something to refer to quickly when it comes to usernames. --Kukinihablame aqui16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah thats a really good idea, although there shouldn't be precedents on wikipedia, we definately need some kind of continuity, I remember those jesusfreak usernames from last week, the first one got disallowed, and then the second one, which just had a different number on the end nearly got allowed. The catogaries section would definately be a better idea than the currecnt archive, although we could use the archive links to help us set it up. Any suggestions on where to put it? Userspace or a subsection of WP:RFCN? Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much Acalamari, I tried to hit in with a few comments when people were out of order for opposes/neutrals. As I said, keep up the good work, and you'll certainly make it next time, thanks again Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks for doing that. No one was happy when Rlevse opposed me for being too young. Even Sarah, who wrote the longest oppose I've ever seen, wasn't impressed with that. Acalamari22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Acalamari, I didn't mind what Rlevse said and I think s/he is entitled to make up whatever RfA criteria s/he wants to use, just like everyone else does. In my experience, some young admins are great and some are immature and quite hopeless, just like some older admins. As for my long oppose, I just did what I always do at RfA and wrote what I thought needed to be said. Sometimes it's possible to do that in a sentence or two and other times more needs to be said. Sarah04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to you sarah, it was very diligent statement and one which gave Acalamari points which he could work from, as always, you gave thought to the candidate which is important when many people just jump in and be nasty Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk08:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a charmer, Ryan. :) Thanks, but I found it very hard to do. It's hard to write an oppose for someone you think is a genuinely nice person. I hope that next time Acalamari is up for RFA I am able to fall under the support column. However, I would advise him to wait until someone he respects offers to nominate him, rather than self-noming again. I think it can be very hard to know when you're really ready for adminship and having someone(s) respected willing to put their name up there next to yours is a good sign that you may be ready in the eyes of the community. Sarah07:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't let Kncyu38 own the Manfred Von Richtofen article. He is dismmissing consensus and Jimbo guidelines, along with promoting propaganda while telliing others not to edit without his permission. After this all was seemingly , including with him, resolved a few days ago, he is now reverting the article and attempting to "own" it. Thanks! JohnHistory18:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
I don't see how edits to my own user page can be vandalism, but then again, I;m not an admin, so I can't make things up as I go along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.90.96.17 (talk • contribs)
I'm currently blocked from editing, so I can't. I don't want to have to return to this cesspool another day. --Nélson Ricardo
Oh dear. Well, I guess you can go ahead and speedy the page as the anon editor requested. Up to you. You can't really put an {{indefblock}} on it 'coz they're not. - Alison☺22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy to delete the page, if the user puts {{db-owner}} on, until then, it can stay as it is because we don't know for sure who the IP is. I'm leave a message on the blocked users talk page asking them if they want it deleted Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's no big deal. I just see no value in deleting it. Right to vanish is fine, but IMO this shouldn't include a right to make rude, unreasonable demands and have them followed. Friday(talk)22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no problem, after looking at the contribs, there were some which could have been seen as constructive, hence why I didn't indef block. If the user makes one more edit to their talk page I'll protect it for trolling. Could you let me know if you have any further problems with the user? Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly will! Thanks for the help. Some of his edits are pretty good, but then he does stuff like this. He appears to be quite fond of you now: [12], [13]. Dreadlocke☥22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine; just give me a 24 hour heads-up (not by email though, I don't check it unless wild horses drag me). — coelacan — 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent him a message asking him if he would change his name. I will not be around much for the next two weeks, so please keep an eye on how he responds, and submit an RFCN if you think it's warranted. Thanks. YechielMan17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need your help. I'm now very tired and annoyed reading, since days, advices and pages about wikipedia policies without finding a real solution. Since days I wait for an administrator to cancel my account. I found incredible being in the impossibility to cancel an account I created. "Do I have to make vandalism in Wiki pages to finally found someone clever enough to answer to my request and cancel my account?" I asked.. I had no reply. Please accept my request and cancel definitively my account from wikipedia. Thank you. MDMDMDMD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeMcGD (talk • contribs), 31 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi there Mike. I think Ryan's not around, so why don't I take this one for him. Accounts can never be deleted on Wikipedia; the reasons for this are spelled out at Wikipedia:Account_deletion#Deleting_your_user_account. If you would like me or another admin to delete your user page, then just add {{db-userreq}} to your user page and user talk page. Your contributions, however, will remain in the system. ATraintalk20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ryan. I noticed from your contributions that you may still be online, so could you review me? (I've asked you this before, but I'm just making sure that remember about it.) ~Steptrip12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have explained, I unblocked the user yesterday as he sent me an email explaining the situation and appologised. If you want to see it, email me and I'll forward you it Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, should I take it that your new plan involves putting every single RFCN'd username on its own subpage, regardless of length of discussion, and transcluding it onto the main RFCN page while it's being discussed?
If that's the case, it might save you a bit of work to see what we did over at WP:SSP with inputboxes, notably WP:SSP/Create -- since that automatically starts a page, pulls up a template for it, and puts your own customized instructions above the edit box. I'd happily adapt the idea to RFCN if you like.
But please notice the downside of subpages compared to the archived one-page-history: the subpages take up a bit more space, and are vulnerable to post-discussion editing (vandalism, vote-changing, or deletion) -- they don't necessarily stop being used once the case is "closed".
"What's an editintro?" you ask. Welllll, me boyo, y'see, just start creating a request for, say, "Swenian Fine", and look at the text above the edit box? Informative, eh? Next try creating a request completely the wrong way, say, by deleting everything in the filename after "comments/User" and clicking the button. Ooooooh, now THAT is what an editintro looks like when you do something wrong! -- BenTALK/HIST08:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And actually I've created two "likely-accidental" pages just to warn users when they make these likely accidents: "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME" and "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/" with the ending slash (not the same as WP:RFCN!). You can protect those, or you can delete them and let the editintro warn the users off. Either way..... -- BenTALK/HIST08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is posted to the blocked user's talk page, why make the notifier type out the whole filename, when the template can produce that automatically?
Replace {{{1}}} in the template with
[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]
Sorry, I saw your message too late (it coincided with my having a relatively early night); I see that someone has closed the RFCN, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Got a question about an issue with another editor who actually edited one of my posts, claiming that WP:TALK gave him that right, since I made a minor change after he responded to it. I know I shouldn't really edit my own posts after they've been responded to, but this edit was very minor and did not affect either the post or his response - and it isn't prohibited by WP:TALK.
So, I took it to ANI, but I wanted to see what you thought (they're not responding very quickly, busy page!). This is the notice on the ANI board, and when I asked the other editor what context had been changed, this was his response - I mean, there was obviously no context change that affected his answer... I don't want an editor to think he can run around changing other's posts, unless it's for truly egregious and violates WP:BLP or WP:NPA (even npa can be problematic.) What do you think? Dreadlocke☥18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah just has a quick look at it, it seams you edited you comment after you originally posted it, and Minderbinder changed it back. The changes you made were only very minor, more grmatical than anything so I don't think there's an issue here with regards to you, changing is frowned upon, but it's not against policy. With regards to Minderbinder, I think he felt he was doing the right thing, even though again, it's frowned upon to edit other peoples comments. Can I suggest just leaving it? It's not like there were any personal attacks or other serious issues in the edits he made to your comments, if tht was the case, I'd go and have a talk to the user, but I think it would just erupt the situation Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's good advice. Minderbinder definitely felt he did the right thing, which is where I think the problem is - he wasn't right and shouldn't be doing it again.
So, editing other's comments is just "frowned upon"? Man I thought it was a totally outrageous and forbidden thing to do! Well, thanks for the advice. Guess I'll just drop it. Maybe with all the static I caused him, he'll think twice before doing it again.
I'm not going to totally drop it, I'll leave it up on ANI for the time being. I really think he should know that what he did wasn't right. Doesn't look like it gets much response, just the one to chastise me! Hah! Dreadlocke☥18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just fyi, the user still feels he can edit my posts to "correct my violations" after I've changed them.[14] He just now copied an old version of an edited post by another user, but I'm not sure if there's anything wrong with that. (same link as above) ANI is intersting, they keep addressing the BLP stuff, which is irrelevant to my issue. One editor even thought I made the attack...sheesh... Sorry to bug you with all this crap...I should probably just ignore it... :) Dreadlocke☥20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I've got as much from ANI as I'll get. If you want to drop a friendly note about not editing others posts that would be great. I'll just drop it from here and see if he does it again I guess. I guess I'm making a big deal out of nothing? Dang, I hate it when I do that... :) Dreadlocke☥22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, could you take yet another look at this. JohnHistory keeps turning up every few days, changing the article against consensus. I'm not so much interested in or concentrated on that article, so I noticed only today [15]. On the talk page, he is attacking me as conspiring against him and destroying the article once again [16]. To be honest, I think the article is as good as it gets for now, and I'm tired of cleaning up behind JohnHistory, I've got better things to do, as do we all. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly the expert Rfc filer either! I'll go out on a limb and say article Rfc, it seams to be Johns only concern. Get a load of diffs together as part of a neutral explanation of events (in your userspace) and I'll help you put the request in Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Please see the thread you started on the admin board, where several people were objecting to the complexity. I suspect my version may be overly short, at any rate. >Radiant<13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for implementing the change I suggested on WT:RFCN regarding the subpage link. Perhaps it would be better to change the 'View RFCN' to 'RFCN' so it looks more appropriate when viewing the subpage. Just my thought. (the necessary pages are fprotected otherwise I would have done it myself) G Donato (talk to me...) 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hiyya. I took the liberty and semi'd your userpage this morning as you were taking a hammering. Hope you don't mind! - Alison☺17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW - thanks for keeping a level head during the recent WP:RFCN hell which spilled over into a page of its own. Well done!)
Where is the consensus for this change to WP:RFCN? As far as I can tell, you implemented this change less than 24 hours after proposing it on the talk page. That's not consensus. If you had happened to propose it on some other date, because of the short period of time it would have been roundly rejected, just because different people are online or notice a page on different days. If you wish to make a major change to something, you need to allow sufficient time for others to consider and discuss the proposal. It is not necessarily bad to implement it right away if there is a favorable response, it is false to say that you are following "consensus", when no such thing can be formed after so brief a time between proposal and implementation. —Centrx→talk • 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, thanks a lot for your kind support on my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate your support and I do intend to run again eventually. I hope you've been enjoying your admin tools, and once again it was a pleasure to nominate you. Majorly(o rly?)02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is for taking the initiative at RFCN to improve the process. It's been a bit of a mess for the last week; hopefully we can take this improvement and steer RFCN in the right direction. LeeboT/C12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that the new process could people to actually think about some of the names they report and not be so trigger-happy, but it seems like a good number of people would rather do away with it than make it better. Some make good points, but I dislike the attitude that RFCN visitors are wasting their time and "should make themselves useful by editing the encyclopedia". Editors who focus solely on RFCN are fairly rare -- most contribute in a variety of other ways to the encyclopedia. LeeboT/C13:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you can add the co-nom, notify Coelacan, and transclude it on the main page, as I'm going to sleep now and won't be back online until around 00:00 UTC April 8 (16:00 PDT April 7) (argh...these time zone discrepancies...). —210physicq (c) 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan. Well, bibliomaniac15 responded to the request here. As the latest bit of the discussion revolved around the exact wording and JH offered another lenghty reply, I asked bm15 to specify and he replied in agreement with my version. Since then, everything has remained silent. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the nomination, (I hope you didnt mind the momination here and not emailed!). I am honoured by this but I very recently had a second nomination which I withdrew at 17/16/1, this was mainly due to the fact that I had once voted on 6 AfD's in 8 minutes and that caused many people to oppose, therefore I'd like to give it time to fix that and get my edits up to about 20K 'ish. I thank you very much for this and I would love for you to nominate me in the future months (possibly July??) but I'm going to have to decline for the minute to work on some of the issues raised and not come over as too eager, again - I am thrilled by the proposed nom. Thank you very much - Tellyaddict12:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope your not offended by me declining the nomination, also the Semi Protection tag on your Userpage can just go into the corner by adding |small=yes}} to the end. Just incase you wanted it like that. Tellyaddict17:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a sock of a user you blocked for vandalism on this page. This user is now doing the same- and IPs are in same range. GDonato (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From 3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." MoreschiRequest a recording?16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, would you mind reverting Ed's last revert of Moreschi's version? I don't want to fall foul of 3RR. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, just seen you do it, I was thinking oh god, whats he doing? But I think the disambig link removal is uncontroversial, and you explained in your edit summary. If someone else re-adds it, will you just leave it and I'll sort it out tomorrow? Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
I swear while looking at User:Teledildonic Man's contributions that he reported himself to AIV as his first act, and then was reported again for exactly the same reason (using exactly the same text)... odd SGGH13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when he self reported himself, I removed it as trolling - it's a bit strange to be honest! I think I'll keep an eye on the account, but at the minute, he's not doing anything too disruptive. By all means block though if you disagree Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will. I dont actually think how close he is coming to being blocked. I was looking at his edits and I noticed he often said Ass cream, even when voting on RfA's? I will tell him and if he continues I'll leave you a note, I think he means well just doesn't know quite what he is doing and the results which could be blocked. Thanks for telling me - Tellyaddict16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TA clearly means well but I'm running out of good faith for Sethdoe. We should consider popping over to the community noticeboard next time he makes an inappropriate edit. ATraintalk16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick and tired of him too, I've left a long and boring warning on his User talk page and told him in kinder words that if he makes one more wrong move he will be blocked, most probably idefinitely. I am removing the Userbox from his Page saying I'm his adopter, I just cant adopt a Vandal, his intentions here clearly aent good. I've also provided loads of diffs to his bad edits. Cheers - Tellyaddict19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just read it through! It was quite very well researched, loving the diffs. To be honest with you, I think it would be a waste of time trying to help him and your doing the right things by knocking him off your adoption list. He's out to disrupt and I really doubt he'll be here for much longer. Next bad move and I'm proposing a community ban Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, their he goes! Cold you please just block him as he warned me at my Sandbox (which I aksed him to yesterday for training on User warnigs) but guess what edit summar he used? (Ass cream) and totally removed loads of comments from my long and boring warning. If you would you mind if I add the blocked tag but say in my edit summary I'm not a sysop. I'll blank his Userpage and add it their, assuming this is OK with you? Cheers! - Tellyaddict19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think i should leave the rfa-nomination template on Radiant!'s page? I know i removed it and replaced it with "what the...?"....... :) Simply south18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No but leave a {{UsernameConcern}} message on their talk page or you'll get shot! (Take a look at WT:RFCN, it's all kicked off whilst you've been away!). Leave the concern there a few days, and if the user continues to edit, or requests a discussion, take it to RFCN. Does that sound ok? Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes its ok and I did just that and he 'kindly' replied>>"Man get over it It's just a name. You may be concerned but thats your problem. I refuse to change my username. I'm trying to be as nice as I can. I can kind of understand your concern then agin I cant. Oh I get It my Middle Name is Jesus."People seem 2 like me a lot nowdays..I'll just leave it at that..bye..--Cometstyles20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were quick with that one; I went to search for Project For Pride in Living and found it was already gone. Thanks for that. Acalamari16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't log into my old account because I had to change my name to RebeccaC21 because they said before it was blatant advertising to have my organization name. Is there any way I can still delete this? My boss is very upset.
It's a;ready sorted now Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, we weren't edit warring this time. In fact, I really think that we're making good progress here. Since the middle of February, my edits were continuously reverted by Dev for no good reasons. However, she began to accept two of my edits! I don't see how reverting grammatical changes constitutes a major enough situation to make an edit war.--Ed¿Cómo estás?22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were edit warring over spellings. I'll unprotect the article for now, but if this reoccurs, I'm going to protect it again, and for considerably longer becuase it's not helping the encylopedia in any way Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that discussion will help: all previous attempts have failed. Requests for input at the VP and HD have returned no helpful remarks. Dev has removed about half of the messages I sent to her. Right now, IMHO the only way to get my point across is by going up the dispute process--Ed¿Cómo estás?00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. If you look at my conflict log, you'll see that the main dispute is over a few sentences on the essay. The stage I'm in right now is a combination of disengagement by moving on to a different issue in the essay (ie spelling, grammar) and by attempting to discuss more often.--Ed¿Cómo estás?01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why you indefinitely blocked this IP. Could you explain further what the situation is with this IP to warrant such a block? Thanks. --Geniac16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for further info. I checked the whatlinkshere for the userpage and user talk page and didn't see a checkuser request. Wouldn't it be helpful to have a link to it on the IP's userpage? --Geniac15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it most probably would, but I'm not sure whether this was a private arbitration checkuser? After all it was Mackenson that originally indef blocked Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk
Heh, yeah I saw, no problems. We're taking bets on IRC as to how long it is before all of these get reverted as a clearly rouge abuse of power :) --bainer (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there again. I'm back for a few days and I am already getting this stuff. I'm ignoring it for now, but should I report this kind of behaviour somewhere? I'm on lunch break right now so I won't be able to respond right away, I'll be back at around 3 o'clock. Nice to be back for a bit. PhilipGronowskiContribs17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 48 hours. As to where to take it, you could take it to AN or ANI? But I'm more than happy to sort it out for it whenever (As long as it isn't urgent). Are their any more IP's out their harrassing you? Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, just him. I don't even know what their problem is, or if they are even referring to me, as I only turn 17 in two months time. I'll deal with them as they come. PhilipGronowskiContribs19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this. [21] I am really disappointed with the way we have become so inconsistent with administration of policy. I have noted that policy is being translated willy nilly with little regard for what is normative. People are anti precedent, yet do not seem to see how if there is not some form of consistency in application of policy, people are not treated with equity. Anyways, not so sure I will bother with that RfC much any more. I am not convinced it is working well at the moment. Thanks for listening to my gripes. --Kukinihablame aqui18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User;Ahwaz's violation of 3RR had nothing to do with BLP, and was the result of his edit-waring to place a notability tag on the article, since he's claiming the subject is not notable to have an article, eventhough the subject generates thousands of google hits in several languages, and User:Ahwaz's argument was refuted several times. Furthermore, User:Ahwaz has been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and sockpupetry 17 times by now, in less than a year. [22] Please note that User:Ahwaz was still edit-waring, even after he was explicitly told by an admin the last time he was blocked, that he was very close to being blocked indefinitely if he doesn't improve his behavior.[23]. I am afraid unblocking him, will only encourage him to continue on the disruptive path he's been on. Would you please, for the sake of transparency and accountability, reveal the name of the user who e-mailed you off wiki requesting an unblock for User:Ahwaz. I am asking this because there is extensive off-wiki lobbying going on, and it's important that such matters be discussed publicly and openly on Wiki to prevent any abuse. --Mardavich18:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After originally decling Ahwaz's original unblock request (because on the surface is does look like clear cut edit warring), he emailed me explaining exactly what he was doing. I went ahead and again at the article on Nasser Pourpirar and saw clear cut BLP violations. When I actually checked the diffs, Ahwaz had simply been readding citation needed tags onto the page. Please note in WP:3RR, it specifically states that this rule does not apply for users trying sort out WP:BLP issues which Ahwaz was attempting to do. It may have not been as clear as removing the BLP violation texts, but he was attempting to get sitations for the violations. If it had been clear cut, I would have unblocked comepletely, as it happens, I don't think it was clear BLP violation removal, so I reduced the block down to 24 hours with consent of the blocking administrator. I have since attempted to remove all BLP violations from the article as it was no way appropriate at the state it was in. I am not willing to increase the block myself Ryan Postlethwaitetalk/contribs19:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryno, I'm going to you and Alison for a little back-up here.
Damian Chapa is an article about an actor that is a source of constant vandalism that violates WP:BLP. The vandalism comes from a dynamic IP (or several?) and comes at a rate of once every few days. It's too infrequent to semi-protect the page, and it's been going on for many, many, many months. Even if s-protection was a viable short term option, the vandal is so persistent that it would not be tremendously useful in the long run.
Do me a favor: add the article to your watch list and help me keep an eye on it. I've never seen a Damian Chapa movie (and judging from the filmography in the article, I doubt that I ever will) but I don't need to explain the dangers of running afoul of BLP to you.
Yeah just had a quick scan of it and can see the problems , it's now watchlisted you'll be pleased to hear! I see the last edit stayed up for 4 days! I've had a bit of a BLP day today, cut a shed load of Nasser Pourpirar out - BLP violations are probably wiki's biggest threat. Ryan Postlethwaitetalk/contribs20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any of the edits you showed in the diffs, I'm sure you could have checked that out for yourself. Not sure, exactly why this witch hunt still continues? I am not really going to take too much time with it, though. I have no reason to willing violate any policy, and I have shown myself to be a thoroughly reasonable person in my logic and discipline. JohnHistory19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Do you own the said source in question, or is kncyu38 just feeding you this garbage? He doesn't own it either, he reall doesn't even care about the article. I do own it, and it is propaganda. Do you disagree? I am trying to find a shcolarly debate or solution to this. Many of us have now agreed. I don't see how your contributing anything to the article, or the solution of this problem, in a positive way for Wikipedia. JohnHistory19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
I saw what you meant. In fact, I was trying to enforce the Wiki Jimbo Guideline policy, after waiting along time and I see nothing wrong about my edit, and alot right about it. Please tell me why its bad, as I own the source in question that I am talking about? Nothing is a violation about that diff at all. In fact it is the exact opposite. That quote shouldn't even be there at all under guidelines. However, if it is, then it needs to state the dubiousness of the source (which describes itself as propaganda). Unless of course you want to endorse propaganda on Wiki along with a select minortiy of others do, as in this case? The revert is actually very misleading as it stands. You should be talking to that person, not me. BTW, this subject was already concluded before succesfully. JohnHistory20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Hey there Ryan, I was wondering if you could offer this user mentoring in your spare time? I can tell that his edits are made with completely good intentions, but he still makes a whole lot of mistakes, ranging from single unverified facts to completely mucking up the seventh generation consoles page based on a personal opinion. He definitely seems like he could be made into a fantastic editor, but for the time being, more often than not, it feels like a babysitting job has been added to my other editing duties. Also, I'm sorry if I should have taken this request elsewhere first, I've just heard that you're very skilled at solving this kind of problem and I could use your help. Thank you! Thores07:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came to the the conclusion round about February that Ed isn't trying to make constructive edits to the page, he is pursuing some weird agenda of his own that is apparently based on making Esperanza look as good as possible. I say this because the versions he has trying to insert always soften criticisms and somehow phrase like "nice idea" get turned into "excellent idea". He has wanted to replace the essay with at least three different versions for varying reasons, from "It looks better!" to "It needs to be neutral!" to "It doesn't fulfil the closing MfD comments!" Every time I talk to him he moves the goalposts, and frankly, I'm removing his comments from my talkpage because I'm sick of talking to him and it getting nowhere. I'm sick of taking the time to write him a half hour message and it just sliding off his back, sick of my every message apparently giving him attention that spurs him on to another excitable attempt to get more people involved that just don't care. Look at the number of compromises in Ed's subpage (btw, the name Dev920 v. Ed hardly exhibits the put-upon-oh-why-is-she-reverting-me-I-only-want-to-help attitude he is currently displaying to you, does it?).
Where Ed's documents starts is only where it resumed after a month of Ed's apparent acquiescence to the version that everyone supported. It was only Quadzilla's edit that spurred him onto the the revert war he got into. This actually goes back to January 2, the day Esperanza was deactivated, when Ed added a extremely biased section about fostering the goals of Esperanza, which I removed. One may note that the version in that edit is the exact same one I have been trying so hard to maintain against Ed's onslaught. It is version accepted by virtually every editor to the main page, the version not in any way disputed whenever Ed goes over the Village Pump to drum up support, it is the most accurate and most accepted version of what happened to Esperanza. Ed's attempts to change it have only ever been met with "OMG, are you still arguing over this? Leave it alone." But Ed won't leave it alone, and I was not prepared to let him trample all over the consensus of the community.
No, I'm not assuming good faith, how can someone assume good faith of a little boy who is edit warring over spellings? The additions I made was the only changes I made to Moreschi's version, and Ed seems incapable of accepting any edit I make (and I don't mean the reverts, I mean the edits to compromise suggestions by Steve Block, and by Moreschi). Ed inserted a semi-colon instead of a full stop, even though I had specifically made it a separate separate because a) it flows better and b) it emphasises on the fact that they did very little. This is important because it was a major factor in their being deleted, the first MfD had closed as no consensus only because they promised to reform themselves, and what they actually did was delete the most disapproved of pages and then get bogged down in proposals over governance. "nice" is similarly important, not only because it is a direct quotation from my nomination statement at the MfD, but because it carries a cutesy value that one applies to soft cuddly objects, which is the epitome of everything Esperanza stood for. That and a change in the common term for a member of Esperanza was what I changed about Ed's edit, for very good reasons as I have just explained to you. I left the rest. But I guess one has to ask why Ed made his changes, and why Ed wished to draw me into a discussion to discuss spellings. If he is as keen to end this dispute as he so oft claims, why is he still haggling?
I acceptd Moreschi's version, as I did Steve Block's compromise, with a few small, but vital, changes in each case to ensure the meaning was not lost. One may notice this is exactly what I have done with all changes to the essay. When EWS23 added a paragraph I removed the proselytising, which I find important because the essay mustn't forget that Esperanza was shut down for a reason. I have tried to pursue that policy for a long time. Ed's first real attempt to change the essay was to remove the criticism section entirely, claiming it was giving undue weight to criticisms, which I think says much about his motivations. He appears to have forgotten that Esperanza was deactivated because of those very arguments. Unsurprisingly, I reverted him. It went back and forth for a few and the article got protected. Afterward Steve Block tried to write a compromise version that I accepted with a few changes and Ed wanted a few as well - we were thrashing it out on our talkpages when Elaragirl made her edit, and the compromise died. This is when Ed made his second attempt to fundamentally change the essay,which was exceptionally badly written, removed the criticism section again, and was generally awful, which was why I removed it. Ed claimed it was "a 2nd compromise" - compromise between what and what exactly? A compromise between my desire to keep the original version agreed upon by the community and his desire to remove all criticisms? The article was protected again. Convenient how Ed's compromises always change after article protections, because it changed again after that time. Again he called it a compromise, again I have to ask who and what he was compromising between. Note his arguments thus far have been "undue weight" and "compromise", up to about the end of March. Then he changed tack and started claiming the text was "biased" and shortly after that that it violated the MfD closure. It was protected again.
At this point Ed suggested a "truce", and the main terms we agreed on was that the article would be unprotected, neither of us would edit it and I would provide proof that my version was supported by the community. But I was under a lot of pressure at the time, and as I have explained already, I am loathe to give Ed any more attention that I absolutely have to because it is a complete waste of my time. His constant version and excuse changing had convinced me he really wan't interested in any kind of reasoned argument. I think the best example of this is the Village Pump where he tried to drum up support for his version, and both I and Steve Block took the time to respond, as well as several other editors, but it became obvious Ed wasn't actually listening to any of what we were saying, instead, ludicrously, comparing the whole thing to a murder inquiry that he had to solve. You can read the entire discussion here. My reasoning for reverting him was thus:
"Yes, we are. Why? Because these changes you suggest do not improve the essay. They attempt to skew it to talk about how marvellous Esperanza was and what a pity it was shut down. That you said "The essay would give the impression that helping the Wikipedian community is a bad thing." is very telling, as it says no such thing. It says that Esperanza is a bad thing: surely you have learnt by now that Esperanza != community? The community made it very clear where it stands on Esperanza, and the essay reflects that. It is you who insists that the essay needs to be unbiased - unbias does not equal equal weighting. Due weight is given to the feelings of the community, the community which DELETED Esperanza. They didn't say "Oh look, what a spiffing idea Esperanza is, I know, let's close it for fun.", they made strong and valid criticisms that are listed. Read your comments, you are chafing against the reverts themselves, not your edits that have been reverted. You don't have anything to say about WHAT changes you would like to introduce, just that we won't let you. And that, I think more than anything, demonstrated that you are just replyng now to wind everyone up than because you actually want to make meaningful, constructive edits. You just want to whitewash."
So, you can see, I did explain to Ed exactly why I didn't like his version, but he didn't heed it.
I announced I wasn't going to engage him anymore - this was the point when I stopped replying to his messages and removed them from my talkpage, as it became utterly clear to me that Ed just wasn't interested in dialogue. Steve also couldn't be bothered to talk to him anymore.
After the truce broke down, which Ed laughably put down to cowardice rather than sheer mind numbing apathy, Moreschi proposed the version we see today. Ed didn't like it, edit warred over it and got blocked. I made a few small but vital changes, but left it at that. Ed made some changes, some of which I disagreed with, and have explained above, and reverted, and Ed is now making himself out to be some kind of martyr.
It has been a wildly frustrating three months, as Ed appears to have only one aim in mind and that is to change the essay for the sake of changing it, and then revert warring whenever I point out that what he changed had been there for a very good reason. I have thus become convinced that he is doing it for base motives, whatever they are, and WP:AGF says I don't have to assume good faith where it would obviously be stupid to do so. I am sick of talking to him, and if he really wants to cease this dispute, he shouldn't be edit warring over three fucking spellings. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Want to help me set up the Wikipedia Club of Manchester? :) I'm in Chelmsford at the moment, then moving elsewhere for a volunteering project. No idea where, maybe I'll end up in Manchester a year early... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to respectfully object to Dev's explanation of this edit war. Her arguements have had no substance the whole time! In fact, if you read my conflict log, Dev has never referred to any policies when providing any basis for her actions. I have repeatedly edited the essay, at some times introducing different wordings for it, for 3 reasons:
The arguments in the essay were unduly weighted. (i.e. more anti-Esperanzian than pro-Esperanzian) This is a violation of WP:NPOV.
The essay did not comply with the MfD closing comments. (WP:MFD/EA)
Every time Dev made it clear that she was not happy with my edits, I introduced a new wording of the paragraph in question. In fact, I even attempted a compromise for our edit conflict on User:Ed/Sandbox. In addition, I would present different reasons to edit the essay after it appeared to me that Dev has counter-argued against me quite well. (look at the list above) However, now that I look back on my link tables, it became clear to me that Dev has ’’never’’ any reasons based on policy to keep the essay in the version that she wants it to be kept at. Take a look at the tables and appendices on User:Ed/Dev920 v. Ed. None of her edits have presented evidence to support her arguments. For example:
If you look at the main table on User:Ed/Dev920 v. Ed, none of Dev’s edits have presented no policy-based arguments against my edits. She has never proven that the essay is currently unbiased.
Dev also claims that I’m insisting on editing a page which everybody is okay with. She says that there is an overwhelming consensus in support of that essay. However, I have asked her to present proof of this during a truce (User:Ed/Dev920 v. Ed#Appendix D), she has never kept her side of the truce. In addition, a majority of the edits made to the essay ranged from January to Febrary, 2 months ago! This shows her ignorance towards the dispute resolution process and the principle that consensus can change.
I have also argued that the essay does not comply with the closing results on WP:MFD/EA. (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 27) Dev has never provided any tangible arguments against this. I have repeatedly attempted to discuss this with Dev (per [[WP:DR#First step: Talk to the other parties involved|]]), but please see Appendices A, B, and D in the conflict log for more information.
It is clear that Dev is continuously reverting edits for the sake of reverting it to a version established 2 months ago in February. She is expressing ownership over the essay. This is a violation of WP:OWN. She has no policy-based reasons for keeping the essay the way it is. She has never responded to my arguements that the essay violates the MfD comments, nor has she even attempted to satisfy any opposition to her edits.
Also, whenever another user introduces another change to the essay that Dev doesn’t agree with, she doesn’t bother to improve on it; she just reverts! I, however, have been implementing different compromise attempts. This is a violation of WP:DR#Avoidance: “Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.” Again, Dev’s actions clearly show that she has no interest in following dispute resolution policy.
I have taken a few breaks from the essay per WP:DR#Second step: Disengage for a while. See notes 19 and 20. Obviously, the Wikibreaks for both of us didn’t work. Dev reverted the essay immediately after the unprotection without a policy-based edit summary.
Eventually, Dev agreed on a truce that I proposed. (again, suggested by WP:DR. See Appendix D. She promised to fulfill the conditions of the truce, part of which were to provide evidence that the essay is supported by the community at large. However, after a full week passed, Dev has never presented a single shred of proof. This further proves Dev's ignorance towards the dispute resolution process. I, however, presented note 110 on Appendix C of my conflict log during the attempted truce. To this, Dev has also never responded.
Even if we ignore WP:DR, WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV, the archives of WT:EA shows Dev's horribly anti-Esperanzian interests. Yes, I acknowledge that Esperanza became bad in the end; however, Dev is trying to send the message that spreading kindness to the Wikipedia community is a bad thing. My edits to the essay aim to show all future Wikipedians that spreading good cheer and kindness is a good thing. We need to emphasize this point. The underlying community is the only thing that keeps this encyclopedia alive and running.
Dev has, again, stated an intent to refuse dispute resolution. I don't know what I'm going to do yet, but I'm no longer interested in a mediation with you as a mediator. I want completely unbiased mediation from people who had no interest in Wikipedia:Esperanza. I'll get back to you ASAP. --Ed¿Cómo estás?00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another edit protection, another proposed version from Ed. This time he is trying to add as many positive things about Esperanza that he can think of because he's finally given up on removing the criticism. Given that he has apparently decided to not bother with mediation, can you skip that step and go straight to the protection-forever-more stage? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I protected the page seeing that edit warring had resumed and posted at WP:ANI about it. I now gather you have started to mediate this dispute- best of luck! Feel free to unprotect the page, but I suspect it may be best to take the temptation away from the participants... Your call. WjBscribe15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different colour scheme?! Might let Niko off on this one, I was ready to be a rogue admin and block him indef but it looks fine to me (just to be on the safe side, you better revert your sig back :-P!) Ryan Postlethwaite22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey, now that's pretty neat! Kewl. Do you think you could do anything with my boring sig? (pretty-please? :) ) - Alison☺23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, darn. Looks like my RFA didn't succeed. No doubt I'll take another run at it in a few months when my edit count isn't such an issue. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 02:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with your characterization. If you feel the need to provide support for A Train, do so on the discussion at his Talk page. I have no interest whatsoever in my Talk page being overrun by typical Wikipedia posturing, and have already made my stance on his comments crystal clear. Italiavivi22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite serious, I've no interest in your two's ad hominem spree over "massacre" discontent. Keep it off my Talk page. Italiavivi15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Train is engaging in very typical hollow posturing over the Virginia Tech naming dispute. I will only discuss that dispute at Talk:Virginia Tech massacre in the presence of the article's editors, and have no interest in your support for A Train's posturing appearing on my Talk page either. Italiavivi15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you gain experience on WP with pride. I was here when you joined and I remember bumping into you several times during RC patrolling. Although, since now you're an admin and meet a lot of people, you might not remember me :P
Just wanted to say you're doing a fantastic job, and WP needs more editors like you :)
About the RfA, its very kind of you to offer to nominate me. But I doubt I'd pass it. I don't have enough edits, and despite WP having an essay against editcountitis, it is still a very common disease.
How many more edits do you think would be respectable? The thought of self-nominating myself had crossed my mind once before, but I didn't because I didn't want to be brushed off as just another ambitious newbie.
Either way, its a compliment that you felt I would be worth nominating. Thank you so much :)
Yes, that would make sense, about the spread of edits being more important.
I've only recently started taking a more active role in AfD debates. For example, I nominated this article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sashank today. Have a look at it if you're free :P
Honestly I don't roam about much near the policy pages, and for the life of me I couldn't say why. Once in a while I answer questions on the talk of WP:AIV, but thats about it. I guess I could start there.
Really, more than the policies, I'm concerned about losing good editors. I've seen a lot of fantastic contributors leave, and it worries me. I'm a student, I have limited time on WP, and its frustrating to spend such a large chunk of time simply reverting vandalism or removing fangush or arguing with POV-pushers. The vandalism only takes seconds to revert, but the cumulative amount of time we editors spend fighting vandalism or trolls could be better spent in improving articles.
When I said the same thing on AIV, and suggested indef blocks for users who have a history of violating policies, User:Theresa knott said that I din't have the right temperment [sic] for fighting vandals. What she didn't know at the time was two of my friends had retired from WP the same day.
I apologise if my small reply turned into a bit of a rant. Its a little sad that vandals try to throw a wrench into good intentions.
I'll start participating on the policy pages more. In a few weeks or so, if you still believe I could be a good admin, I would be grateful to get the chance to help. Again, thanks for the offer, its kind of you.
Yeah, your right, I didn't realise, thanks for alerting me to that. I guess 3RR is slightly ambiguous in that respect, because it does only say that it's normally an exception, Wizardman actually blocked for 3RR, maybe this was an exception to the exception?! I don't know, but I'll certainly be more careful in the future, sorry. Ryan Postlethwaite17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan Postlethwaite. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. Thanks for your kind rant on me. By the way, someone else got a rename :)-> --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help on my RfA. I appreciate the constructive comments. Although I realize that my RfA was pre-mature, I was impressed at the kindness of the wikipedia community. Happy editing, and thanks again for your help! --Trumpetband22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it...the mediation can wait! I'll get together a proposal tonight if I have time. My priorities right now do not include Wikipedia due to my school stuff, but I'll see what I can do. Cheers!--Ed¿Cómo estás?23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha05:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan; I know you're under-active at the moment, so I won't be upset if you don't reply ;) just stopping by to see how things are? anthony[review]23:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan! I need your advice: I adopted Tedejomadrid this month after sending a welcome message. I've been checking his contribs, and you can see that he hasn't been editing too often. He did tell me that he's been busy lately, but do his contribs show that he's not a fully dedicated editor yet? Should I prod him into editing, or should I just be patient and see how things turn out?
(sigh) Tell me about it...my English teacher assigned us a new paper today. Now I have another paper to work on. Don't worry about it; we all have many things to do now that the end of the year approaches in about 4 weeks. As you can probably tell, I'm taking much more time off WP for school.--Ed¿Cómo estás?01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ryan Postlethwaite, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0. Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!
Hi, I was wondering if you could block 84.13.241.233, he was impersonating an admin, vandalising pages and then made a personal attack on my user talk page against me, cheers! Tellyaddict16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there - thank you very much for the offer. A couple of other users have asked me about it too and I would certainly be interested in it. I am quite busy over the next few days, but I will put some serious thought into whether I think now would be an appropriate time to run for it and get back to you. Thanks again. On the subject of RFCN, I think that your suggestion is a novel approach that would, in my mind, certainly be worth trying out. Regards. Will(aka Wimt)23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only requesting my userpage to be deleted because in some cases I have more userspace edit counts than the mainspace so I often have to request it for deletion in order to reduce userspace edit count. ↔ tz (talk · contribs · autographs) 12:28:25, Thursday, 26 April2007 (UTC)
hello! The "bot" does not have approval, as it is an assisted bot which i manually approve its posts. this has been an accepted way to use a bot without approval. I am not trying to message every single person on wiki, just merely attempting to bring the new users a nice welcome and some guidance. Matthew Yeager00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When seeking approval on Requests for approvals, please state the following:
1. Whether the bot is manually assisted (run by a human) or automatically scheduled to run
2. The period, if any, we should expect it to run
3. What language or program it is running
4. Its purpose
According to this, it needs to be approve even though it is manually assisted. And:
1. Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously. A bot operator is encouraged, but not required, to post their IP address on their bot's user page so that the owner of an anonymously running bot can be found.
Assisted bots are defined as any software that allows rapid editing of articles, while not saving any changes without some human interaction. Typical assisted jobs include those which are repetitive, but cannot be done fully automatically e.g. disambig repair, stub sorting and typo fixing.
* Assisted bots don't necessarily need bot approval, though some software has built in approval detection, whereby approval from an admin is required (developers are encouraged to build in approval mechanisms). If you have any doubts, it is safer to go through the approval process.
* A separate account is advised if many edits are going to be made.
* Always make extra sure there is consensus before making a large series of edits.
* Make it clear that software is being used to perform the edit.
doesnt this state otherwise ? its on the WP:BOT page. let me know what you think, i dont want to be in the wrong on this. My bot does is assisted and then doesnt need approval, right ? Matthew Yeager01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know: after discussing the issue on ANI here, M. Yeager agreed to halt the bot until getting feedback on it. I unblocked the bot account as a courtesy to him, since you seem to be gone for the night. CMummert · talk04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I do have my proposal ready in my head; I haven't made any major changes to the "official" proposal on the sandbox. Before I keep on trying to implement more changes, I would like to hear your opinions on the topics being discussed on the mediation page, especially about the community.
I would also like to hear your opinion about the MfD closing comments. Now that the discussion took place 4 months ago, we really can't interpret the closing comments as well as we should. After reviewing Mailer diablo's statement for another time, I'm beginning to question the meaning behind his message, rather than read it literally. Should we add comments about criticism? I would appreciate your input, however.
In addition, I do apologize if my comments on the Mediation did insult Dev. If you read my response, you can see that the main idea of my statement was that a community will only be formed through the right conditions, etc. I then acknowledged the fact that Dev and I will always have contrasting viewpoints, and at that moment I brought up the contrast existing between our sexual orientations. I don't intend to bring an already occuring religious debate to this mediation, but I hope that Dev will understand the true meaning behind my statements.--Ed¿Cómo estás?00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better anytime after June 11th, since I have exams before then. Weekends preferable, but I don't think I'll be doing anything. I really have no idea how far I am away from Manchester (I live about 2-3 miles from Stockport). Majorly(hot!)10:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before June 11th is fine too, just better after. I'm open to any dates so long as I don't have exam that day, or the day after :/ Majorly(hot!)10:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly, my undergraduate final year project hand-in date was today, so I've been concentrating on that, now that's over, I'm going to create the page tomorrow, and spam users pages with invites. I'm thinking a chinese in china town. followed by a few drinks in town for whoever wants to. My house is free for people to stay at if anyone needs room (maybe I should save that for the meet-up page!). Can you have a think of a few activities we could do? i.e. a get-to-know-eachother questionnaire. Ryan Postlethwaite22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine with me :) I personally won't need anywhere to stay, but it's good of you to open your house up... not sure what my parents would think of me doing that :P Um activities... I'll take a look at some other meetup pages for ideas. We also need to work out a time, date, and how will you find which users to spam? Oh and good luck with your project! Majorly(hot!)22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going to bed now - it's been a long day!! But as for spamming pages, I'm thinking a quick post at WP:AN, might get shot down, but it's worth a try, there's actually quite a few established users up for it by the sounds of things, (Steel, Guy, Deskana) so hopefully they might know a few people who are around the area. I'll contact the people that organised past meet-ups to see how they went about talking to users. I'm personally thinking June 8th, but as I said, I'll create the proper page tomorrow and then we can get it propoerly organised. Cheers for looking at activites, I personally make you the activites clerk! Ryan Postlethwaite22:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the barnstar, Ryan. I was feeling bad for my mistake and you brought some tranquility to my mind. My real life issues are about to end as I'm moving to a new place this weekend and I'm leaving all the problems behind. Thank you for caring. Best regards, Húsönd23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've left some comments on Kelly Martins request for comment, this users recent behaviour appears to be outrageous and highly incivil, anyway I wont bore you, feel free to read it if you wish. Thanks! Tellyaddict20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the email, i have taken a few minutes to add an outside view and certify it. My wiki time will be really splotchy as I am in the process of moving, preparing for grad school, and several other things. Thank you very much for supporting me here it is really appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan,
I have to say I really like the idea of the RFA prod mentioned on WT:RFA, I know it's Gaillimh's idea but you look like you've taken it on board. You mentioned you had a guinea pig for this but if you need another one I'll be willing to help out. And I would have no problems running a normal RFA in parallel or afterwards. Let me know if I can help out. Khukri15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, yeah I'm going to work on it over the weekend, might need to go through the village pump first, but it's going to be quite a big task getting all the CAT's sorted, and proposal of how to transclude it onto the main RfA page - you seem like a template king, so when I've got it sorted, could you take a look? I'm guessing it's going to be Sunday before I get it up and running. Your more than welcome to try it out, if it fails, consider yourself nommed by me! Ryan Postlethwaite15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No probs at all, one the best I know for parsers etc is User:Gracenotes but on the format, wording, or integrating it within RFA, etc, just let me know if I can help. Cheers Khukri16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, I'll still be here, and I've been busy as over the last week preparing for a selection baord coming up on Friday to make my position permanent, so stressful times ahead for all it seems ;). Take it easy. Khukri06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page now, I see that it is only blocked level 2 (new and unregistered). I have amended to admin only, which I am quite certain I originally did.--Anthony.bradbury23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you don't know about this, because if you did, I would think you would be a member of it. I found it in Alison's categories: This. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 05:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey R (Mr Teck)! Actually, someone else suggested I join WP:PHARM last week, what I'm currently doing is looking through the articles in their scope and seeing what I can do to help. I certainly am going to join, I just don't want to go into it half heartidly (I think by next monday I will be a firm member!), cheers for kicking me into action with it! Ryan Postlethwaite23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just joined :-) Might take a short break from the admin tasks and do some pharmocalogical editing for a bit - it's probably better for my degree! Ryan Postlethwaite23:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome, it is much appreciated. All of the hard work you did as part of the RFC and everything is very much appreciated. I know ther is an essay out there somewhere about the value of defending your fellow wikipedians, and you hvae done that admirably. For the life of me, I cannot find the link so you have my apologies for that. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)14:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking the apprentice troll just now. I suspect he'll be back just as soon as he can and earning himself a longer block. Nunquam Dormio17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to use phrases used ad nauseum in the past, but I really did think you were an admin. Are you quite sure you're not? I will certainly support you, and if this position has not been taken , I would be thrilled to support you. Please let me know ASAP.--Anthony.bradbury00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I am fully aware that there is a great deal of ongoing discussion about the whole RfA subject, and I am presently in e-mail contact with User:Durin on this topic. We agree that RfA is broken, and needs repairing. But. If a new user puts your template on his user page, and no-one notices it, are you happy for him to be sysopped? Or, assuming that you are not, what control do you propose on this? Just this week a new user, whose name I will not divulge (except by e-mail, if you ask) put himself up for RfA with a total edit count of 142. OK, he might well have been spotted. But if not?--Anthony.bradbury12:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a vast amount of ongoing discussion on this topic, and there seems to be an assumption that a simple vote is intrinsically bad. But in reality, is a vote from the community actually a bad way to choose admins?--Anthony.bradbury12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key to it is, that people are still going to check through users contribs, there are many users that seam to get kicks off opposing candidates for stupid reasons, and if want to do this here, all the have to do is remove the template, all it takes is one person to remove the template and it's game over. If you take a look at the proposal, you'll also notice that the closing 'crat gives the candidate a final check over to make sure they're suitable for the job. I would also propose that a bot is created that could list the candidates by the date that the template was added, so it would be easier for people to distinguish who is about to be sysopped so in effect, who needs mopre attention paid to there contribs. If the candidate has the template removed, it's no big deal - one person doesn't want them to be an admin and they are encouraged to run with the normal RfA procedure straight away. Obviously 143 edits is nowhere near sufficient to be an administrator, but at the end of the day - it's no big deal, the emphasis should be put on will they abuse the tools? Not are the experienced in all namespaces. I'm actually interested to hear your idea's on the RfA system, have you and Durin had any thoughts? The key should be a simpler system that promotes more candidates. Ryan Postlethwaite12:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note, I actually think a straight vote would be for the best, a simple support or oppose, thats how they do ArbCom appointments and it works fine. Get over 70% and you'll become an admin. Ryan Postlethwaite12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kncyu38 has changed his name to AldeBaer and is herassing me again. He has reverted the MvR page, against consensus and Jimbo guidelines when no one active there, to include again the prejudiced propaganda that calls me a pagan, etc. Not to mention it violates the undue weight and tiny minority jimbo guidlines as only 2 self proclaimed propaganda books, with sinlge sentences devoted to MvR, make such crack pot claims. I find this driven desire to include prejudiced propaganda as the sole source (or at all really) to be a serious violation of Wiki. what can I do to stop this once and for all? He is trying to get me banned too. Thanks. JohnHistory14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)johnHistory[reply]
Not that it matters much, but I'm just curious: why did you change the end time of my RfA from 02:43 to 02:46? As you can see here, I saved the full form at 02:43. Errabee15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I couldn't help but notice your name. Are you by any chance related to Pete Postlethwaite? Sorry if you get asked that once too many times. Feel free to not answer this. Errabee16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to say I am related to the great Pete Postlethwaite (I think he's a great actor)...... But unfortunately I'm not! (You wouldn't believe how many times I get asked that!!), thank you for taking an interest! Ryan Postlethwaite16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adjusting mine too then. I was rounding to the nearest quarter hour, but I should have striven for greater accuracy [24]! At least I know that I won't get a run of opposes in the last five minutes now. Have fun. --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I know this is (very!) late but I thought I'd tell you that user:Aquasplash who supported you on your RfA was me, I had abandoned this account after the comments at my second RfA which I reconsidered the next day after realising it was stupid, I'd left this account so I wasn't violating WP:SOCK as I didnt vote as Tellyaddict as well, just thought I'd give you a heads up.Tellyaddict18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, seriously though if you want to check exactly you can lol, my second and failed RfA is here, I was not going to run but when the nom was created I thought I might as well, I have asked User:Husond to give me admin coaching, he says he will in a few days but he's busy in real life he says, thanks! Tellyaddict18:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, uh, I forgot to mention that I already took it to administrators noticeboard, and they told me to take it to you guys. So...? -- Reaper X18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ryan Postlethwaite, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicOTalk
Not sure where to put this, so I'll pick on you; please feel free to copy this note to more appropriate places if there are some. Part of the uproaring is at Killian_documents_authenticity_issues (and its talk page.) As well, I'm going to be off-line until sometime late Monday evening, so my non-reply to anything left on my talk page, email, or elsewhere is merely that I haven't read it yet. Thanks, htom. htom05:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came across Wikipedia:Proposed adminship. I also came across User:Durin/test and realized the difficulty of trancluding categories, at least if you want the category members to show. :-P After many cups of coffee, several swear words directed at MediaWiki and a hunk of searching, I found a way to display the contents of a category. Here is the edit showing the functional implementation of the solution. It uses the CategoryTree extension of MediaWiki. Cheers! :O) Vassyana05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow thats great, thanks for your effort here (I hope you didn't get too stressed with it!). It seams that all it would need is for the CategoryTree extension to be placed where we transclude the page to, or would it work simply as an addition to the category? Any ideas? Ryan Postlethwaite10:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It was just a matter of coming across Durin's comment regarding the problem. At that point, my natural curiosity and stubbornness took over insisting that surely there was some way to transclude category contents. It wasn't stressful at all really. I quite enjoy digging up information when I've my mind set to find it. :) The CT extension would need to be placed where the category is transcluded. Be well! Vassyana08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be informed that I am the office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam an international spiritual movement founded by His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in 1980 in Pakistan and being an office bearer I am responsible to propagate and preach activities on Internet. His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is an internationally renowned spiritual personality with hundred thousands of followers in Pakistan and across the world. We have several online website to serve this purpose and I am officially authorized from His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.
I take full responsibility of the content placed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gohar_Shahi by me. Therefore, may I request you to kindly restore my article on His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi?
Look forward to your positive response.
I am surprised on such rude and biased behavior of English Wikipedia. Why such rude behavior with me? I uploaded an article on His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, a world renowned spiritual personality and I took the full responsibility of the contents in spite of that my article was deleted even I gave an explanation being a responsible person of representative of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi but no response at all!
What is this?
You claim to be world’s largest FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT ANY ONE CAN EDIT but on contrary to this slogan, your policies are totally adverse to your slogan?
I am an authorized representative of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and want to write an article, so that WIKIPEDIA should have at least a profile of world renowned spiritual personality who enlightened hundred thousands of Muslims and non-Muslims without any discrimination of cast, creed or sect.
I would highly appreciate, if you could kindly allow me to upload an article.
Look forward to an urgent response.
Regards,
--سگِ گوھرشاہی 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
While you're at it, maybe you could cool down his mate (or sock) at the suspiciously similar IP User:144.32.17.102. 2 computers next to each other in a school / college comes to mind for no apparent reason... --Dweller12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to tell you that I am retiring from Wikipedia, I have registered a new account and I am going to start fresh and edit under that name, not because of any actions on Wikipedia or users of Wikipedia but just to start fresh. I dont want to make a big deal out of it but thought I should tell you so you know. More info See you around! Tellyaddict16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You recently added a comment here regarding my opposition of the user's rfa. I thank you for alerting me of my mistake. I have removed my comments and am in the process of apologizing to several editors (for example, here). I never meant to hurt or bite anyone. I was just stating my opinion regarding the rfa. Again, I thank you and hope for your forgiveness. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spreadthe love!23:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spreadthe love! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I wasn't sure if the username report page was a go yet--that's why I refactored my report. But apparently it must be ... thanks. Blueboy9616:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not officially in use yet, but there's a few monitoring it so people will see it if names get reported there. It should be ready to report to properly in the next couple of days. Ryan Postlethwaite16:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you're still using the old {{test5}} template rather than, say, the newer {{uw-block1}} template. I think that we're were all asked to use the newer templates and just wondered if you missed the word or I misread the memo.
Hey Atlant, hmmmm I'm not too sure on this one myself, for warning templates I always uses the uw- templates, I used to use the {{uw-block1}} and {{uw-block3}} templates after blocking, but I really don't like then, the {{test5}} and {{test7}} templates are more in keeping with the warnings. I'll move back to the uw- warnings then as you are probably right, I do that a concern with the old style templates and that is they don't tell a user how to appeal a block ({{Unblock}}). Cheers for the advice. Ryan Postlethwaite15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eyup fella, was just coming here to see how the RFA prod was coming on, and saw the message above. Just out of interest if there anything particular you don't like about {{uw-block1}}, I take it you know we have various flavours of block to meet what ever the mood dictates as well as the standard three. Let me know if there's owt specific and I'll see what I/WP:UW can do. Cheers Khukri16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmm, you can't expect me to email back to yours without some thought! I just don't want to send a 1 liner - I've been thinking about what to right for long enough time, so it's time for your email tomorrow!! Ryan Postlethwaite19:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev removed my message to her for the fourth time already. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that Dev isn't interested in mediation anymore? Shouldn't we just try to implement Kyoko's proposal?--Ed¿Cómo estás?14:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpyMagician wasn't notified about the ANI report...or at least I don't see anything on his talk page letting him know about it. As such, I feel that the block was punitive and not preventative. Since he wasn't aware of the conversation, I don't think it is fair to block him for not abiding by the conversation. IrishGuytalk20:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on the ANI discussion, I have found this user's conduct exasperating, but was not necessarily ready to block, and would certainly support an unblock if he agrees to cut it out. Newyorkbrad20:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I understand (and agree with) most of his points but I don't agree with his methods of making his points. Constantly keeping this alive on various talk pages isn't helping his case. IrishGuytalk20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful about inadvertently giving out IP addresses while unblocking.
(hist) (status) 12:19, 7 May 2007 Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked 66.249.85.85 (contribs) (Autoblock of NewYork1956)
An alternative to that which gave out no personal information would have been "Autoblock of unblocked user". Happy admining! Cbrown1023talk20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what I found out today. Someone blocked my school's IP for six months a few days ago. The admin was some guy name Ryan Postlethwaite :). Yep, Wikipedia is smaller than I thought :) Well, I guess when I'm at school, it's nighttime where you are (I think England, right?). --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 23:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad! I hope the vandalism wasn't anything to do with you!? Does anyone else at your school know you've been blocked from editing? I hope your still able to edit from school. Ryan Postlethwaite23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan on logging on from school with my account. Don't want to give anyone ideas of what pages to vandalize at home :). I just went on it when I was supposed to be doing an English project :) --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, given that schools and colleges produce a great deal of vandalism, and startlingly little serious editing, but given also the fact of the plurality of involved editors, are you in favour in the case of repeated vandalism of increasing the length of subsequent blocks, or keeping to the same sort of length?--Anthony.bradbury11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, when it comes to school blocks, I look at the length of time between blocks, I just blocked a school IP for 24 hours that had been blocked 3 times previously, but the last block was for 24 hours in January, in my opinion it's best to keep then unblocked if there not causing any real problem. School blocks are designed for those which cause constant damage, for instance, vandalism re-occurs very soon after a return from a block, if this happens I'd go for 24 hours, then a week, then a month, then 6 months, I don't think there's a set rule, you have to judge each one as you come to it. Ryan Postlethwaite11:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no problem at all, I haven't had chance to email The Transhumanist yet, but I was planning to get round it this week, you've done it for me. Can you let me know what's said? Ryan Postlethwaite12:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've left it to him to get in touch with you, but maybe as a courtesy I should drop by his talk page and refer him here. I'll do that. --Dweller12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your comments and taking the time to consider my self-nominated RFC regarding my signature. I'm still trying to see if I can come up with something more cerebral and pallatable before I change my signature, but I do appreciate your input. Thanks, Fluck16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You always write "seam" instead of "seem". Personally, I don't mind since I find recurring errors of that kind somewhat cute, but I wanted to let you know just once... All the best, —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know I do, I can't get out of doing it! It's so annoying!! When I re-read what I've written it's sticks right out of the page. My spelling generally is crap - I'm a pharmacology student not an english student! Ryan Postlethwaite16:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, as I said I find it rather cute (hope you don't mind me saying so...), but never mentioning it to you is not an option for me (because I'm an inveterate know-it-all, and also because I think it's important to exchange things like that). Now your answer makes me feel guilty... It's not "annoying" at all (not to me)! I'm a German medical student, by the way. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ryan, i never got to see the contributions that user reachouttrust made and so i cannot tell what they were up to...........but i can tell you that user Bksimonb is a member of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and a leader of its IT team , its might just be a coincidence but the reachout trust publish exposing articles by ex-members critical of the Brahma Kumaris for being like a cult Green10821:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awww Ryan, you shouldn't have worried :) I know you're pretty busy (boy, you sure are one active admin!) so my message was a light hearted joke - still, I love to get mail, so, thank you! Needless to say, I'll be seeing you at your mailbox for a deeper reply, but regarding your userpage request: of course, it'll be my pleasure to make something for you. I currently have several requests, and with my daughter having a few health issues (don't worry, nothing serious, but still it requires my attention), I have little time to spend at wiki for a few days. So allow me a couple of days before showing the results of my meddling with your userpage, k, sweetie? Anyway, as I said, I'll continue this by mail ;) See you there! Love, Phaedriel - 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to your email already :):):) Take as long as you want with my userpage, it's really not that important at all, you make sure you daughters OK, that's the main thing. Anyway, must get back to revision *sigh* Ryan Postlethwaite17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although you'd closed WP:RFCN#Thaksin, I took the liberty of adding an informational link to Thaksin (disambiguation), not to add to the debate, just for anyone concerned or curious to find other "Thaksin"s. I hope that won't offend. If it's bothersome for any reason (such as being added after a close), please feel free to delete it... and please accept my apologies for your trouble. -- BenTALK/HIST21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks so much for the kind words. I've gratefully accepted. Here goes... Incidentally, as usual, I'll be unable to edit much over the weekend, so optional questions posted then may go unanswered for a couple of days. As they're optional, that shouldn't be a big deal, but I would like to respond promptly to any and all that get thrown at me. After all, I see the RfA as a great opportunity for receiving feedback. --Dweller10:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I cannot return to with my BCD name. I am going to bid a fond farewell to you. I did support your RFA and am going to miss you. I am very sorry for what happened (accounts do get compromised, I just don't know how to do it) and I hope you can try and resolve this for me. But if not, a goodbye with a heavy heart. BuickCenturyDriver. 04:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help with setting up a normal Wiki page for *K2 Network. I've put a brief page together in my userspace, which isn't complete just yet but if you want to take a look at it and give me any feedback you may have, it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandamere (talk • contribs)
We hadn't gotten the news articles in yet, you're more than welcome to add any you find particularly relevant or I can do so myself. I figured on putting a news section below the upcoming releases area.
On a somewhat related note, K2 is releasing a game by the title of Sword of the New World this summer. This game has been out since 2006 in other markets under the name Granado Espada. Currently on Wikpedia, Sword of the New World redirects to the GE entry. However, the version of the game that is being released in the North American market is significantly different from the Korean version, and much of the information in the GE entry will end up being incorrect. For example, the Granado Espada entry lists the maximum number of characters as 8 whereas Sword of the New World will have 32.
Could we work to create a seperate Sword of the New World entry that is more accurate to that game version?
Whoops, forgot to answer one of your questions. I'm afraid we don't have a forum up to discuss the page. Feel free to post anything to me on Wikipedia, or if you prefer, you can email me at xandamere@gmail.com.
My post to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Shaunybot was marked "for the record", which accurately expresses its purpose and intent. Since Viridae's closing remarks began with "Blocked, that could have been take to WP:UAA", it was clear that at least Viridae (and how many others?) had not been aware that the case had already gone through WP:UAA, had already resulted in a block, and had then been unblocked to allow open discussion on WP:RFCN.
In my opinion, these facts should have been stated when the case was re-opened (as they might have affected how it was handled then), but in any event they needed to be filed in the archive with the closed case, so they were on record, not simply in individual living memory. -- BenTALK/HIST06:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the original username block was (quite properly) done with "autoblock disabled" to allow the user to choose a new name, while the re-block was with "account creation blocked" to prevent creating another username -- something that is supposed to be reserved for blatant offenders (i.e. probable vandals) -- which reflects a severe misunderstanding of either the situation or the appropriate procedure. (Later remedied for this user, and perhaps the admin will be more careful in future.) I know the trend on the username boards has been to minimize instructions, but this is a case where ignorance hurts. I think both WP:UAA and WP:RFCN need to remind blocking admins to look at those checkboxes and choose appropriately, so this doesn't become a widespread pattern of overly hard blocks on non-vandalistic usernames. Agreed? -- BenTALK/HIST06:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned uploading screenshots and a company logo, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how to do so on Wikipedia...could I send them to, say, imageshack and provide you with the links?
Sorry about that. I had a flurry of three messages come in on top of each other, and when I'd srted them out I had lost my thread! And yes, it was late.--Anthony.bradbury20:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to appologise for anything, the number of times I forget to delete the talk page is unreal! Sorry if you think I was butting in, I've got a lot of talk pages watchlisted and I tend to answer a lot of peoples messages for them, people can't be online all the time, so it's sometimes easier if other users do the requests for them :-) Ryan Postlethwaite20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching the discussions. I think even though there is some vocal opposition, the idea (IMHO) is a good one, and you might be surprised by the support that would come out of the woodwork. I don't mind waiting if you want a guinea pig for it, but equally if you want to press ahead I'd be honoured. Khukri21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted, but another 5 mins to amke sure it read correct then I'll transclude it. Cheers again, and here we go. Khukri23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh you're welcome! I happened to stumble upon it on your userpage. I can't believe there wasn't already an article on it. And it's made me feel hungry! Will(aka Wimt)00:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Well it was originally in the Kendal article, but it's way too notable to not have it's own page. When I get back home, I'll research it better and improve the article - Might even pop into Romney's and see what they can tell me! Ryan Postlethwaite00:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, I thought I'd better tell you that I am User:Tellyaddict, I know you may think this a hoax but I thought I'd should tell you as I said at AN/I that I was previously known as Tellyaddict, I think the people deserve to know. If you dont believe me (which I'm sure you will believe me) I will log in as Tellyaddict and make an edit but if you did want to see you would have to unblock the account after I asked for it to be indefinitely blocked. Thank you and I hope to see you around. Happy editing! The Sunshine Man13:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I'm enjoying my new account, I now have just over 700 edits, I feel like a newbie (wait a minute - I am lol), again, thank you.The Sunshine Man17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How've you been? Hope the vandals aren't harassing you too much ;)
I was just wondering, these tags we have at the end of biopages, for example [[bn:রানী মুখোপাধ্যায়]][[bg:Рани Мукерджи]] etc. What are they called? I believe these language tags are used to provide accurate search results, but I don't really know?
The thing is, I've come across several pages where these tags refer to one language but actually have the person's spelling in another. In other words, they're wrong and in removing and/or correcting them, I end up ruffling feathers.
Is there any WP page which lists what the bn,bg,ru etc abbreviations actually stand for? I've come across english spellings being tacked into tags starting with hi,es,etc but I can't remove it since I have no way to prove its wrong :P
My dear Ryan, after battling with your userpage for several hours, I've finally decided it has defeated me! ;) Nah, don't lose your faith in me so easily! I've made something for you that I hope you'll like; you can find it here. If you feel it is worthy of your userpage, just copy the code straight into your own! ;) Or if you want me to retouch it a little further, just point me the way and I'll do my best. Btw, sweetie, I've got your mail, and I read it with great attention and pleasure. Lack of time seems to affect me everyday now, so I promise I will reply today after I get a little sleep. There's much I wish to tell you, so we'll continue this at your mailbox. I hope you're doing great, and (fingers crossed) that you like the little mess I've made for you! ;) Love, Phaedriel - 09:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
copy of what I posted on EA mediation page, move to close and indef protect Steve Block's corrected text
Now that Dev, Ed, and myself seem to have agreed upon Steve's text, as modified to list 2 and not 3 tranches, I move that the text be moved to the main Esperanza page, and more importantly, that it be indefinitely protected to avoid any future edit wars. I know that the idea of indefinitely protecting a page may be controversial. As an alternative, I'm willing to banned from any future editing of the Esperanza essay once the mutually agreed upon text is posted, if that is what it takes to conclude this dispute. I can't speak for Dev or Ed if they would be equally willing to walk away once the essay is posted.
I know that I said on Ed's talk page that the mediation can wait, while he has insisted on mine that it can't. Considering that this mediation would seem to have fulfilled its purpose, i.e. finding a mutually acceptable essay to describe Esperanza, I am convinced that we (Dev, Ed, and myself) would likely be unable to develop the essay any further without disagreement. Ed is determined to make further changes to the Steve Block text; Dev is determined to leave it as is, due to academic demands. Both editors are equally convinced that they are upholding what they see as community consensus. I see no possible compromise between these two positions, which is why I am now advocating posting the mutually agreeable text and protecting it indefinitely. --Kyoko20:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for letting me know, I have been watching (but as you were sorting it out, I thought it best to leave you to get on with it), if it's OK with everyone, I'll unprotect it tomorrow (if it's protected) and leave it 24 hours for you guys to hash it out, then protect it indef. Ryan Postlethwaite22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if leaving the page unprotected for 24 hours will be sufficient for all parties to resolve their differences. Both Dev and Ed have been less active than myself on Wikipedia, and Dev in particular has made it abundantly clear that she does not want to continue in this mediation, nor does she want to keep editing the essay, due to her A level exams. Ed on the other hand, says that "edits made to the essay are both urgent and time-sensitive". I don't foresee any mutually acceptable changes to Steve Block's text in the future, given both the relative inactivity of Dev and Ed, and the apparent dislike for one another that has developed over the past few months. Whether the page is left unprotected for 24 hours or 24 months, I'm not confident that Ed and Dev will agree on any changes beyond what Steve wrote. --Kyoko23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I've now unprotected the page, could you implement all of steve blocks proposal and let me know when you've done so I can re-protect it? Ryan Postlethwaite23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've just transferred the text as stated. Please review it before you protect it, to make sure that it is correct. I'm sorry about the delay, but I kept switching between different tabs to find the relevant links for the MfDs and the deletion review. I'm most concerned about the inclusion of the very first link, to the creation of Esperanza. I personally think it's OK to include, but I would appreciate another opinion. Thank you very much. --Kyoko00:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that, much quicker than I expected :-) The link looks fine to me, as does everything else. I've indef protected it, I will leave the mediation open for 24 hours to make sure no-one has any problems with it, then I will close it. Ryan Postlethwaite00:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your involvement in what has been a very drawn out and heated affair. I hope that the other parties are satisfied with the current Esperanza page, so that we can all move on. --Kyoko00:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your efforts to resolve this dispute. I think this debate has set some important precedents (e.g. explanatory essays are stupid, as are pressing for them even when it is obvious from the MfD talkpage such things will be bitterly disputed), and taught me some important lessons. I consider this entire matter concluded now, and so will go self-block for the remainder of my exams to remove temptation. Thank you again for your work, and the same to Kyoko if she is reading this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure on the manchester meetup, any idea's of how we could get more participants? I'm seriously considering spamming AN! Got a few idea's of what we can do, Chinese - then a bit night out, I think we all need it after exams! Ryan Postlethwaite00:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone could send an email to Wikimedia UK's mailing list (I could, since I'm on it), or just spam active editors in the area. Is this going to cater for all age ranges, or just the 18-25 range? – Steel00:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester meetup? Well I'm in London but could potentially make it up. Any chance of someone having a sofa or something I can sleep on? WjBscribe01:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's a good point, hmmmmm, where could we go..... If we go for a meal, we could always go to a pub somewhere for a few drinks, it doesn't really matter on ages then, if people want to go out after that, then that's cool. Could you email then mailing list? That would get a few users on board. Ryan Postlethwaite01:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that Alex Ramon warranted a block? He doesn't seem to have been given any warnings about spam links and stopped an hour and a half ago.... WjBscribe13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't look as far back as Feb. And he promised it "wouldn't happen again". Mmm, in that case a block is strict but not unreasonable. He really does need to read up on WP:ER. WjBscribe13:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey WJB and Ryan. FWIW, and hope you guys don't mind me sticking my nose in, I think it's a pretty fair block myself. He was just spitting out links of his own sites buried in amongst other sites after a previous warning and promising it wouldn't happen again. I think 24 hours is pretty fair and hopefully he'll take it as a warning shot across his bow and stop spamming in future. Cheers (and sorry for butting in), Sarah13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah cheers Sarah, that's exactly the reason why I blocked - it's all he's done since he's been here. I hope that he can add a few better links in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all Sarah, I started it by sticking my nose into Ryan's block. As I confessed, I hadn't found the warnings back in Feb. And I agree that a stronger approach is needed if we're to persuade him to actually read WP:ER this time. WjBscribe13:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kendal mint cake, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk17:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, I had created a page for the orphan charity SOS Children's Villages - USA. I'd noticed that you'd deleted the page because it uses content from their site. I had received permission to use the organizations content and had posted a discussion remark explaining the situation. Could you please review it again and let me know if there are still any issues? I really apprechiate your work with this. Thanks!
Yeah she's done brilliantly, have you seen the code though?! It's crazy! I'm just pleased I'm a pharmacology student not computer science! Ryan Postlethwaite18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page wasn't even supposed to be listed, I had no idea why it was there. I didn't even had a chance to explain the whole image thing; must have been a misccommunication somewhere. --Phoenix20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a dark and stormy night, okay no it was'nt, I have nothing to back it up.
It was a day much like this one, I had been on Wikipedia for about two years then, and I had just gotten back from my yearly Wikibreak (December 7[my B-Day] to January 1), I was voting on new Sysops, and out of the blue, he starts barking at me like he's my mom! <!-- or something --> he says I can't explain why I vote no! After a few weeks he starts to grow on me <!-- Ewww! --> and then he says That A Train has paired us up, and then we became Wikifriends, It was good until it took a turn for the worst!
Hi Ryan, just for a heads up I've moved your warning {{Uw-UAA}} -> {{uw-uaa}}, because we try to keep all warnings in lower case so as to minimise confusion, and I've posted them up in the correct places. Cheers muchly Khukri14:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was fun until Tellyaddict showed up and took over my training, he started getting too much into it, He started "showing me the ways of the Sysop" I started having fun on the word accociation game ant then Telly Drops me like a rock!, but the worst part Is still to come. . .
Thanks for reverting that. I have virtually no idea why Sethdoe92 decided to do vandalize my talk page. The only contact I've had with him was when I asked him not to leave nonsense edit summaries. Acalamari16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well explanation time, basically, before I was an admin, I had the Death By Gluten page speedied and lets say the band and their mates weren't too happy, hence the pic they took! To be fair, I didn't abide by WP:DENY, admins can take a look at the deleted DBG talk page - it's funny :-) Ryan Postlethwaite18:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That picture on your user page sure is swell! DBG is my favorite band in the world! Thanks for supporting their music, I made a fan page, and let me just tell you, I have made contact with thousands of fans from all parts of the globe. You're terrific! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.227.85 (talk • contribs)
Oh no! I think you misunderstood. I'm not a Ryan Postlethwaite fan so to speak...I searched DBG and was prompted to your website because of that amazing photo you have posted on your webpage. Sorry for the confusion! DBG is simply a stunning band, the best quality of music I've heard in my life, but Mr. Poslethwaite, you're pretty swell yourself being a fan of such a high quality of music! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.227.85 (talk • contribs)
I spend a whole day making a new userpage for you, kiddo - it's not like I don't dedicate you time! ;) Tell you what: if you promise to send me a pic of your in a sober state (like you said you would!) you'll get your mail ;) Seriously, I was planning to write you today - and I do honor my promises! love you Ryan - you sure made me laugh :) Phaedriel - 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with me sending you a sober pic of me is that you might fall in love ;-) Ha!!! you've made me feel bad now about my user page!! Time to look through my pics!!! Ryan Postlethwaite23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Be still my beating heart!!!!) Btw, is it me, or our Ryan kinda looks like Prince Harry in the first pic? ;) Phaedriel - 00:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phaedriel wanted some pics! I think you can tell by the look on her face that she enjoys being licked by me ;-) Although I'm sure her boyfriend would have something else to say! Ryan Postlethwaite01:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, this is all wrong. The RP I've become accustomed to is a drunk northerner with no lady friends. All this Adele business has shocked me to the core, not to mention the images where you appear to be ....semi-sober... GASP. I assume you have a helpline set up for Folks fooled into thinking that Ryan Postlethwaite was permanently wasted but, as it turns out, he's a regular kind-a-guy who licks girls (as required)....... That's it, I quit (for three days). The Rambling Man18:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pics are shocking! I've unprotected the esparanza page - please only add in the line you've suggested and let me know as soon as you've done it (i.e. in the next 10 minutes). Ryan Postlethwaite01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Feel free to make a grammatical change, now that I've added a new sentence. To me, it seems like I've disrupted the flow of the essay, but I can't pick out how. Tell me what you think.--Ed¿Cómo estás?01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, the additional sentence is OK in its current position, where it doesn't disrupt the flow of the paragraph. I'm not quite content with the wording "deletion debate result" because to me, it sounds rather clunky and needlessly alliterative, but it's not a big concern. I'm more interested in the rest of the encyclopedia.
P.S. Have you considered using the picture with Adele on your userpage, with the caption, "I am a Wikipedia administrator."? Maybe it's best not to, but I wanted to make you laugh. --Kyoko08:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, god! What are the 12-year-old editors going to say??? I'm 14, and we definitely do not have such experiences in high school. Then again, it would be something to laugh about whenever someone visits your userpage...--Ed¿Cómo estás?01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got your mail, Sire! I know you're pretty busy with the ArbCom case, so I don't wish to interrupt you - but hey, you've earned it! ;) Ttyl sweetie. - Phaedriel - 15:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well excited now :-) I haven't checked my mail today! I'll check it when I get home. I'll try not to take as long as last time to respond! :-P Ryan Postlethwaite16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Ryan. I do have a problem - you posted your request on the actual page and not the talk page. :) --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 23:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK no-one has ever "applied" - you just muck in. All help greatly appreciated - especially for picking up those involved in arbcomm type stuff. Secretlondon23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers guys, I just didn't want to infringe on anyones territory! (Sorry for posting on the main page (I was sure I was on the talk page)!) Ryan Postlethwaite23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For renames: There are a few shortcut templates though you can write your own message if you prefer:
Where the account request is left by a different user: {{CHU|notused|name of account that was used}}
Where username is already taken: {{CHU|taken|name of requested account}}
Where the username is taken but can be usurped (established users only): {{CHU|usurp|name of requested account}}
For usurpation: {{CUU}} which has the parameters: contribs=yes/no logs=yes/no email=yes/no notified=yes/no
Bureaucrats tag requests with {{done}} or {{notdone}}, allowing the Bot to put them in the right archive. And to answer a couple of questions that usually come up:
You can notify accounts of a usurpation request if the user forgets to do it themselves with {{subst:usurpation requested}}
If someone requests a usurpation of an account that isn't taken at WP:CHU/U, you can move it to WP:CHU (adding it with the right template for a simple rename) - no need to make them do it themselves.
Wow, I'm impressed - talk about efficiency! Thanks a lot for going to the trouble in showing me the templates - I've always wondered how the pages look so well run! As I said, I'm going to stand and watch for a few days so I understand everything that goes on, comment where I can - I just don't want to mess it all up. Thanks again for all your help, it's far more than I expected. Ryan Postlethwaite00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the congrats! I expect to enjoy interacting with the community again and pushing that there button. ;-) That is, after my adminning finger gets oiled up! Cheers, Cecropia04:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to my three original nominators for their kind faith in me. I've already started getting everything wrong, so feel free to point out my horrendous errors. RfA was far less gruesome than I expected, thanks to your lies fullsome praise of me. I am mopped. Vandals look out. Thank you. PS When did you guys meet up... and which one is you? --Dweller09:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]
In regards to this message here, basically you're saying that the name was created[29], but never in use? Usurpations is like I can still use an account that was never in use, correct? So all I have to do is write this on my talk page: {{subst:usurp|Sesshomaru|I'm anonymous}}? Does this mean I can keep all my contributions and not have the name "I'm anonymous" redirect? That article is a bit confusing for me to interpret, even more so is the term "usurpation". ~I'm anonymous23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I've done it where you told me to go. What do I have to do now? Create an e-mail address? ~I'm anonymous
That's fine. I can wait a week. Nothing to it. ;} ~I'm anonymous
It's up to you. Like it says on the top of my talk page, feel free to revert my admin action as long as it wasn't an overturning of yours. Mangojuicetalk23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. However, I have already created my account in January 2007 and I have already joined the community in 2006 as 68.111.92.229 (my IP address prior to an IP change that occurred in April 2007). 68.5.224.10701:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know Ryan, if the request meets all the things that a request usually has (can be usurped, has been notified, no e-mail), you can just use {{CUU}} with no parameters. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 14:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm quite flattered! I think Husond is already quite busy with Magnus, so I would like it if you coached me (if it's alright with you). *Cremepuff222*22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought that I'd let you know I'm done with the first task! I used to have a habit to check out AfD at least once a day, but I've grown out of that... I'll try to get back into AfD (as well as the other XfDs) more often. *Cremepuff222*23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what controversial circumstances you left over, admitidely there was the Qzx stuff, but you weren't abusing multiple accounts and many users wanted to nom you for that account. Are you interested in being an admin again? Ryan Postlethwaite23:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Qxz stuff happened after I left. Er, the first time. I started a new account precisely because I wanted to get away from adminship (which is why I refused all offers of nomination). Then I left again. This account seems to be controversial enough now that nobody would offer to nominate me anyway... at least, that's what I thought, until just now. I ran an unauthorised deletion bot last November, and made a lot of inappropriate blocks that were overturned, among other things. Oh, and I used IRC, so I must be an evil scheming bastard. Look, none of that matters, at the end of the day I've been contributing to this project for 19 months, I've made god knows how many edits, I was an administrator for six months and I do not wish to be one again. I am quite capable of contributing usefully without adminship, and I don't think you can argue I haven't done enough for the project. Adminship is not compulsory and I have nothing to gain from it. Is that really so difficult to understand? – Gurch23:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand all the reasons you've given above, you are certainly doing an excellent job just the way you are now, personally, I think you should be an admin - but I'm not going to attempt to force anything on you. Just keep plugging away as you have been because it's very much appreciated (oh - I agree that because you use IRC you are an evil scheming bastard!). Just remember, that whenever anyone gets pissed off at you - that you most certainly have contributed more than them! Ryan Postlethwaite23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. My reward for four hours' work fixing redirects seems to be accusations that I am running an unauthorised bot. Not really appreciation. But surely the flood of meaningless barnstars I get for dealing with vandalism counts, you say? No, it doesn't. Especially not when I'm blocked for 24 hours for doing so. Oh, and accused of running an unauthorised bot again – Gurch00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I remember you got blocked for being incicil when you were leaving, you also had been editing just about non stop for 24 hour periods without a break - it sounded like you were annoyed at the way wikipedia was working. Your vandalism work was amazing, I remember a couple of weeks ago you were reporting users to AIV every couple of minutes - in the end, I didn't need to check them out to know they should be blocked. What I'm saying is that you work is appreciated, some people will get annoyed with you - like in the thread above, they just don't realise the speed you work at. When you start getting questioned for making wrong descisions, that's when you need to worry. I envy your dedication to the project, I wish more people could be like you because in about a week, everything would be sorted, we'd have no backlogs and everything would run smoothly. You need to understand that people will get pissed off, they always do, but it's more jelousy than anything. You should be proud of the flood of barnstars you got - it's shows how much you are appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite00:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish people would stop repeating that "he left because he'd been editing for 24 hours" thing. I can't remember who said it, but apparently people like mindlessly propagating such things, and nobody cares to actually go check my contributions that day. Anyway, I wasn't referring to that block, I was referring to this one. Which was incorrect and swiftly reversed, but I still had to suffer the indignity of an autoblock and a line in the block log.
Anyway, you also seem to have forgotten I was an administrator long before Qxz ever existed. And had resigned before he existed, too. Please do not try to pin my refusal of adminship on anything that happened to Qxz because by the time I created it, I'd already made up my mind. After resigning adminship I left in a perfectly civil manner; I'd simply had enough. That was in January. Qxz's departure, on the other hand, was provoked. I didn't handle it well but the point is the two events are not related – Gurch00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per your statement on RFARB, that is exactly what I was trying to achieve with the third afd before it was so unceremoniously closed. I would be incredibly happy to get an afd for that article that ran full term and was closed by an uninvolved admin - it came to arbitration because certain members of the community point blank refused to let that happen. ViridaeTalk00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I don't get with this case, what was the problem with letting the AfD run it's full course? The same thing happened with the Brandt case and we all know what went on then. We need to sort this one out as a community in a few days time (per my statement) - the arbitration case has just turned into a bitch fight - if it gets accepted I'm not looking forward to seeing the workshop. Any suggestions of how we could get this sorted? I really don't know where to go from here to stop it going to arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the problem, I have no idea where to go from here. My only suggestion would be an arbcom mandated afd - but I don't know wether they would do that. An afd that is forced to be opened and more importantly remain open by the arbitration commitee could stop this issue coming to fully blown arbitration. You could then have it closed by a member of the committee, simply somone respected to determine consensus - not someone that that would force their own views. But as I said, I think it is unlikely this will occur, and I find it even more likely that in the current state, anything like an RFC would have any effect - possibly inflame things further. I simply want to see the community discuss this articles merits like adults without interference from people pushing an agenda. I would then like to see any discussion closed at an appropriate time (and in this situation an appropriate time is 5 days or more from when the afd is opened) by a totally impartial member of the community. Thats why I opened the third afd (consensus in the DRV clearly showed that people were unhappy with the previous afds) and thats why I was so pissed off that it was closed early, after running so smoothly. I can't understand why people seem to think IAR is greater than common sense. Previous incidents have shown that the more people try to force discussion to go away, when there is a large subset of the community that is unhappy with that, the more it will come back. Law of unintended consequences. ViridaeTalk01:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I'd like to commend you for your work in communicating with other users in tight spots- specifically Gurch and BuickCenturyDriver. You've done a fantastic job in attempting to work out the problems with the users while both assuming good faith and calling a spade a spade. Keep it up. Teketalk04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second that, actually, and add to the list User:Betacommand - although that didn't end up the way I think you hoped it would - you objected, strongly, to him losing his bit - you handled it well and admirably throughout. Many of us who supported your RFA have watched with pride. Philippe05:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you do have a caption of the week, consider "Ryan Postlethwaite: Wikipedia administrator catering to your worldly needs" :) --Ed¿Cómo estás?00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy you liked my suggestion. Here's another caption you might enjoy: "One of the lesser known duties of a Wikipedia administrator." --Kyoko12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, I notice that you have proposed a principle that CSN should only enforce a ban if it reaches consensus, and a finding that consensus was not reached. As you are probably aware, PR currently has an effective block, and is under threat of being instantly banned if edits outside the RfArb. This has already caused problems, when such an edit (which was in the spirit of the block), resulted in him being temporarily banned again (this has been remedied).
Who should we talk to to have his current "parole" lifted? Blocks are not meant to be punitive, and he is yet to see any evidence of any wrong-doing since his last block. The current block is affecting his ability to defend against any claims that might come up in the RfArb. MarkChovain09:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to this motion in the PR RfArb: I'm a little flaky on the process (I know, not good for an advocate ;)). Is it enough for you to pass the motion, or does PR need to wait for something else to happen before he can edit? MarkChovain13:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, Thanks for the nomination, the kind words, the support, and the final thanks for my RfA. Oh the nominator might have been drunk but the nominee was drunk in accepting. But in all seriousness, you've done alot of work in promoting the adminship is no big deal argument and hopefully one day in the near future RfA will be seen to be exactly that. I have my first nom looking to pass hopefully tomorrow, and have a few more in my sights, but I think you should have a serious look at Gracenotes and twist his arm a bit. Any way thanks again, and if you need owt you know where I am. Cheers Khukri16:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After Tellyaddict drops me like a stone, I thought it could'nt get any worse, it did, Ryan here, Blocked me!!!! out of it, I learned something, Never Trust An Admin Who Advertizes Their Drunkness!
No worries at all on the delay, and good luck on your exams. :) I've made some additions to the site including links to news articles. Just let me know when you have the time available to have a look, and we'll go from there. Thank you again for your help with all of this.
Hey Ryan, just inquiring about the status of the page editing we were speaking about on my talk page regarding the K2 Network entry. I'm not in any particular hurry, but I just wanted to make sure it hadn't slipped through the cracks. Hope all is well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandamere (talk • contribs)
Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !(Whisper...) has smiled at you! Smiles are good! and hopefully this one has made your day better. Why not smile at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend?
Happy editing!
I'd like to thank you formally for the support you gave me both before and during my RfA - It really helped to know at the start that you thought that I would make a good administrator. I'll try to live up to that expectation. Thank you. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 17:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your insinuation that I'm trying hard to get anyone punished here, but I really don't know how anyone can look at the evidence page and not believe Jayjg doesn't deserve at least a slap on the wrist. I believe that would serve the interests of justice in this matter, but that's something for the ArbCom to decide. -- Kendrick7talk17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the revert on my userpage. And while on wikibreak no less. Keep fighting the good fight, and best of luck with the finals. --TeaDrinker18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not operating as part of AMA. I've got a breif explanation of my advocacy on my User page. PR was on my watch-list since I was involved in resolving a minor dispute (not involving him) that had erupted on his page during one of his blocks - I saw the discussion, and decided to get involved. Apart from dealing with an advocate in the Abu Ali/Brilliance debate (one of the editors had an AMA assigned advocate), I've never had anything to do with the AMA. MarkChovain21:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the first half of your question, I see my role as advocate is to offer PR independent advice (offwiki), and generally assist him in presenting his arguments to the RfArb. MarkChovain21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't something I've had a chance to give much thought, so here's a brain-dump. I see it more as being a temporary "buddy" than being a lawyer. I suppose there are similarities to being a lawyer. The biggest differences I can think of are:
A lawyer is someone who knows the rules so well that they know how to bend them. I pointed out in my original email to PR offering to advocate for him that I really don't know the rules well. I'm really just trying to guide him through the process, and learn it as I go. I have no plan to bend the rules.
A lawyer is someone who is retained by a client to represent them, no matter what. (They represent people regardless of their innocence). While it's no secret that PR and I don't see eye to eye on politics, I wouldn't have offered to take on this role had I not thought he was being treated unfairly. If PR pisses me off during the RfArb, I'll be out of there. If he were to exploit my efforts (if he were to do something stupid now that the block is lifted), I'd be out of there.
I don't really represent him, either. I'll speak on his behalf if I know his thoughts on a matter and he can't comment for whatever reason (time zone differences, normally), but ultimately, his word is gospel over mine in the RfArb.
The similarities?
I'm try not to get personally involved in the debate (I admit I let the whole ongoing block thing get to me a bit though, and let off a bit of steam).
As a related note, if I see an editor make a good point against him, I'm not going to suddenly jump in and say, "Yeah, excellent point, lets ban him!" I'll take that point to him, and we'll discuss how that should affect his arguments. There's a certain expectation from PR that I'm on his side.
I'll let him know if he's done something that I think is going to work against him. I'm not sure that it's really a similarity with a lawyer, but I'll put it here anyway, because this is a brain dump :).
I am more experienced than him as an editor, and have been on the better side of the process throughout my time as an editor. I hope that he can gain from my experience and knowledge. I don't think PR would make a good advocate for this reason, just as lawyers tend not to be people with shady pasts.
It's as much a lawyer role as is your friend's when you meet up in a pub to discuss a great idea you've had, or discuss a problem you've had. The only difference is that he knew nothing of me, and I knew little of him when we started this arrangement.
PR could have tried to get through this with his wikifriends, but the problem with wikifriendships is that they become ingrained, and everyone knows it. For 90% of the editors in that discussion we already know which side they're going to support and it's so easy for me to dismiss your perfectly valid points because "you reverted my change on Thursday, and put something in its place that I disagree with" (hypothetically ;)). The same thing will still happen to me ("Your point sucks because you're sticking up for someone with a different POV to me"), but I'm just that little step removed. What is a real shame, is that some administrators, those who have been deemed by the community to be exemplary editors, and have been entrusted with the ability to indirectly influence content through careful application of the mop are doing it too. But I digress...
Unlike real life friends, Wikifriends feed off each other, and become little more than yes-people - they become an unbreakable ball of goo that careers to the nearest end of the false dichotomy that is wikipedia debate. As his advocate, I get to give PR a fresh viewpoint, and get to have mine tested. At the end of the day, we'll both go our separate ways, and we'll hopefully have changed equally.
I just had a revelation: A lawyer is a lawyer because that's what they do. AMA was full of lawyers. They practised wiki-law - that's what they did. Once this RfArb is over, I'll go back to editing. Now you've made me late for work ;). MarkChovain23:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep bugging you, but the same content is also here: Royal family of Canada with different capitalization of the article name. I would have put a speedy G4 tag on it, but the AFD debate was differently named so it may not be easy for another admin to find the debate. CIreland00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was maintaing another article to keep a record of the information somewhere. I certainly hope the cited content you've now completely deleted all record of can be recovered. --G2bambino00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the deletion log, Samuel Blanning had found last year that a merge had occurred, so we need at least some of the history back for GFDL purposes. Can you correct this? GRBerry01:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously know about the ANI discussion that you started. The issue has come back to DRV solely for discussion of the redirect. I opened it as a separate discussion, to keep it separate from opinions involving the need to restore the GFDL history. GRBerry17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Dropping the banhammer on newbies too quickly is bad enough (did you see Radiant's note about username blocks?), but blocking an established contributor unfairly is about the WORST thing an administrator can do, short of revealing deleted/privy information. Improper page deletions are easily undone and practically invisible; overzealous page protection is irritating to editors but temporary. But improper blocks have the real potential to drive off contributors (luckily/unluckily, jeff is too hard-headed to be driven off that easily) and is not easily fixed by saying "oops, sorry". I'm not saying he can't EVER be an administrator, but whether he actually made the choice on his own or allowed himself to be talked into it on IRC, it shows a stunning lack of judgment. -- nae'blis16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the username blocks was a little worrying, but I've got to say that the username policy isn't the most clear cut policy we've got. I agree that blocking Jeff was bad, really bad in fact - but I don't believe why we should be calling for his head so quickly. I don't get how this is so different from any other time an admin blocks someone completely out of process, they don't get shot for it, the get a slap on the wrist and that's it. I just can't agree that someone should be made to resign due to one poor descision that was probably backed up by others somewhere. Ryan Postlethwaite16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is a different story, it's part of the first draft for Mixed Nuts
"Mixed Nuts"
BLANK SCREEN
TY (VO)
I used to think that this was a normal life, but now I know better.
CUT TO INT. A TEENAGE BOY'S BED - MORNING
TY BRUSH is lying in his bed asleep, holding a PEICE OF COQUINA in his hand.
His mom, FRAN, comes in through the door.
FRAN
(sternly and loudly)
Get Up!
Ty rolls around in his bed.
TY
Okay, (whispering) not.
FRAN
I heard that buster!
MONTAGE INT. HOUSE
Ty gets up, takes a shower, dries off, takes allergy meds, gets dressed,
helps his brother put on his shoes, relaxes.
INT. HOUSE
Ty is relaxing when he hears a BEEP. he grabs his stuff, and gets on the bus.
Did User:24.136.230.38 ever say what his account was now? I agree with him being admin material, and would be swift to support him </random> Anyway, any idea on how to find out?--Whstchy20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comments on PalestineRemembered (talk·contribs)'s talk page were quite rude and insensitive: [30] Don't you think that it is normal for someone who was blocked for over a week for doing nothing blockable would be interested in getting an explanation for that? How exactly do his comments on the page of an arbcomm opened to deal with the false accusation against him constitute "trolling"? I think you owe him an apology. Tiamut23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't, he's just causing a stir now. By all means he can attempt to show on the workshop or evidence page that the block was unfair, whilst editing the encyclopedia, not just kick up a fuss. Ryan Postlethwaite23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am awarding this to you Ryan, because according to WP:PUA, this is the appropriate award to give to someone who is convincing enough to make an IP address sign up. As a member of the "Users who have made an IP address sign up" club, I welcome you to the club. :) Acalamari23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll continue here then! Length wise - well that's upto you - just get all your opinions into it, that's the most important thing - we can discuss it on the tak page when your done (I checked it a couple of days ago and it looked good!). Ryan Postlethwaite01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm template namspace - I'll have to have a think on that one! If you check my contribs - I've got very few template contribs - I've created a few for WP:RFCN, WP:UAA (which I created (showing off!)) and WP:CHU, but it's not a major consideration for RfA - some people are great at templates, most are crap (like me!). Have you got any areas you'd like to create templates for? Oh yeah - essay was going very very well - you got most of what I wanted to see inside an hour! Ryan Postlethwaite01:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? This essay is actually decent? Now I feel very special! I can't believe you created WP:RFCN and WP:UAA (I do believe you, though); they're very successful in my standards. As for the template stuff, I enjoy programming, which has led me to learn advanced parser functions on the Wiki. I don't mind what specific area I create the template for, as long as I get to stretch my brain a bit to accomplish some tasks. :) *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..."01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just created UAA, not RFCN. Well, I've been thinking of a few templates that need creating, so I'll get back to you tomorrow when I decide exactly what is required. You have a think of them over night, and we'll reconvene tomorrow (sorry - I'm almost asleep now!) Ryan Postlethwaite01:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you were online, so I decided to ask you this. Ryan, would it be possible to block Back to the Noble Ocean? I am 100% sure this is the same user who vandalized Natalie Erin's and mine user pages about our love. I sure it's them because of this edit, and the user's username: the vandal likes boating and water for some reason, and creates usernames to do with boating and water. I hate to assume bad faith like this, but I am sure that is the troll. Acalamari01:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're welcome! At the moment, you and I are the only editors I know who have convinced an IP to join, but I am sure there are more users out there who have done what you did the other day. Anyway Ryan, thanks for blocking that troll. I think I'd better keep an eye for Acalamari/Phaedriel-WikiCrush trolling/vandalism now. Acalamari02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is your adoptee Chemical Engineer from Thornbury speaking. For some reason I haven't been able to log in since I got a message about the strenght of my password. My password was weak as ....
I could create a new identity. Any ideas? Regards
The real Boswell, 58.107.202.7409:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ryan, I have taken your advice and am now Boswell2 with a new strong password and a registered email address. I have redone my user page and am still happy for you to adopt me. Can you also send me a link to the password cracker business. Good luck with your exams. The user formerly known as Boswell. Boswell211:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just snowball close an RfA I'm affraid - it has to run for the full 7 days just in case something happens (although I do agree in this case it seems clear!). Only a 'crat can close RfA's anyway so I'm poweress :-) Ryan Postlethwaite13:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, admins can snow close an RfA is it hasn't a chance of passing, but successfull RfA's have to run the full course I'm affraid - it's to give everyone a chance to give their view. Ryan Postlethwaite14:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ryan. Thank you very much for your kind support in my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you see me mess up, feel free to give me a dressing down =) Oh, and good luck with your exams. See you! PeaceNT04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First line, "An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article" - two reverions = repeated, hence an edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, I was just giving my 2 cents! I just get the impression over the past 2 days that you are determined to see Ramas arrow desysopped, and the only way to do that is on the arbitration pages - on AN, you were leading people to your evidence and therefore your personal view on the matter - that's why I see it as canvassing, and it's certainy not unbiased with your active role in the case. Ryan Postlethwaite17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away from my computer since I blocked Fckn pltgy and I've been thinking about the template I used, I must say I've never used UsernameBlocked-vandal, I always assumed that it was used for username blocks where the user has also vandalised which wasn't the case here - but after looking at the tempate, I can see that it's not just used for vandalism. Thanks for the info, I'll certainly use it in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the name is confusing and it probably needs at least some sort of protection if it has a high potential to be damaged. GDonato (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, thanks so much for aggressive support for me in the RFA. I am grateful for your response, and it really means a lot to be appreciated. Thanks again! hmwithtalk15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Actually Nichalp did this renaming not Secretlondon. It happened because the automatic move of pages following renames doesn't delete pages. So if there's already content (e.g. the redirect left by the rename of the target account) the pages aren't moved. Sometimes the crats sort it but if they don't its something that helpers (who are admins) can do. WjBscribe18:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. Are you possibly on the admin's channel? I got on once before but can't remember how to get back on!! Can you help? - Alison☺22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (embarrassed :) )[reply]
Might be an idea to give him a talkpage block; it's pretty clear he's only here to piss in our pool anyway. Which is mildly apt, given his name... HalfShadow19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this template to make it clearer and have made other changes but I think it should possibly also be renamed to make its use clearer, can you think of any good names? I was thinking Template:Usernameblocked-badfaith or Template:UsernameHardBlocked since it would be used with account creation disabled. If you do rename it can you update this for me too? Thanks a lot, GDonato (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating 2 double redirects in the process ;-) (honestly you should read the move sucess page!) Don't worry, I fixed them. Thanks for your help, GDonato (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if you came to that belief independently or just found Slim's repeated attacks on me persuasive, but you are entitled to believe I'm some horrid vengeful person if you would like. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly the attempted perma-block has nothing to do with admin abuse, and I don't know who you think is alleging that. I sympathize with PalestineRemembered because if some respected editor came up with some crazy half-truth to try and get me banned tomorrow, I'd want someone sympathizing with me. I'm sorry if you can't ever foresee yourself in similar straits. -- Kendrick7talk19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan,
Just wondering what the status is on the K2 Network page. I hope your exams went well. :)
Yes, this is the reincarnation of Uga Man but I come with a different message. I am sorry to you and to the entire wikipedia community because I now see that what I did was wrong. It was all just immaturity on my part and I have to learn from experiences like this to grow up. I have no plans to destroy wikipedia and I hope that no one else does. I wish everybody here good luck and I hope that the growth of wikipedia continues. Just remember that sockpuppets are people too, they have family, friends, and feelings just like the rest of you. We aren't criminals or thugs but just misguided individuals that want to stir up problems and cause confrontation. I apologize whole heartedly and just wish that I will get forgiveness even though I don't expect it.--209.244.187.18304:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan :) Noticed you were busy studying for exams (the WikiBreak template on your userpage) so I'm just stopping by to say good luck with them, I'm sure you'll do great and dont forget this place when on your break, (by the way incase you forgot its me: Tellyaddict but with my new account). Good luck!! --The SunshineMan10:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan; first of all, my apologies for overlooking your message about this user. I have recently been away for a short time, and I think that your note must have been submerged among others.
As to the actual subject matter of your comment, it is fair to say that this user, while only making a few edits, has shown no urge to edit sensibly. If you would like to go to his block log, you will in fact see that my block has been removed by another admin, and one of five years substituted. --Anthony.bradbury17:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, the problem is that IP addresses can switch to different people, you talk about one person not editing constructively, but we don't know it's just one person, it could switch to another user tomorrow and they find themselves blocked, we have to be very conservative with our IP blocks - 24 hours wherever possible unless it's in extreme circumstances. In reply to Zzuuzz's block increase - well that wasn't for vandalism, that was because it was an open proxy, and open proxies aren't allowed to edit on wikipedia - that's why it was increased, I'm not sure if you can tell which IP is an open proxy and which one isn't - I know for sure I can't. Ryan Postlethwaite17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, certainly I cannot tell who is an open proxy, but the fact remains that this IP address is blocked for five years. You say that IP users should be blocked only for very short times; but Ryan, if you watch, you see IP addresses being blocked very commonly, by experienced admins, for a week, a month, three months or occasionally six months. I have often picked up a report on WP:AIV, checked on the user, gone to block him/her for a short time and found that User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me or someone has put a long block on ahead of me. And they can always request unblock. So far, none of the users whom I have blocked have done so. And I do mean none. I will take notice of what you say; I am just pointing out that not everyone appears to take the same line. But I thank you for your comments, which I will continue to take notice of.--Anthony.bradbury20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester is a bent deprived place, let them come to Sunderland instead. Manchester is a town full of Man U glory hunters, which is so sad. Please reconsider everything for sunderland. 217.43.213.7220:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manu glory hunters maybe, but that's where it's happening I'm affraid, but feel free to organise your own sunderland meetup. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC
maybe but I would need another wikipedian to organise it, sunderland is free from gun crimes, and I will be sure to look through the Wikipedians in tyne and wear. and the wikipedians in county durham. Just so the city can get some credit. I got an email off Jimbo too. 217.43.213.7220:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You got an email off Jimbo? Interesting, what about? I can assure you Manchester is safe enough, but if you really want to organise one, I don't mind helping you - might help if you signed in though. Ryan Postlethwaite20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for the slow reply. Haven't been logged in for a while. Thanks for your note. As it happens, I'm more workmanlike than "civil". I think the latter is all too often a cloak for nastiness. Good intent counts for more with me than a silver tongue. Also, some can take rougher handling than others--I don't see anything much wrong with talking to people in the way they feel comfortable with. Having bystanders bitch about your tone is annoying, in itself quite uncivil. The IRC thing? People gossip on IRC; they point fingers and slag others off. There's a tendency when someone is on the outer in IRC for participants to feel it's okay to badmouth them. When someone I don't know makes some comment or other about me, it's often because they read something on IRC. Grace Note03:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thank you so much for paying attention to my edit summary. Why delete it off hand? it is noteable, I have already been discussing it with other admins as to how to make that clear, and you go ahead and WP:BOLD while at the same time not checking the facts. Thank you so much for your consideration and thinking. WookMuff21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem whatsoever, less of the sarcastic attitude though please. In case you didn't realise, I read the talk page of the artice, and in fact - I didn't delete it. If you get some sources for the article, I'll undelete it for you if you ask me nicely, but until then, it stays deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I be less sarcastic? and If you didn't delete it, how can you undelete it? and If I ask nicely? How about no? Why should I ask nicely? I asked nicely if people would please not delete the article for a second time without first giving me a chance to get my references in order. Look how well that worked out. You don't appreciate my sarcasm, well I don't appreciate your belittling "ask nicely". I shouldn't have to ask someone nicely to revert an unnecessary deletion when I clearly stated that I just needed a little time and indeed, if you looked at MY talk page you would have seen I was already discussing this with an Admin. WookMuff01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there's no admins on your talk page that your discussing with - you must be mistaken into thinking that they are. If I delete an artice, I can undelete it as well - it comes with the job, it's not lost forever. But unfortunately, since you've persisted to be rude, you've given up that ability to ask me to undelete the page for you. It was certainly not an unnecessary deletion, it meets out speedy deletion criteria of not showing any notability and it doesn't have any reliable sources in. Ryan Postlethwaite01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How have I persisted in being rude? By not dropping to my knees and begging your forgiveness? Sorry, I didn't realise that wikipedia demanded obeisance from its contributers to the almighty admins. And excuse me, I thought the person who previously deleted me was an admin, so there you go. Also, Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines, aren't you supposed to check for sources yourself before summarily deleting? C|Net's News.com.com is a real site, and I believe that they count for notability. I will apologize for my sarcasm, but if you can say with a straight face you weren't being rude then I will be surprised. WookMuff02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I really am an admin (check my logs). I have some concerns about your comments about WfI deletion. It is for you to decide whether this article is notable, but your criteria should not include whether you have been asked nicely. Nor should you decide on the basis of whether the request is rude or not, it's the article that is the subject of assessment, not the editor. In my view, making decisions based on personal issues rather than content undermines your own position. jimfbleak05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about my sarcasm and that, I just was very annoyed to wake up to having to defend the article for a second time, especially without much sleep. Bygones. WookMuff09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've all been there - and your user page picture is a fine example to us all - mine is an insect, how sad is that? jimfbleak09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you blocked this user for 24 hours over his AfDs in response to the Shawn Hornbeck/Ben Ownby deletions. It may be nothing, but he reminds of a now indef banned user I dealt with on those articles (and several others). Tommypowell(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) engaged in an edit war against consensus over his desire to keep unnecessary personal information into articles of living minors who were victims of sex crimes. The majority of his edits prior to finding the Hornbeck/Ownby articles were to a porn star named Brent Corrigan who apparently appeared in some films before he was 18. He was blocked on February 7, though he stuck around and made some more comments on his now deleted talk page if memory serves. On February 11, John celona(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) started editing, and by May 1, he managed to find Brent Corrigan's article as well. You've seen his behavior in regards to the Hornbeck/Ownby deletions, and it is reminiscent of Tommypowell's tantrums in regards to the removal of birthdays. I could have an overactive imagination, but I can't help but think this is Tommypowell's reincarnation. I don't know if there's anything to be done at this point, as I'm pretty sure too much time has passed for a checkuser to be run. Still the pattern is odd, and I'm not sure how many editors are interested in both minor sex crime victims and underaged porn stars... actually, I don't want to know how many editors are into the two.
Anyway, I'm throwing this out there. Investigate if you think it warrants it, though I'm pretty sure this is the same guy. AniMate01:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edits I have made have been in the 100% interest of NPOV, the only person reverting them is a rabid "anti-fascist" troll who gives crooked sources and uses left wing rhetoric to describe the BNP. For example the term "radical right wing populism" was invented by the left to slur modern popular nationalist parties, and he insists that the BNP are fascist when the internal structure is decided democratically and their stated policy is to actually increase virtues of democracy when in power. His reasoning for his argument is "Nazi's pretended to be democratic too" which goes far enough to allow us to render his viewpoint as obsolete and hateful, along with giving a few sources written by left wingers 8 years ago 9who may have based their research on as little as a hunch). I support the BNP, but I'm not zealous enough to deny that they are politically far right and have a shady past. They deserve criticism somewhere in the article (or in another article dedicated to it) to reflect the heated modern opinions on them, but the relentless adding of a paragraph for any sort of 'scandal' involving the BNP or involving an idiot who associates himself with the BNP highlighted by Searchlight or UAF will end up with an article 10 times as long in a few years. Most of the article also just repeats itself. I am going to hopefully make large, sincere and healthy changes for the article, but I can't with people just reverting them to show their opinion on how bad/who the BNP are. Mineralwaterisgreat20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments referring to me are not acceptable. The user (who I suspect was banned yesterday for vandalism as User:86.146.242.233) has taken up where User:86.146.242.233 left off. He has only edited articles relating to the BNP and related articles on extreme right wing politics, and no others other than posting inappropriate comments on users' talk pages. His comments above about about me being a rabid anti-fascits troll who gives crooked sources are a good indication of where his sympathies lie. In fact, I have added 'fascist' to the info box for the BNP, providing three independent and reliable sources. His response is that he is not going to but no "god dam book", so his opinions of the refernces I have provided are hardly rational. I notice I am also called an idiot - hardly wikipedian diplomacy! None of his edits are substantiated, and indeed, are contrary to a broad consensus that has been painfully and occasionally heatedly reached over the last few months. This person wants the BNP article to be entirely favourable to the BNP, is not prepared to accept the need for citation (there is none), is reverting withour cause and generally vandalising the articll, for which, if it is the same person, he was banned yesterday. This person needs to be banned. Emeraude21:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking a checkuser is in order for that IP that commented on Hwmith's (I know I spelt that wrong) AfD. What do you think? Whsitchy01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caught ya fixing that nom :-) Does everything look okay to you on it? We're thinking of going live sometime today - Alison☺01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, just wondering if you could answer this question?
How do admins find out if an IP address is an open proxy?
I've been looking at some blocked IP's which are proven to be open proxies via Category:Open proxies blocked on Wikipedia and I've looked at the DNS ad WHOIS information and also looked at some IP's which aren't open proxies on WHOIS etc and I cant see any difference in the information, I've looked everywhere and I cant seem to find out how admins know they are, do you know and could you tell me please. Cheers --The SunshineMan14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all admins know when an IP is an open proxy and hen one isn't - unfortunatey I don't have a clue! But it's something I'm going to take a look at this week, so if I find out, I'll let you know! Ryan Postlethwaite20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
As you go for that exam, I pray that success would be your second name.
You worked so hard for it, so you deserve the greatest... And that's what you'll get!
Best of luck, dear Ryan!
Love,
Hi, question: Seems like multiple SPA have been created to flood the discussion (with "Keep") for this AfD. I have no opionion whatsoever on the notablility of the article, but I added my observations as to the SPAs and I think the original nominator added the appropriate template (I think it's the "afdanons" template). Beyond doing that, is such activity considered to be so bad as to require admin intervention, or should I just leave it as is? Lipsticked Pig18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, it's looking fairly messy to be honest with you. I've contacted the nominator of the AfD to ask what he thinks about closing it s no consensus possible and re-running the AfD with semi-protection on so new users and IP's won't be able to comment on it. I'll keep you posted. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, now I'd ask you to consider closing that AfD as consensus Keep, as leaving it open would only serve editors who wish to insult Naconkantari's judgement and motives. It's plain nasty. Lipsticked Pig05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm really opposed to the current wording of Template:Trivia is that it goes way beyond the guideline at WP:TRIVIA. The template mandates integration of the content into the main article or removal; the guideline says that trivia-section content would be better integrated into the main article, but (rightly) doesn't mandate removal of content merely because it's in a trivia section.
So, I think this goes way beyond a content issue, because the template mandates editor behavior, in a very improper way, namely that there's no policy or guideline mandating this behavior; it is a few editors who hate trivia sections, trying to chase them off Wikipedia. And the mass spamming of many thousands of articles with this tag is just defacing articles for no reason.
My analogy in the other thread was: If an editor with a bot spammed thousands of articles with a framed, colored template saying that Wikipedia bio articles should only be about dead people, then someone would take action to stop this, yes? I'm a little floored by the RFA statements that this is just a content issue. The template does not read like advice or like a pretty template to make the Dog articles more organized. It's trying to mandate editor behavior.
Hi, Ryan. I just wanted to let you know that I'm leaving Wikipedia and, therefore, retiring from the EA debate. It's been a pleasure working with you, and I'd like to apologize for any rudeness I displayed towards you. You have no idea what's been going through my head.--Ed¿Cómo estás?17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have. Which is why I left him a message in my edit summary. But even in his valedictory address there are snide comments I would rather not keep on my talkpage. DevAlt17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Chris for giving it the once over. He's just been cruising RFCN looking to get into a fight. I know some people have strong opinions of the username policy - but I doubt very much if this guy has even read it and when he couples the trolling with personal attacks.... Ryan Postlethwaite18:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did well with the block. I don't see any reason to unblock, but anyway, we'll see what is said on the administrators' noticeboard. Acalamari18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
And being the extremely controversial admin that I am! The thought of going through RfA again gives me the jitters though :) Riana⁂12:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, thanks for speedy deleting my RfA, I'm not trying to sound nasty/uncivil to the nominator but I have a really bad feeling that that account is a sockpuppet of User:Molag Bal, you may want to have a look at The ANI thread I posted and see what you think (I'm trying to AGF but it seems possible). Kindest Regards --The SunshineMan14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grin - I reverted your reversion of your deletion as the previous deletion from the 29th of May did make sense - G1 was wrong this time, as the story seems real but Wikipedia does not seem the place for it. If anybody thinks otherwise I will defer to their jugdgement Agathoclea15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan; thank you. I am well aware that many admins and above, and even many editors who are not admins, are a loy more skilled in the ramifications of the project than I am. But extinguishing vandals is what I always wanted to do.--Anthony.bradbury23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're a community Tony, and no ones better than anyone else. You certainly are dedicated to the project, and I am still honoured to have nominated you. Ryan Postlethwaite23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon(Talk)06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC) By the way, is the type of "administrator work" noted on your userpage required of *all* administrators? I wasn't aware of it before, but I'm sure I'll somehow find the strenth to plow through. ;)[reply]
I think it is not fair that the "human penis size" article is only editable by administrators.
why not make it semi protection so that only people with 4+ days old accounts can edit it as this would stop vandalism effectively and give people a chance to contribute to wikipedia.
Many thanks for your concern 86.20.6.103, Human penis size is actually only semi protected at the moment, so anyone with a registered account over 4 days old can edit it, so might I suggest you create an account and wait 4 days? The article has has a lot of vandalism to it, that's why it's protected. Ryan Postlethwaite18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But 4 days is too long to wait - it's imperative that I be able to immediately include comments about my friends' and acquaintances' penis sizes in the article!!! RJASE1Talk19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now watch as a line of guys come over here to say they're offended by that remark and will continue to edit as they see fit. Friday(talk)19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link you reverted to does not have anything in it which sources the capacity. That's why I reverted myself when I reverted it in the first place. Corvus cornix23:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I was going to admonish the editor for removing a sourced assertion, but the source is wrong. Should we just leave it there because it's being edit warred over, even if it's wrong? Corvus cornix23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source that says the capacity is 4,000 - not 2,300 but I can't think for the life of me where it is, from what I remember it was on the BBC website, I'll take a look at it tomorrow because I'm in bed! Ryan Postlethwaite23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you're just going to have to revert and report them. We only protect pages if there's multiple vandalisms occuring each day (normally at least 10), these articles really aren't getting hit that bad at all, sorry. Ryan Postlethwaite01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? Why is there protection then ... Can you tell me where else I can report? They been noted at the incident board ... report there again? ... What can I do? J. D. Redding01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so we only use protection in very serious cases - this case, as yet doesn't warrent protection. If the IP socks do some and cause real problems, then re-request protection. In the mean time, you can report the socks to WP:AIV and quote that they are sock IP's. Ryan Postlethwaite01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. I been editing WP since 2003 ... but thanks for the info on the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" ... BUT when a confirmed sockpuppet is editing the pages, don't you think some protection is necessary? Or did you even look before denying it?
Well we try and keep pages unprotected so anyone can edit them, if there's a known sockpuppet, we block them, and only protect if they're causing severe disruption. If they do hit, report them to AIV and they'll be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't need protection, there's not enough activity, if the sock IP's start causing major disruption then the articles get protected, but it's no where near major disruption at the minute. Look, if you really aren't happy about this, you can start a thread on WP:AN/I, that's all I can suggest. Ryan Postlethwaite01:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been posted there before ... geezz ... so ignoring a block for 3RR vios and continue editing as a anon sock is no big deal in your opinion ... ok ... how you become an admin? J. D. Redding01:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well post on AN/I again and say your not happy about me decision. To become an admin, you ned to gain the communities trust, wrack up edits in artice space, wikipedia space and user talk space, then get subject to a week long community discussion as to whether or not you can be trusted (WP:RFA). Ryan Postlethwaite01:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you never answered ... ignoring a block for 3RR vios and continue editing as a anon sock is no big deal in your opinion? J. D. Redding01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a big deal, but that doesn't mean they're causing enough disruption to warrent protection on a load of articles - it's not how we do things, we block the socks, not protect the articles. Ryan Postlethwaite01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a big deal ... but instead of avoiding disruptions with a protection on a specific set of articles, not a "load of articles" ... as the various Dynamic IP addresses seems the Modus operandi of the person that was blocked ... let him ignore the rules and do what he likes ...
This was an attempt to avoid causing disruption ... and allow users to edit articles that probably DUN (and get his IP addy) for articles "that anyone can edit" ... but they won't as those IPs will be blocked! Ha ... too funny ... this is a run around ... J. D. Redding02:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So no more discussion? Should you not be able to discuss why there should be protection on a specific set of articles for avoiding disruptions and have people obey the policies and guidelines ...
i've explained when we protect articles, then there's massive disruption on a specific article - THIS HASN'T HAPPENED ON THE ARTICLE THAT YOU REQUESTED PROTECTION FOR, I don't need to discuss it futher - I've been clear with my reasoning. Ryan Postlethwaite02:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So protection is not a tool to avoid massive disruption? Rather have massive disruption than to prevent it, IYNSHO ... ok ... sounds good. J. D. Redding03:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on (eg., last note) ... but ... F##k ###, RJASE1, this is a problem (eg., seeing protection as not a tool to avoid massive disruption ...). Agree with him, but calling people "dicks" isn't helpful (nor WP:CIVIL). Sincerely, J. D. Redding
Hi Ryan, were you serious when you said on my talk page about not co-nominating Wimt for adminship? I'm positive you were joking but just checking. Regards --The SunshineMan09:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appeared to delete Glen Eyre Halls earlier today. I do not recall seeing any discussion about this.
Reasons seem tenuous at best, you claim it to be "an article about a company that doesn't assert significance". Firstly, it is not a company, rather a geographical site. It seems strange that you should have made this error. The article has been around a while with no complaints, clearly marked as a stub and appropriately categorised, with a moderate amount of useful information.
Please reinstate this article and, if you feel it should be deleted, please go through a proper RFD so we can debate its merits.
(edit conflict) There was absolutely no ascertation of notability in the article, it's now been restored and redirected to University of Southampton (I was about to AfD it, but someone got in firt with the redirect which seems like a far better option), take what you want from the article history and merge it in with the UoS page. Ryan Postlethwaite17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see it was rather worse than I remember it to be! I may one day write the history/restructuring I've been planning on so many Southampton articles, but for now the redirect will do. Cheers AlanFord17:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi will, was hoping yo catch you on IRC a bit later, I'm not on my computer at the minute, so havn't got it installed, I'll be back at 11 if you could be on then. Ryan Postlethwaite20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping by to say "thank you" for supporting me in my recent my RfA. I passed the vote, and am now an admin. It will take me some getting used to with the new tools, but I thank you again for the trust. Have a good one, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk1705:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That you are a sockpuppet. Or at the very least your opinions should be discounted becaouse you are so very new. "New" users don't vote on an RfA on their 4th edit. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should look at the controversy that surrounded that vote and why I did that with my fourth edit. I don't appreciate going through here and see this attack page against me. Especially empathsizing a comment that I crossed out.--William Henry Harrison17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pretty bad thing to accuse an admin of don't you think? Anyway, users don't normally discover RfA until at least a few weeks. You're clearly not new... and you haven't been attacked. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
William Henry Harrison has been blocked. He had a few self-admitted socks also (one the made a Holocaust denial statement on a talk page). And WJB, now it's everyone except hmwith and R :) --RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Love the hidden comment Seth, but please don't abuse edit summaries, I don't want to have to hit that block button again. (yes I saw the hidden comment) Ryan Postlethwaite23:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be an off-wikipedia relationship between the two, though I do not know what it is. Burntsauce first came to prominence due to his other bad habit: completely blanking artists citing WP:A (which isn't even policy). He continues to do this to this day despite many many many debated on the topic however the more interesting part is the way these articles tend to go:
Burntsauce reduces a 4-11k article into an 880 byte stub
gets reverted for vandalism by either IPs or other users
{optional) a sockpuppet of banned user JB196, who revels in the fact Burntsauce tends to blank out professional wrestler related articles as he wants to do anything in his power to corrupt wikipedia especially wrestling related articles, will appear and post on both Burntsauce and Alkivar's talk page saying Burntsauce's edit was reverted. (Personally this is my absolute largest gripe with the situation as doing anything that gets JB196 satisfaction knowingly should be ignored based off principles.)
Alkivar will appear, fully protect the article and state nobody can edit the article for a month until sources appear.
These are all in the last month alone. Whether Burntsauce's edits are valid is irrelevent to me, there is a definite connection between the two and considering that on some of the pages it went one revert of Burntsauce to full protection with a condescending protection post by Alkivar along the lines of "nobody can edit the article anymore, you can only use the talk page from now on" just makes the whole situation infuriating.
Add to that the Alkivar logs on to log off Burntsauce's block and you have the makings of a personal relationship. –– Lid(Talk)15:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please restore this remedy which contains comments by me and others? The remedy itself may have been "revoked" by the proposer after all the negative feedback he received, but the discussion itself should be visible and on the record for the ArbCom members to observe. In a court room, you cannot make an allegation and then "revoke" it, and have it erased from the court records. These are like court records, they shouldn't be simply erased from the ArbCom records. --Mardavich18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, did you send that mail you said you would on the Meetup page? It would be handy for people to have at least one mobile number so that those who come late won't be left stranded... Cormaggiois learning09:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I just realised that my WP-mail wasn't properly set up - I could swear that it had been in the past - anyway, if everyone else is mailed, all's well and good... Cormaggiois learning09:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking about RJASE1 being a puppeteer. He's had a history with TortureIsWrong, too. Makes me wonder about the other crazy names that showed up in one of the contentious discussions at RFCN [32] a couple of months back that I thought were TIW. Flyguy649talkcontribs15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know, it should be noted that RJASE1 wasn't TortureIsWrong, he was TortureIsBad and created that account after TiW was blocked indef. Ryan Postlethwaite15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I didn't think RJASE1 was TiW. And RJASE1 has spent a lot of time on username patrol AFAICS. I do wish I had put in an CU-IP check request on those other usernames at the time (April 1 or so). Definitely too late now, I should think. Flyguy649talkcontribs15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find a CU now to do it for me, but might be an idea setting one up, butI haven't got time to do it. There's someone that's just vandalised my page which I susppect is RJASE1. Ryan Postlethwaite15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TortureIsdoubleplusungood? Great. User:Jpgordon did Wikihermit's CU (above) 90 min ago or so. If you'd like, I'll put one together for RJASE, with the two recent TortureIs... accts. Any bets on an underlying sockfarm? Flyguy649talkcontribs15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I also left a message with Wizardman (who nominated him the first time). The next step is getting Mecu to accept. ;) --BigDT01:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elbridge has a point; you're sig is kinda long. Your last comment took up 229 characters, only five of which came from your comment itself with the other 224 coming from your sig. Just cut down on the colours a bit, that's all we're askin'. // DecaimientoPoético00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, but it's not happening. We're writing an encyclopedia, not here to create a battleground for us all to fight on - it's a signature, not a personal attack, spree of vandalism - if your really that bothered - refactor it when you see it, but please, not on my talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite00:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ryan, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page.
Hi Ryan, I was just wondering; are you having problems with VandalProof as I can see from your contribs you use it, I made about 120 reverts yesterday and then I kept getting these script errors coming up so I tried re-installing it and I was still getting them, its hard to remove from your computer because it doesn't appear in add or remove programmes and I was just wondering if you had any problems with it or knew how to fix it as the VP bug page is moving, thanks in advance. The SunshineMan08:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TSM, I do occasionally have problems with VP, are you using the updated version of it? That solved the problem for me, it may be a bug in the program, but I'm not sure. Try restarting your computer - that works for me! Ryan Postlethwaite20:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved (Don't Fear) The Reaper to (Don't) Fear The Reaper and A User called Seattle Skier thankfully corrects my honest mistake, but says that for uknown reasons, I was deliberately vandalizing it (I just thought someone had messed up with the parenthesis, I gave her an AGF Warning on her talk page. —Remember, the Edit will be with you, always.(Sethdoe92)(drop me a line)20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, this is exactly the kind of thing that pissed off KP Botany in the first place. I don't think KP is entirely in the right and could have handled the situation better but things like one editor blanking another editor's talk page are starting to make me think KP has a point. I would suggest letting KP and the other editor work it out, with the help of a third party admin if necessary, and stay out of it. Otherwise you're just pouring fuel on the fire. MrDarwin17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, but using ones talk page as a platform to make personal attacks and then having it protected is totally unacceptable, hence why I blanked it. I would urge KP Botany to drop the matter, and I will do the minute the talk page is unprotected. She's obviously very upset by this matter, but prolonging it is only causing her more distress - that still does not give her the right to make personal attacks. Ryan Postlethwaite17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good close if you ask me, you didn't close the page then tag it for speedy deletion (which would have been the wrong thing to do). It looks like Wafulz simply overlooked closing down the debate. There's nothing wrong with what you've done - Well done! Ryan Postlethwaite18:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, Chrislk02 also came to my talk page saying that was fine. I just remembered from a few months ago when people didn't like me declining unblocks (I haven't declined any unblocks for months), and I didn't want a repeat of an incident like that. Acalamari18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stay off of my talk page and my user page--I am tired of you and your gang of friends ganging up and attacking me. KP Botany23:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but please drop it, I'm not ganging up on you, I really don't have any opinion on your dispute with Chrislk02, but please refrain from making personal attacks in your userspace. Ryan Postlethwaite23:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Wpktsfs, would like to give you this Upholder of The Wiki award because I see you everywhere and you are always "upholding" the "wiki" and what it stands for. --wpktsfs(talk)03:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite honest when I said that I was willing to trust you with handling the Flameviper situation. Even though you, myself, and several others were willing to give him another chance, it turns out that he was obviously unreformed, and will most likely never fully understand Wikipedia's policies.
You, however, have shown commendable dedication to WP:AGF, both in your personal belief at his redemption and your well-reasoned arguing for the aforementioned (and ill-fated) "final chance" that convinced several otherwise skeptical admins, myself included.
The description for this award states it may be awarded to "an editor who has shown extraordinary patience in the face of toil or turmoil". The lacking here was all on Flameviper's part, not yours; as a result, I'm proud to present you with this award. EVula// talk // ☯ //04:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! :) I've taken the liberty of moving all your awards to a subpage for easier management of your many well-deserved awards in the future. Hope this helps :) btw, isn't email time yet...? :( Love! Phaedriel - 10:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Tokyo subway train for you! Tokyo subway trains somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get your opinion on something? Dandywho322 appears to have made a series of one sentence stubs about Hardy Boys books. They seem like the kind of single sentence blurb that might be taken straight from the book jacket and therefore a copyvio. Would you mind taking a look at them? Thanks. IrishGuytalk14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, this is a tough one, I've googled them all and can't find any online copyright infringements, but if it's the blub, then it wouldn't be online. I think the best way to deal with this is to delete them all under A1 - no context (I've already don't this for 2 of them). Ryan Postlethwaite15:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to double check that SirFozzie as an admin thing ;) It looks like my Request for Admin has closed successfully at (58/8/2). I consider it my duty to try to live up to the trust that you and others have shown in me. SirFozzie17:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attempt at reverting vandalism on my talk page, although it missed the target a bit :-D I like your userpage pic, btw!! hee hee --BorgQueen20:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I haven't had chance recently with exams and what not to add to the article, I'll get right onto it over the next few days, thanks a lot for your help. Ryan Postlethwaite21:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you a friend request on Facebook. I'm allowed to "stalk", right? That's what happens when you use your full name, I suppose. Don't judge me. hmwith talk23:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ryan. I have a quick question. I can't get the pictures (Image:53logo.jpg and Image:0608072126b.jpg) to show up in the infobox for Fifth Third Field (Toledo). Can you get them to work? I can't figure out the problem. Thanks in advance! hmwith talk14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. User doesn't show actual need for the IRC tools. Two weeks of chatting is too little time, tho I may support in the future. Besides, I don't want to share Ryan with anybody. Phaedriel - 18:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wikipedia has it's set of chat channels based on IRC (internet relay chat) where many users discuss the goings on of wikipedia in these chat rooms. Actually, a lot of decisions are discussed here before actions are taken on wiki (in my opinion, everything should be discussed in the open environment of wikipedia itself, but it doesn't always happen like that). Anyone is free to join the channels (although the admin channel is for admins only, likewise a couple of other groups have their own channel), but the main one for en.wiki is Wikipedia-en. When I chat, I use the nickname Ryanpostlethwait but my IP address is also visable, an IRC cloak basically covers up my IP address so makes chatting more private (in a similar way that on wiki, although our IP's that we edit from are stored by the servers, no-one can see them unless they are a checkuser), hope that explains things! Ryan Postlethwaite18:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<grin> Ryan, you're definitely "marrying up" with that one. Phaedriel is wayyyy too good for you. Phaedriel, don't do it... don't forget he's a lecherous little tyke - check the photo on his user page for proof! /me enjoys stirring the pot a little. - Philippe | Talk22:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for blocking Klyptzm! He was Vandlizeing my page like crazy and I was geting tired of him THANKS AGAIN!!! Your a good help!--Manny Ribera07:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 99% sure I've spotted another JBSockpuppet who's hidden under the radar for 10 days with a lot of edits.. any chance I could forward you some evidence and see what you think? SirFozzie22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser's no good, already been done. all that it's linked to is an account that made one db-bio edit (a JB speciality, and who would speedy delete an article with their first and so far only edit?), and no sign of proxyhood. SirFozzie23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, leave it with me, I'm absolutely shattered tonight so I'm not concentrating. Tomorrow after work, I'll go though both users contribs with a toothcomb and see if I can spot similarities (I just don't want to block on a hunch). Ryan Postlethwaite23:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have this problem with this user his names Klyptzm he got me real angry! He Vandlized my page for the 3rd time and removed your block warning he has been causeing problems with me and other users! Please if you can and may please block him for a week or so so he can calm down and learn form his mistakes please! Well it is up to you how and when and how long he gets blocked but i'm asking PLEASE HELP! I really need your help at this moment--Manny Ribera16:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I don't trust your judgement, but this user has been doing the same exact thing to the same exact pages since I first got pulled in to deal with it a few months ago, and several times came off a block only to do it all over again. And this was after a lengthy full page protection on the articles in question.
Well... you see my point. It's not that I don't trust your judgement, it's that you had no way of knowing just how persistent of a vandal (because that's what it is after as much edit warring as he's done) this fellow is. Adam Cuerdentalk18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, I'd seen it on his talk page. I'm not aware of the full history of the user and it's hard to get a full picture flicking through the contribs. I saw the block log when blocking and I was erring on the side of caution because I've never interacted with the fellow, but I trust your judgement that a month block is required here, let's just hope when he returns he can work a bit more constructively and take concerns on board better (although that seems unlikely to be honest....) Ryan Postlethwaite18:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid you're probably right. Ah, well. Just didn't want to go behind your back with the change, as I do rather respect your judgement. Adam Cuerdentalk18:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...for standing up in ANI and in that userpage for my widely-accredited, globally-recognized, famous, glorious, exquisite and immaculate image! ;-) NikoSilver13:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for deleting my nomination. I had already asked Húsönd to delete the page, but I guess you beat him to the punch :-). Happy editing! Yours sincerely, Eddie19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riana⁂ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Haha! I'm trying my hardest to sleep already :-( I hope you'll be getting resysopped soon (and best of luck with the exams if your still doing them!) Ryan Postlethwaite00:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just got resysopped today - found it really hard to do the things I do without sysop tools :) The exams are still ongoing but the physics-y stuff is outta the way, so I'm relaxing a bit more! As for sleep... er... count these! :) Riana⁂00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, it's just a joke. Ryan's not going to actually hand that out... though I for one would laugh if you did :) Riana⁂03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used it once, just to try it out! But now, it's going to kept for humerous purposes only - I might bring it out if there's a really naughty troll that needs to be pissed off, but until then, it can stay in it's box! Don't worry - it's not going to be my standard block message! Ryan Postlethwaite03:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how is saying the verifiable truth inflammatory? What does it has to do with "civilty parole"? Are people on civilty parole less allowed to say the verifiable truth? Secondly: What does it have to do with warnings? I can warn you not to block me, and if you do it again, I can block you? Ahh, no I cannot, because you belong to the first-class wikipedians that have superior rights while I am only a secondly class wikipedian, without those special rights. Tobias Conradi(Talk)11:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias, you edited a fellow users talk page in an attempt to defame them - that's incivil. Just get on with editing some articles, your campaigning against your arbitration case isn't doing you any favours. You need to let it drop now, it's not going to be overturned. Ryan Postlethwaite17:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does it feel to have people think that you blocked a respected (cough cough) editor? Oh and BTW don't give Manny all the credit he/she had nothing to do with it. 202.156.66.11010:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked Manny as you have been inactive for quite some time. Although understandably it looks like 69.. added the fake block, but it was 202.. and 69 re-instated it in an understandable revert/editconflict. 69 is Manny, while 202 is on the opposite side of the planet. Agathoclea10:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No no you got it all wrong! I added that Blocked thing on Klyptzm because it was on his page and he deleted it, So I thought Klyptzm was really blocked by Ryan so I added his block thing back on after he deleted it because I thought he was trying to avode critics from users or somthing. But to tell you the truth I really wished Klyptzm was really blocked. Hes a jerk somtimes but sometimes he can be nice....Sometimes but not at all always rare...But he always makes fun of peoples Edits, deletes his warning tampletes and vandlizes people pages it seems hes paranoid because of Butterrum last year...--Manny Ribera11:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I expected that the deletion/merge/whatever would be endorsed, giving that endorsing it had broader support and given the changing spirit of BLP policies, I was extremely disappointed by the closing summary. It basically dismisses all the opposition as "comments from the parties wishing to overturn the AfD result that still attempt to show that Daniel Brandt is notable". This ignored the many comments pointing out that there was no consensus for a merge, that the merge made no sense as because it was redirecting a person's name to one of his projects, etc. --Itub12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but that's the impression that I got from reading through the debate. If you have read the summary fully, you will also notice that I pointed out that overturning parties also failed to show how there was no consensus, and failed to respect that this was a middleground merge that attempted to keep both sides happy. Ryan Postlethwaite19:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz]16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, R.K.Z again. Listen, we got a major edit war in the Family Guy "Meet The Quagmires article, an editor is maitaining a vice grip on how the article should be displayed. He is constantly removing the "Cultural Referecnes", yet does'nt seem to bother doing the same with the other FG episodes that list the same things. He's also putting other editors down citing "procedures" and "examples". Lock the article so neither an editor, vet or new, can touch it until we sort out this problem.
Update: Well, as far as I can tell, our troll of an editor is being blasted pretty much by almost everybody incolved in the article, and a reader has expressed he cannot learn anything from the reverts this editor made. What was his response? "If you don't like it, leave Wikipedia"
Yes, he told a concerned reader who could'nt find any information that HE COULD TAKE A FLYING LEAP, how professional is THAT?
I suggest you tell him to back off and leave the FG articles alone. All of them, and even temp or perma-ban him if he keeps reverting the "Cultural References". He's clearly unprofessional
James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey Ryan, I have been cleaning out the backlog at ER, and I came across this, and I'm not sure how to respond... would you take a look please? Thank you, cheers! --wpktsfs02:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who on earth is Matthew Fenton? I see to recall a User:Matthew reverting a alteration I tried to make with the main actor template and was quite rude about it but I am certianly not fighting with anyone -I'd forgotten about it? Who is he and why on earth would anyone ever think of blocking me? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs23:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. He actually tried to warn Tony Sidaway to stay out of a fight because the other person has some admin friends. That's something like warning a colonel of marines that his opponent is in a street gang... :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I am trying to edit again! Some things have come up in the real world that make it difficult, but I'll still be on every now and then. I recently wrote an article that talks about page protection. Anyway just wanted to give you an update. --TrumpetbandWhat is happening to Wikipedia?23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) Both Wimt and I reverted an edit on your user page. Anyway, you've reverted my user page several times and I need to pay you back. :) Acalamari00:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that I have seen your username before. I do not appreciate your past personal attacks against me [34], and question if you are engaging me in good faith on the RFA page having now re-read your remarks in hindsight. Italiavivi00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually forgot about that, it is nothing to do with me questioning your oppose. That was all in the past, let bygones be bygones. although I never personally attacked you as you seem to think. Ryan Postlethwaite00:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To deny the attack of comments like "the above user is just one of those who have their own agenda on wikipedia and are not willing to listen to complaints or critisism" or stating refusal to work with other established editors in good faith (because I am not new?) is pretty impressive. I have a hard time "letting bygones be bygones" when you amend your c'est la vie without any sincere form of apology. Italiavivi00:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the only incivil character here is you. Upon further reflection, it seems that it was not a misunderstanding, the problem here is you and your inability to act with a community spirit. Ryan Postlethwaite01:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What rank hypocrisy. "Community spirit" says someone who made such personal attacks, impugns character, and openly states an unwillingness to work with other long-standing editors. I am sorry to see a sysop so clearly abandon WP:AGF. Italiavivi02:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I work with all users, I love doing it, unless they are here to get into battles with other editors, unfortunately, you fall into this category. Ryan Postlethwaite08:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You refuse to work with others without having ever even spoken with them. As far as "why am I here," am I to understand that you are a mind-reader or in possession of a crystal ball? I doubt I am, and suspect you are simply attacking those who have opposed your wiki-friends' actions in the past. Italiavivi13:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm, please, calm. He's at 46 supports to 1 oppose, that's a landslide. There is absolutely no reason for suspecting he won't pass.... except that there have been cases where overly violent nitpicking of each and every oppose by the nominee or supporters have actually led more people to oppose (because it became clear that there were issues with combativeness, or 'clique'ishness, etc.). You said that it was a newbie mistake once, that's enough, it convinced most people, it doesn't have to convince everyone. Don't be "shocked", don't panic. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. --AnonEMouse(squeak)00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not shocked (so I won't panic!) - I'm just angry. I can't believe some people take into account contribs of a candidate that are from when he was a month old when commenting. It saddens me because it shows that people don't look for reasons to support a candidate, they look for reasons to oppose. I'm not doing to get this RfA to pass, I'm doing it because the rationales of some people really get to me, especially in this case. I said this in an RfA the other day, we're a community trying to work together - we should start acting like one. Ryan Postlethwaite01:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, it's a high profile page, a lot of users will look at the page and then edit it. We are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so we try our hardest to keep our high profile pages unprotected. We have to expect some vandalism to water due to the vast number of hits it gets. Simply put, unless there is a serious vandalism problem with the article, it's best not to protect it - in this particular case, 6 hits a day does not constitue a serious problem. Ryan Postlethwaite07:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, you may also be interested in this thread. One user proposed "real names only", to which I replied along the lines of a possible "forced commitment scheme", or maybe a key-list or clearnames vs. usernames (stored on a secure Wikia-server, e.g.). I freely admit that I have no clue as to potential legal consequences for the foundation, but it sounds like a good way to cut down on cruft-producers and kooks. It could also stop COI violations of any kind. —AldeBaer (c) 18:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun.
Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends!
My sweet dear Ryan, thank you so much for your kind and warms words, which mean the world to me. I've had a draft of an email to you at my mailbox for days and days... and I can't see the moment to finish it! :) I promise it's a matter of hours, not days... cross my heart! Love you, Phaedriel - 05:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sorry too, I opposed but that was certainly without prejudice. Give it a few more months, get clued up on policy (I'd suggest hanging out around a few AfD's), then I am positive you will make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite12:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. I obviously missed a bit of policy on the substitution thing, and my lack of main space contribs was causing issues for others. Never mind, no big deal and all that! I much appreciate all the feedback. Pedro | Chat 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Cremepuff222* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I Don't Know how to say it, but Seth's Very Sick. He sounded like he needed to go to the hospital on the phone! I Hope he gets better. Bananaman113723:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is Not True, My Name is Ty Brush. and I'm his best friend.
Ryan; I just nominated this user for RfA. Now please do not take this the wrong way; given that he had one no consensus RfA three months ago, and one aborted one a few days ago which he declined because he already knew that I wanted to nominate him, I labelled my nomination Wikipedia:Requests for admin/Acalamari 3. Why was I wrong?--Anthony.bradbury"talk"00:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I would at least semi-protect. There will be an increase in vandalism when he becomes Prime Minister in a few hours. Tom10:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that today this will be a very high profile page, in a similar way to the featured article, it is often best to let non-autoconfirmed users edit it - maybe revert, block, ignore? I'll have a quick think about it. Ryan Postlethwaite10:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, semi for a couple/few days- BLP issues etc. may arise and I'm also concerned about the possible nuber of vandalisms. GDonato (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ryan. You gave evidence in Charlotte's ArbCom case, quoting Charlotte's statement that a checkuser had blocked all her IPs, but you didn't give a link. I believe this is the link you are looking for. I haven't added it, because I don't want to tamper with your evidence. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)17:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, It still amazes me that otherwise "anonymous" editors take the time to place !votes and comments on RfAs. Whilst I would have normally thanked you at the time of you leaving your message, the importance of my not appearing to be canvassing prevented me from so doing. Now that everything has progressed successfully I can finally thank you. I intend to uphold a style of good adminship and will welcome your further comments at any time in the future, even if they are in the form of admonishment. I will be happy to help as an admin wherever and whenever I can --VStalk22:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, beat you to the punch with WarthogDemon on the UAA page information! What what!!! Naw, I'm just teasing man...hope all's well, and I think you said you were graduating soon; so I hope that went well, and see you around man! Jmlk1701:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe - you're just too quick! Degree went crap - but I can still do the Masters I wanted to do so I don't really care! It's just going to mean I'll have to cut back on wiki next year :-S. Thanks for the note. Ryan Postlethwaite01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, I don't have much experience with discussion re: templates. I've come across {{AIV}} a couple of times. It's an example of rubbing salt in the wounds of users that are about to get blocked (to paraphrase you from Pedro's recent RfA). The user who created it is on vacation until June 30, so I haven't discussed it with him. I imagine there are editors who like using this template and find it useful. Perhaps a TfD? Thanks in advance, Flyguy649talkcontribs03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did try everything......Added {{Userlinks|example}} to try and kick start it. God damn it, why didn't that work? I guess I better go back to bot school!! Ryan Postlethwaite21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But first learn how to spell indefinite and this "someone" business simply will not do- you're a rubbish bot, you're fired. We want the old one back! ;-) GDonato (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First you were a regular flesh-and-blood editor, now you're a bot... are you Wikipedia's first cyborg editor? EVula// talk // ☯ //21:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't, because users should recognise that I have an ability to act as both human editor and a bot - many users see me as the perfect wikipedian :-) :-) Ryan Postlethwaite21:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, although wikipedia isn't censored, I think we'd get banned for the only request that I'd have!! I like the iron tongue idea - I'm sure Adele will like it even more! Ryan Postlethwaite23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Postlethwaite has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ryan's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Ryan!
Dear Ryan, I'm so glad you liked your little gift; but I disagree with you, you totally deserve it! ;) At last I found the time to write you a long email, like I wanted for weeks, so I'll continue at your mailbox. Enjoy your day, sweetie! :) Love, Phaedriel - 10:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen The Sunshine Man's answers, I actually think it's pretty unequivocal that he had no idea what he was talking about. Wouldn't it be far better for a user who wants to be an admin to learn policy on their own through example and reading things like XfDs, policies, and guidelines instead of guessing, getting a yes/no, and then getting a correct answer they can then regurgitate on an RFA so they can "prove" they know what it means to be an admin? You may see it as a tool; I see it a crutch and an excuse not to become more conversant with policy on one's own. MSJapan12:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will see a link to my admin coachee page here - User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Admin_coaching/Cremepuff222/Tasks, what I do is let him create his own thoughts and idea's, but guide him to important area's that he should know as an administrator. He writes a different essay each week, on a core issue such as WP:N or WP:BLP - I don't tell him what to write, I just tell him the area to do the essay on. Wouldn't you agree that this may help a user look at depth into key area's of wikipedia without me holding his hand? You go back to TSM having no idea what he is talking about, I disagree, he knows how this place works - he has just been a little misguided in a few area's - that's where an admin coach can help pick up on mistakes ealier than a full blown RfA would, it simply prepares users for adminship better. Some users can pick it up themselves, others need guidance, but with that guidance, they can still make excellent admins in the long run. Ryan Postlethwaite12:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did go over the page you linked to quite carefully, and as a considered response, I would say I'm still mixed on the value of coaching, and here's why (bearing in mind I'm using "coachee" in general terms, but based on what I've seen thus far for TSM and Cremepuff): for the AfD listings, when there were ten votes before the coachee's vote, I honestly was unable to tell whether or not it was original reasoning or parroting of earlier votes. Original reasoning was clearer when the coachee's vote was second or third, so clearly there could be some improvement to the AfD coaching process to guarantee actual thought about policies, leading to a better indication of understanding. I mean, if 10 people say OR, and then I say OR, a third party only has my word to decide whether I thought of that on my own, or just followed the crowd.
I see a similar problem with the policy essays - you're saying "write about this policy", and the majority of the essays are simply a summary of that policy. I don't know about you, but I certainly haven't memorized WP:N, so is the coachee simply synthesizing and summarizing, especially when there are applicability missteps or omissions in the "original thought"-type sections, or does the coachee really understand the policy? I think a better way to go about this is to really put some infrastructure into this, and have some testbed AfDs to see what coachees do with a practical application of policy without a cushion of other voters.
My concern is that it does not seem possible at the moment, using this particular process, to ascertain whether the coachee is retaining (which is the ideal goal) or regurgitating (which is what it seems like from the limited examples). Obviously, we want admins who know (or can find) policies, and can apply them properly, not just admins who know the answers to the general questions that may come up on an RfA. I suppose the principle of coaching is sound, but I think the fundamental questions that I see show that there's still room for improvement in practice. MSJapan14:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a case of incivility which I hope you can help out with. I've never reported incivility before, so I'm not sure of the process. But here is the diff.
User warned for incivility. You can give a warning yourself, but it's often better to let a neutral party take a look - I looked, didn't like so I warned. Ryan Postlethwaite19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you created the category for this report so I guess you are looking into it? I'm not one of the regular editors of Copt, but I put it on my watchlist a couple of weeks ago when there was some trouble that got reported on WP:AN/I. Looked like pretty obvious sockpuppetry to me to I figured it would be better for me to report it as an uninvolved observer. These things get so messy when one of the regular editors reports it. Do you think I need to request a checkuser? IPSOS (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to request a CheckUser just yet - it seems obvious at the minute that the accounts are the same - so we can just keep on blocking. If it gets any more serious, let me know, because we could try and request an IP check to block the underlying IP's. I'm not actually involved in the case - I just blocked one of the users and saw the suspected sock puppet tag being added later. Ryan Postlethwaite21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, but there's not much we can really do about it - he struck out his original comments about an editor but not yours, it's not adding any extra incivility - just simply not removing his original comments about you. I think the best thing to do would just remain civil yourself - he's been warned - and if there's any further comments, he will be blocked (but I hope there will be nothing further). Ryan Postlethwaite00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should spend less of your time being an online Nazi and do some work. Some of us actually have to support your less-than-keen attitude to work. We actually pay for it. So stop dicking around on wikipedia and do your college work. 91.84.51.9100:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, "someone" removed it. I stick by my comment that if I'm paying tax money for your education, you need to do some more time studying. Love S 91.84.51.9100:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so mate, cause it looks like you spend a lot of time looking at Wikipedia. If you think it's ever going to take the place of a proper Encyclopaedia you're much mistaken, and our money is best spent elsewhere. It's nothing personal by the way, I just think you're a bit of a Floridan sycophant who should be spending their time elsewhere. Love S 91.84.51.9100:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and if you want to know why I called you a Nazi, it's cause you removed my comment on a Discussion page. I don't edit or vandalise proper pages, I just try to stimulate discussion. And when I see it removed, I just think of fascists. Love Steve 91.84.51.9100:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PPS hope your house is still dry :)
I spend my free time editing this amazing encyclopedia :-) The reason why I removed your comment was because the talk page of an article is for discussing the article - not for discussing the man and his merits - that's what a forum is for. Thanks for the concern about my house, it's dryish, but I've had my window open so my rooms all wet :-S Ah well, I guess I'll survive. Ryan Postlethwaite00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm not a fascist, I'm pretty much down to earth - if you create an account and get to know me, you'll probably see I'm a bit of a laugh (See the rest of this talk page). Ryan Postlethwaite00:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. Thank you for your unwavering support and willingness to tie your reputation so closely to my actions by nominating me admin. My RfA passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance.
Ryan, I'm sorry. I indefblocked User:Trumpetband as a proven sock of User:Bfissa. For a hint of why, check and compare their latest userpages (esp. Bfissa's deleted one). Basically identical. However, it was checkuser proven. I'm sorry, as I know Trumpetband was adopted by you :( By the way, they were my impostor from last week, too, and there was another one in waiting, also blocked. Not the nicest thing to deal with before going on break - Alison☺08:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ty (Bananaman1137) told me you were harassing himAccusing him of being me, but that's not possible because I'm Me And He's Him and he's not me and I'm not him unless you got drunk again ant then you'd be juhfghfhjfhgf and stuff.
Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula// talk // ☯ //04:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ryan, thanks for the strong support in my RfA. The final tally was 104/1/1. I hope I can still rely on help from you if and when I need it. Acalamari21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support on my RFA. It failed this time, but I'll be working on suggestions from those who voted and will give it another try a few months down the road. Hiberniantears14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point you towards my clarification on Magnus' user page. I've always been a fan of yours; I intended no hard feelings by that comment, which I probably should have reworded. Jouster (whisper) 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly no hard feelings at my end - I just wanted to make sure that you knew I wasn't trying to have a bitch at you - I can see both points of view to be honest, and I hope you come to some agreement (I won't be participating in further discussion as I don't have a clue about coding!!). All the best, Ryan Postlethwaite17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I should have blocked that user immediately then. I thought the vandalism looked familiar; replacing your picture with Osama and then a fat person. Acalamari18:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was just obvious to me he wasn't around to do any good, I'm fairly sure he is a sock. The best advice I can give in your situation is just give them the standard warnings and block after that. It's good you're not doing anything that could be seen as controversial already. Ryan Postlethwaite18:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't performed any blocks yet; I've only done a load of deletions, lowering CSD and CAT:TEMP; as well as deleting the user/talk pages of the troll that bugged me (the pages were listed in CAT:TEMP, and had been there for a while). I did a test semi-protection on one of my sub-pages, but I haven't mastered protection timers yet; I'm not totally sure what to do with setting timers. Acalamari18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for expiry time, you simply type how long the protection is going to last. E.g. 24 hours, 1 day, 1 week, or 1 month - just type it! I tend to protect pages for a couple of days in a first instance and protect for longer after that. If you leave the expiry time blank, if protects it infinitely. The same goes for length of blocks, but I generally use the drop down menu that allows a block length particular block length from a list to be selected. Ryan Postlethwaite18:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if I need to protect a page for a 3 hours, I just type in "3 hours"? I didn't think you were supposed to do that, that's why I wasn't sure. Acalamari18:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To change it do "Ryan Postlethwaite on Wheels"? :) Okay then. I think I'll do the same with mine. Thanks for the teaching. Acalamari00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took too long to leave the message. I think he closed it while I was editing just the question section... Either way, it was open when I went into it. I was called away from my desk, and had to wait to hit the save page button. Mildy embarassing... thanks for the revert, as I did not want to appear to be piling on the poor guy. Hiberniantears18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, that's what I was concerned about - RfA's can be tough on users, and it's best to drop it the minute one fails - I can see it was just a mistake though. Ryan Postlethwaite18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Ned, would you mind if we saw how the discussion goes that you just started? I think it would be better to get a full input before we revert. Ryan Postlethwaite23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would have, especially given the fact that this idea already was discussed and rejected. In fairness, I assume that Ryan didn't realize that. —David Levy23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise that at all - let's discuss it now though and gain a consensus on what we do next. The old test warnings seem redundant. uw-test does a more professional job. Ryan Postlethwaite23:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us strongly disagree with that opinion (and feel that the new templates look far less professional). Given the fact that these aren't used in articles, there really isn't any harm in having more than one set; vandal warnings needn't be uniform in appearance. —David Levy23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know it didn't - I agree the article makes no ascertation of notability, but they are notable enough for inclusion. I may add it in later if I get time. Ryan Postlethwaite17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow(Talk)(Contribs)(Bot)04:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed. I still plan to continue to edit however. Hope to see you around. Kwsn(Ni!)15:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. In follow-up of the discussion here, there should be a short-course training school for new admins on how to use the new tools. Are you interested in setting one up? -- Jreferee(Talk)17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Copying response from my talk page) That would be good; unless one already exists and I've never heard about it. It would help new administrators get more familar with the tools. Acalamari17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, that would be a very very good idea - I know how hard it is when you first start up. It may be good to include length of blocks and protections in the school, along with things such as what to delete when speedy deleting pages, how to close AfD's including all the different templates. Would you suggest a page that new admins can look on with all the relevant information in 3 sections:Deletions, blocks and protections - maybe a help desk on top of that for new admins to seek advice? Ryan Postlethwaite17:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of written material for admin. For the school Ryan, I would suggest setting it up to cover whatever you found missing and wish existed when you first became an admin. However, I was thinking more of a tech school, one were dummy pages to protect and deleted were set up to practice on, a dummy user to block, etc. For example, Exercise #1 - Protect test user page #1 for 5 days. Exercise #2 - unprotect test user page #1 before the 5 days are up. Exercise #3 - Block User:dummy #1. Example #7 - Closed Dummy AfD #1. Once the basic skills are mastered, you could create scenarios. Example. Exercise #27. User:dummy #24 has been doing xxx. Block User:dummy #1 the appropriate length of time. There might be problems with reports for such actions, but there may be a way to address that as well. Perhaps the exercises could be copied to a sub page of the new admin, the new admin runs through it, and an experienced admin reviews the results and gives critique. -- Jreferee(Talk)00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea. Something I found very interesting was this set of questions on my editor review. If somebody could set up a similar set of common admin decisions as multiple-choice questions that show the "correct" or recommended actions after you have answered them, this might be very helpful to test and expand our knowledge of policies. Tim Vickers03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're fine - a bot will come and do that for you over the next few days. When you block someone, always remember to tell them on their talk page they have been blocked - that's the only thing you have to do. Ryan Postlethwaite23:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Okay, thanks; I thought there was a template that administrators had to put on the page. I didn't know a bot did it. Thank you. Acalamari23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm not so sure this IS his real name. Search for it on the internet, and you find a Nigerian fraudster baiter using this name in one of their correspondences with the scamster [38]. Mr. Kuntz is apparently the managing director of Eros Erotic Supplies Ltd. Also, think about it logically - why did he include his middle initial, which turns a relatively benign name into a potentially rude one? If you were called "Richard Head", and suffered years of abuse for it at school, would you go around calling yourself Dick? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lobby of editors are trying to provoke me for a edit war.
Thank you, Ryan, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Húsönd23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obrigado, Ryan, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões.
Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say, I was speechless after seeing your comments on my RfB. Thank you so much Ryan. Best regards, Húsönd23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went though User blocks at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/New admin school/Blocking. That was great! My first block. I'm looking forward to the rest of the school. Here's a suggestion. I'm at DRV and want to see the text of an article that's been deleted, but don't want to restore it. How can I see the deleted text? (See my post Here -- Jreferee(Talk)22:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! --But|seriously|folks08:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about his name, it took me ages to get it right whilst writing the nom - well, as long as the people commenting can recognise it, he'll be fine! Ryan Postlethwaite22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have not laughed so well for days. For the record. Philippe = Boy. OK, when I get drunk I'm not exactly the most masculine thing around, but still... - Philippe | Talk05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I understand your honestly held and rather passionate feelings regarding my role in this RfB. For now, at least, I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I appreciate your kind words and that you appear to take RfA/B as seriously as I believe a Wikipedian should. -- Cecropia17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's such a lovely guy! Can't believe he came back with the same IP. You may wish to request oversight for one particular edit you reverted earlier........ Ryan Postlethwaite23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q: Would either of you care to explain *where* I violated this specific set of rules you've blocked me for? I'd like to have the official justification handy so I can e-mail it to Jimbo Wales. 24.242.164.15317:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. I've made a brief reply at the above. I'm a little suprised than an admin finds it acceptable to cross examine an editor on why they supported / didn't support or didn't ask questions about a particular RFA. I'm very suprised a respected editor like you actually brings it up in the middle of an RFA when it can clearly adds no value! I'm still a bit disapointed you couldn't see that my question was designed to head of opposes. I accept however that I may have worded it badly in your (and anothers) opinion, for which I apologise; but as I'm sure you know by now I never comment or question at RFA "on the fly" as, sadly, other seem to these days. And if I haven't made it clear yet that I believe maintenance is as important as article writing please check my contribs at RFA!! Cheers mate. Pedro | Chat 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more for info mate - I supported Derhexter mainly based on interaction (see my support comment). The instructions at the top of RFA clearly state that if you don't know the candidate check their contribs. I do "know" him in the wikipedia sense of the word. So I just followed those instructions. :) Seriously, personal interaction is just as good IMHO as ploughing through 2K of contribs to get a feel for a candidate Pedro | Chat 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I feel strongly about something during a request for adminship, I bring it up - it's as simple as that, remember, you said it yourself - it's a discussion after all! Maybe you boar the brunt of my overall RfA frustation at the minute, the fact that users feel the maintainers of the project are not worthy of the tools - yet they are the ones that really need them. Maintainers clear the back logs and do the small gnomish tasks to keep the article writers free to do what they do best - write articles! I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with you and a few others that if a user isn't a prolific article writer they can't be an admin - it actually makes no sense. The users that use the automated tools are the ones that generally need that delete or block button and they are the ones with the experience of knowing when to use them. I also didn't understand why you placed yourself in the neutral section pending an answer, you could have waited for an answer to the question and then decided whether to support or oppose the candidacy - there was little need to be neutral simply because a question had not been answered yet - it was as if the candidate had to prove something to you, IMHO, that is fundamentally wrong, you would soon have had the answer to the question you asked, and had over 4000 contribs to go checking to decide if you trusted the user - the only reason for your neutral comment was a stop gap in between you posting the question and Philippe answering. I brought up DerHexers RfA because you are essentially supporting a candidate for the same reason as staying neutal on another - regardless of having personal interaction or not. I just got the feeling that it was slightly hypocritical of you to comment on many RfA's as an oppose or neutral because the editor has no article writing experience, then to go and support someone who has just about no writing experience - a plain old vandal fighter (don't get me wrong, I believe vandal fighters need the tools, but I am going on what I believed your views on the matter were), it just seems a little inconsistant to me that's all. I'm sorry that you seem to disagree with what I am saying, but you should know yourself that RfA isn't a vote, and any user has the right to question anothers comment - I just hope I have explained my reasoning behind it now. Ryan Postlethwaite21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan - per but I strongly disagree with you and a few others that if a user isn't a prolific article writer they can't be an admin please find me the diffs where I've opposed or gone neutral at RFA based on writing contribs. To save you some time, there aren't any, but happy hunting! I'm really sorry if I've offended you, but you are utterly wrong on this! Cheers ! Pedro | Chat 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm sorry for that one statement you highlighted but the rest stands - the question came across as if the maintainers of the project had no real need for tools. Ryan Postlethwaite21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sorry if it did. I guess I'm most suprised by your preception as I would have thought my viewpoint was abundantly clear given how often I point out at RFA and T:RFA that I believe maintenance is now vital; indeed I had a long running debate that really article writers have less need for the tools than people who want to maintain / vandal fight etc. I even ran into that at my RFA where a lot of opposition was because I don't do a lot of writing - so I'm hardly likely to fire that back at anyone else! My other concern was you referencing the way I !voted in another RFA. Forgive me but that's dangerous. I understand the point you were making but I can see it now - comments of "you have to support this editor because you supported this other editor" or "you have to oppose this editor because you opposed this other editor" flying around every single nomination - the last thing we need in RFA is more politics! Anyhow, I hope we can move on from this - I've supported the candidate and I can only hope my comment disuades others from opposing on the basis of "doesn't write an encyclopedia" which was my aim all along. Cheers. Pedro | Chat 12:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey dude, didn't want to bug you while you're on Wikibreak, but I noticed you posting on a page I was watching and thought I'd see if you were around.
I put in a 3RR vio, but since the page is now protected, I dunno if any action will be taken - but I definitely think an admin or at least someone who's not me should warn him about this type of behavior. Perhaps you could do that?
...I do not stalk his contributions, so short of someone putting a message on his Talk page with an eye-catching headline that I'd see on my Watchlist, or him editing an article I Watch, I wouldn't know [that he is violating the rule in question]
Even a cursory examination of my edit history or my Talk page would have revealed that I am involved in a number of other areas on the Project, and the only reason I noticed this change and commented on it is the fact that it was on his User page, and specifically served to excoriate the old wound of him never having acknowledged wrongdoing when he put large amounts of unnecessary load on the servers and broke several transcluded templates the first time he did it. He's an administrator, against my strident objections, but that doesn't give him the right to ignore guidelines and to justify doing so by saying it's all in his User space, despite the bolded text at WP:NOT#USER. Jouster (whisper) 00:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Ryan Postlethwaite; you have been awarded the great editor award by the Wikipedian of the day project. Although you have not been made the Wikipedian of the day we would still like to congratulate you on your great edits! Great work.
No problem at all, I was actually a little shocked by the attitude some had over the issue - WP:BOT is quite clear, if someones running a bot on their account, which BC quite clearly was, then they get blocked - no need for any warnings. As far as I was concerned, you did things correctly by the book, then posted for review - there's not much more you can really do in those situations. Ryan Postlethwaite07:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I appreciate so much your support and your wonderful nomination. As you know by now, my RfA closed successfully. I have no doubt that your shepherding me through the process contributed to the strong measure of support that the community gave me. I'll do my best to be worthy of your trust. - Philippe | Talk03:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan - best of luck in your nomination. I'm currently sitting at neutral, but once I've seen you Mediate this upcoming case (pending acceptance), I'll definitely be supporting.
No hard feelings - this is just a temporary measure ... I've not forgotten your support in my nomination (and RfA), or when you helped me out that spot of bother a while back.
No problem AGK, if I stink at being a mediator, I stink - that's life, but it certainly is important that you guys get a feel for how I mediate and whether or not you believe it would be a positive or a negative having me on the committee. Please though, don't let the fact that I nommed your RfA get in the way of anything, seriously, if you think I'd make a bad job of it, oppose me - I nommed myself to help the project, if I'd do more harm than good, I want to know about it and I'll completely understand. Cheers for the message, Ryan Postlethwaite18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, that sounds fine to me, I see no reason to split this into two complicated mediation cases, especially as I expect the copyright issues will be fairly open and shut, because at the end of the day with copyright one of us will be right and the other will be wrong. I think the main talking point will center around which diagram is used and whether or not talk page comments I made should be removed, as thats the real sticking point right now. I read User:Cuddlyable3s comments to mean he was happy to discuss the first point with you but not the copyright, on second reading of it though I wonder if he actually meant he didn't want to discuss the copyright issue as part of the mediation at all, whoever mediates. The copyright issue isn't my main concern, but its still fairly central to the whole problem. We could mediate without discussing it although ideally I'd like all the issues between me and User:Cuddlyable3 have to be resolved in one go and then we can go back to normal editing. Good to see your a final year pharm student, I'm a final year biochemist :) WikipedianProlific(Talk)18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case then, we'll see what Cuddleable3 comes back with and proceed from there. It's just really important that everyones happy with the set-up before we start. If it is how you say it is, then a good first step would be to clarify exactly what is going to be mediated - as ever, that's entirely upto you and cuddleable3 to decide together. I'll see what Cuddlyeable3 says, and then we'll take it from there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. First username block. I unblocked, and reblocked with account recreation and ip addy boxes unchecked. I also templated the talkpage after rolling back my previous notification. I may get it wrong, but I learn quickly (lots of practice, I'm afraid!) Cheers. LessHeard vanU21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand, I was just a little confused - we all make mistakes and at least this was easily corrected. I've removed the autoblock as well, so hopefully WTF its Eamon will be able to create a new account or request unblocking. Thanks for sorting it out. Ryan Postlethwaite21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[This is a courtesy copy of a message posted at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Awiseman, since you do not appear to read followup to complaints you post at RfAs, and just move on to another one, ergo would otherwise unlikely to ever see this.]
Mr. Postlethwaite, I would appreciate it if you would stop following me around from RfA to RfA attacking me, in the middle of someone else's big moment, for simply having asked a slightly challenging question. This is at least the second time I've directed you to please raise your concerns with my questions at User talk:SMcCandlish#RfA questions. I hope I will not have to do it a third. Both the candidate here and the other RfA participants have better things to do that read you raising repetitive left-field complaints about something trivial and of no direct concern to you, on page after page. If you'd actually bother to read the talk page topic I've referred you to multiple times now, you'll find a very full explanation of my purposes in asking this question, as well as an explanation of why your interpretation of it is excessively literal and pessimizing (in reality it typically takes very little time to answer the question.) I hope we both have better things to do now than continue this discussion, though if we must, I hope you'll do it elsewhere than in RfA. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›02:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, can you please elaborate where I have followed you around post you suggesting we move it away from the RfA page? I commented on two RfA's that you asked questions on, once on each RfA, then I left it and moved on. I haven't replied on the RfA page because you suggested I didn't. So if you are trying to say I'm harrassing you or attacking you, then I strongly disagree - I made my comments and then left it at that. You say you've referred me to other places, well, quite frankly I haven't replied because I have nothing else left to say on the matter - I summed up my feelings the other day exactly how I wanted to, then moved on. Ryan Postlethwaite21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear Ryan! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! (do I hear you crying? ;) Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, my friend! Love,Phaedriel - 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh-my-goodness... you sure didn't know what you were getting into... gifting yourself to me?? Well... I feel uncomfortable taking you away from Adelle... now get to work on your stuff, "Wikipedia administrator!" (hint hint!) ;) (I promise a reply to your mail in the next hours, cross my heart, hope to die) xxx, Sharon
Thank you :) I will probably continue to edit Wikipedia while I'm in Finland, I am addicted after all ;), but I won't edit from this account. I may use Aec is away (talk·contribs), or I may not log in. You enjoy your wikibreak too :) AecisBrievenbus21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have posted a 3-revert warning on my talk page asserting I am in breach of this rule. This is incorrect. I have not violated the 3 revert rule. In fact, the other party in the dispute has violated this rule, a fact which I have made a note of in the article's edit history. __meco08:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as you say, I reverted 5 times in 2 days, including 3 times within the last 24 hours. Which means I have not violated the three-revert rule. I am well aware of this rule as you will know by observing the fact that I notified the opposing party in the current dispute in the article's edit history for having in fact violated the rule. Your warnings, well-intentioned as they may be, are unnecessary. __meco17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested second opinion at WP:AN/I as I find it unfair that this injunction should apply one-sidedly to me when the other party was in the only violator of the 24-hour 3-reverts limit. As you can read on my talk page, Postlethwaite begins with falsely asserting that I have violated the three-revert rule. __meco17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Please be aware that you have just broken the three revert rule on Human penis size". That was the first notification I got, and that upsets me. Because that is not correct. I have read the fine print about consistent edit warring giving reason to intervene despite the fact that the 3RR count hasn't been reached, and that is not what this statement calls to attention. The best I can do is to recommend that another wording would have avoided the impression that Postlethwaite acted based on an incorrect counting of the number of reverts in a 24-hour period. __meco18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the template may be ambiguous, it would not even need to be used at all if you had done only 2 or 1 reversion. I reccomend you carefully edit from now on avoiding all edit wars, and not trying to use days to spread it out so you barely avpoid breaking the 3RR. Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user that asked again for protection hasn't presented a single argument favouring his edits. Instead he asks to protect the article to his version. --ŞtefanIaşi18:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's disruption from one editor, they can be reverted and reported to WP:AN/3RR - if there's multiple users edit warring, that's when we have a problem and protection is required. I delined the protection anyway, so you don't have to worry about one persons version being protected over another. Ryan Postlethwaite19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The article should be opened and all the arguments should be presented on the talk page. May I ask you what is a fact? --ŞtefanIaşi19:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sourced version (from United Nations and State Dept. of USA.) might be:
Version 1.
Transnistria, is the easternmost part of Moldova[1][2][3]. Transnistria's sepparatist regime is not recognised by any state or international organisation, and it is de jure part of Moldova.
One more question please: that user that asked that the article to be protected (2 times!!) to his version, without presenting any arguments on talk page can be considered as disruption? --ŞtefanIaşi19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably related to the above discussion, this user asked his block to be reviewed. Since you are more familiar with the case than I am, could you double check it? Thanks! -- lucasbfrtalk10:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You declined a request for page protection, and I replied to your comment (see here). Could you please explain your motivation a little further? Thank you! Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 12:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the question, appologies in advance, but I'm going to give you a general answer :-) Basically, wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit - so we try and keep all pages accesible to all users at all times - don't forget, we encourage users to be bold!. Unfortunately, when there is disruption, some pages and/or redirects have to be protected, but these are protective measures for the encyclopedia. We only protect pages when there is disruption, or a real threat of disruption to a page, not before it happens. Hope that explains the reason why I declined to protect the page, basically, because it had no previoud vandalism to it, and there currently isn't a real threat of serious vandalism to it. Ryan Postlethwaite22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seems reasonable. I thought that high-risk templates were an exception from the no-protection-without-disruption rule, but you're right that it isn't really necessary. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey buddy, just swinging by to say "good luck" on your nomination for the Mediation Committee. I (of course) gave you my full support, and we should only be so lucky to have your nomination pass. Best of wishes! Jmlk1705:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why you deleted Algerie/no as a blatant copyright infringement. You do understand that no:Algerie is, like en.wikipedia, distributed under the GFDL. Perhaps this page should have been deleted as WP:CSD A5 instead, because duplicate Norwegian content does not do us Englishers any good.-Andrew c[talk]23:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it because it was a GFDL infringement as the individual edits are not attributed on en.wiki - it was essentially a cut and paste move from another wiki. Ryan Postlethwaite23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to the other wikipedia attributing the source would have been enough to satisfy the GFDL, so I do not believe a G12 deletion is appropriate. I do believe the content should have been removed because it wasn't in English, already existed in its appropriate transwiki space (and also because it was an article sub page and was orphaned and didn't serve any obvious purpose). So I really should let this drop. I just think that in the future if there is valid GFDL content that we are using, it is preferable to simply bring the article up to the terms of the license instead of outright deleting it.-Andrew c[talk]23:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's a valid point, it's something I'll consider next time, I would restore it - but I guess there's not much point to simply delete it again! I hate the fine points of the GFDL! Thanks for the advice, Ryan Postlethwaite23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid that the username wouldn't be blatant enough to get blocked and I was going to get that template that said it wasn't blatant enough. Thanks for blocking him. Savie Kumara22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to become a member of the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks template, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You are also encouraged to join the Committee's internal mailing list; please email Daniel directly so he can confirm your email before subscribing it). If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask myself or Daniel. Congratulations!
Congratulations Ryan! I'm away for another week or so, but I'll deal with your mailing list subscription during that period. If you have any questions, WJBscribe is all ears :) I'll also sort out IRC channel access, so if you could include your IRC nickname (I couldn't remember what it was, sorry), that'd be great. already done by WJB :) Cheers, and congrats again, Daniel→♦07:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow guys, thanks alot for the congrats!! I'm not going to spam everyones talk pages with thanks - most people probably get sick of it! Let's just say I'm honored to be joining the committee and I really hope I be an asset to MEDCOM. Now, back to being ill :-( Ryan Postlethwaite21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Late congrats, sorry I didn't comment my computer was also ill for much of the duration that I knew about. Get well soon (if not already) GDonato (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
"According to Philippe Faucher [19], the Plano Real, from Itamar and Fernando Henrique Cardoso benefit not only from Collor´s initiatives (privatization, free trade) but also form his failures. Faucher even emphasizes that Cardoso´s political maneuver was the beginnig of Collor´s impeachmen: "the unexpected succes of the Real Plan is due to hyperinfaltion, to corruption scandals and by the way Plano real was implemented." [20]."
This is aimed at proving that Plano Real´s succes is due to Collor´s failures which are a FHC´s political manauver. As we agree that Plano Real is understood as "end of inflation". So, the end of inflation, that is, Plano Real success, is due to Collor´s hyperinflation, that is, Collor´s failures, that is, FHC´s poltical manuver. It is fully cited.
Hi there, the best thing to do is discuss it on the talk page and try and get a consensus to add it - the reason why I protected the page was due to edit warring and me adding this paragraph would infringe on my responsibilities as an administrator - sorry. Ryan Postlethwaite22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editions
Hello, Ryan,
Iam facing a lot of persecution from the user Dali, as you might have noticed. He is reverting, and deleting all of my reent editions: João Goulart, Fernando Collor de Mello, 1964 Brazilian Coup d´Etat.
I should also tell you that he began this dispute in a clear anti-Collor behaviour, even linked a cover which entitled: "The year we got rid of him". This image was imediately deleted --not even authorized. While doing this he changed pics from their original place, deleted and reverted in a way I have never seen before (see history).
He is now saying he will rewrite 1964 Brazilian Coup article all again. And guess what: he even declared (see talk page) that will add Elio Gaspari comments. Gaspari is one the most famous pro-Lula,, pro-left-wing, against-Collor, against-Fhc, against- privatization, against-liberals...etc. I see an obvious pro-left-wing edition --and even against my editions, facts, citations fully provided.
It is the third time I ask amds to block him, and keep a very close watch on his editions which are cleary driven by personal views (antiliberals, antirightwing, antidemocratic). Ludovicapipayes?10:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludovica, there's a process for making complaints against users, and you certainly wouldn't involve an administrator who just protected a page for a dispute you're involved in. If you'd like to make a complaint against me, my understanding is that you first start out with a request for comment on users or go directly to Administrator noticeboard for incidents. Let me know how that goes, but I have to admit this is the first time in my life I've heard anyone accusing me of being a communist. LOL.--Dali-Llama19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my quick revert. I guess I thought it was vandalism at first glance. However, I don't need four people telling me about it on my talk page. Nevertheless, thank you for the message. — Super-Magician(talk • contribs • count)21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest respect, I believe you do need 4 people telling you on your talk page as there seem to be a number of instances of poor reversions. Ryan Postlethwaite21:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan,
you have deleted my page (chris bosse) for blatant copyright issues.
i can assure you that the text , that appears on various websites is written and owned by me.
so are the images.
pls reconsider.
mail@chrisbosse.de
Ryan you posted on my page: "if your[sic] not happy with me mediating the copyright implications part of the dispute, then we can find other users to mediate the dispute". The [sic] just means that I quote you literally and that you need to learn how to spell YOU'RE properly. There is no reason to be unclear about my opinion that your performance as a mediator between me and WikipedianProlific on the recent issue of choosing a diagram was incompetent and merely fed the (his) dispute. In hindsight you may conclude that WikipedianProlific called for mediation on choice between two diagrams neither of which he actually wanted as a manipulation of your gullibility. Or not. You may have learned something about mediation from this and now the issue is moot. However the issue of copyright implications was accepted for mediation, no mutually acceptable mediator has stepped forward, and it is obviously still a hot issue for WikipedianProlific. I don't care much for being put on hold indefinitely either. So WHEN will that issue be mediated? Cuddlyable308:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't mean to hijack someone elses talk page I feel your overtly aggressive stance towards a good, well known, unbiased editor justifies my comments here. Copyright isn't a hot issue for me at all, I'm not even sure I'd accept further mediation with you as you backed out of the last one as soon as you didn't get what you wanted and additionally your editing motives have been seriously called into question recently, such as the recent 8 hour block of your account and IP for editing warring and contentiously inappropriate use of WP:RPA. The older animated diagram will probably go up for deletion soon anyway (along with the old static version) as its been obseleted by the new animated version that came about through mediation, so its hardly even an issue anymore. For further information, [sic] tagging a users comments is considered uncivil. Infact, spelling anywhere other than on the article mainspace is not commented on usually as its unimportant if its technically incorrect as long as it can be understood. WikipedianProlific(Talk)14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impeachment process in the midle of the Collor´s initiatives subtitle? Where is the last paragrapgh concerning inflation rate? You deleted? Is this some kind of joke? The article is not expecting yr conclucion. Ludovicapipayes?10:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ryan,
I have no idea what the yser Dali has done now. Can pls help me: Can you see th link above? He edited and then deleted my verion an then put a new one online as if it was mine --with the last paragrapgh missing. And the online article is VERY STRANGE. When I put my version online and save it, it does not appear online... !!!! Ludovicapipayes?10:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He repeated the impeachment paragraph twice. Under the "Collor´s initiatives" paragrapgh and under "Corruption charges and impeachment".
On August 26, 1992, the final congressional inquiry report was released, where it was proven that Fernando Collor had personal expenses paid for by money raised by Paulo César Farias through his influence peddling scheme. Impeachment proceedings were installed in the lower house of congress on September 29, 1992. Collor was impeached, and subsequently removed from office by a vote of 441 for and 38 votes against.[9] Fernando Collor resigned his term in office just before the Brazilian Senate was to vote for his impeachment. The Senate did so anyways and suspended his political rights for eight years. In 1994, the Supreme Federal Tribunal ruled he was not guilty of charges of corruption, but did not reinstate his political rights.[10]. In 1994, the Supreme Federal Tribunal threw out the charges of corruption,[11] citing a lack of evidence linking Collor to Farias' influence peddling scheme. The only piece of evidence, Paulo César Farias' personal computer, was found to have been obtained illegally and thus void as evidence. [12]
And he also deleted the last paragragh (check this link: [42]) under "Collor´s initiatives":
Thus, as a result of the setting off of this program < ref > [57] < /ref >, inflation reached 50 percent per month by June 1994 and averaged 31.2 percent a month in 1994, for total of 2,294.0 percent that year. Inherited from Plano Collor, as result of Real Plan (Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Collor´s successor), inflation declined to monthly rates of between 1 and 3 percent in 1995, for an annual rate of 25.9 percent. In 1996: 16.5 percent; 1997: 7.2 percent. By 2006: 3,18% annualy < ref > [58] < /ref >.
I've explained this to her before. Both an RfC and a Third-opinion request are in progress. Both are up on the respective request pages.--Dali-Llama18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recently blocked Andyjohnston.net (talk·contribs) for an inappropriate username. This user is requesting unblocking. As the account was created before January 1, 2007, I believe this user account should be grandfathered in as per WP:USERNAME. It also does not appear that this user is advertising his domain. I left a message that I would contact you and so here you go. I think in this case, it may be worth unblocking but I leave the decision to you. --Yamla17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw the unblock request actually and it's got me thinking. I actually think the username is promotional if you look at the guys website [43] - I know he says it's not but if you look at the content it clearly is. I'm not particularly concerned with it being a web address - my impression was that it was grandfathered in, but the promotional aspect makes me think it's still a violation. Maybe I should unblock and take it RFCN? Would appreciate a second opinion off you. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite17:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved comment from my talk page) andyjohnston.net has been responsible for the development of web sites on a local, national, and global scale. I disagree with you and I think he shouldn't keep this username since this website is a commercial one. -- lucasbfrtalk17:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no dispute at all that the website itself is commercial. As such, it is reasonable to say that it violates the don't-use-Wikipedia-for-marketing. However, this is confused a bit by it being the person's real name (apparently) and the fact that he does not seem to be using it for promotion here on Wikipedia. I'm unsure. The best option is to have him choose another username. That would eliminate the problem. May be worth asking him to consider a different name and leave a link to this discussion. He may be quite happy to do so once the problems are pointed out. I don't monitor WP:RFCN but it would certainly be an appropriate forum. In my opinion, this is an edge case. I think the user was acting in good faith, the problem is simply that he has a low-traffic commercial site at that URL. --Yamla17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah exactly, that's the problem with the username. A username block isn't because of editorial misbehaviour - it's simply because of the users username. Although Andy certainly looks like a good faith user, every time he edits he is leaving a small advert in the article histories and every time he signs his name, he leaves it on a talk page - hence, although he doesn't mean to do it, he is promoting his website (which is comercial) every time he edits. I'll wander over in a second and explain the issue at hand to him, it he still disagree's with me, I can easily unblock and get a bit of community input over at RFCN, hopefully he'll understand and agree to change his username. Ryan Postlethwaite17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. My initial concern was solely that domain name user accounts were grandfathered in though that doesn't apply to commercial sites. --Yamla17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, wasn't sure whether to just give him a week vacation or an indef - he seemed to have caused subtle disruption over a number of months though. Ryan Postlethwaite22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I can wipe this egg off of my face? Where's that darn "blush" smiley face! Sheesh, all this time I thought it was done off those numbers, so I tried to update before the half-hour, just to help out lil Tango lol. Boy do I feel stupid. ~*Sigh*~ Thanks for telling me! Ariel♥Gold23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I saw you do it the other day but kept quiet, couldn't let you go on any longer this time. At least you don't have to rush to a computer every half an hour now :-) Ryan Postlethwaite23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't feel bad to tell me those kinds of things, seriously, how else will I learn? I'm not afraid to say I don't know, or I didn't know, or I'm wrong, lol. And I honestly appreciate it, because I love to learn as much as I can about these types of things. I wasn't running here to do it or anything, but if I looked at the clock, and checked the page, I'd update it. Nice to know I don't have any real reason to do it though, lol. Usually I do it on the ones I'm watching prior to commenting. You probably noticed, but I don't just "per above" at RfAs, and if I have nothing to add, I don't tend to comment unless I feel it would contribute something helpful. So, I tend to watch RfAs for several days before voicing my thoughts, and I try to address any issues that have come up if I feel I can provide useful input. (So it isn't a huge deal to update the count.) By the way, this has been bugging me for some time: Why aren't the different parts of the RfAs sections, (i.e. support, oppose, neutral) to make it easier for people to add to them? When we're talking about RfAs with 100+ opinions, and more, it is really a pain to sift through the entire page to add a comment, especially if there are multiple conversations regarding oppose or neutral points, and really frustrating when you get edit conflicts. Am I the only one that finds that difficult? lol Ariel♥Gold23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because........ RfA's a supposed to be a discussion not a vote, so people like to see it in one big section! I agree it would be much easier to have seperate sections. RfA used to be one section for the whole page, and I'll tell you now - that got confusing. It's good that you look at RfA's, they give some really good advice - even if users don't pass, it's a really good editor review. Many things at RfA are something that we could all improve on, I know since I became an admin, I've learnt a hell of a lot from RfA's and changed my practices accordingly. Another good place to look at is WP:AFD - that's where you can get some really good experience with our inclusion policies and guidlines which has got to be the most important thing about our encyclopedia. Oh - there's WP:AN/I as well, but that's more for a laugh :-) Ryan Postlethwaite23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh oh sheesh, one section for the whole page I'd hate! lol. and I don't mean separate pages, I just mean to section the three categories with headers, so the [edit] link is at the "support", "oppose" and "neutral" sections, for ease of adding comments. I completely know it isn't a vote, but I just personally find it really difficult to comment when the request is really full of threaded conversations, and multiple un-sectioned areas. {And yeah, I've participated in AfD, AN/I, RFCN, and other areas as well, like AfC, RfM, etc.) I just find it really frustrating to try to comment on an RfA when I have typed up this nice comment, and it took me 30 minutes, and then I get an edit conflict and can't figure out where on the page my comment should go! lol. Ariel♥Gold23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acalamari, good of you to drop by. I'd leave it a day or two before we go through his subpages. Could you go through "whatlinkshere" for his userpage and remove his name where he has a formal position? As you did above. Didn't know about the alternate account, I'll deal with it now! Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks; I'll go into the "what links here" then and see if he participated anywhere (I looked for active RfAs, but there were none that he had participated in). With the subpages, I'll wait for a day before deleting them. I caught the alternate account by chance when going through "what links here". Thanks again. Acalamari23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is what ^demon's doing ethical at all? If you look at the AfD page where he deleted the article in question, it wasn't a matter of vote amounts. There were numerous Keeps and comments from unbiased users citing sources and good reasons for the article's retainment, but he wrote them ALL off as WP:ILIKEIT. Now he flat-out refuses to discuss the subject. If I can't talk to him who can I talk to in this enormous bureaucracy? - The Norse17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i noticed you blocked a user for posting apparent nonsense, I suspect they may be posting in Hebrew, and not have very good English. Could you possibly consider unblocking them? I did warn them about posting in foreign languages, just before you blocked them. Thanks.It's User:ישראלי כוסוןDuncanHill00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I understand your concern that you think I blocked the user for merely posting in a foreign language, that was not the case. The user also created a nonsense breast shaping article, along with vandalising a page [44]. Hope that explains why I blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite17:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the worst vandalism, but he did have warnings, not the full 4, but we don't need to give out the full 4 to block. I used my judgement to realise that he wasn't here to act responsibly - I mean, replacing Gordon Brown with arabic???? It was quite simply put, a vandalism only account. Ryan Postlethwaite22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you here today by total coincidence! Weird! I got a chance to have some free time on the computer at school, so I took the oppurtunity to do some vandal-patrol. Talk to you on IRC maybe... *Cremepuff222*22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange! It's always good to see a friendly face :-) Can't go on IRC tonight, got drunk last night and dropped my laptop so I'm having to use my dad's which hasn't got IRC installed on. Will certainly catch up soon though. You back for good now? Ryan Postlethwaite23:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, probably not. Sorry about your laptop; that really sucks! I might be on wikipedia more often now, though. I may even change my long wikibreak notice to a short one soon! :) Nice to see you too. *Cremepuff222*23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.
Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.
Just a double mistake between editors. You can't ban someone from using twinkle unless you delete my monobook.css (& all skins) and protect it, delete all pages ever containing the script, and beat me over the head so I forget it. :-P --Bencomplain07:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you seem to be tagging a lot of pages as well for speedy deletion that simply aren't speedy candidates as well using twinkle. As I said, abuse of automated tools is grounds for being banned from them. And yes, you got it right, I'd probably have to deleted your monobook and skins to stop you using it. Ryan Postlethwaite07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anywho, I apologize, and note none of my edits were done in bad faith. All my thanks go to you for discussing it first before a harsh action! Much more civilized than another sysop (link removed, WP:RPA. don't take pot shots at other users. Daniel 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)) I've dealt with. Cheers --Bencomplain08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So is there something wrong with tagging a sockpuppetter with a template?
So if I sockpuppeted a year ago, would it be harassment for someone to put a tag on my userpage? Or is slimvirgin getting special treatment?--Funnyguy55508:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't tag respected users that haven't even been blocked or desysopped for there actions. I'm astounded you know so much about the situation considering your little time here. Ryan Postlethwaite08:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So she gets away with it because it took her a while to get caught? And obviously I'm a sockpuppet myself that's why I care so much. I need to know what to do in order to get away with it like Slim did. --Funnyguy55508:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That'd do the trick :) I added the userpage to protected titles anyways, just to make sure reincarnates don't have opportunity to troll about some more. Daniel08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ruling keep in the Bayern Munich AfD. I'm glad that contributors felt that the magnitude of the shock result in the match was sufficient to demonstrate notability. I'm also glad a pintful of my editing time didn't go down the sewers... the way (I recently discovered) that 10% of my edits have! (Mind you, that includes a lot of speedy tagging before I was an admin) --Dweller11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete the article, and it looks like there's been some great work done on the article since it was nominated. You're not just a pretty face! I'm planning to pop over and see you and TRM soon - wouldn't mind helping you guys with an FA if you'll have me :-) Ryan Postlethwaite11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly easy to be honest with you, I'll just tag along with you guys. Might be nice to get a few rugby union articles up a notch with the world cup coming up???? Ryan Postlethwaite12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah cheers for that. I actually read (some of!) the text on the unblock mailing list. It's a very strange situation, I don't think that anyones sure how legitimate all these threats are, or exactly what power these groups hold - they're going to a lot of trouble though it seems. I think the best thing to do is just remove any posts that they make - probably one of the cases where WP:DENY has to come into force. Ryan Postlethwaite12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that it shows the signs of an open proxy. I'm trying to test for it now though, but I haven't been successful because of my computers limitations. User:Zzuuzz knows how to check for them, however. — Moeε13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's offical, my computer is very outdated :) Can't get the proxy checker to work, but it seems Zzuuzz sees that they are using anon servers. Not quite open. I would just continue blocking on site, it should send the message. — Moeε13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Chris, they just aren't the sort of people that are welcomed here, especially when they are linked to epol.org (or whatever it is). It's just annoying that they're so persistent. Ryan Postlethwaite13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It it the kind of stuff on here that makes me sick. What I thought was a but funny was when he said he had lots of IP's and gave us the "option" to talk it out with him instead of him using all his IP's. He most recent post on JZG's page he was then complainig about all the VPN's of his that we blocked. Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, yeah I noticed that. I removed it due to the group being linked to a group making legal threats against a contributor. Calton has reverted it though, the best thing to do is just to keep on reverting them - quite frankly, they're not welcome here. Ryan Postlethwaite12:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Ryan. I just wasn't sure you were aware of it.
Hi Ryan, and thanks for your very kind and supportive request. Per this my 1st RfA was at the end of June so I think maybe a couple more weeks to alow three months to go past. I genuinely now feel that I can contribute more with the admin buttons, and believe that I have sufficent knowledge and a clam enough manner to be wise in their use. However I see too many candidates opposed purely on the basis of a lack of time between RfA's, rather than based on their intervening edits.Pedro | Chat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the heads up there, that's one of my pet hates when users go behind your back and try and get you a shady block before you've even had chance to explain. At least this was a complaint with no substance. Ryan Postlethwaite15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I couldn't really care one way or another, but wanted to know what the remark was all about, so off I went begoogling. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with that. A hui hou. --Ali'i21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... I kind of forgot the middle step in the jump. My bad. My missing links:#1, #2. Hope this connects more dots for ya. Aloha. --Ali'i22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recently blocked this user for 31 hours. A look at his Contributions indicates some pretty wanton vandalism. This edit pretty much is a personal attack, as is this one. Add to that the user is blanking user pages who revert his changes.
I am thinking that the account was created for some Friday Nite Fun for those a tad too young to drive. Maybe he needs to find another venue to occupy his weekend, as Wikipedia doesn't need any more fools this evening?
Sorry for all the prosifying. Can we ban this ass-hat, rather than just blocking him? I'd point out that this user's first instinct after getting reverted was to blank the pages of every user who reverted him, replacing the pages with the word, 'Britfag'. I know you blocked him for 31 hours, but I am thinking that our charming little scamp's issues aren't going to be resolved all that quickly. - Arcayne(cast a spell)02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry but this is an anon IP vandalism, so tomorrow, the IP may be given to someone else, someone more responsible. The 31 hour block will give the user time to think about his actions - if the IP isn't reassigned and he continues to vandalise, he will be blocked for longer next time, but at present, 31 hours is quite fair. Ryan Postlethwaite02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a solution at hand? It would be nice to close the mediation, since it's gone on for a long time and the article remains locked. Just need formal agreement from the others, I guess. Tony10:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ariel♥Gold gives you a huge smile, just because it is early Sunday morning! Smiles promote WikiLove, and hopefully hers has made your day better! ({{subst:smile}})
What a weekend for my ISP to decide to have problems! Finally got on.....! Thank you Ryan - copying this to others and then I guess we go !...... Pedro | Chat 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would like to thank you for all your head work here on Wikipedia. While I !voted to keep my Senator page, you did it because you feel it was right. In light of that, just to inform you, I am pretty sure I will leave Wikipedia. I will wait out the discussion. Thanks. PatPolitics rule!20:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's very good to hear, as I said, I believe wikipedia will be at a loss without you. Continue your good work. I don't even think you're that outspoken. Ryan Postlethwaite22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want the be thanked by Wikipedia and I think the statement should disappear from the main page. That is not trolling but expressing a sincere wish. Andries23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite one of the clearest possible consensuses that the article is notable, the AfD was closed by you as a deletion due to alleged WP:BLP issues. While there may be a word or two that could be misinterpreted by the paranoid, the article as it stands is encyclopedic, accurate and properly sourced to support all claims made in the article. If there are any genuine WP:BLP issues -- and I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of editors would agree there are none -- imposing your personal opinion in this manner, without any effort to seek consensus or even a second opinion on the matter, without any explanation of what the supposed issues are or providing any opportunity other than destroying the article to address them, is improper. Before starting what seems to be a very much needed WP:DRV, I am approaching you to ask you to reconsider your actions in deleting the article, by undeleting the article and providing the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors who feel that this article is encyclopedic the opportunity to address detailed, specific examples of the portions of the article that you feel violate the WP:BLP policy. Alansohn12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to undelete the article, I don't care whether or not it was encyclopedic or not, the fact is, it was completely unsourced - not one single one in there and is was mostly about a felony that Lizzie Grubman had commited. Biographical articles must be sourced, there's no room for error in these articles. Whilst she may have been notable as the AfD showed, BLP trumps notablility every time. Ryan Postlethwaite12:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. Too bad that you acted in an aritrary and high-handed manner which will make it very difficult to produce a better article, and will actively discourage people who worked on the article in the past from working on the article in future... AnonMoos12:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLP goes above anything that you can say to me. I'm not disputing the notability, consensus was clear in the AfD for that, it was just completely unsourced, and as it was about a living person, it got deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The unfortunate fact is that you still have never disclosed what the supposed WP:BLP issues are with the article in question; all you've done is shouted to the high heavens that they exist and that your judgment on this subject trumps that of any and all other Wikipedia editors. Thanks to the power of cold hard cache, the article was recreated, sources were added, and extremely minor changes were made to the article to prevent possible misreadings by the uber-paranoid. Alansohn12:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The matter seems to be at least temporarily resolved -- no thanks to your heavy-handed blundering unconstructive actions. Who nominated you to be an admin anyway? AnonMoos12:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk, that wasn't very nice, dear AnonMoos. Remember, comments on the edits and actions, not on the person. Ryan is by far one of our best admins, as many can tell you; and even if you disagree with his judgement on one particular issue, remember we're all human, and therefore fallible. Questioning his capacity of wielding the mop altogether is not a nice thing, when you may find he's a very reasonable and nice person - but nobody reacts well to assumptions of bad faith beforehand. Phaedriel - 13:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm being serious, you have to get someone to sort out the GFDL issues with the article now, all the edits are missing their attribution in the history. For some reason I can't restore on the laptop I'm on. Ryan Postlethwaite13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sad, pathetic joke. You delete an article, overriding clear consensus for retention, due to unstated WP:BLP issues that you still refuse to disclose. Your excuse for deletion states that the article should be recreated with sources. Now the GFDL nonsense? You created this problem by deleting the article in the first place. Whose copyright is being violated here? Alansohn13:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted for someone else to sort the GFDL issues out, you obviously don't understand the problem, but you cut and paste created the artlce, meaning there was no article history so no attribution of edits (quite a serious problem) hence the coyright problem, someone needs to restore the rest of the article, but I can't on the laptop I'm on. Don't do that again. Ryan Postlethwaite13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works: There is a clear consensus to keep an article that you have summarily overridden. All we have as an excuse to justify your actions is a claim that WP:BLP is involved. Whatever problems you have with your laptop, there is nothing stopping you from disclosing what these alleged issues are. By continuing to refuse to disclose your issues, by deleting the article without allowing these supposed problems to be addressed, you are perpetuating and exacerbating the problems that you claim to be solving. The latest appeal to conjured-up GFDL violations were created precisely because you deleted the article improperly. If you can't fix this mess you created, why not find someone who can. In the meantime, justifying your actions with clear, concise and specific examples of the WP:BLP issues that you feel were so egregious that the article had to be deleted. Without this explanation, your actions are not only unjustified, but you are creating a scenario where the good faith efforts to recreate an article for an individual that even you acknowledge is notable, will be deleted again by you or some other admin for further imagined WP:BLP violations. Alansohn14:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got someone to restore the article, but you should have done that before you cut and pasted the recreation. The problem was that the article was not sourced, so was removed as quick as possible as unsourced material leaves a potential legal threat. As I said after deleting, it was without prejustice on a recreation, just at the point in time when I deleted it, it contained unsourced claims of a conviction that is against BLP. Ryan Postlethwaite14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At what point did you disclose that the nature of your WP:BLP issue was related to "unsourced claims of a conviction"/ It certainly was not in the AfD, and the first recreated version of the article (the second version deleted), provided an explicit source for the claim. The far easier means to have dealt with your concerns would have been to respect consensus and keep the article, removing the statement that bothered you from the article and noting that there was an unsourced statement with what you thought were WP:BLP issues that had been removed. Following this approach would have respected clear and overwhelming consensus AND would have provided an opportunity to address your concerns. Deleting the article AND not disclosing the specifics of your issue, was not only counterproductive and destructive, but created the trap that the same BLP concerns would exist in future recreations of the article. I strongly encourage you to consider this approach in any future such situation by disclosing your concerns immediately and allowing other interested editors to address the concerns you have. Alansohn15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for the info but I cant understand have I rights to revert the unrelated information from the arrticle or no? For example my reverts for today. A user added previously discussed source related to Albania and Arcakh to prove something related to ...Arran and Karabakh. What must I do for a better way? PS - I didnt remember if even I deleted any relevant reliable information from an article. Is there such a fact?...Andranikpasha10:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but why you didnt answer to my questions? I think its better to complete a work which you started and explain why you added me for supervision if I keep the rules of Wiki. Simple "edit warring" word is not enough. Pls see again! Andranikpasha12:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you are aware, the MfD you nominated on User:Politics rule's user subpage has (along with other factors, admittedly) made him consider leaving Wikipedia. By coincidence, this all happened just as I was writing Wikipedia:Editors matter, which is trying to address exactly these kind of issues. Don't take my comments the wrong way; you're an admin who I respect, and I know you didn't intend to hurt him or incite him to leave Wikipedia. So I'm not trying to blame you personally for this situation. But I think that, as a community, we need to stop inflexibly applying the userpage guidelines, and instead allow contributors some leeway in their userspace if it makes them happy. Editors are our most valuable resource, and we need to put their feelings before arbitrary rules, otherwise we'll basically lose more and more editors. As such, I think you should withdraw the MfD nomination; I can't see that anything good will come of it. WaltonOne18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of my comments above are a bit unfair, as he's told me that your MfD wasn't the main reason he almost left. However, my opinion about userpage deletions still stands; the community as a whole needs to change the way we approach these issues. WaltonOne19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you didn't reply to this comment - I'm sorry if I offended you. Like I explained, I'm not meaning to attack you in any way, and I don't blame you for the situation. But I really think that, under the circumstances, you should withdraw the nom. WaltonOne17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, WP:USER is in favour of deleting the MfD. You mean well by coming here Walton, and I respect you for that, but I nominated that page because I believe it goes against WP:USER and WP:NOT#soapbox. I didn't doit to try and get PR to leave, I hope I have made it clear to him that I respect him a lot. We are here to create an encyclopedia and PR's page does not help that in any way, in my opinion it reduces the credability, so whilst I thank you for coming here, I respectfully decline to withdraw the MfD as I don't believe the page deserves a place here. Ryan Postlethwaite17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, thanks very much for supporting my successful RfA. I'm grateful for your offer of co-nomination and for your statement of support. I'll be looking at your school, and I may come running with questions. Please be sure to let me know if you think I'm doing something wrong. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's brilliant news Flyguy, I'm really pleased for you. By all means, pop over if you need any help, advice or anything whatsoever. I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite14:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I {{UsernameHardBlocked}} the account as they did state they were a hacker on their userpage, guess it stops any damage before it even occurs. The name was borderline, but added with the trolling on the userpage it adds up to a violation in my eyes. Ryan Postlethwaite14:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for your support and for the links, I'm sure are going to need them and will give it a try when I finish giving my thanks to those that trusted me, cheers! - Caribbean~H.Q.23:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to confirm something with you, since you're an admin. Tratare, whom you've blocked for personal attacks and harassment, accused me of breaking WP rules because I delete messages from my talk page after I've seen them. To my knowledge, there is not a rule against this - only against removing warnings, and I've never gotten a warning. Have the rules changed? Kat, Queen of Typos00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, I read your comment at WT:RFCN and I really respect you, so I would just like to hear your thoughts, I've replied to your comment, if you have time to take a peek at it. I honestly know that I did my very best to specifically not WP:BITE with this issue, being polite, kind, understanding of the user's frustration, and explaining specifically it was not a violation of WP:U policy, but more an issue of other users being unable to see the username at all, or to type it. If you get a chance, I'd love to hear your additional thoughts. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on the talk page, as I said there, it was not just you, it was everyone who commented - it just upsets me when we get overly bureacratic and force users to change their name because of a policy that doesn't exist. Ryan Postlethwaite12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand. But now I'm questioning myself, and I just was asked about something, if you could review this page: User:Burntech created Burntech solutions which seems to be purely promotional, and his username would be promotional as well, as the only contributions have been to that page, or to upload the image for it. I hesitate to give the person who asked for my advice the wrong advice now, if you have a chance to peek at it and decide, I'd appreciate it. Thank you again for explaining the other issue, I do understand your position. Ariel♥Gold13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you stumbled upon my major pet hate on wikipedia - non latin character usernames getting blocked or users forced to change their name. I'm not sure why I feel so strongly about it, but hey, it's over now so let's forget about it - as I said, it wasn't just you, you brought something to the communities attention which is a good thing to do, and discussion probably was a good idea in this case. Consider User:Burntech blocked, because it's clearly a promotional name - that ones an easy one :-) Ryan Postlethwaite13:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually I wasn't the one that saw the name, User:I could not even see it, and asked for my opinion about it, he'd already discussed the name with the user by the time I woke up, lol. I guess I just got the ball rolling faster, which I regret now. And it looks like Mike went ahead and G-11'd that article, as it is gone now, so thanks for taking care of the username, I did leave a username concern note on the user's page, rather than reporting it. Again, I'd just like to say how much I respect your opinion, and I appreciate that you took the time to explain things. Ariel♥Gold13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 17:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and if these were images of similar characters, or the same, I would understand. As it is, they are images of around 500 or so different species. Further than that, many of them are made for promotional use, and not as clips from the actual copyrighted works - they are the character designs. Anything that is not a screenshot or a cardshot is this kind of picture.
Also, from my read through of WP Policy, the example of acceptable fair use is a picture that is low-resolution and unique - almost all of these pictures are low(er) resolution, and they are overwhelmingly unique, since it is quite hard to create pictures of them that are free.
So:
No free equivalent. Check
Respect for commercial opportunities - these are pictures that only appear on side-along lists of Digimon or on the websites promoting the anime - never in the anime or cards themselves, with the exception of the Tamers Digivice Images, which appear in a largely modified form in the anime. So, check. (I notice that you left some images in that actually violate this)
Minimal number of uses. Only one picture per extremely divergent species, so, Check.
Previous Publication. On the Toie and Bandai websites, so check.
Content. To my understanding, check.
Media-specific policy. To my understanding, check.
One-article minimum. Each image is used in at least one article, and for the large part, only one article
Significance. Ho yeah, check.
Restrictions on Location. I'm pretty sure this is a check, though I haven't checked everyone's userpages.
Image description page. This is a main task of the Wikiproject, so partial check, since I'm not sure that we're done yet.
So tell me, besides the fact that there are a lot of pictures on that page (which doesn't actually violate the guidelines), what is the problem?KrytenKoro06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declining to do a checkuser because it goes against the privacy policy is not admin abuse. I strongly urge you to drop the matter right away, but if you insist on carrying on, do not call it abuse of power. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have moved Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe to Soviet occupations per discussions on the Talk Page. It is my hope that this move will help resolve some of the edit warring that caused you to protect the page. Would you be willing to have the page unprotected on an experimental basis to see if the edit warring stops?
Hi Richard, I'll unprotect it now if it hasn't been already. I think the best thing to do is make it clear that further edit warring will be met with blocks rather than protection. Ryan Postlethwaite09:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment in response to your appraisal at the noticeboard page. Please read what I've said and linked to and consider revising your decision. Thanks for your time, Dsol16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left another message at 3RR.
The anon ip was basically reverting
very well sourced info about one issue (Wines incident)
questionably sourced and questionably included info about another incident (AK's name), which I already stated I'm not contesting and don't demand its inclusion at present.
unsourced but noncontentious info about a 3rd source (spy), which was not even noticed because the anon made 0 effort to engage in discussion about it.
The fact that the second 2 might be okay does not excuse the 3RR violation on the first. Sorry to bother you about this further but the anon is not really participating seriously in discussion at WP:BLPN and I don't have another outlet. Dsol10:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond here as there's no point in filling up the 3RR board. If the IP reverts again, let me know, and I'll take another look at it, but as this was an IP removing what he thought was a BLP violation, then that is exempt from the 3RR rule, whether well founded or not. As I say, letme know if there's another revert. Ryan Postlethwaite10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do, thanks. But isn't there some limit to how far 3RR exception for BLP extends, especially when the sources are given and described in depth on the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard? While I appreciate your future attention in this particular case, what recourse does one have in general when an editor defies consensus to repeatedly blank material, and falsely claiming support from BLP policy? Dsol11:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ip is back to edit warring on the article page, and I think another 3RR violation is imminent. While the arguments s/he is offering on WP:BLPN are paper thin and belligerent, I am trying to respond in a measured way and not to revert while discussion is ongoing. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the reversions are not enforcement of BLP but merely editorial, and therefore subject to 3RR. I would like your opinion on this, and if you have time and inclination, on the matter in dispute itself. Thanks Dsol16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I like pages. I've used it more as a how-to than a direct practice per se, but still very useful. I think it'd be helpful to have a school block sample there, too. What to unclick, which templates to use and where to put them, etc. -- Flyguy649talkcontribs15:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Ryan. It really is a small world! I'm also from Kendal in the Lakes - did you go to Kirkbie Kendal or Queen Katherine school? I've made contact because I noticed you on the 3RR Administrators' page yesterday. I reported a user almost 24hours ago and there's been no result to my report or any cases reported since. Would I be best off waiting or there something I can do to expedite the process? Thanks in advance, and good luck with the rest of your course; I graduated 2 years ago and work has proved to be quite fun! :-) Docta24715:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it is a small world :-) I went to Queen Katherine - only the best for me!! How about you? It's Torchlight Procession night tonight, but just managed to fit in sorting out your 3RR report before I hit Kendal and get hammered! :-) Where are you based now? Ryan Postlethwaite16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went to Kirkbie Kendal, but in the spirit of Wikifriends, I hope you forgive me :-). I had some good nights out at the Torchlight; always ended up right in the middle of town at the New Inn. Many thanks for taking a look at the 3RR for me, it's very much appreciated. After finishing uni I've moved to Worcester/Malvern to work on high-tech defence technology research for QinetiQ. All good fun! Docta24716:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your information Ryan, I have closed the MfD regarding Politics rules' user subpage. I neutrally reviewed the arguments, and closed the MfD as no consensus. It neither an obvious keep nor delete, so no consensus was the logical closure. Acalamari20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably have been better to leave it to someone who could have judged the consensus rather than close it as no consensus. I'll probably take it back to MfD tomorow. Ryan Postlethwaite01:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user is violating WP:UP#NOT - just have a look at their userpage. I tried asking them nicely on their talk page to remove it... that did nothing... so I removed it myself... and they just reverted it. Would you, as An Almighty Admin, be able to do something about his shenanigans? Thanks in advance, Una LagunaTalk08:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you have just blocked him for breach of the 3RR. Thanks for our vigilance. would wholeheartedly agree with a block, but I had not noticed when I posted a warning, so I'll leave it there. Ohconfucius13:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see. I will do so, but is it any chance for you to get back to me after a while and adress me if I am able to uses twinkle again?. Nick1000016:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, you know everything. Were you aware of a discussion to change the {{speedy}} warning on article pages from pink to white? And if there was no such discussion, do you know how to change it back? --Anthony.bradbury"talk"17:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the diff where the tag changed. Basically, all the speedy templates are formed from {{Db-meta}}, so when this was changed to {{Ambox}} form, which all boxes are changing to on wikipedia, the tag went from white to pink. I'm not sure where the discussion is, but I think it's widely accepted. I'll look into it though. Ryan Postlethwaite17:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Into The FrayT/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Though there's really not a mechanism for this, let me "second" this barnstar. It really is a brilliant concept, and one that I wish had been here when I was figuring out the new buttons! - Philippe | Talk00:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said in Deletion log that we did not meet the requirements for "significance". Can you expose your arguments and defend them against these pages:
- Zenphoto : Notability is almost equal to us and description is minimalist
- Gallery_Project (also better known than us, their page was less iformative than the one we provided. If you thought we put too much information, just let us know.
- 4images
Hello - My first post here, but I would like to assist the folks at PhpWebGallery as a reference because I have benefited so much from this open source application. I actually learned about PhpWebGallery because it was listed on Wikipedia here: [48]
I hope that alone should indicate that it is well known and established.
This link does a fairly good job of comparing all of the gallery software out there on the web. I had tried several other open source apps over time including popular apps such as Coppermine and Gallery as well as MG2. Coppermine and Gallery are best known on the web, but the minute I started reading the information at PhpWebGallery I knew it was something special. Not only is it extremely robust in all of its tools and ability, but the wonderful administration interface is what is key to me as a photographer needing to display images on the www.
PhpWebGallery may not be on the front page of CNET, but it should be, and I predict it will be fairly soon once other photographers catch on. For reference I use it at [49] and [50] (click on "portfolio" to see how I use it)
If you do a basic search on PhpWebGallery in Google, you will find 35 pages of links referencing it and countless photog sites using this app. I hope this will help, and please feel free to edit my writing here in the interest of leaving good, useful info at Wikipedia. - Steve Cherry at DailyFrame.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevecherry (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a confused debate there. PhpWebGallery is distributed as MediaWiki under a General Public Licence. No doubt for anyone that MediaWiki is referenced by Wikipedia itself. PhpWebGallery is similar to MediaWiki not for building a Global online Encyclopedia but as a open software solution to build a large picture gallery repository. If Ryan you are convinced that our references are to related to the original web site, we had thousand website address available. Nethertheless, I am trying to have press articles from ziffdavis.com and PC Magazine just for you, even we already have some in French obviously.
Absolutely not, I'd rather be indef blocked... At least tolerate the damn signature. Even my signatures bother you people! -- Catchi? 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
hi Ryan btw take look at [51] I think this article needs to be improved and also need a ethnic infobox template. Is it any chance for you to help out? thanks in advance Nick1000012:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I tried to create an infox box using a template from here - but failed as the infobox's here use a lot of different templates to put them all together and I'm not 100% possitive how they work. Sorry. Ryan Postlethwaite16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the IP is constructively trying to work a compromise on the talk page now, so a further block would be punitive now. I will keep an eye on it however. Ryan Postlethwaite16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that anyone asked my opinion, but GnuTurbo, that is a truly fascinating statement. I've never thought about it that way. I'm gonna have to sit down and grok that, because I'm curious about the implications of that. - Philippe | Talk19:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not questioning your language, at all. I'm just intrigued by the application of punitive punishment in the States and the implication of that on the mind of your average US Wikipedian. Probably a research project in there somewhere... measuring the effects of the criminal justice mindset in light-justice applications or something. - Philippe | Talk02:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind not just removing closed discussions? They are no longer automatically archived when removed, so they have to be done manually. Usually there is not a clog on the page warranting immediate removal, but for some reason it happened while I was away. It's harder to keep the archives accurate if we need to dig though the history to get the links. You don't need to archive, but would you mind not removing them entirely? Thanks. isaid00:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah of course, I did check the archive, but it didn't seem like it was up to date so I didn't add them to it. I'll make sure I archive them next time. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite05:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so my old friend insomnia and I are sitting here, watching the user creation log for kicks and I note that I see users creating other users. How is that done and why? Figured you'd know, since I saw you on WP:ACC. Into The FrayT/C05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know I passed my RfA. Thank you very much for the nomination. I'm not going to SPAM everyone, as I have 96-6=90 better things to do with my new (not very shiny after all) buttons. However I am thanking my nominators, because, well you are all fab! Happy Editing! Pedro | Chat 12:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about these sorts of things, but when you unblocked him and stuck the "unblocked" template on his page for the autoblock, it displays his IP address. Some people might not want their IP address advertised like that. Then again, maybe he doesn't care about his anonymity since he's going to CZ. Just thought I'd bring it up. --SGTTex20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!
Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.
Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.
Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.
Could you explain for me the reason for the deletion of the account User:Sweet Blue Water? I don't think that it is normal policy to delete sockpuppet accounts. I would have raised this question on the relevant talk page, but it is protected, also for mysterious reasons. --Marvin Diode00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook rocks!! Can't take it outside I'm affraid, I'm on a uni computer because I got drunk last week and dropped my laptop so it's getting repaired at the minute, trust me - it made it a very expensive night! Will try and catch up with everyone soon! Ryan Postlethwaite11:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 3RR warning, but I think you need to examine the history more closely. In the last 24 hours, I have only edited the article 3 times. As for telling me not to revert again, the last edit by anon removed quotations marks from quoted text. It also removed the citation foonote. So now we have an article that has a clear case of copyvio/plagiarism because we have verbatim quoted text that isn't attributed to any source and is presented as our own. I appreciate you taking the time to look into the case and blocking the anon, but I wish you'd looked a little closer and not left the scolding message on my talk page. But I'll live :) -Andrew c[talk]15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand I had been reverting a lot. I'm just not sure of other options. These edits were almost vandalism in my opinion, which is why I was more lenient in the amount of reverts. If this was truly a content dispute, I would hope that I wouldn't had reverted as much. The situation was an anonymous editor (which I know shouldn't bias my opinion, but sometimes it does), who wasn't use the talk page or being communicative, who wasn't using edit summaries, inserting POV personal commentary into a section of quoted text, over and over. In the future, I can try to be more careful, but I'm curious what you would have done in the same situation? You can't force users to go to the talk page? Thanks for your comments.-Andrew c[talk]15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand your point here, and I don't really know what to suggest. As you say, you cannot force someone to go to the talk page. I disagree that the edits in question were close to vandalism, they were more mis-understood than anything but it was still a content dispute. I guess there is always a third opinion, an RfC would be too minor for somethnig on this scale. What I would have done is probably walk away, and let someone else revert it. I would probably have reverted a couple of times and attempted to enter into discussion with the IP, and if I got no response, taken it to WP:AN to get someone else to try and talk to them. Apart from that, I'm not really sure what else you can do. Ryan Postlethwaite15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I didn't see any incivility, and 3RR was not even broken, so I don't see disruptive editing. I am sure you can all work it out on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk12:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Jreferee, just popped over to the page and added a few refs and commented on the DRV - hopefully it will certainly be saved now. I agree with the original speedy by JzG. Ryan Postlethwaite15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) clearly states that people are to be described as gay, not as homosexual, in articles. As an administrator I have to treat it as a policy violation, and therefore as vandalism, if somebody ignores that policy by changing the description of Mercer's sexuality to "homosexual". Vandalism is not subject to 3RR. Bearcat18:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to call it vandalism because I briefly worked on Chasnalla Academy. Actually I nominated it for speedy but that was declined unsurprisingly. Maybe the author was just trying to show me he's improved the article significantly. Donno... Thanks though. Pigman02:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, looking back over this discussion over the use of fair use images on List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1), I see that we still don't have any closure on what to do. Since the AFD was interpreted as an optional transwiki, we still a number of pages out there unresolved. What do you think, another discussion on ANI, about the fair number of fair use images and staying away from the notability issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted back to a version without the fair use images. Unfortunately the AfD close ignored the overall consensus to transwiki (by that I mean it completely ignored the consensus). Might take it to DRV. Ryan Postlethwaite16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article is currently in the process of being transwikied, hopefully this will sort the problems - I'll keep my eyes peeled to make sure it does get transwikied. Ryan Postlethwaite16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we all know that's what he loves. I've left a ntoe on BN saying that I've relisted it but hopefully it will be closed again soon. There's no need for a revert war over something so silly. Personally I thought Miltopia had gone.... Ryan Postlethwaite12:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just ask me what I meant by that comment instead of engaging in nasty gossip? A simple question would've cleared up my intentions for any rational person. And you say I'm the one who loves drama... Milto LOL pia19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, AH! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers,hmwith talk21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Readding those images was an accident on my behalf as I was readding information, that looking further back, you removed, while I'm here though explain too me what WikiProject Digimon is doing wrong, we were told we had to merge all the Digimon into one list, which was done, and now we have to transwiki? Why? Also what exactly are we doing wrong with the images, which rule are we breaking? They were added on the grounds of it increases the understanding of the topic. What are we doing wrong? Trainra11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't quite understand, and the AfD was finished a little over a week ago. Progress takes time. Also I would like to say Wikiproject Digimon should have been notified of the pending deletion request and when the fair use problem was brought up to us I replyed and the origional message poster didn't return to state a rebuttel,Trainra12:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We werw currently in the process of adding references to the character lists. Our main view was to get them all merged first. I shall bring the Lists idea up at the Project, but remember that the majority of our editors have left and there is currently only three active ones. So it might take some time. Trainra12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all fine; hope you're fine too. :) By the way, I know this isn't to do with my original posting, but here's another thank you for the new admin school; it's a handy place to give to new administrators, and they appreciate it! Good work on it. Acalamari16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, well to be honest with you, it bored me to death doing it, but I really thought it would be good for all the new admins, and hopefully it will help them when they first get the tools. Hey, no big deal if it doesn't - they can just ignore it :-) Ryan Postlethwaite16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told some new admins I've given the link too: I'd wish it had existed when I first became an administrator. :) What's even better is that some of the bureaucrats are even putting in their notifications of users they've just sysopped. :) Acalamari16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the initiative to move it to RFC. I was considering doing so, but was wondering if it was worth the work. Hopefully we can spark some discussion this time. ^demon[omg plz]16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there really is, if you guys would take a second and just look. There really is. Look back, make the effort. This is the third time it's been requested for protection, and there is too much vandalism going on. Carter | Talk to me00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough for protection, and as I look at it, there isn't all that much compared to other articles. We have to expect some vandalism and thise get's no more than any other page. Just keep on reverting and warning. Ryan Postlethwaite00:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will, but I already have three times. It just gets frustrating. I'll report it if it happens again though. I always warn the user as well. Anyways, happy editing. Carter | Talk to me00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as the reason. When I tried to edit with the account, I got Image:Blockmsgtemp.jpg as the block message with the "QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ" included. Maybe you were saying something different? Just wanted to make sure I was getting the technical details correct. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, I know you've been around Wikipedia for a while, and I wanted to ask a favor. I am seriously thinking about going up for RfA, and I'm on WP:ADMINCOACH, but that is largely inactive. I wanted to see if you could help me out by taking me up as a coachee. I understand from your userpage that you might be inactive, so take as much time as you need, or feel I need. Thanks for considering this. J-ſtanTalkContribs19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I finished both my tasks, and wanted to know what else I need to do. I haven't been as active lately, because my wifi network is down. I'm editing from my parents' computer. I should be able to get more done soon. J-ſtanTalkContribs16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan! I started the above portal as a favour to your fellow Cumbrian admin J Milburn - could you take a look at helping to complete it at some point? Also, how's about a Cumbria WikiProject?--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant!! It looks so good, thanks for your hard work with it. A cumbria wikiproject would be a great idea, as you're good at formatting, how about throwing something together? Ryan Postlethwaite13:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=164325638
The IPs talk page indicates to me that the IP WAS warned, many (5) times, and vandalized many times, SINCE the last block. The listing criteria for the page are : The vandal is active now, has been sufficiently warned, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances. AH! "RECENT last warning"... I guess you don't consider 'since the last block' to be recent enough. I'll warn the user. If I'm correct, 'recent' needs definition. If not, please explain. Dictionary.com defines it thusly: "not long past: in recent years."--Elvey18:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a shared IP, so every time someone edits, it is a new user. To block this IP, I would like to see 4 warnings within at the very most 72 hours. The IP in question has made some good edits, and has had few warnings since its previous block months ago. Ryan Postlethwaite19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Would you be offended if I re-posted the request for other admins to see (and link here), as I feel a block would be a) appropriate and b) within policy? PS: I indicated that I knew the IP was marked shared when I made the request. I also proposed a SOFT block. Perhaps you missed those points.
No, by all means re-add it to AIV to get another admin to take a look, it will do no harm. I still don't believe a soft block is appropriate as there were constructive edits from the IP, but hey, another admin may see it differently - I'm all for transparency :-) Ryan Postlethwaite19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was answering the questions when you were writing me that note. Sorry if I was supposed to do it in the same edit as accepting the nomination - I didn't realise. Hut 8.519:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking out your userpage, and I was wondering...is WikiProject Endorsements a joke? Because it's redlinked. Does it not exist yet or was it deleted? VanTuckyTalk00:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It did exist, but it was just a joke. Basically, it was because Kelly Martin's RfA rationale was that someone should have a wiki-project endorsement or they got opposed, this was a comical way of giving someone a wiki-project endorsement! Ryan Postlethwaite00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the page has been protected in the state at which the last IPSock left it. Perhaps this could be undone as a discouragement to bad behaviour? --Pete21:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that the IP is also a registered editor. Protecting the page in its current form, as edited by a Sock IP falsely claiming consensus, especially where the page protection request also noted the use of socks, seems to be sending the wrong message. This sort of behaviour should be discouraged, not excused with a shrug of cybershoulders. --Pete21:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do this this user really ought to adjust his attitude, and I think his username is still a violation. He can combat vandalism without drawing attention to himself in this way, and his conduct borders on unacceptable. I saw he was reported to UAA, I left a comment saying that you were involved in discussion. What do you think? And what do you think ought to be done? SGGHspeak!11:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because, the function can be abused by vandals wanting to create a lot of accounts similar to other respected users to disrupt. - admins are supposed to be trusted so they are given the right to create accounts that are similar to other users to get around the problem of the software blocking these usernames from ordinary users. Although the software didn't block it, an imposter incident happened when User:Alllison was created to pretend to be User:Alison. Ryan Postlethwaite17:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ryan, you seem to be getting a little frsutrated as of late, so I thought I would say that you are doing a fantastic job, keep up the great work! ViridaeTalk21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Viridae - it's very much appreciated, I think I've just been getting involved with a few things that have touched a nerve and hence why I've probably come across a little upset - I'm sure things will blow over soon enough and things will get back to normal, we all have our off days/weeks. It's good to hear from you Ryan Postlethwaite21:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend you extend his block to indefinite because every time he is "let loose" (in other words, unblocked) he keeps testing his talkpage and messes with the sandbox heading. Please, we cannot let this person on Wikipedia again. I've dealt with him since day one, when he was testing his sandbox. He plugged his talkpage with earwax, personal attacks, and other stuff (check here), and, most recently, .0. (Check my FAQ.) Please, I (and probably the other admins) are stressed out dealing with him. Please! Please! --Goodshoped35110s04:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one more thing...
Hey.
Thank you all for helping out. Becuase I (probably) suffered the most from that IP address, I,Goodshoped35110s, give you all the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! (yay.) :) --Goodshoped35110s04:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.
The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't understand your logic. The reminder I tried to add was taken verbatim from WP:U. By saying, "We don't do it that way here," you seem to be saying that WP:UAA overrides WP:U. This seems slightly out of whack to me. --Bongwarrior10:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that if a name is inappropriate, not blatantly inappropriate then it can still be blocked and reported without and edit, it's always been done that way. I don't see how one edit makes a difference. I'm not sure I understand why you're revert warring over this. Ryan Postlethwaite10:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello...I have a slight problem that maybe you might be able to help with. The little "menu" at the top of my userpage that has a time, links to my talk page, contribs and the like, and a little saying is normally right in between the line at the top of the page, for some reason it is slid way down (you will see what I mean) and I am not sure how to fix it. If you could help, I would appericate it. (Sorry for the bad explanation). - NeutralHomerT:C01:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad :), but the bottom line (with the "Non nobis solum" was under the line) the red ribbon was actually directly at the end. Somehow it all slid last night. - NeutralHomerT:C01:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just edited the margins a tad, and it seemed to sort itself out - there may have been a change in the media-wiki interface causing it to move across the bottom line, looks like I've fixed it now though :-) Ryan Postlethwaite01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You closed the WP:AN/I thread telling OberRanks to discuss it with Durin on his talk page. He's trying to, but every time he has, Betacommand or Videus Omnia has been removing it with the charming edit summary "rv troll". Neil☎17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking about this thread, did you by chance notice the fire & brimstone on my talk page with regard to it. I've been travelling on business today and yesterday and thought maybe I'd see it differently after being away from the discussion, but I just looked over it again and just can't see what I did to inspire that reaction in DuncanHill. Am I turning crotchety as I approach 30? Look it over and give me your two cents, Ryno. ATraintalk02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on my talk page, as I'm sure you see, but honestly I'd like to just express again how much it means to me, that despite my own personal hesitation, and perhaps my own lack of objectivity, you are there to urge me on, and tell me I'm ready. I can't tell you how much that means to me, I really can't. I just hope that you know. And please, don't be upset with Mike, I understand where he's coming from, and I can see how it may have come across to him, but I want to assure you that I didn't see it as anything but a wonderful thing, truly. Thank you. Ariel♥Gold18:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ariel, I don't hold grudges against anyone - the best thing to do is say your bit and then you can move on as friends :-) I wouldn't say I'm surprised about you declining for now, you're diligent and want to know in your heart that you are ready. When the day comes that you finally run, I'll be there to support/nominate if you wish. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite19:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely want that, and you know I'll be putting your school through the ringer, lol. I'm sure I'll have plenty to bother you about! And I just think that November is better for me, for a number of reasons, but I will be quite sure to let you know when things get going! And, I really can't thank you enough, but I hope you know how much your suggestions and support means to me. Thank you, you are truly a very special Wikipedian, and a wonderful Wiki-friend. Ariel♥Gold19:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I have already tried to inquire into the nature of the blocks I find questionable from the admins who put them in place, but they do not want to further elaborate on why the blocks were justified. This is why I was seeking outside advice. I will now follow your suggestion, and will inquire through the WP:AN/I. Thanks once again! ~ Homologeo19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a user here who wouldn't support an RfA candidate unless they had a wikiproject endorsements - but wikiprojects don't endorse candidates. So we create this page as a joke, soley to endorse every candidate that went up for RfA, so yeah, it was a joke! Ryan Postlethwaite00:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan. Wow I really appreciate being nominated by such an established editor. But I'm currently working on getting two albums up to a GA and an RfA now would be distracting. I know I said this when Jaranda nominated me in September, but I really do feel I need another month. But not to worry, I'm here for the long term. Until then, I'd love to join the team. Currently, I'm an article builder first and RC patroller/AfD contributor/RfA candidate second :) Spellcast11:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the right attitude to have, article writing is more fun anyway, admin chores can get rather boring. I fully understand you wishing to wait a little longer, but whenever you want a nom, just let me know and I'll gladly write one for you. Ryan Postlethwaite11:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's acceptable, there's no need to delete the pages fully as a redirect seems quite helpful in this instance. Is the album definitely going to be called Double the Trouble and is there a release date for the album yet? Ryan Postlethwaite23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources for the name or release date have ever been provided or found yet. So far, the album has currently been nothing more than speculation. Acalamari23:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, if you take a look at the thread, you'll even see that I participated in it! :-) I was just trying to be sly and force her into running but she's a persistent woman! Ryan Postlethwaite19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~*Giggle*~ I'm Irish! I'm allowed to be stubborn, aren't I? On this topic, I've saved the RfA for my own posterity to my scrapbook, but I think perhaps it would be a good idea to nuke it for now, as I've been asked when I'm going to fill it out, and someone has already commented on it, lol. We can re-created it when the time comes, and again, my most heartfelt thanks for your encouragement, support, and friendship. Ariel♥Gold19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears based on your additions to the workshop page that you have already decided these issues. It was my impression that the Evidence page was for laying out evidence on both sides. Yet you are already making findings of fact without reviewing my statements there, and offering interpretations of evidence as facts, in an entirely one-sided presentation. Are you planning to list Biophys' violations of all the same rules, or have you already made up your mind about the issues? If you have already made up your mind, what is there to arbitrate? I am very confused and disturbed by this process. csloat21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an arbitrator, but anyone can make proposals in the workshop at any time. I'm putting the evidence together as I see it, from the evidence on the /evidence page - it makes it much clearer that way. I have had a quick look at Biophys already, but will do in more depth soon. This is by no way pending, and feel free to make your own proposals on the workshop page or state the parts you disagree with. Ryan Postlethwaite21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, that helps me understand a bit. I am still troubled, however, because I had responded point by point to most of the links presented there; by amalgamating them like this on the workshop page it makes it look like an overwhelming amount of evidence, when in fact very little of it actually is relevant to the claim. csloat21:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you disagree, why don't you make a comment on the /workshop talk page? You can put evidence there as to how the links that are in my proposals are wrong. The arbitrators will certainly look at the talk page and take your comments into account. I've looked over your evidence aswell before making these proposals. Ryan Postlethwaite21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you do not appear to have looked at my individual responses to every link, or you would not have included many of those links in your list. I will go ahead and put this stuff on the workshop page too if you insist but I have already responded on the Evidence page. csloat21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to copy your evidence over, the Arbs will certainly read that. I have read your rebutuals to Biophys' evidence but there are some nasty personal attacks from you which haven't a place here, even if provoked. Likewise edit warring hasn't got a place here. Ryan Postlethwaite21:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the list of links does not show any "nasty personal attacks." The only statements that can be described that way that are from the last year are two statements that I profusely apologized for when an RfC was raised. All of the issues here were resolved by that RfC and I have been nothing but polite in the time since then. It is entirely unfair to recommend draconian punishments now based on links that are two years old plus a couple of links that were already addressed and resolved in an RfC. WP:DR worked for the actual "nasty personal attacks"; most of that list, as I have shown, is padding. Edit warring is a different question -- it is true I have been involved in those, but no more than any of my interlocutors, so it is very unfair to single me out for punishment. (In fact, I don't think this should be about punishment at all). I have also been very careful to discuss all of my changes on the talk pages of articles and in the edit summaries. What Biophys is characterizing as me edit warring is actually me explaining each edit carefully and then him mass-reverting a group of 10-20 edits without ever addressing the substantive arguments on the talk page. csloat22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs showing a lack of civility show old comments but also very recent ones, post the RfC - whether you appologised in the RfC or not, it shows you are still doing it now and the issue is not resolved - you have provided reasoning which the arbitrators will take into account. With regards to the edit warring, the fact is that you have been - it doesn't make it any better that your fellow contributors have. An edit summary is not an adequate explanation of the edits. If there is a great enough consensus for a change and one person is acting disruptively then that will be apparent and the disruptive user quickly blocked - I fail to see this here, it looks like plain and simple edit warring to get your way across. Ryan Postlethwaite22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree -- which comment from post-RfC shows incivility? The only one I think you could claim that about is the one where I pointed out that another user was lying -- the lying was blatant and I had provided the proof, and I was not uncivil about it; simply matter of fact. That certainly had nothing to do with the rfC. As for the edit warring, any punishments for edit warring should certainly punish all participants in the edit wars rather than singling out a particular user. csloat06:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration looks at all sides of a dispute, and people who you believe have edited disruptively will also be taken into account. There were issues with civility in the RfC, post the RfC, there are diffs that still show a problem with civility - calling another contributor a lyer is not the most civil thing to do, regardless of whether you were right or wrong, that's why I believe a remedy that focuses on civility is required to complement the remedy for edit warring. Ryan Postlethwaite19:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never called him a liar; I said he lied. One is a statement of opinion about the person whereas the other is a statement of fact about the thing the person said. I don't believe the statement was especially uncivil under the circumstances. csloat00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of your endless amount of absolutely fantastic contributions to Wikipedia, I award you with this utterly spiffing barnstar. ;-) Keep up the great work! With regards, Lradrama15:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note of thanks for your recent support. I made it through this time, and look forward to getting started. It's been a pleasure working with your over the past few months, and I look forward to keeping that interaction going in the future. Hiberniantears17:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want you to know that I was very emotional at the time I said what I did on the FA talk page. Also, it was never intended as a threat to disrupt. I didn't think of it that way even at the time. See responses on workshop page. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs)22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit] Contacting me
If you wish to contact me about this issue, do so privately (ie. email) - the main factor for my removal of my name makes the idea of public correspondance silly. In short: do not leave any messages on my userpage about this or related issues, ever. Daniel 12:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly urge you to stay off the List of Wikipedians by edit page, any more re-addition of names will result in a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, contacting daniel after he has told you not to if harassment, and will again result in a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I note the misspelling of the word 'correspondence': that says about all you need to know about this.Ryoung122 08:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am #1 in the world in what I do (see my user page)
I have been in over 1,000 newspapers on six continents.
, I do not fear 'user Daniel.' Simply DISCUSSING issues should not be an issue. If he does not wish to discuss issues civilly and in a peaceful manner, then I will not contact him; however, I will contact the appropriate persons, if needed, should further action be required (i.e. if I am blocked for merely responding to an abuse of power)--including, ironically, the 'arbitration committee.' Notably, several other persons had a problem with Daniel's actions at the same time. Thus, you may wish to consider whether it would be wise to continue issuing threats to me. If I am blocked, whatever...other users will simply be copying my work from a third-party source.
Communication CANNOT be a one-way street...we do not call it 'harassment' when a plaintiff presents evidence to a court room. I find it IRONIC that someone supposedly involved in 'arbitration' would be so loathe to...arbitration. So, you can let User Daniel know that I do favor 'resolution' of disputes through discussion, but it becomes difficult to 'arbitrate' when one 'doesn't want to hear it.'
AS STATED: I DON'T CARE IF 'USER DANIEL' IS ON THE LIST OR NOT. HOWEVER, I DO FAVOR THE USE OF 'PLACEHOLDERS' and plan to continue advocating that position. However, user Daniel indicated that he doesn't mind the use of placeholders. THUS, THERE SHOULD NOT BE A CONTINUED ISSUE HERE.
So, you can do the right, pro-active thing...favor a conflict resolution...or you can choose to issue 'yes-man' threats. It is up to you.
Ryoung12208:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does you being number one in your field make any difference here? If you contact Daniel when he has specifically asked you not to, or re-add his name to a list that he asked to be removed from, then it will result in you being blocked, plain and simple as it is harassment. Threats to shopping me to ArbCom do not help your situation. Ryan Postlethwaite10:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Seen your name around. Thanks for dealing with this fellow. I expect him to be true to his word and be back on another IP. I'll keep an eye out. Best, Jack Merridew12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My intent wasn't to shoot him down, I'm just a little surprised he would take something like that to ANI without talking to the user involved first. JuJube12:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it wasn't just aimed at you, I just thought the thread was getting a little nasty in relation to G-Unit, especially when he brought it to AN/I in good faith. He was getting ridiculed from all sides and it wasn't really fair. Ryan Postlethwaite12:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sure you didn't want to get involved when you made this revert (diff) but since you were unlucky enough to stumble into it would you mind taking a look at the conversation about the forums? I could really use an experienced editor to tell me if I've stepped out of line at this point. Thanks either way. Stardust821201:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reverting vandalism to my user page. I sometimes thank goodness I do not have one of these "This page has been vandalised x times" userboxes there... --John17:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, yeah, it'd probably boost your userspace edits. Would have blocked the nice fellow that did the deed, but saw you got there first! All the best, Ryan Postlethwaite17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An IP asked for instruction on how to email you on your userpage, i reverted it and gave my email address to the IP and said I'll forward you the email as I don't mind just giving out my email address directly on-wiki. Is that OK with you? If not I'll have another chat with the IP. Ryan Postlethwaite22:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, he's not registered so can't register an email address so won't be able to email you. That's why I gave him my email address because I presumed you wouldn't want to release yours to anyone - I on the other hand don't care who has mine! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know you've been a bit busy, and your internet isn't working great, but if you could review my essay, or at least give me a new task? It's just been a while, and I want to keep this going. Thanks! J-ſtanTalkContribs21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, please don't find another mediator. I think it may be the subject, and not you at all. I think I should bow out of this. It's not fair to the others that agree for you to mediate just because of me. :( I really think you'll do well. I don't think I will. Jeeny(talk)23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've restored your talk as it acts as a record for people that have contacted you. You can only delete your talk page if you leave the project I'm affraid. Sorry I could help more. Ryan Postlethwaite01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, users look for 3000 edits minimum and 3-4 months service - with a good record. I looked on your talk page and you do seem to be well liked so I don't think you've got anything to worry about :-) Keep your head up, get involed in some dicsussions and you could quite easily be an admin in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!
The article has been locked for an awfully long time, and to prevent any appearance that the others like it that way—since it was locked in a way that favours their line—I'd be pleased if you asked for a time-line to get this issue resolved. I suggested one, but no one has responded. I sense strategic stalling, and I'm not convinced that the recent walk-out by Cuthbert was in good faith. Tony(talk)04:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better do something about this: Rainwarrior has just walked out, following his friend Cuthbert. I'm no longer willing to sit around while the article is locked in their favour. People who put on tantrums and walk out of mediation, IMV, lose their voice in the solution. I need to know whether Wahoofive and I are going to negotiate a solution now (with your mediation). It does appear to be close. Tony(talk)09:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, but you should only create an article when there is some context there. This was not the case with this article. However, I'm pleased to see your efforts on the article now, and I think it looks really good. Ryan Postlethwaite15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks like my experiment to create several articles in a row by rubber-stamping the taxobox didn't really come off! oh well. Totnesmartin15:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, had you not recreated the article already, I'd have been happy to undelete it as soon as I came back on. It's never a problem if an article gets deleated as you can always get it back. It's often a lot easier to work on one article at a time - it gets less confusing! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite15:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah they are if you use the text from them. Even though you only copied it onto the talk page, that should have been attributed and it couldn't be as it was deleted. Thanks for sorting it. Ryan Postlethwaite12:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, can you inform me (1) who brought in WBScribe to end the mediation, (2) why it was closed on the basis of a stated falsehood, that all parties have abandoned it (neither Wahoofive nor I have abandoned it), (3) why there is talk here of removing the mediation as a record, so that it can't be used as "evidence" in this RfA? I wonder why you started the "moving on" section, only to have the whole thing expunged. Tony(talk)12:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response:
(1) WJBscribe (talk) acted in the role of Chair during my temporary absence, and Ryan's as mediator (see two threads above) and closed the case.
(2) I have edited the reason used at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Inversion (music) - the use of all was intended to refer that "it is no longer the case that all parties agree [as one no longer does]". Mediation can only continue with all parties, as you may be aware.
Hello, and thankyou for nominating me for adminship. I am about to fill in the RfA form with my acceptance of the offer and the answers to the questions. Could you post it for me afterwards so absolutely nothing goes wrong? Many thanks, Lradrama13:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled it in! Once again, many thanks for the offer to nominate me. If you could post it on the system I'd be most grateful. Best wishes, Lradrama13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lradrama has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
This is a cross post from the crazy AN/I - I thought you might be the best person to speak to directly;
Sorry to perhaps be a little cynical, but could anyone above confirm if this is being discussed elsewhere, perhaps IRC? The block notice, followed by several 'supports' seemed to arrive somewhat quicker than the concerned responses below. No biggie if this isn't the case, but if it were, it would be healthy to disclose. Privatemusings00:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I appreciate that. My priority in asking is in ensuring an accurate picture of consensus. As I mentioned, fairly immediately after the decision was made, several 'support's came in. Was the block mentioned at that time on IRC, and more particularly, is there any possibility that some of those support votes were informed through IRC in a way that editors solely working 'on-wiki' would be unaware of?
The only danger is that a false picture of consensus gets painted in the short run.
I only went on after the unblock happened, and I wasn't on when the block happened. I have AN/I watchlisted so that's how I saw it. To be honest, AN/I is where the drama is occuring - when something like this happens, people know IRC isn't the place to discuss things. Hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it's now historical, there's a lot of cases open, pending, under investigation, etc., that might be better to be closed out; all they are doing is getting older, and I think there's little value in having unclosed cases in a defunct project. Does one have to be an admin to close them out, or should they go under MfD, which might not work because AMA itself was ineligible for MfD? MSJapan02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you took the comment personally (nominee a mate of yours perhaps?) and abused your powers by blocking me indefinately, masking the fact by referring to some faux consensus. I have agreed to your terms so I hope this is the end of the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyslexicbudgie (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, I've just stopped by to thank you for taking the time to request my unbanning – and make it successful. As I noted on my talk page, I will not let you down, or anyone else :). I hope to keep in good contact with you throughout my time on Wikipedia. You're a great friend. Additionally, happy first edit day :). Best wishes, Qst11:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers acalamari, you're certainly one of the good guys. It's been a pleasure working with you over the past year, and I look forward to further interaction. Ryan Postlethwaite01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been one year since you made your first edit! I've seen you several times. I first saw you when you closed my stale RfA after I decided to withdraw, and then I met you again on WP:AN and finally, you blocked User:Madigan = Sotiropoulos, since that username clearly impersonates my driver's education teacher and my band teacher. I'm about to make my 10000th edit soon. Leaving you this message is my 9981th edit, including deleted edits, according to My Preferences. Again, Happy 1st edit day! NHRHS2010 talk 05:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You told Qst that non-admins couldn't close AfDs as "No Consensus". According to the relevant section of the deletion guideline, they are only restricted from closing "Delete" results, as they lack the technical ability to do so. In this case, he obviously shouldn't have closed them, as there were no comments at all. But still, non-admins are permitted to close as "No Consensus". i(talk)23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, it always used to be the case that non admins should only close discussions where everyone has said keep. Anyway, Qst has had problems in the past with his AfD closures, so it may be an idea for him to stay away from them completely. Ryan Postlethwaite23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not neccisarily concerned with Qst here, although the closes were incorrect. I'm just saying that non-admins can close as no consensus. i(talk)00:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody removed the sentence "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator", which I have now restored. Daniel01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence has not been there since the new wording in June, so it was not removed. I've reverted and started a section on the talk page. i(talk)03:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I've reverted you, per my comments on talk. Establish a consensus to remove it before doing so, as there was never a consensus to remove it in the first place. Daniel04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apolgies, it was my understanding that one would relist a debate if the !votes were equal or nearly equal, but a debate could be closed as no consensus, if there are no comments - whether these may have been vote/delete/merge etc. I apologise, I'm sure it used to be like that at Wikipedia:Deletion Process#NAC :) I just assumed it still was. Again, sorry. Qst12:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the deletion process has said that non-admins could close as no consensus since the first of June. It was only just amended by Daniel. However in this case, yes, it should have been relisted, as there were no comments. i(talk)13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm willing to openly admit, that I was in the wrong. I'm not to good with AfD debate closing; but as they say practice makes perfect ... Qst13:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Medical papyri, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. I owe you a big thanks since you nominated me as well. Kwsn(Ni!)01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment on his talk page, he told a handfull of random editors about his leaving. Sorry for intruding on your talk page. Best wishes, Qst22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.
Thanks for the kind welcome and advice, whilst it was a rather "cookie cutter" greeting it was good none the less. I hope to help fill the shoes of a Wikipedia Administrator one day so I greatly appreciate the advice. Keep up with the good work
Cheers Twilln00:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Thanks
I am finding things alright the system is a little different than I expected and I am a little upset to see that wikipedia uses its own coding instead of html (which would make it easier for me) yet I think things are going well. I have started to edit a few things and look around. It's kind of hard to get your footing in a fast community; but I really want to help and be apart of such a great thing so thats worth the great confusion!
Cheers Twilln00:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nom! I'm delaying saying yes for about 1/2 an hour while I feed our dogs and double check my answers before posting them. Near as I can tell, I just say I accept and post my candidate statement and the three questions, right? Do I have to then list it on the main RfA page? Or perhaps I could just read the d--n instructions, right? Oh, and since it seems to be the often included optional question, I've also answered the "Would you add yourself to [[Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall]]? Why, or why not?" question. I figure I'll just post that as well. Anyway, I'll be ready in about 30 minutes or so. Thanks again. Oh, yeah, and technically I've been editing under this account since June, 2005, not Nov. 2006. But my contribs were pretty limited before late Oct. 2006 so it's not really a big deal. Cheers, Pigmanwhat?/trail00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply here, not sure you'll see it though! Basically, just answer the questions (plus your optional one) and say you accept and list it on the main page (You'll see the format that everyone uses when you click edit on WP:RFA). Whatever you do though, sort your hair out - I can't have any of my candidates going into the arena looking like a mess!! I did see that you started editing in June 2005, but I didn't really think those 2 or 3 edits in that period counted!! Best of look sir, really hope it goes well!! Ryan has to stay up now to get the first support in! Ryan Postlethwaite00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me a little while to get my, er, stuff together. So I'm proceeding forward now but it might take a few minutes because WP is really slow right now for me. If you've gone to sleep don't worry about it. Best, Pigmanwhat?/trail02:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just about still awake - just going through my emails with one eye open. If I don't catch you tonight - I've got 7 days so I won't worry about it too much! Ryan Postlethwaite02:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You got in the first support! Although it was simple enough to do, I was hugely paranoid that I was going to malform the listing on the RfA page. That would have been incredibly inauspicious. Nothing says "inattentive editor unsuited for adminship" than big public mistakes like that. At least it doesn't look like I'm going to snowball so I'm cheerful. Pigmanwhat?/trail04:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I just created this template {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} and I was first wondering what you thought about it and secondly (if you like it) would it be appropriate to add it to the pertaining articles. On a second thought, I think this would be a great replacement for {{Wikipedia principles}}, {{Policylist}}, and {{Guideline list}} while also having the benefit of showing the reader the common shortcuts, while also being collapsible, but thats just a thought. Thanks for any help! Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs06:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Gonzo fan2007, I think this has been looked into before. I like the idea in principle, but the problem with it is that the project is here for our readers, not for our editors. They shouldn't be subjected to policy links, when all they are wanting to do is read up on a subject, they don't want to see policies and guidlines. It all boils down to it been more aesthetically pleasing without the templates. Hope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um Ryan I think you misunderstood what I was actually trying to do. I don't want to add this template to every single page on Wikipedia, that would just be...crazy. I think this template would work good being placed on Wikipedia policy and guidelines pages. It would help people to easily find different policies and guielines when they are searching for them. It was just a thought to help editors when they need to cite and find different policies. Hope this clears things up. Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs00:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, why didn't you say so!? :-) I actually think that's a really good idea and would be a real help to both new and old editors. I'm trying to think where might be the best place to propose this....... maybe the village pump? Would you like me to propose it for you? Ryan Postlethwaite00:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah that made me laugh when you thought I meant ALL of Wikipedia. But yeah if you want to propse it that would be great because this weekend I will be a little busy in rl. Just send me the link when you propose it and I'll give my thoughts. Oh and if you would, could you look over the template and see if I did everything right and placed the most important policies and guidelines on it? Feel free to make any changes you think would be good. Thanks for your help! Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thankyou for your support and adminship nomination. Yes, indeed I shall check out the admin school and practice over the next day or so before commencing work again. Thankyou! :-) Lradrama18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Mailer diablo, the concern I have with the article is that it is a biographical article about a person famous for one news event, BLP specifically states that we should try not to have articles on people who are famous because of one news story. Whilst I haven't done anything drastic regarding the article (as I do agree it's well sourced), the guy hasn't even appeared in court yet and casts him in a very negative way, so from a BLP perspective, I don't agree it's good to have on the main page. Hope that helps to explain. Ryan Postlethwaite21:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that, I see you're the article creator, and I appologise for not informing you I had taken it off the main page - that would have been the courteous thing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite21:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting the page, Ryan. It's a bit of a mess and I disagree with User:Useruser1x's version, but the level of warring there is silly. Happy 1 year here, and I hope you're here for longer, too! -- Flyguy649talk01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there mate, saw you add the request so thought I'd pop over and try and sort it for you. Hopefully 1 week will be long enough for discussion. Take care, --Ryan Postlethwaite01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've been the one reverting most of Useruser1x's recent edits - which consisted entirely of removing criticism of the United Nation of Islam, as well as any discussion of the organization's religious views. I notice that Useruser1x got to the page again before it was protected. Would you be willing to restore the last-version-but-one, which contains the criticism and religious views sections? I also think Useruser1x has been gaming the system to avoid WP:3RR violations, after I issued a warning. Michaelbusch02:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but whilst you may think that Useruser1x is acting disruptively, what you are involved in is an edit war. As the protecting administrator, it would be wrong of me to revert to my preferred version of the page. If you get a consensus on the article talk page, then I'll revert it. --Ryan Postlethwaite02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I had rather thought there was already such a consensus (i.e. every editor involved but Useruser1x has expressed disproval), but I'll ask for opinions. Michaelbusch02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I have no dog in this fight. But it strikes me as incredibly arbitrary that the page was protected at a random point in time minutes after one side in an edit war struck. Especially when an editor had previously posted a reasonable piece. And when the vandal in the edit war is so obviously biased in promoting this religious group. I mean, what would have happened if it was protected 5 minutes earlier? The whole thing strikes me as incredibly arbitrary and capricious. That is not the point of Wikipedia at all. Pick a neutral version (Michaelbusch's last, perhaps shortened by 50%) and then you'll need to fully protect it for a long time. But just picking a random point in time in the middle of the edit war, when one side is so obviously biased, is a very bad idea. 195.189.142.13804:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, just noticed this guy was blocked! I'm really surprised that this happened, first, because I thought he seemed to be a decent guy, and also that I didn't notice this sooner! Am I allowed to ask what happened? Is there somewhere I can see the CheckUser results, or are they private? I'm really very surprised about this...one of his confirmed sockpuppets did make this edit, which was surprising given what a blatant conservative he was. You think he was just trying to throw people off his trail? GlassCobra08:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He opposed Hdt83's RfA at 15.21, 29 October 2007, shortly followed by Hi264 opposing - Hi264 got blocked, and Politics rule got caught in the same autoblock because they were editing from the same IP - i.e. they were the same person. We had a CU run to confirm it, and there were a number of other sock puppets that PR had used. I was a little shocked to be honest, as he was a very caring and constructive user - I guess it shows you can't trust everyone. Ryan Postlethwaite20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm quite shocked too! I didn't really have any direct dealings with him, but I saw him around a lot of Wikipedia areas and he seemed to be competent and trustworthy. Just when you think you know someone, eh? Wow... GlassCobra23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I did much to be honest, but it's good it's finally over and let me congratulate you and Tony on how you have acted in the past couple of weeks to resolve the dispute - my hat off to you both. Ryan Postlethwaite19:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, if you're still interested in joining the work with Portal:England (which I'd be delighted if you are), I was just dropping by to tell you that I'm going to create Portal:England/Future updates soon, I'm hoping we can build it up into a big directory of future updates for the Portal, in order to save having to look around on a weekly/monthly basis for new images/articles/DYK's etc. So, if you have any ideas for future updates, please drop them there, or better still, just update the Portal, as its still got loads of work to do on it :). Cheers, Qst20:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, you reverted me on the T:DYK/N.I had a conversation with an administrator on IRC who said that it would be OK, although you are not technically meant to do it. Qst23:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan! I wanted to drop you a line to say thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any backup or second opinions! Also, good luck in your run for ArbCom, I know you'd do a hell of a job! GlassCobra02:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. henrik•talk18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for suppporting my RfA. I was promoted with a total of (44/1/0) - a vote of confidence from the community that I find humbling and motivating. I will not abuse your trust. Look forward to working with you! (Esprit15d21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Pol hasn't seem to have received his login credentials yet. Can you have a looksee and see if they are sent? Otherwise, it might be a spam filter or something. Martijn Hoekstra22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pol64 hasn't emailed me yet, so I haven't got his email address, as you're aware, I have to email the password to you directly from the account creation page. If you could ask him to email me I'll sort it out ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, I find it pretty sad to see that a Wikipedia administrator, someone who's supposed to be setting an example for the rest of the online community, is adorning his userpage with a prominently displayed photograph of himself bombed out of his mind. Way to be a good influence for the kids of Wikipedia! In honor of that, I hereby award you a gold drunk star.
--Shathaniel02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best course of action is to take him at his word and block him indefinitely, per his request to vanish. If he wishes to return, then you can ask him to apologize or otherwise show contrition before granting his request. If he doesn't return, his parting expletives will be his sad legacy. I would do this myself, but you're the blocking admin, and I wouldn't want to act unilaterally here. Best wishes, Xoloz20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Xoloz, I can see your point here, but I really don't want to block a user because they said they wish to invoke right to vanish. We don't normally block users per request. I've started a thread up on AN/I, it might be an idea to post your suggestion there? I have no problem with you doing it, I just would prefer not to myself. Best regards, Ryan Postlethwaite20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked by request of the "right to vanish" before; I'm not sure what black-letter policy is on the question (though I know not to do it for a mere wikibreak), but not complying with the such a request to block is a bit of a waste of time. If a user asks for an indef. block, and one declines to give it, one is almost inviting the user to do something to deserve it. I'd rather just accede than invite the User:Purplefeltangel problem. If you like, you may mention this suggestion at AN/I. Otherwise, I'll leave the matter in the community's hands. Best wishes, Xoloz20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for setting up popup's for me .
At least i know who to turn to when i need help with setting up js tool meanwhile i just get myself use to popup's for a while before changing any settins in my monobook.js page .Richardson j23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've tried to have a look at it, but the formatting seems fine - I've made a few minor changes so I guess the best thing to do is wait and see what happens when tangobot next updates (which should be in 10 minutes). Ryan Postlethwaite01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all based on the percentages, green means it's 100%, and it goes through yellow, orange and red depending on how the candidate is doing. If I'm bein honest, I don't like the chart - it just turns RfA into even more of a vote. (If you ran for adminship now, I'm positive yours would be green! ;-) ) Ryan Postlethwaite02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I knew the different colors and what they meant, but I think it must need more than 10, because two of them up there now that aren't green are 12, and 13. lol. Ariel♥Gold03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail05:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.
I opened a mentorship page yesterday. User:Kendrick7 suggested I not use his name on it, thereby making it easier for admins and other editors in good standing to contribute, as you might wish to do. We've already been busy there, with (likely) significant improvements "agreed" to a number of articles.
However, I'm alarmed that the generic name "mentorship" I've given it makes the page even more open to interference, up to and including personal abuse, re-formatting, breaking up and deletion of comments, and the rest of it. Harassment of my mentors has been a massive problem, as you know. I'd like to clear with you my reverting any such disruptive behavior without comment or explanation (better still, if someone else would do it). I trust that is OK, it is my own UserSpace after all.
There is something else - you're putting yourself forwards for membership of the Arbitration Committee. I'd have a number of (perhaps hard) questions for you, but I don't really feel it my place to do so, or not at the official page the same as everyone else, anyway. Do you have any suggestions? PRtalk12:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PR, of course it's ok for you to use your own user space for this. I'm not sure we need something as official as this, I would just check your edits from time to time and make sure there isn't any disruption from you, and like wise, you aren't bein bullied by other editors. I've watchlisted your talk page so I'll keep an eye our there. Thinking about things, I believe Kendrick7 is OK to act as your joint mediator, so I think that's the way we'll take it. About the arbitration committee, you're more than welcome to submit questions for me, you can do it here if you want, or you can do it on my nomination questions page - I'll look forward to hearing them. Ryan Postlethwaite12:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are perceptive as always. Instead of harassment of my mentors (as overwhelmed the last three of them), this time it's to be bullying of me. Mentorship (which was proceeding at a furious pace and extremely usefully) has been brought to a shuddering halt after just 2 days. I deeply regret this state of affairs, I will probably try to restart mentorship at User:Kendrick7's UserPage, perhaps he will feel he can be more pro-active against intrusions there than I feel I can be on my own page. But as likely as not, it will simply end up with him abandoning the mentorship, a disastrous state of affairs and, for the first time, one that could perhaps be laid at my feet.
I think you can guess at some of the questions I'd like to put to you on arbitration. I watch the ArbCom being apparently overwhelmed with alarm. However, my real concerns are probably above my pay-grade, concerning the use/abuse of sources and abuse of processes. PRtalk10:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ryan, I am so sorry I called you a douchebag man. So sorry. :( Could you just leave the page deleted for now? It has been used against me in an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Forrester, where I have been subjected to legal threats, attacks etc. Some were based on the content of my user page. Thanks, I will probably want it undeleted after the AfD passes and I am sure the single purpose users threatening me are gone.IvoShandor21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be fair, I can be a douchebag sometimes so it was probably warrented :-) I'll leave your userpage deleted for now then, just pop back whenever you want it restoring. I'll take a look at the AfD for you tomorrow, I'll have a word with users that have been making attacks. Ryan Postlethwaite21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over it, it appears the user(s) were blocked once, I had unwatched it for a few days and just noticed today that I had apparently pissed off some lawyer beyond all recognition. Pretty amazing really. I didn't even say anything mean, just nominated the page for deletion and backed up my nomination with reasons. Haha. I doubt my insult was warranted, though my block certainly was, man I was mad, I need to ignore things more, like I essentially did with that AfD. Meh. Passion leads to strength....;) IvoShandor22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NHRHS2010 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for the smile. I was upset with my RfA because it was being clogged up with the opposes, and Daniel kept changing his oppose to stronger oppose and said that it is my fault. And Agüeybaná strongly opposed me, and this is not the first time he opposed me. Agüeybaná thinks that I am going to abuse the admin tools. Would I do that? No. Abusing admin tools is worse than vandalism, and I don't want to damage Wikipedia. Do you have any advice?
I don't think you'd abuse the tools at all, I think what the opposers were trying to suggest is that you need a little bit more experience that's all. Just sit back and try and relax when trying to fight the vandals, just warn them and move on. Maybe you could do some new page patrolling as well? And tag pages for deletion? I'm positive no-one thought you were going to abuse the tools on purpose, just that you might make mistakes that's all. I'm sorry that it wasn't a good experience for you, and some people probably should word things better at RfA, but I really hope you can continue your valued work here. Hell, I love seeing your name pop up :-) Seriously, keep your head up, you're one of the good guys. (P.S. Thanks for the complement about favourite admins!). Oh yeah, before I forget, Thanks for wishing me a happy first edit day the other day, I was meaning to come and say it earlier but I've been busy - it was much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wouldn't abuse the tools. Abusing the tools would mean hurting the encyclopedia, which I hate to do. However, Agüeybaná thinks that I will abuse the tools even though I wouldn't. Look at this comment: feel that you would be too trigger-happy and will block a user who probably just doesn't know how things work around here without thinking it twice, instead of educating and instructing. Today's vandal or troll could be tomorrow's Raul654. If you do not make an effort to help make this true, you're hurting the encyclopedia, and would do more bad than good if given the mop. What I do other than reverting vandalism is to add/edit infoboxes on articles about given names and add bus transportation to the transportation section of the articles about towns in New Jersey. Just to tell you that not only that you were on my favorite admins list, something big happened to me last Tuesday, as shown on top of my userpage. NHRHS2010 talk 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, well done on passing the written test! When's the main one coming?? You'll breeze through it! I don't think he meant to say that in a nasty way, I think he just thought you might make a few mistakes, but that's nothing that a bit more experience can sort - just keep on doing what you've been doing. Ryan Postlethwaite02:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym55515:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for Punishing me as i know i crossed the limits .plz look at the history of Barelwi what mezzo mezzo has done he reverted my edits even undispured heading biasedly. It is his regular habit to Insert his Personal Views [56]in that Article. he continued after it also .Shabiha(t • c)10:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest Ryan Postlethwaite,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.
My dear Wikipedian Ryan Postlethwaite,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Thank you and good day.
Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718at 02:38, 11/4/2007
Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤
Hey Ryan, I owe you a huge thank you for taking the time to write up a really flattering nomination for my RfA. I won't disappoint! I'm also looking forward to "graduating" from your admin school I've been hearing about :) Spellcast21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply to my questions about civility. Now I'd like to ask you a favor, and this time it's about my own civility. As humans, we are all imperfect and may not see our own imperfections as clearly as other do. For context, please see this comment [57] by one user to another. That uncivil comment prompted this comment [58] by me to the recipient of the first comment. Please give me your honest opinion as to whether my comment was uncivil. After you form your opinion you might read this.[59]
Let me be clear: I ask this only for the purpose of improving my own behavior. I will not quote your opinion to anyone else. I'm NOT looking for "defense witnesses". I'm just looking for an independent 3rd party opinion. I'm also making this same request to a second person.
P.S. Given that everything in Wikipedia is visible to everyone, probably hundreds of people will become aware of something that perhaps I don't really want to publicize. So be it. That might have the side effect of spreading more awareness about civility. Sbowers303:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you started the thread, but it was simply a request to look into community sanctions against you which is looking increasing like a good idea now. Ryan Postlethwaite13:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Note that nobody other than the thread-starter suggested or endorsed or consensused with the idea of giving me community sanctions; as my full summary says, I genuinely don't see where I've gone wrong.--Porcupine (prickle me!·contribs·status) 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you've done is trolled the community over something that no-one else has any idea why you want to do it. If you don't want to use your main accout, you could have stopped using it. Now it looks like you've lost your right to have an alternate account, and your main account is close to being blocked for disruption leaving you without any option but to stop editing. Ryan Postlethwaite13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realise it's a pain but, believe me, I have looked high and low for sources to establish the individual episode notability. The cabal at WP:TV-REVIEW began discussions/dogma a few months ago at Talk:List of Friends episodes and I've put forward several reasons why many articles should remain, which they have argued against. Nobody else has bothered to join in the discussion and nobody else has bothered to add any additional sources to the episode articles so I've chosen to redirect most of them myself rather than have them do it. If you think my edits (or "sole-person-trying-to-establish-notability-for-Friends-episode-articles-that-have-reliable-published-sources" as I like to call myself) are disruptive then by all means block me, ban me or start an RFC because now you've stuck me between a rock and a hard place. Brad21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, for this you'll need wider discussion so take it to AfD - a mass redirect of these relatively high profile articles is going to need some definite consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD would be my ideal way to settle this "boo-hoo, anything and everything related to fiction on Wikipedia is 'fancruft' so anyone interested in such things should piss off and make their own wikia" rubbish but, not to be (too) juvenile, tell User:Eusebeus to take it to AFD. Brad21:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for "high profile" -- if they were that then people would have joined in the discussion and tried to improve the articles. Brad21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a problem with quality of articles, fix them - don't redirect them. The discussion you highlight is not the most high profile place so it's highly likely that people will miss the discussion. I'm not too concerned if they get AfD'd or not, just if you want to redirect them, it's a course of action you should seriously consider. Ryan Postlethwaite21:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"14 fortnights" ... Ok I know you were just doubling CSCWEM's time... but it's funny. Say it out loud a few times. Maybe not as funny as "pants" but it's up there. ++Lar: t/c05:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you, I am withdrawing from the mediation regarding the pro-pedophilia article. I am highly disappointed that the article has been protected for so long. Protected to a version that is highly POV. Wikipedia advertises itself as neutral, but any article concerning pedophilia and you'll clearly see bias. Wikipedia is not neutral and only people who want to put pedophilia in the most negative spotlight possible have a say. Everyone else is blocked or finds themselves in a revert war with SqueakBox. A user that I strongly believe holds a bias against pedophilia and administrators have allowed him to monopolize articles on pedophilia. I'm finished with wikipedia. Fighting for Justice07:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I hold no bias against pedophilia while working on wikipedia, I am only interested in neutrality but if you, Fighting, don't want to continue with mediation does this mean that, like Jeeny, you wont be participating further in the pedophilia articles? Or do you want to continue editing pro-pedophilia activism and re-insert the comment of known socks of banned users which have been removed from the talk page as if the latter is the case I have concerns about your abandoning mediation. Thanks, SqueakBox08:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll believe you are a neutral editor, the day I see a neutral edit from you. If you care about neutrality you would see the bias in the following introduction of the pro-pedophile article. Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse. When you are neutral you refrain from using emotion evoking words like abuse. Fighting for Justice09:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, all my edits are based on neutrality in all the articles I edit, and I often edit bios and other articles precisely to promote NPOV where it is lacking. I don't see abuse as a weasel word. And this fundamental disagreement about what neutrality is is why I hope you will stay with the mediation. Thanks, SqueakBox09:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be a weasel word. The word is emotive. That is contrary to neutrality. I don't need mediation to decide what neutrality means. I know the definition of the word and neutrality is not occurring in the pedophile articles. I'm leaving mediation because I truly feel it will resolve nothing. There will be more of the same edit wars and a huge waste of time. Besides that, I believe some administrators are on your side and are willing to do your bidding. Fighting for Justice09:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting for Justice, I agree that it would be best if you stayed with both Wikipedia and the mediation process. While I too have my concerns over a number of blocks leveled against editors involved in the editing of PAW articles, the only way I see of bringing neutrality back into articles such as the one on pro-pedophile activism is if all the parties involved civilly discuss their concerns and strive to reach some kind of consensus. I do think PAW articles can be improved and brought closer to NPOV, and the official mediation process currently underway is a very effective means towards that end. It would be a detriment to the project if you were to leave now, seeing as best progress comes from the clash of all reasonably argued positions. I have seen the quality contributions you have made to Wikipedia, and really hope you will reconsider your decision to depart. Exactly because there has been a great deal of controversy and biased editing do we need editors like you on-board. ~ Homologeo09:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning to leave wikipedia entirely, I still plan to edit articles and fix vandalism. It's just that the articles won't be about pedophilia. There is an anti-pedophilia crusade going on here, and the article and it's misrepresentations left protected have ruined my perception of wikipedia. It is not neutral and only what is popular is allowed in articles. Fighting for Justice09:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you reconsider Fighting for Justice. Mediation is an attempt to help all parties involved in a dispute come to a reasonable compromise. If you do not participate in the mediation, then you are saying that the decisions made on the articles are going to be taken away from you and left in other users hands. If you truly want to withdraw from the mediation, then there isn't much anyone can do. Could you clarify for me if you still intend to edit the article? Mediation may not be viable for anyone if you still plan to. Ryan Postlethwaite18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could certainly continue to edit the article, but what's the point? Squeakbox will revert me and reinstate an edit that he endorses. You can not win with him, only until you see things his way will you win with him. I will enter mediation as soon as Squeakbox is banned from editing the pro-pedophilia article. He is not a neutral no matter how much claims to be. In July, he nominated the article for deletion. What does that tell me? It tells me he didn't want the article around, so why should we trust him that he will edit the article neutrally? He wanted the article gone. Anybody that tries to infuse a neutral edit he sabotages it. He accuses them of being sock puppets and a part of the pro-pedophile agenda. The agenda that only he can spot. It is ridiculous and I am tired of trying to reason with him. Fighting for Justice18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Squeakbox isn't going to get banned from editing the article, I'll tell you that right away. You obviously both have very different opinions on the article, and that doesn't mean that either of you are incorrect, simply different schools of thought. This is where mediation can help. If you are all willing to accept compromises then a neutral editing environment can be established and the article can be edited to reflect the consensus of all involved. If may be worth giving it a try, even if you wish to pull out of the mediation at a later date. Ryan Postlethwaite18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know he won't be blocked. Only those who want to see the article neutral are blocked. I've found out months ago there isn't any true justice in wikipedia. I know he has administrators on his side, that's why he's permitted to act the way he does. But I'll tell you what. I'll re-enter this mediation process and see where it goes. Fighting for Justice18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::::::I can't seem to enter the email I registered with to get in here. I'm told it doesn't exist. Can you send me an email to a different address? helterskelter20@hotmail.com I think that is the only email I can communicate with you. Fighting for Justice19:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While disagreeing with Fighting's comments concerning me having admins on my side (it just isn't true) I am pleased Fighting has agreed to return to mediation. I don't think we should be trying to stop any legitimate editor (ie not a sock of a banned user or any sock) from editing the article and I would rather see Fighting continue editing while engaging in mediation rather than doing neither. Thanks, SqueakBox19:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, can you give us any further information on how far we are in regards to Fighting for Justice's opening statement? Have you sent him a login yet? Has he accessed his account yet? Sorry if I put a lot of pressure on you (and fighting), but I just want to get under way. Martijn Hoekstra14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've sent ffj his login details a few days ago, he emailed me yesterday with an opening statement and I've requested that he adds it directly himself onto the MedCom wiki page. Hopefully we will be ready to start very soon. Sorry it's taking so long. Ryan Postlethwaite16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still mentoring user:PalestineRemembered? I am concerned about edits like this, where a well known historian is being described by PR as being "right out there in the lunatic fringe", while in the same breath, an acknowledged hate-site's antisemitic smear of a Canadian Jewish leader is being defended by PR as "carefully fact-based and relatively restrained". This is not a one-off occurence. PR has already been asked by reasonable editors to find more neutral ways to describe Scheteman - see this as one exmaple. Isarig17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan; further to my recent e-mail, please accept my most heartfelt congratulations on obtaining your BSc degree. And the very best of luck to you in your further studies. --Anthony.bradbury"talk"21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if undoing you again would constitute a wheel war but before you deleted the article I was reverting it to a stable version from October 1st. The article was vandalised and the history wasn't looked at when it was nominated for speedy deletion, I've been trying to rectify that. –– Lid(Talk)00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, I apologize profusely for deleting it again - I was just on a CSD run and presumed the user had simply recreated the article. Thanks for catching it and sorry for any inconvenience. Ryan Postlethwaite00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to engage in a wheel war with you, but I have speedy undeleted an article you have deleted, Nu skool breaks. The version you deleted indeed qualified for A1, but it was the result of vandalism. While you were in the process of deleting the article, another user had restored the pre-vandalism version. AecisBrievenbus00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry Aecis, I was on a mission to get CSD down to nothing and made a big mistake. Thanks to you and Lid (see above) for fixing my error (should consider going to bed!). Ryan Postlethwaite00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the block was for abusive sockpuppetry, Privatemusings expressed that he no longer wished to edit using his main account; as such, the blocks between the two were swapped. Two other admins have agreed over at AN/I, and another one did the block of the main account... does it really make a difference which account is used? east.718at 02:20, 11/16/2007
A lot of people on AN/I want PM blocked from all accounts and there's a fairly strong consensus for an indef block all round. This has got to the point of being more than sockpuppetry. I'm not sure I saw David Gerrerd support the unblock and he was the blocking admin. Ryan Postlethwaite02:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard blocked every account except for the main one, this indicates that he was just whacking socks instead of the person behind them. It shouldn't matter which account he commits to. Could you please copy future replies to my talk page, you got lucky that I stumbled across here again. east.718at 02:34, 11/16/2007
Howdy Ryan, thanks for the nomination and many kind words of support in my request for adminship. I greatly appreciate your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come and your offer of help is greatly appreciated. I may indeed come knocking if I can't figure something out. Thanks again,
Well ususally it's because someone with a lot of edits has been renamed, but I think there's a problem with the wikimedia servers this time as the data base was locked as well and it seemed like a major problem. Ryan Postlethwaite18:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No question about it, they're the same. Who ever it is obviously created a lot of accounts on 9 November so they would be autoconfirmed to avoid the sprotection, they must have a lot of IP's at their disposable as I'm autoblocking every IP. Ryan Postlethwaite18:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... well task (for it!) <G>. Can you please undelete this and Ping me when done. I figured out a good use for the mnemonic, and recreating a recently deleted page could cause comment... so to speak. Thanks, //FrankB02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, you deleted a section on activities listed for palo verde high school which had very useful links to their respective pages. I reverted this as I do not understand why you would want to actually delete factual information.
If I describe each organization and give information about them and then source it with the page at the school is that fine?
No it's not because you haven't made any claim of notability for them. We don't need external links to each departments links - it's classed as spam - the whole section is non notable and shouldn't be on the page. Ryan Postlethwaite04:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going around thanking all my RfA participants (although it wouldn't take long!) but I have to make an exception in your case for your speedy, generous and very supportive first comment, which set the ball rolling very well and set the tone for the encouraging and uneventful RfA that followed. I'll take myself through exercises in your new admin school when I get a moment (I've been looking there for reference already). Thanks again. BencherliteTalk08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ryan Postlethwaite, for supporting my RfB, which I withdrew at a final tally of (33/12/1). I failed to overcome the not unforeseeable opposition, but I am humbled by some extremely supportive, encouraging words I could read. In order to honor your trust, I once again vow to continue working and improving. Please contact me should you have any advice or recommendation to give. Or, should you need assistance. I am, as will always be, at your service. Again, please accept my most sincere gratitude.
Also, thank you so much for your prompt comment on my talk page shortly after my withdrawal. I'm not discouraged, ahead is the way. :-) Best regards, Húsönd03:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, you may wish to unblock the reblock this IP address, as you blocked it for two yeard as an open prooxy, but becauses 2 years wasn't specified - it may not blocked. —Qst13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointy, petulant and offensive to the community for me to "retire" in a fit of pique over the Lara thing. I'm going to work hard to be co-operative with her, and to ensure I make nothing against her that could be seen as an attack. We're communicating via e-mail. I just want to send you a particular note thanking you for your support Ryan. It really means a lot to me. Cheers matey. Pedro : Chat 12:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. And that's why I respect you. It wouldn't have mattered if it was me or any other editor, you do the right thing as you see it. I can only learn from your approach at times Ryan. Your judgement sets an example to many others. Very best. Pedro : Chat 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your response there, you persisted in using language like "As your mentor" when his entire complaint was that you were saying you are his mentor when he believes you are not. I do trust that you're being truthful / acting in good faith, but that was perhaps not the best way to move discussion forward. When someone who you think you are mentoring says that you're "insisting [you're] his mentor (as well? instead?)" there's clearly been a failure to communicate somewhere along the line, and getting everyone on the same page should be a priority. —Random83214:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you weren't aware, it was decided on AN/I a few weeks back that I was his mentor (along with Kendrick7 to steer him in day to day editing), so although he may choose not to except this, it is unfortunate that he will have to whether he likes it or not. Discussion will only move forward if he co-operates, as there's a lot of people suggesting this is a last chance for him. If this means it has to be drilled into him that I am his mentor, then so be it. Ryan Postlethwaite14:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't following it closely, but I got the impression from what I've seen before that he believes the consensus was to allow him to choose his own mentor, and I don't know where to find the original discussion. that said, his edits do seem to be sourced, and his opponents are claiming they're not - if POV is really the issue, why isn't the other side accusing him of POV editing instead of attacking his sourcing?—Random83214:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll tell you now he wasn't allowed to choose his own mentor - that generally doesn't happen with community enforced mentorship. This is the discussion where it was decided I was his mentor. I'm suggesting that PR is reverting articles to put them to the way he would like them (which is his own point of view). This includes sourcing of articles, and dubious sources being used to claim his points. I don't think each individual edit is a major problem, but when they mount up the behaviour begins to get quite disruptive. A mentor has to pick up on edits which are problematic, and given the history of PR, it's important that everything that could be seen as disruptive editing is discussed with him so he can understand why. Ryan Postlethwaite14:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll go to his talk page with a link to that thread, in case he missed it or didn't read it thoroughly. I will say, with regards to his claim that CSN was "discredited": well, it wouldn't have been closed if there weren't significant problems with that process at that location, and that does, to some extent, call decisions made there into question.—Random83215:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSN doesn't really have anything to do with it, as this was enforced an AN/I proving there was still a need for mentorhship, but all decisions made there are still standing. It might be worth explaining to him that I am his mentor, although I can assure you he is already fully aware. Ryan Postlethwaite15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I linked him to that AN thread anyway - that discussion closed with an open question on who would be his secondary mentor - did you go with Kendrick7 or someone else?—Random83215:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Kendrick7 is going to be his secondary mentor, my concern with this is that he's one PR's proponents in editing and may be quite soft when it comes to dicussing disruptive editing, that's my job is in the duo, to get involved if Kendrick has failed to relay the facts. Ryan Postlethwaite15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
Well, I've been a member of wikipedia since October 2006, I became an administrator in March 2007, I'm currently a member of the mediation committee and I'm also an OTRS volunteer.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I guess the reason why I want to be on the arbitration committee is because I feel I can make a difference. I've enjoyed every minute I've been here and want to give even more to the project. I particularly enjoy taking part in dispute resolution procedures, and I think I act in a neutral manner with all parties involved. At all times I try to be firm, but fair and offer ways to solve disputes without having to move to more severe dispute resolution measures.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've never been a named party in an arbitration case, but I've helped in a number of the workshop pages for cases which I'm not involved in. For the Betacommand case, I submitted evidence about innappropriate username blocks and I've also submitted principles, findings of fact and remedies which the current arbitrators have used in their final decision for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I also proposed the dismissal of the PalestineRemembered case which the arbitrators adapted.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
Generally speaking, I think the committee have made the right decisions in most of the cases that they have worked on. I'd like to draw attention in particular to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson. By the end of the case, there were a lot of people calling for Jeffrey_O._Gustafson to be desysopped, but the committee instead used their judgement and only suspended his adminship for 30 days. Jeffrey recognises that this short suspension has made him see things in a different light and he has become much better at communication since. I was a little disapointed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 - there's been a lot of disruption on these pages coming in multiple forms, but the scope of the decision only allows sanctions to be placed against editors that edit war with incivility. I don't believe it fully recognises that the edit warring on these pages itself is extremely serious and given the previous case didn't solve the dispute, a harsher line should probably have been taken by the committee.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I think I'm trusted, accessible and have the knowledge and experience in dispute resolution to handle arbitration committee cases well. I also believe that I'm extremely open to discussing concerns which I believe is essential for the committee to remain in touch with the community. I try and be firm but fair in all disputes I mediate or get involved in, which is the way in which any arbitratot should act.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315»04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan! Ill be grateful if you also recheck if the adding of my name to the limitations was justified as we never describe what means "disruptively edit warring" in my case. Thanks in advance!Andranikpasha (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andranikpasha, I'm going to take a look at all the names in the case per the clarification we've had from Kiril and look to see which ones should be, and which ones shouldn't be included under the supervised editing. What I'm looking for is users that have edit warred with incivility - they should be on the list, just edit warring shouldn't be. Ryan Postlethwaite12:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify my block history. All are related with my conflicts with Tajik. In addition, all are on Nomadic Empires related articles. The list of the articles are here [62]. As you see, none of them is related with the Az-Ar case. In my edit hsitory, the only exception is Shucha. There i added a new section on "Cultural life", quotations and references. I already stated how i came to that page. It's not fair to punish me with my previous block history (the last one dated 1 April 2007, 8 months ago). Please, review my situation again. I shall provide more detailed explanation if necessary. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really post anything, unless you clarify what you mean by "disruptively edit warring" Is it only Shusha? Or did I disrupt other articles. --VartanM (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Tariqabjotu, hope you're well. I've just been taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under supervision and see you placed Aynabend under supervised editing. I've added a few users recently for edit warring on pages related to the page, but Kirill clarified that for an editor to be placed under supervision, there must be incivility with the edit warring, but I can't see any incivility coming from Anyabend. Could you look at removing him please? I've just removed quite a few of the users I placed under supervision for the same reason. Cheers and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does being a party to one of the Armenia-Azerbaijan cases have any bearing on whether a user can have supervised editing applied to him/her? I notice being a party to the first case was given as a reason for some of the editors to be put on supervision. -- tariqabjotu22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can take from it, the editors placed under restrictions in the first case were automatically put under supervised editing, but if they were a party of the second, they weren't automatically put on it. To be added to the case there should be disruptive editing (edit warring) with marked incivility. I think a lot of us were under the impression that edit warring alone was enough to put someone under the supervision remedy but Kirill has clarified otherwise. Ryan Postlethwaite22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you on AN/I mentioning blocking Diaboli So you made admin and I missed your RfA. Bugger. And likewise arse. Very belated and deeply meant congratulations, Ryan!
Yeah Tony - for some reason they let me into the cabal! I actually think I went for it about a month after you left (March if I recall). Thanks for the late congrats, might not have been without your great help when I first started.... Ryan Postlethwaite23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was just looking at that! I try and give as many new admins the link to it as I can, but I'm normally beaten to it by you - thanks a lot for plugging it for me, it seems like a great success. Ryan Postlethwaite03:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I try to give it to as many new admins as possible, even if they already have a link. :) I keep telling new admins who thank me for the link that I wished the school had existed when I first became an admin; it would have been very useful, and the school will cut down on mistakes made by new (and even experienced) admins. If it's not you or I giving the link, someone else does it for us. :) Sometimes I use this to give both the link and the shirt to new admins. Again, thank you for your hard work in creating the school. Acalamari03:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to remind you of this discussion at WP:ANI: [64], where the indef blocked was discussed. It was agreed to lift the block subject to parole and mentorship. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ryan. Andranikpasha's original block was a mistake (it was indefinite, not permanent). The reasons sited were "time wasting" and "single purpose account," none of which are even remotely close to reality, if you look at his edits. Andranik makes valuable edits on variety of articles. He was a new user, and he needed a guidance from a fellow editor, which in this case was chosen User:VartanM, and the mentorship has worked just fine. He always participates in discussions, is ready to try mediation on debates (again, looking at his edit history). He has never been uncivil--in fact, he is civil to a fault. I don't think there is sufficient basis to place him under ban. Thanks.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other blocking admin should be consulted as well. I kind of see no improvement other than less edit warring due to parole limitation. Grandmaster (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I placed him under supervised editing, I was under the impression the remedy was for edit warring or incivility. I saw edit warring, and after a long hard look at his contributions yesterday, I see no incivility coming from his account so per the clarification from Kirill, there is no justification for putting him under the supervised editing for the case. If you see my comment at WP:RFArb, you will see that I have deep concerns about this personally, but unless the arbitrators clarify further, then taking him off the supervised editing list was the only thing that could be done. Ryan Postlethwaite13:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you about the arbcom ruling, but Andranikpasha is different from other users, because unlike others he was banned indefinitely for massive disruption and allowed to return only subject to parole and mentorship. I think this aspect should also be considered. But now Andranikpasha is free to do what he was doing before the parole, see this, a revert of a legitimate edit with no discussion: [65]Grandmaster (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, what you're writing here sorry but not true and you know why. At first, I wasnt banned but blocked (Do you remember how you were trying to prove to the admin who later blocked me that Im a sockpuppet, and I was unblocked after this admin was informed that im not "a sock of... Artaxiad", a story by you, attacking me the newbie). And what's the most important, I was blocked after few hours at the same day you protested that my editions should be entered under Arbcom enforcement and I was entered under 1RR (as we realize now) by a not justified decision. While I was protesting this decision askin I never made any uncivil editwarrings I was blocked for the time wasting, possible sockpuppetry etc.. So whats the reason to wikistalk me everywhere again and again? All editions Im doing is trying to keep the Wiki rules. Im working according to them, isnt it? Andranikpasha (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason Andranik was placed under indefinite ban was because he was accused by Grandmaster to be a sock of another banned user. One of the admins took the bait, fortunately another didn't. Taking it into consideration would amount to rewarding Grandmaster's harrassment of Andranik.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please take a look at this? I'm concerned about WP:BLP issues, but it also doesn't seem to really seem to be organized in any encyclopedic way, but I'm at a loss as to what to do with it. Could you give me input pretty please? Ariel♥Gold13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my opinion Hakin9 fails to make any claim of notability, so can be tagged for A7 speedy deletion (I'll let you do the honours!) - Magazines and other publications can come under the same criteria as the people that published them. Not sure about Gay Backlash, it might be one of those ones to take to AfD, let me have another look though because I'm not sure. Ryan Postlethwaite17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you have time, could you work on the Gay Backlash article? I think we could possibly squeeze and article out of it. I've got quite a good source of the events which has chronological news articles about the story. I'd suggest cutting it down and not revealing any names, so talk about the government rather than the prime minister. Ryan Postlethwaite17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hakin9 was {{prod}}ed by someone, so I'll see how that goes. And I will work on the other article when I wake up, okay? I was just about to go off to sleep, but checked in with you first. That source is good, and that probably means more sources can be found. While I really have zero knowledge about the subject, I guess it will be a learning experience for me, lol. I'll clean it up tomorrow. Have a spiffily wonderful night, my dear Ryan! Ariel♥Gold18:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came across User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Rollback.js. Is this an admin or non-admin user script? What browser does it need? I'm asking about this script because I've been trying to find a good "revert" script for my alternate account, but all the scripts seem to work with Firefox only. Currently, my alternate account uses what appears to be a very simple revert script. Acalamari22:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acalamari, I don't actually use Rollback.js per se, I basically use DerHexers monobook for my rollback script. I'll fill you in about it in an email as soon as I've posted this. It only works on firefox - have you considered changing to firefox? I used ie up until about two weeks ago then thought I'd try out firefox and I've got to say, it's far far better for editing wikipedia with. Ryan Postlethwaite22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the info. Regarding Firefox, I have it installed on my computer, but the font and text looks awful for some reason, and it's hard to look at after a short amount of time. I use IE7 because it looks a lot clearer. However, since most user scripts don't work with IE, I have an empty monobook as a result. It's a shame too, because some user scripts are very good from what I've heard. Acalamari23:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, could you restore my user page now? I would appreciate it, that AfD ended awhile ago, just wanted to make sure things were quiet. Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. IvoShandor (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IvoShandor, sorry I was asleep. I see WJBscribe has restored your userpage for you. It's good to know that it looks like you're staying - I hope you're happy about things again. Unfortunately, we don't celebrate thanksgiving in the UK :-(, but I hope you had a good one. Ryan Postlethwaite07:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize you were from the UK, apologies, I don't look too closely at user pages in general. Well, late Happy Bonfire Night, or something. :) IvoShandor (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to rake over too much old history, since real lessons may have been learned and applied from the case that bears my name, PalestineRemembered.
However, I rather wish you'd not refer to "my" case (twice now) as evidence of your useful contributions - your proposal for dismissal of the case was apparently calculated to deprive me of remedy and leave me smeared as "taking my views from the Holocaust Deniers". You announced "This isn't about getting an appology - arbitration isn't here for that" and argued against admonishment of my accuser. You posted to my TalkPage "stop your persistent trolling over your block" - and snapped at the editor who objected. All this despite the transparent nonsense and mendacity of the allegation against me.
Other experienced editors have suggested I was being a bit unreasonable to go to AN/I over what I suspected were specious objections to perfectly proper edits. I should really come to your TalkPage and express my concerns here first/instead. (Goodness knows why, everyone else has gone straight to notice boards). So (on top of my irritation expressed above) I've come to your TalkPage to have a word. Yet according to you here a perma-block of me was inevitable as soon as you declared yourself my mentor. It would have been (and had been) perfectly possible to have involved many real experienced mediators/mentors in the community, were it not for this kind of harassment of them being carried out. That behaviour predates the often brutal harassment of my mentors so well documented elsewhere. It is galling to hear that "mentorship has failed" - when mentorship was working really rather well. It was cynically torpedoed by others in order to declare mentorship a failure and silence good, literate, careful editors. PRtalk16:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem a little misunderstood about what arbitration is for. It's wasn't for you to get an appology from Jayjg, it was to ascertain whether you should be allowed to edit here or not. In the end, the community decided you should be able to edit, so no arbitration case was needed, and you were unblocked - that's why the case was dropped. This edit of mine was not suggesting that every user that comes for mentorship off me would get an indef block, simply that the last two editors at that point who I was going to mentor, had infact been indef blocked before I had chance to start. If I may ask, what do you feel is wrong with my remarks of concern on your page? It is my belief that the edits I showed you were attempting to push your own point of view, but I'm more than happy to discuss it if you don't feel they were. Ryan Postlethwaite16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have said it in one - the filthiest allegations against selected editors can be made on the very flimsiest of evidence, but personal integrity doesn't come into the matter and the ArbCom doesn't and wouldn't concern itself with what is going on. I am pleased to say, I've developed a somewhat better regard for top management of the project since May 2007, when this shocking affair occured. Though I'm still a bit worried about the deliberations of the ArbCom itself. I never normally participate, but I attempted to impede this rail-roading. Note the flimsiness of the evidence against the subject. Note how, just as in each of my cases, anyone daring to come "to the defense" of the accused will be personally vilified (or threatened in this case). Dozens of good people have come to my defense over the 10? or so "discplinaries" that have been taken out against me in the 6 months since May. All those people have now been silenced by the outrageous treatment they've been subject to, and the certain knowledge that PalestineRemembered is not going to be around much longer. Most outrageously of all, even "Advocates" and "Mentors" are considered prime targets for unpleasantness. (All of this is documented in various places, here is one place to start. A particularily shocking example is explained here). It is to the great credit of editors that so many volunteered to put their own participation on the line for me - but McCarthyite targetting has simply accelerated and been perfected since then. Experienced editors will never again leave themselves as exposed as they did in the summer of 2007, and of course inexperienced editors will be bull-dozed without a trace.
Lets look at this red-line you've set out for me - that adding the words of an Israeli newspaper and a pro-Israel US Magazine (Time) to Operation Defensive Shield is me "pushing your own point of view regarding Ariel Sharon." (The "official Israel explanation" is already in the article - I'm not offering the Palestinian version, just a different Israeli version). Sharon is known for sure to have threatened to "hit and hurt" the Palestinians shortly before he launched what many RSs called "indiscriminate attacks" - that cannot be mentioned. Time Magazine's direct linkage of the threat to the action cannot be mentioned. The Israeli newspaper which states that there was "a decision made to vandalize the civic, administrative, cultural infrastructure developed by Palestinian society" (and the results of it) cannot be mentioned. Anything that makes Ariel Sharon appear to have set out to attack civilians cannot be mentioned - and this, despite the fact that the US wanted Sharon brought to account for attacking civilians in 1953 (69 dead) and a Knesset Committee criticised him for setting it up in Beirut (1982 - several thousand dead). If I can lower myself to a tiny bit of original research and soap-boxing, Sharon's entire career is based on attacking civilians. But I may not cross this red-line - and I've not even quoted a Palestinian, I've never yet made an effort to get the "Palestinian version" into the article!
What other red-lines are there? I first faced a perma-block for adding evidence that Israel glorified the terrorist killers of Lord Moynes in 1944 - was that a red-line? It would be strange indeed if that was the case, since the well-known truth is now in the article Zionist political violence. At the same place, it's now even possible that the ludicrously POV "In [Feb] 1944, after the defeat of the Nazis was assured" could, finally, be overturned. But I think it unlikely, with this kind of thing going on. There's a 'new?' editor now trying to improve that article, you can see how frustrated he's getting faced with such unpleasant bare-faced denial. The BBC article referenced by the denier says nothing about the defeat of the Nazis having been assured - just another time-wasting and dishonest tactic that admins would be stamping out if they didn't know the ropes. (As before, I've refering to an incident where I've had almost no interaction with the participants, I'm little more than an observer to that particular tiff).
Obviously, I have a lot more to say - but having gone this far, I now need you to answer two questions - "What would happen to me if I tried to write in the Palestinian version of what they call the Jenin Massacre?" (or alternatively, "What would happen to me if I quoted Palestinians of 2002 on the subject?") and "Is there any chance of such NPOV "balancing" material staying in the article?". As a top administrator and potential ArbCom member, after all, your integrity and opinions are going to influence the project for years to come. PRtalk10:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that this was the worst case of POV editing I have seen, what I'm suggesting is that to push a point of view of yours, you've engaged in edit warring at Operation Defensive Shield. My major concern with your editing is that your additions to articles constantly refer to pro-Palestine view points. I'm not suggesting that these shouldn't be included in articles, but they should be counteracted with the opposite views as well. To get a full picture of what the article is about, you should strive to edit add neutral views into the articles and try and see things from both sides of arguments. I see a lot of reverts in your contribution history, and as I've previously stated, they often try and hide the opposing sides view of a subject.
I don't think you have to worry about people attacking you or your mentors now. I know for one that I won't be influenced by what people come here and say (or in fact via emails) and I can assure you that if there are any issues with how users are interacting with you, on talk or article pages, I will be the first person to step in. I do see a number of users that seem to try and upset you, or get you into a position where you'll snap, and this is something I'm going to be looking at over the coming days. Ryan Postlethwaite20:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say fairer than that. In 3,000 or so edits I've never quoted a Palestinian source (I think I linked to 3 photographs on PalestineRemembered.com early on and was knocked back for it), I've never quoted Al-jazeera, I've never quoted ElectronicIntifada or any other "Palestinian" sources. Even when, as in this case, I quote the ZOA, the Sunday Mail, an Israeli newspaper and the pro-Israel Time Magazine, my edits are still dangerously "pro-Palestinian" and I have to be muzzled. I knew this to be the case - I just never expected a candidate for ArbCom to come straight out and say it! (Oh, and and of course I've never edit-warred - but I suppose that's another accusation I'm doomed to carry to my grave). PRtalk19:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aspiring admin, I want to be ready for my RFA (not soon, but eventually), so I'm brushing up on my info. The question I have for you is this: Are admins allowed to instantly delete articles that normal users would place a prod on? Thanks for your time! Icestorm815 (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a user had placed a prod on an article, an administrator must wait 5 days before deleting it. The only exception is if a user has tagged it as a prod, and the page does actually fall under one of the speedy deletion criterion - then an admin may delete the page early. I know you said you were just brushing up on policy, but were you referring to a particular page? Ryan Postlethwaite07:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support, as well as nearly a nom :) All the best, ~Eliz81(C)23:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
I am honoured to have received your support, Ryan. Thank you for all the good work you're doing for the 'pedia (and soon you will have yet more tools! fear him!).
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
Goodbye, my almost lover
Goodbye, my hopeless dream
I'm trying not to think about you
Can't you just let me be
So long, my luckless romance
My back is turned on you
Shoulda known you'd bring me heartache
Almost lovers always do
-Gimme More (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you want mentorship-type questions placed on your TalkPage, but you didn't object before and you've not suggested anywhere different to put them. Please tell me if you want this taken somewhere else.
I have a question for you (it's somewhat esoteric, because I won't actually ask it). Can you suggest a way to respond at the Saeb Erekat TalkPage to these comments?
As best I can tell, the sources provided there do not use the word "propaganda", so I can't understand the reference to it. There are three references provided, but only one of them levels an accusation of lying (and it comes from political opponents of the subject, apparently designed to elicit a suite for libel that Erekat hasn't taken up, for reasons I'd have thought very few people had trouble understanding). The two CNN quotes included add nothing atall (we're not being given Erekat's response to the question put to him, but it's in the same CNN transcript, and it's an entirely proper explanation of what he was doing.)
Furthermore, the way we're being asked to present the information appears deliberately deceitful. Even if we were to use the one JP clip (from 11,000 about Erekat, according to the same clip), we'd surely be guilty of serious distortion if we implied there was a real controversy on this topic in his biography. Erekat used the figure of 500 dead, the UN says 497 dead (though over a bigger area and a longer time-span). Erekat used the word "massacre" when Shimon Peres did the same - and we appear to have published evidence of at least one well-attested "up-against-the-wall" type shooting massacre. Meanwhile, named Israeli spokesmen appear to have over-estimated the number of Palestinian dead consistently, and by up to 381%. It would be bizarre indeed to treat Erekat as a falsifier in this context.
As I said, I'm not intending to comment there (despite the new clips apparently being in direct response to the careful investigation I've done on the subject), but I'd appreciate your input on how I'd deal with it if I wasn't muzzled. PRtalk10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan. I was wondering if you would do me a favor. Someone complained off-wiki that perhaps a few edits in the history of my user page ought be oversighted, because they are implicit personal attacks against everyone in general (this is not my view). However, I am eager to avoid conflict. Could you have a look at the history and see if there is anything that should be oversighted? IvoShandor (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The specific comment the other editor was referring to has an edit summary "go to hell". Just so you know, not that you should go to hell, or whatever place. IvoShandor (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it! Oversights used when there are privacy concerns so this isn't applicable here. If there's no GFDL concerns, you could copy your userpage, allow me to delete the page and then just paste your old userpage back, meaning that the revision history wouldn't be viewable so those diffs you cite could only be viewed by admins. Want to try that? (Note, this method would only be acceptable on your userpage, not talk page or any other venue). Ryan Postlethwaite14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Okay, we can try that. I did try to explain to the other editor that I didn't think oversight was applicable, but they were persistent enough that it struck me as a concern. I don't know if you watched my page but when I blank it go ahead and delete it. IvoShandor (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Awesome, thanks. If anyone ever asks feel free to point to this discussion, as I want it to be as open as possible. I am not trying to hide anything. IvoShandor (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me likes your return! :-) Looks like you're doing a great job. You seem a lot happier as well which is good to see. Is easy to get frustated here, just remember that there's always light at the end of the tunnel. Ryan Postlethwaite23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to award you the "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar for your work in creating the New admin school. Since you have already been awarded the barnstar, please accept my thanks! I'm over half way through it, and it has been very helpful. I'm glad I didn't have to learn by fumbling around without a set of directions. Royalbroil17:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Royalbroil, I'm pleased you've found WP:NAS helpful. I wish someone had it when I was a new admin! It's complicated at first, but I promise it'll get easier. Good luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. A lot of people seem to think that I'm the only one who can edit stories, and it's a view that's really untrue -- we generally discourage major edits, since many users have already read the page, and if a major edit is needed, I'd rather have it be a new story for next week's issue, where everyone will read it. But minor edits are perfectly fine. Ral315»21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, I just noticed this image which was uploaded by you a while back. It hasn't got source information or copyright status, but I wasn't going to do that pointless tagging, so I just thought I'd point it out to you, so you may do as you wish with it. Qst20:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)(Please reply on this page. I'll be watching it for a while.)[reply]
Hi Ryan - you kindly said you'd protect me from bullying. (Though I'm not entirely sure why, I'd never complained of it, the biggest problem seemed to be I'd stood up to it rather too well in the past).
Well, all of a sudden, I think I am being bullied - at this edit, which looks very much like an attempt to taunt me into a response that would inevitably lead to me getting an indef-block. It's an in-your-face denial of the careful work I've done here and I assume you don't wish me to respond directly to this editor because of [censored].
I shouldn't need to re-hash with you the specifics of the breach of Biographies of Living People policy of Wikipedia that's being attempted in this case (it's all laid out in my table). Note how the challenge to me is with three references that don't actually use the words claimed ("propaganda", "controversy"). The only one claiming that Erekat lied is an op-ed, an unpleasant taunting of him by his political enemies to sue an Israeli newspaper in an Israeli court.
When you've applied your mind to this problem, I do have some good news - it seems that all four of the edits of mine you thought I'd been edit-warring over [66][67][68][69] are now safely in the articles where I was trying to put them. Do I get remission on my sentence for improving articles against the very heavy odds on these occasions? PRtalk15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PR. I agree in this instance there are some issues with the way the sources are being used and fully understand your BLP concerns. I think it should be made clear in the aticle that there are two figues that could be used here, both discussing different periods of time. I've commented on the talk page anyway and my thoughts should be clearer there. It's good to see your contributionsare in the articles and obviously consensus has fallen in your favour (but I would add it's best to find consensus before edit warring). Ryan Postlethwaite18:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, we really don't know what went on in the West Bank all through March and April and up to May 7th;2002. However, the only mass killings we have are Nablus (80 Palestinians, 3 Israeli soldiers) and Jenin, where the UN (sometimes wrongly quoted) say: "A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged. " It's reasonably clear that Erekat's claims were only a modest (and fairly understandable) exaggeration, whereas the Israeli claims for the same period (judging by what they claim now) would have to count as lies.
Would it be alright by you to go in and remove all reference to what Erekat said on the subject? Not only is it nastily untrue in it's current state, but it's being given massively undue weight. As documented elsewhere on that TalkPage, there's a BBC profile ([70]) which makes no mention of the supposed controversy at all, a globalsecurity.org's profile ([71]) which makes no mention of the supposed controversy at all, there's three pages of the New York Times' archiving "articles about Saeb Erekat" ([72]), which make no mention in the headlines or lead sections and the Jewish Virtual Library (A Division of The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise) bio on Erakat ([73]) with nothing about this supposed controversy.
And ..... I need advice from you - progress on this article was impossible for over a year, as a single editor has tenaciously edit-warred against 5 others to prevent the clearing up this UNDUE material (and the inclusion of some very poor sources). (Another editor defended the use of the cult newspaper, but agreed with the 80% consensus that the material itself didn't need to be there). How should editors like me get this stopped - surely admins have a duty to reign in this kind of behaviour and not defend those who behave this way? PRtalk19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, user conduct issues are tough, have you previously attempted to discuss the problems with the user? If so, a user conduct RfC might be in order - especially if he is going against consensus constantly on the article in quiestion. For issues like this, RfC's are the best way to go and allow a lot of outside comments from neutral parties. It can often help the user in question change his ways, but if he does not take it seriously and continues poor behaviour, it can lead to arbitration. Would yoube interested in mediation on the page so everyne can work their issues through together? Ryan Postlethwaite22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have tried to discuss issues with the subject. I was blocked for it, despite my contribution being the fifth consecutive complaint on his TalkPage, and the only one that wasn't angry. Note that this block is the only time any of my 4 "failed mentors" expressed any kind of serious concern at "my behavior" (actually, this occured while the mentor was in both severe personal and severe WP stress - but you can see why I and others are intimidated into not making formal complaints). Note the arrogance of the response from the subject, nothing is going to control him.
In this atmosphere of fear and the clear evidence of preferential treatment to an editor with ownership of dozens of pages across the project, it's no wonder there's a chill on editing them and wanton BLP infractions survive indefinitely. I keep meaning to go to the ArbCom question page and ask all the candidates "Should illiteracy and general ignorance disqualify individuals from editing here?". I feel confident to answer that question for other good-faith editors here! PRtalk12:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "Final Warning"... I only created the article Clow Cards (list) only to put the focus on the cards and put images for they, and you removed all of them, except the first one. Because you don't DELETE the article to finish? --Blean17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some fire for you! Fire somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd00:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Cremepuff222* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Ryan, Thank you for initiating to lift my parole. I just left more in the ArbCom page [[74]]. Do you know why I am the only one being singled out and other admins do not want to lift my parole. Thank you for any hints in advance. Regards, --Aynabend07:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah of course, I should have been a little bit more specific. The final warning was from 25 November and the IP had only one warning today. Because IP's can switch, it was most probably a different user vandalising this time, so we should eally have the full set o 4 warnings within 24 hours before blocking IP's. Hope that helps explain. Ryan Postlethwaite21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This protection of Transcendental Meditation has worked well. Naturezak, the new editor who made changes against consensus and deleted material sourced to peer-reviewed journals without explanation, has been making an excellent contribution to the discussions. We have quickly arrived at a number of points of consensus, and are making definite progress toward improving the article. Still, there are matters to resolve. Also, a couple editors with strong feelings have been completely absent from the discussion, and it's not clear what their intent is once the protection is lifted. Might be a good idea to extend protection a while so that we can continue this progress. Thanks much. TimidGuy16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just supported you for your candidacy for Arbitration, but I saw some stuff about Durova. I skimmed the ArbCom case, but you didn't come up. What is that whole thing about? I'm confident in my support; just curious. J-ſtanTalkContribs04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll explain - I was extremely disapointed with what Durova did, I went to her talk page and expressed my disapointment to her, but then, because of the nasty person that I am, I realised that she made a mistake and unlike a lot of users here, didn't want to see her get executed for one mistake so shock horror, on her RfC, I suggested she might be forgiven(!!!!!) - yup, disgraceful I know - but I guess the protesters won in the end, and durova's no longer an admin. I also proposed on the workshop page of the RfArb that Durva should be thanked for her work as an admin, because before this one incident, she was an excellent administrator and no-one would have thought something like this would happen. It seems to have cost me, but I'm happy because I did the right thing. Ryan Postlethwaite12:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I could be considered part of "the other side" of the issue. I don't want to go over everything again but let me highlight what some people perceived your role in the whole mess was. Some people took away from both the RfC and your thanking that there was a group of people who totally missed (or worse, dis-missed) their concerns. Durova without question did a lot of good as an admin. However, the one incident she did make a mistake on instantly called into question the other blocks and work she has made. Thanking her at that point in time further raised issues of dismissing the forest for the trees.
Let me explain this further.
Quite a few of us, myself included, thought her evidence before !!'s block was rock solid, extensive, and damning and when she acted she had the full backing of the rest of the admin staff and arbcom based on what she states on ANI when she mades a block. When the evidence did come out regarding !!'s block, it all fell apart. The evidence, for a lack of a better term, was laughable even taken in the worst possible light. If this is what she had for a sock, what did she have for the rest of the people she blocked? The fact that she has reversed quite a few blocks lately started questions along the lines of "Why are we blocking good editors who on the surface has done no wrong."
If nothing else happened (no evidence outing, no secret mailing lists being revealed, etc), your comments would probably not have been such a big deal. However, the evidence did come out, their were mailing lists revealed, and a lot of editors who blindly trusted her did not look good. Your and Jossi's comments on the RfC provided a lighting rod for those who felt their concerns were being dismissed by a select group of admins trying to calm the masses down and deflect criticism from Durova. They were focusing on the action part of the mistake and not the global view of the events leading up to and the implications of the mistake were. The aftermath of the evidence and secret list outing along with the behavior of others did not look good after all was said and done.
Honestly, it boiled down to the timing of your statements "sucking". If you made your comments at different times, it might not have been a big deal. But with that said, I hope you take a recent American politician word's to heart in the future: "Trust, but verify" if an event like this comes up again. Trust your fellow admin, but verify that admin actually did their homework and got an A+ on it. spryde | talk20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see, this is a major misconception - I didn't support what Durova did, when the block first happened, I went to her talk page and made my feelings very clear that I thought they way she went around her block wrong. But then the floodgates opened and this turned into something much bigger than what it should have been. My major point here is that there's admins here that have done far worse and yet they are still administrators - I still don't agree that one mistake should have meant Durova resigned and feel the actions against her were completely disproportionate. A slap on the wrist with a firm understanding that this was not to happen was all that was required here, not an attempt by many to drive her off the project. What ocurred in this case was extremely disproportionate when compared to other incidents of administrators getting it wrong, and shows an extremely sad inconsistency that Wikipedia has as a project at the moment. Ryan Postlethwaite20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you did not support what Durova did, however the comments were taken that way. I am not sure if I totally agree with you on the inconsistency. I see new users and old being driven off by the actions of each other. I do see inconsistency in the way people are treated. Should that be? I use to think not. I am not so sure lately. spryde | talk20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(indent) Hmm - was Durova even warned about her actions, or did it just jump to ArbCom and RfC? If not, I completely get where you're coming from, though I would probably have also sided with Jossi on this one. Everyone makes mistakes. If this was a repeat offense, then yeah, I could understand ArbComming it. J-ſtanTalkContribs22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know I was rather slow in responding to the last round of comments on the MedCom wiki, but I am getting concerned that the mediation is grinding to a halt. I was hoping you might be able to jolt it in the right direction again, and get us mediating again. I know that formal mediation is a slow process, and that it can take time, we all have to deal with that, but at this rate, we won't finish mediating before users start dieing of old age. I would appreciate it if you could give the mediation a little tug in the right direction again. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Martijn. I'll certainly get to it over the next couple of days. I've managed to go through 4 hard drives this week on my laptop, so you could say I'm having a few problems actually getting online - I'm having to travel to computer rooms at present. I've got a few ideas for the mediation, so I'll present them on the MedCom wiki soon. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite15:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per Qst and Dreadstar really. I'm actually quite disappointed by the loss of another great candidate at the ArbCom elections this month. The opposition didn't really seem to have much care for your other edits and valid reason for becoming a nominee, past the Durova incident. Something I have no idea about. I just only hope next time it comes round, you'll be the front runner. Because that's probably the best thing for this project. — Rudgetcontributions21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For speaking out on judging someone by a single mistake, became the single mistake by which you were judged, is ironic indeed. Best wishes going forward, you do great work here. --Stephen00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sad both about the opposition and that you withdrew because of it. I hope this doesn't set an example for people becoming afraid to make well-intended suggestions like yours for fear that they get unreasonably punished for them. — Sebastian01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, your words are much appreciated - I guess it just wasn't to be. I look forward to seeing you all around the wiki in the future, all four of you are users I highly respect. Ryan Postlethwaite22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in on the people who thought it was a shame you had to withdraw. I respect your decision though, and I do hope you'll run again next year. I look forward to supporting you for the second time. :) Acalamari22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a certain 202.156.66.110 that you may or may not remember as a user who tried to frame you for blocking me for no reason. Now you may also remember that a certain "coalition" of editors have wanted me blocked for some time now and have just now let up on their "assault" which is really the only reason why I have recently begun editing again and I'm truly not in the mood for another editor to be added to that list just when I've begun to actually enjoy editing again. I've come to you mainly because you've dealt with him before to some extent and I also ask you to watch him and deter him from tacking on more offensive to his already extensive warning/block record before I end up getting myself blocked which I may be close to doing. Thank you. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've just won a Mikado game! Almost as stressful as the Arbcom!
I'm sorry to see you withdrew from the Arbcom election. Please don't be discouraged and remember that your work and presence here is always much appreciated. Maybe better luck next year if you intend to run again. Meanwhile, happy editing! See you around! :-) Best regards, Húsönd06:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor was reblocked after you unblocked, the removal of the indefblocked template seems rather pointless considering he is blocked right now. If he is re-unblocked, feel free to revert to his comment again. — Save_Us_22911:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't sure yet if he is to remain blocked, we don't put that template on until we're sure that the user in question is going to remain blocked. This boils down to a legal threat, and when he withdraws it fully he will be allowed to edit again. Ryan Postlethwaite11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi cat. Now that it has been brought to the community attention that there is another user who's name is WhiteCat who predates your name change, I believe that your username is confusingly similar to this one, and may run afoul of WP:U. At very least, please consider implementing the ideas at WP:U#Username_disambiguation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, is that enough? -- Catchi? 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That looks good to me, it's just an unfortunate situation when two editors in good standing have very similar user names. I think the disambig clears the problem now. Thanks for your co-operation White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a similar disambig on the other users page with his consent. It may appear like a COI if I made the request myself. -- Catchi? 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have protected the regional power article because of an edit war. I would ask you to please review the history of this article, to see how this problem started.
Argentina has been listed as a regional power for months. I included it several months ago, after finding reliable and objetive external sources that backed up its inclussion, and after a respectful discussion with other wikipedians. You can check that by checking the history of the article.
A couple weeks ago, this fanatic user Kardark started removing Argentina for no apparent reason. He just said that "it was not a regional power", without any sources to back that up. I reverted his changes since they were of a vandalistic nature, and I also looked for two more external sources stating that Argentina is a regional power, bringing the total up to four.
But he wouldnt care, he would keep removing Argentina without a valid justification, and I would keep reverting his changes. For this, he started calling me a "fanatic", a "lunatic", and a "troll".
The truth is, he is removing sourced information because of his personal opinion. I dont think thats OK. And what he has done now is, removing Argentina once again and then protecting the Article, so it cant be included.
Everything I explained to you can be checked by looking at the history of the article. Please assist. Aletano (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou guys! Unfortunatley last night was a little bit too much for me, and I've spent today in bed feeling sorry for myself! Thank god for paracetemol! Ryan Postlethwaite18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've messed up with your contribution to the TalkPage at this article. I brought it to your attention because you're supposed to be mentoring me, and I thought I was being bullied - you appear to have ignored my complaint completely. I'd done a careful analysis of the facts of the case, and I don't believe our WP article is written on the basis of "the facts as appear in reliable sources". To whit, Erekat may have been guilty of exaggeration (though it's difficult to be sure) but it's neither realistic nor referenced to claim he lied. Meanwhile, many of his political opponents provided versions which are virtually outright lies (at least according to what their own side claimed later). If the purpose of writing articles is to slander people, it's these others we'd be slating.
Seperately, the RS's don't state what is being alleged, that this business is notable (the RS's barely mention it). Nor that it is controversial. Why did you arrive suggesting a compromise but BLP-breaching version by which we say it was controversial and Erekat's words were "widely refuted as being false"?
Even with your support, the consensus as I've tabulated it appears to be 5 editors who don't think we should say that Erekat is a lier, one that says he is a lier and yourself saying that his words were "controversial".
Meanwhile, I see similar reference and consensus-trashing edit-wars going on between some of the same actors in many other places - is it reasonable to look to administrators to stamp out this kind of ownership? Particularily when there are serious BLP issues at stake. Saeb Erekat appears to have been instrumental (if not crucial) to getting agreement at Annapolis only a day or two ago - surely WP should give him a fair crack of the whip - and not treat him as some kind of serial falsifier. PRtalk 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
PS - I've contributed a comment here here - do you see any problem with what I've stated? PRtalk22:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term referred to the entire University of Missouri System officially from 1963 till now and is used for the University of Missouri-Columbia public relations matters but not on official matters. The common usage is not overwhelmingly referring to a single school but there is a push on Wikipedia to enforce the school's Alumni organization politics on Wikipedia namespace. I would like to open up the page naming to a wider view of experienced Wikipedia editors instead of the microcosm the page currently has. Does that mean Mediation committee? Alatari (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the stage you're currently at, I think discussion should continue on Talk:University of Missouri System - there looks like there's room to attempt to come to an amicable consensus there. If this fails, then I'd suggest opening a request for comment, where experienced users are able to comment on the discussion. Then as a last step, you could request mediation - as I said, I don't think it's quite in need of that just yet. Hope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I posted on the talk page that I am unwilling to block at the moment due to some apparently quite credible sockpuppet concerns. However, as I will be busy for the rest of the night, I have left a note asking for other admins to review this on WP:AN/I#Blue5864. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!)02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ryan. Max Sem almost beat you to it... (leaving a message on the talk page is sufficient to stop the bot) RichFarmbrough, 18:40 9 December2007 (GMT).
Yeah I've just found out about the talk page message, sorry for making the block. Feel free to unblock when you're ready. I'm just going to roll all the edits back unless you can think of a simpler method? Ryan Postlethwaite18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thansk for doing the rollback. Saved me trawling through them, and they should be re-applied correctly next run. RichFarmbrough, 19:27 9 December2007 (GMT).
Brill, there's still a few others mixed in, but it would be too great a task to go through the individual edits so we might have to leave it until people spot the mistake. Thanks for taking care of it. Ryan Postlethwaite19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've been trying to catch you on IRC all day today, but that has proved fruitless. I hope you saw the linked discussion; personally, it seems like a much better approach that alleviates some of the concerns about rollback mis-use and responsibility of the user. Honestly, I can't ever see your new proposal at Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators proposalever being implemented by anyone with scap capabilities. It adds a new user class, more bureaucracy, and the developers have pushed back several times against ideas like this. Not only do those issues exist, you'd have to find someone willing to write the code, which could prove difficult to do, and you may not find a willing volunteer, especially if there's a high likelihood that nothing will come of it. This of course avoids the discussion of creating yet another process on en.wiki, which I don't think would receive support either; we have quite a few already. : - ) I saw your note about the motivation for making this change here. I think rollback could be an excellent tool for non-admins to have and I can see the issues with doing so. Having a user preference puts the responsibility on the user; they would have to enable rollback and then mis-use it, which would, in my mind, alleviate a lot of the concerns that admins have about using blocks for rollback mis-use. Also, as I wrote on the RfC talk page, an edit count attribute could easily be linked to the availability of the feature, if that were so desired. I'm interested in your thoughts about preference proposal; let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us have to work :-) I actually missed this discussion, but it's a really good idea - I like the idea of the user having to actively switch on rollback, which would no doubt mean some understanding of Wikipedia and the rollback function. I understand the concerns of my proposal - I was hoping we could get a huge consensus for it meaning the devs would have to take a serious look at implementing it, but it doesn't look like there's going to be anywhere near enough consensus for that. My major concern with any idea where it's automatically given is that it's there for life - having an ability to remove rollback would be far better than blocking IMHO, but this looks like a suitable compromise. If the user activates it, then they have to accept the consequences if they misuse it. I'll certainly comment positively about it tomorrow (just about to go to bed) on the talk page. I should be on IRC tomorrow so we can have a discussion about it there because I've got a few ideas to throw at you regarding it. Thanks for making me aware of this, Ryan Postlethwaite03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I first time nominated the article Kanchan Gupta for AfD using TW, but the link in AfD "this article's entry" appeared red. I clicked the link, saved the page, but next time I again when visited the page, the link showed red. So I removed the AfD tag and renomiated it for AfD. This time the link appeared blue. I don't know why this happened. I have redirected the former AfD page to this new page. Can the former page be deleted? Kindly investigate in the matter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you recently deleted the article titled 'Russell Elrod'. I wanted to confirm your reasons for the deletion. Thank you for your time. Benjendav (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was getting disruptive so I blocked. It was a magnitude of different things I blocked for, including adding original research and edit warring. On there own, maybe it wouldn't have been so bad, but when you add them up it go to the point where a block was required. Ryan Postlethwaite16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KOS, good to hear from you. I've taken a look and I've got to say I find it a little strange - especially when the arguments do have a policy foundation. I've had a word with him, because I'm concerned that he may have another account - it may/may not be a sock infringement but we should probably play it by ear at the minute. I'll see what response I get. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm at school and forgot my password, so I created a new account. I know that AFDs are not a vote. But I figure I would contribute some arguments to video game articles. It is up to the administrator to weigh the arguments and determine the best course of action. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who watches that page (the intended audience) will see the diffs and be able to enjoy the joke and perhaps the reaction as well. I guess that makes me look like the wet blanket 0_o, but I am fine with that characterization. I think there are more imaginative ways to have fun than a big banner, like maybe a Cabal inspired haiku on his talkpage. Whatever though, I am certainly not going to have an edit war over something so silly, so restore it if you like. —Cronholm14416:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm not into edit warring, especially not on something as pathetic as that - just think about things in the future - we're a community, we can have fun sometimes and it's just sad when someone comes and spoils that. Ryan Postlethwaite16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you declined the request to semi-protect TV Links. While the current rash of vandalism has only been ongoing for the past 3 or so days, every edit over that time period (and there are over 20. [[76]])has been either vandalism or reverting it. In specific there is an anon user, using at least 3 distinct IPs, that insists on adding his own website to the top of the page. His edits simply consist of undoing those of editors who undo his. I'd like to ask you to consider semi-protecting this for at least a few days to see if this will deter him. Thanks. Random89 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Cremepuff222* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey. You accidentally added the section on Gp75motorsports' RfA to the talk page twice. I went ahead and removed the second, as it was a clear accident. However, I just thought I would let you know. Cheers. SorryGuy Talk 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro is the Spanish equivalent of the English for Peter. Just as La_Resaca is The_Undertow. How is that a revelation? Do you wish to punish me for living in Mexico for a year? the_undertowtalk11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you still leave unprotection for my talk page - MY TALK PAGE - regardless of the impending usurpation, of which I didn't really feel necessary to declare, until now. the_undertowtalk12:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was protected and adequate information was given for anyone, within the next 11 hours, until I usurp another username, which was fair. I appreciate the advice, but coming from someone who prides themselves on expletives and inebriation on their userpage, well...I'll take it with a grain of salt. the_undertowtalk13:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey dear, Moonriddengirl has asked me about IRC cloaks, and stuff, and I recalled how wonderful you were to help me with mine, so I suggested perhaps you could assist her? You can see the discussion here, if you have some time on your hands today. :o) Ariel♥Gold13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update--I figured out how to reset my password using the commands at sorcery net and I have now received a message "Your nickname is now linked to" (my main nick). I'm trying to figure out this cloak business. Thanks so much for your help. I do not love new (to me) technology. :P --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current message "Your request has been successfully entered into the queue. Unfortunately, it may take up to a week or so to process; thank you for your patience." Wish me luck. :) Thanks again for your help. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just bizarre how things went down with Dlae... I'm used to insults from random vandals, but being told to piss off for a warning is a bit new to me... though I do find this kinda funny. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not quite sure what his problem was to be honest - it's not the best way to react after a civility warning. According to him, you're not too bright - I've got a slight feeling it might be the other way round! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite20:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, I would have been happy to apologize for that first note (which I've done anyway), except he responded and removed it before I had a chance to see it; I compared diffs, and sure enough, I was in bed when he was responding. I admit to being slightly in the wrong with the initial message, but damn if his response wasn't all kinds of inappropriate... EVula// talk // ☯ //20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The project is currently rife with these things, as the section starter of Robert Spencer suggests. But it goes much deeper than articles simply retailing material liable to incite hatred - because many of those so keen on these sources are also keen to give themselves and others ethno-specific labels - and savage anyone who objects. But you're right that it's extremely dangerous to challenge any such behaviour. PRtalk22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kendrick, I've restored the article and put it in your userspace at User:Kendrick7/Shawqi Omar - sorry but it was only one edit and it doesn't look very good, but there are a couple of sources you might be interested in. Do what you do best, then move it back into mainspace at your will. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the block for our school. If you were one of my students, I'm sure I would be putting stars on your paper... or maybe a barnstar! --EtonTeacher (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem at all - thanks for your efforts to combat vandalism from your school, it's certainly appreciated. Now you've made an account, why not edit youself? We could certainly use some new users like you, and you look like the exemplar person for the job. Even if it's just the odd typo or format channge when you're reading - it'd be great to have you on board. Ryan Postlethwaite02:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome note and compliment. I already am on board. I have another account which I use for making some edits here and there as time permits. It's nothing huge, but at least I can take pride in positively contributing to such a great effort. I chose to make and use this screen name for requesting the block because I didn't feel comfortable mixing my professional life with my private life. Cheers! :-) --EtonTeacher (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
PS... Don't worry, this account will not be a sockpuppet. I might use it once in a rare while for work related efforts, such as showing students how to constructively edit Wikipedia! --EtonTeacher (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again - to be honest, I didn't leave a block notice. We use notices to show a user that they have been blocked, but in this case, there was no-one really there to see the notice. In the case of a shared IP address like this, no-one is likely to see the talk page, but the sharedIPEDU template is useful for users should the block expire. The only thing people from you address will see is the block notice when they try and edit, which includes my block log entry, in this case being the {{schoolblock}} template, so if they do try and edit, they will have all the information available to them about how they can edit from this IP with a username. Ryan Postlethwaite18:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stepping in with calm words. I have been frustrated, and would like to just move on. I have already lost 2 hours of valuable editing time dealing with this and would just like to continue writing my article. As a non-involved third party, is it within policy for you to keep an eye on both user talk pages (1, 2) to be sure this does not continue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, appologies if I sounded rude - I just think you both needed your heads banging together. I'll keep my eye on the talk pages and hopefully this will be the end. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite22:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I appreciate your offer and continued help. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though other third-parties are willing to let the matter drop. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disturbed by what's happening in this article. As best I can tell, the cartoon inserted has nothing to do with the content of the article (I'd have thought it pretty obvious that anti-semitic cartoons have no part in Media coverage of Israel, either in the UK or anywhere else in English-speaking world).
Even if that were a "content-dispute" that you've no wish to involve yourself in, it would appear that the cartoon and the caption are an attempt to smear a British artist as anti-semitic. There's nothing whatsoever to indicate that he is anti-semitic, his cartoon bears no obvious relationship to anti-semitism - and complaints to that effect have been examined and rejected by a "neutral body", the PCC (Press Complaints Committee). How, other than engaging in a bitter edit-war (which, as I keep telling people, and despite accusations, I've never had any part in) is it possible to stop encyclopedia articles being abused in this fairly gross fashion? You will have noted that there are editors around who seem to delight in making these accusations on utterly baseless grounds - behavior that damages collegiality, wastes huge amounts of time, and can only be harmful to the project. PRtalk13:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, there's a few other little things I want to get sorted first - Can I have until tonight to review it again? (I'm just about to drive home from uni). Ryan Postlethwaite13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, great shout on protecting David Miliband. Just a courtesy note to say that following a talk page compromise I have lifted the protection. Please feel free to slam it back on again if fresh hostilities break out! TerriersFan (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to admit I have made two blunders in the past few days which I'd rather forget. The first, over at your suggestion of creating admin-like revert tools for non-admins, I'll admit was entirely my fault. I am now in big support of your suggestion.
But this recent scuffle over at User talk:Jimbo Wales I hope I can be forgiven for. I was simply abiding by the official Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice). And seen as the link he provided me was in german, I couldn't possible suss it out. If Jimbo wants foreign messages on his page, that's fine by him, and I hope this is not yet another thing that'll go down against me. (Just thought I'd tell you since it was Mr Postlethwaite who saved the day again! ;-) ). Lradrama13:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it also appears in obeying one of the rules, I broke another, which was not to ammend anything on a talkpage. Ah well, life goes on... You learn from your mistakes. Lradrama18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry, I missed this post Lra, don't worry about it one bit - we all make mistakes and this wasn't exactly major, it's called being human :-) I think Jimbo clarified now that he wants foreign posts leaving alone, I can fully understand why you and several others removed it. Hope everythings ok with you, Ryan Postlethwaite18:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appear to be being wiki-stalked by two other editors. One of them may have stopped after I challenged him but this one is positively threatening. My carefully written objection to the proposed re-listing of this as a "Good Article" gets the kind of unpleasant triviality I've had a lot from this editor. I'm sure you'd prefer that you deal with it. PRtalk19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was an incident at Saeb Erekat that simply denied the truth of the careful examination of the sources I'd applied and detailed. I felt this was calculated to provoke an unnecessary and unhelpful argument. However, I'm not in the habit of bleating, I'm looking to administrators to either protect, or empower others to protect, the integrity of the project. I've drawn your attention to the situation there before, the score is now 1 editor wishing to imply this (living) subject is a lier, and 7 against. We could be forgiven for thinking the project is a play-pen, with white-wash stories according to the (condemned) actors, by editors apparently from the same mould. PRtalk09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PR, this is a content dispute, with a few conduct issues as well. Have you considered filing a request for mediation on the Palestine-Israeli topic? I think it would be a good idea, we need to nip this in the bud before the issues get too big and ArbCom have to get involved. With respect to Erekat, there's not one single source that suggests he lied, and many sources that discuss his way of thinking when determining the numbers that died - he really shouldn't be labelled a liar in the article, that would be a serious BLP violation. Ryan Postlethwaite12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a content dispute - it's an editor who tramples sources and BLP. And tramples other editors - 7 in this case. I once wrote you and pointed out the massive POV editing from supporters of Israel and the fact that these editors were getting administrator protection. You told everyone I'd sent you something "weird" - well, here we have an example of exactly what I told you! PRtalk22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Ryan — I've done some work for the selected biography bit and in the news bit of the Portal, however, I haven't linked all of the news to their story on the BBC, because I cannot find the links anywhere, as it quite old news now, but I'll have another look at that shortly. If to want to discuss it more, I'm on IRC, and will be for best part of the day. Qst13:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not help noticing your lack of interest in this topic as your last evanescent comment was made almost a month ago. If you do not have time, just state it clearly and I will simply quit this useless process which, so far, is a mere remake of the meaningless quarrel I had for three months with user:Azukimonaka. --Flying tiger (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appologise - my Wikipedia time has been very limited over the past few months with real life commitments, and I havne't been able to sit back and fully evaluate the mediation (which is extremely important). I'm off for a couple of weeks now, so I hope to push it forward in that time, so please stick with me on this one. Sorry once again, Ryan Postlethwaite20:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, «Real Life» is sure better than anonymously editing or being involved in edit wars with anonymous teenagers from the other side of the world... OK, I 'll wait for some time. --Flying tiger (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RoryReloaded (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It looks as if I'm being wiki-stalked eg here. Being almost entirely muzzled as regards editing articles, I've brought some historical/factual matters to people's attention in TalkPages, always with fairly considerable care that the points I'm making are defendable. I fail to see the point of following me round and denying the points I'm making. I find it particularily disturbing that "Jewish" is being inserted into my statements in an apparent attempt to make my points appear racist, when it would appear that it is my challenger who wishes to link the Jews to actions of extremely dubious morality and legality. PRtalk21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Ryan, I am not a big believer in off-wiki communication. The progression of our debate in the "Giano restricted" thread was entirely predictable, as was the reaction to that thread on Giano's and Bishonen's part, and I might have been motivated to forewarn you had I thought it would be left to the two of us relative lightweights to battle it out. I had genuinely hoped that other editors would appear with alternate perspectives, but that did not happen, nor did any of the arbitrators choose to add their comments. Perhaps I am not the only one who saw the train wreck coming.
There is no use crying over spilled milk. I strongly encourage you to take a step back and start looking at the "big picture" of the project. It does not matter how many sockpuppets edit, as long as they edit well. It does not matter if people are universally polite if they cannot put a grammatically correct sentence together. It really, really doesn't matter if people are friends and live in love and harmony. This project is all about the encyclopedia. Yes, it needs deletion of junk and handholding of newbies and some interpersonal relations stuff. But it does not survive without quality writing. Giano and Bishonen are the most visible of the people who have left over this current round of nonsense. I personally am aware of several others. This isn't strictly your fault, it is even more the fault of those who stood by and let you put forth an argument that was so clearly focused on putting behaviour over productivity. There were a lot of people watching our exchange today. Many of them have had their suspicions confirmed. Risker (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting into a huge threaded debate about this, I have my opinion, and you obviously have yours. The problem we have is that people are held to certain standards here. Over time we have developed a civility policy here which all users are expected to adhere to, whoever they are. If we had no disruptive behaviour here, all would be fine and we would be able to get on with the most important things that you talk about, but that isn't the case with such a big project. Giano alienates people and takes things too far, he's had warnings in the past and had plenty of opportunities to stick to what he does best, but there comes a point when the warnings stop and action has to be taken to stop disruption that many people believe he is making. His edit warring over the admin IRC page was ridiculous, and it's part of long standing behaviour in the Wikipedia namespace that is quite frankly not needed, and shouldn't be tolerated. Yes he does a great deal of excellent article work, but his meta discussion edits are far from helpful. No-one is above and beyond any other editor here, and it's reached a point when his wikipedia space actions have to be stopped - I stand by this, and will continue to do so should he return (which I obviously hope he does as he's an asset to the project with respect to his article writing). Ryan Postlethwaite02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ryan Postlethwaite, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Nope, don't disagree with them in the slightest - they look really good - thanks for sorting it for me, I'm contemplating how to make it more interactive, but struggling. Ryan Postlethwaite19:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think it's fine as is. But if you want to, you could add some icons next the the bullet points in the subsections, like in the topics section on Portal:Bulgaria for example. But really, it does look good. :) Rt.20:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for that - I've never updated DYK. It should be cascade protected, but I've protected it for 9 hours anway and added the protection templace. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite02:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting the page itself only works if the content is saved locally, rather than on Commons. Nine hours will probably be long enough, but I have updated DYK some mornings where it had been 10 hours since the previous update. Thanks for taking care of the update! --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I apologize for my misstep in bringing RFAR issues to your talk page. It appeared to me at the time that that section of the RFAR had become a conversation between the two of us and might best be off the RFAR itself; it's clear that you did not share my thinking there, and I am sorry to have presumed that you might.
As to Mercury, he and I have had an ongoing conversation for some time on and off-wiki that has covered a lot of topics and, I believe, has established a level of mutual respect that may not be immediately transparent on-wiki. I can appreciate that someone unaware of our past discussions (particularly the off-wiki ones) might have found tonight's one a little odd. I shall leave it at that.
I've taken your advice and not bothered reading any further edits to the RFAR since the issue was raised; instead I have returned to my work on a partial rewrite and re-referencing of an existing article. It will (if all goes well) be ready for merging in a day or two. I have never tried to do that, and the only advice I have received is "ask an admin to do it for you." Could you please advise me where I should go when I am ready to insert the upgraded content to the existing article, while incorporating the history from my userpage? Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you comments, they are appreciated and I wish to extend that I hope there is no conflict with us in the future. Well done with the rewrite, it's always a good thing to get a better article and what you descibe is a history merge that needs doing. Let me know when you're ready, and I'll happily perform the merge so the GFDL is met. Ryan Postlethwaite14:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the person who originally wrote the Wiki entry on Charles E. Spahr. It was my first entry, and I was and still am very green at writing these.
I have physical proof of everything that I wrote about Charlie with the exception of two small items that he told me personally (we are friends). The problem is that the materials are copyrighted, and I cannot post them on a site on the Internet for reference. I stopped working on the entry as his lawyer threatened me. My Constitution guarantees me the right to write, but one must be able to defend oneself if attacked through the legal system. I am a person of limited financial means and would have no way of doing so. Therefore, the entry sits out there unfinished.
I am going to write an entry on "Wild Bill" Potter, a murdered Cleveland, Ohio, USA city councilman in 1931. Having researched his murder extensively, I have all of the associated Plain Dealer newspaper articles as well as his coroner's report. His homicide file is missing.
The building that he was murdered in still exists. I would greatly appreciate your coaching as I write this second entry. My user name is dcicchel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcicchel (talk • contribs) 12:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film) article, in which two editors have been warring over the plot synopsis, each accusing the other of adding POV. I think the plot synopsis is simply too long, and attempted an edit the other day, but this displeased the both of them. I warned the both of them for 3RR violation, and I hope that might dissuade them. But, article protection is probably the best thing until a consensus can be reached. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure if I'm one of the editors that I take RepublicanJacobite to be suggesting as engaged in an "edit war," but I infer I may be, since I've made several edits lately. I have to disagree with RepublicanJacobite's description above: I don't think the problem has been a battle over POV, although the article does present POV problems -- almost inherently given the subject matter and the subtlety of the film, in certain respects. Rather, it's been a combination of disagreements over length, what's important and what's not, interpretation vs. description, and what counts as good writing, as well as POV. In particular, my last change, and the last change before the article was protected (and thus the one that I infer triggered RepublicanJacobite's objection), was a pure stylistic / anti-interpretive edit, deleting the phrase "a broken man" as a descriptive, when there is nothing in the film that makes that reading clear -- "dejected," "unhappy," "ashamed," etc. all would be perfectly fine, but "a broken man" takes a stronger stance than is clear from the film. I don't expect that Ryan Postlethwaite knows (or cares!) about this detail, and I'll post these points to the talk page as well, but I wanted to disagree here with RepublicanJacobite's description of the dispute. Also, as someone who's never had a page protected before (in response to my edits), I'm curious what the process is for deciding how and when to lift the protection? Do you, Ryan Postlethwaite, as the protector, review the talk page to see if there has developed consensus before lifting the protection? Or is it simply lifted as time passes? Any help (or pointers to Wiki pages on these questions) would be appreciated. Twins Too! (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The contentious issues are being worked out now on the talk page, and some other editors have gotten involved with good suggestions, so I think the page protection can be lifted. If you would be so kind. And, thanks again for your assistance. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I wanted to get another evaluation from you, as I've gotten an offer from User:Wizardman to be nominated for RfA. I just wanted to see if you thought I was ready, or what I can do to get ready. If you think I'm ready to be nominated, you could talk with Wizardman about a co-nom. User:Rudget also expressed interest in nominating me a few weeks ago, so he might also be interested. But I leave it up to you: if you feel I'm ready, I'll go up for adminship. If not, I'll keep working at it. Thanks! J-ſtanContribsUser page18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to eavesdrop Ryan, but if I may... J-stan, I think that you should be asking yourself "Am I ready" not "Do you think I'm ready". If you don't have confidence in your own abilities, it may not be the right time to go for the mop and bucket. Then again, I'm only knowledgeable about myself, and you should take everything I say with a grain of salt. :P KnowledgeOfSelf | talk18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was only asking because I was kind of in the middle of a task in admin coaching, and was wondering since I got an offer if he thought that I was ready, even though the task wasn't completed. I think I could be trusted, I just want to make sure that Ryan, as my coach, thought I was ready. J-ſtanContribsUser page18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chill, chill chill - I've been trying to find the time to ask you if would like an admin nom for a while. Your admin coaching has been going fantastic and I'm proud to say I think you're ready. Would you like a nom? Please take into account KOS's point - do you peronally think you're ready? Ryan Postlethwaite02:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I'm ready. I'm actually kind of busy tomorrow morning (until maybe about 18:00 UTC), so we could do it now or tomorrow around 22:00 or 23:00 UTC, depending on what time works for the nominators. Keep in mind Wizardman's offer to nominate, and Rudget might still be interested; I just don't want to overlook them if they're still interested. J-ſtanContribsUser page03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint, but thanks for all your help! (I tried giving you the mop and bucket manual, but it was gigantic, and it wouldn't include the caption. Sorry!) J-ſtanContribsUser page16:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you don't want to co-nom Ryan? I have no problem with it. Plus you'd probably have much better nomination than I since you're his coach. If not, oh well. Wizardman16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a user CarolSpears (talk·contribs) who has become unhappy with the way her odd edits are being handled. You can see much of the discussion on her talk page under the heading #Hieracium albertinum. Part of it is simply that she has decided each page on Hieracium should open with a quote (e.g. Hieracium lachenalii). Part of it is that she quotes she is choosing are sometimes unrelated to the article, such as the quote about dead puppies ([77]).
Now she is adding "not a part of project project" banners to WP:PLANTS ([78]) and to "her" articles on Hieracium (e.g. [79], [80], etc.), and has added an odd gallery to this talk page ([81]).
She has deleted comments critical of her work ([82]) and posted this nomination to DYK ([83]) which is a link to a discussion on a talk page.
Yeah sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I don't think what she was doing was intentional vandalism - it was merely disruption. She's disrupting wikipedia to make a point. What she's doing isn't really block worthy at the minute, but it's certainly worth keeping an eye on her. I'd possibly suggest filing a request for comments about her editorial disruption, she just doesn't seem to get what our project is about. Ryan Postlethwaite17:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, I know you probably didn't know. Actually, several people have offered to nom him, so I'm leaving that up to him. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going next week to RFA, but I've already have 4 other offers. I'm really stuck as to who to pick to do the co-nominations. :S Rt.16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the other two co-nominators hasn't replied, so I'm going to offer the co-nom position to you. Would you be willing to do so? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Rt.14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works, it follow the RfA, RfB format, but the shortcuts (WP:RFR, WP:ROLL, WP:RRP) all point to the failed proposal right now, so they'll need to be redone (ideally the failed proposal should go on the talk page and that page should be a redirect). Also, WP:RR points at the railroad project, so they might need a see also at the top of their page. Other than that it looks good. MBisanztalk18:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you haven't had one for a few months, so here you go! Seriously though, this is for being a great editor, an excellent admin and constantly making me laugh :D Keep up the excellent work, man! Majorly (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as you're listed as an assistant for changing usernames, I wondered if I could ask a question. When I joined, I wanted the username 'Islander', however it was already taken, so I settled for 'TheIslander'. I now notice that User:Islander is dormant: it has no edits to it's name, and no logs. It therefore qualifies for usurption. I considered doing this, but decided against it because of the hassel with my old signature being plastered all over the place, but have since realised that this could be solved by simply reclaiming the 'TheIslander' account, and setting it up as a doppleganger, which just redirects to 'Islander'. Is this a good/bad idea? Also, one further question: would all user pages be ported over to 'Islander', including my sandbox (User:TheIslander/labs) and talk page archives? Basically, I'd like to usurp an account, but am worried about the implications, and can't find them listed anywhere in an easy to understand format. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated :). TheIslander17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheIslander - I've checked User:Islander and it certainly is available for usurpation - it has not edits and no deleted contribs. When you get renamed, all your edits are moved across to the new account and every page within your userspace is automatically moved to the new account (including your user and talk page). It's not a problem with the signatures as when someone clicks on your all signature, it will automatically be redirected to your new user/talk page. The only problem with changing a username is if you've registered for things such as AWB or vandal proof, you'll have to re-register for them. All in all, it's basically automatic and not much hassle at all (although you'll have to wait 7 days). Hope that helps! Ryan Postlethwaite18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the reply ;). I have one more question: if I were to change to 'Islander', what exactly would happen to the account 'TheIslander'? Would it cease to exist, and be free for a new user to take (in which case I'd quickly re-register it to change it into a doppleganger); would it still belong to me (i.e. I'd still be able to access it with the same username/password, and treat it as a doppleganger); or something else entirely? Basically I wouldn't want to lose the 'TheIslander' account, I'd want to keep it as a doppleganger, so what would happen? Thanks Ryan :). TheIslander19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be available, but most users who usurp accounts recreate their old username to stop other users creating it. I've changed my username and created the old one to stop it being abused. We've had a number of problems with this in the past, so re-register it ASAP after it's been changed. It's a completely legitimate use of a second account. Ryan Postlethwaite19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ryan Postlethwaite, Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 34 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. I appreciate your support! I promise I will wield the mop wisely, and do my best to improve Wikipedia.
Hey RP, sorry to bother you again. I've informed Rlevse about my editing patterns over the next week or so, and believe if I could, transclude the RFA tonight? Would you be able to write your co-nom now? I know this is really short notice, but I appreciate your offer the same. Best regards, Rt.20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you have added a link from the portal page, as well as choosing it for January's selected article. I know it isn't the most engaging of topics, or one with the widest appeal, but as an umpire myself, I didn't think the one section in the Tennis article did it justice.
I'm still relatively new to wikipedia, and I have made it one of my goals to take this article on to at least GA status. I added it to the project's request for assessment page, but judging by the queue that might not mean much. I'm looking for a peer review and some advice on improving the article, and it would be nice to have the perspective of someone who isn't as familiar with the subject to give it a look over.
Hi there, I should warn you, I'm not really good at peer reviews, but the article has certainly got potential. Have you considered an official peer review? You'd be amazed at the help you'd get through it. When I chose the page, I chose it because I found it to be very informative and it looked like a quality article. It'd certainly be worth looking into getting it uptp GA standard. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! I'm going to start a request for a peer review shortly. The biggest thing I would like to know is how the article reads to a non-umpire. Being an official myself makes it hard to judge what information is really notable, and if there are areas where expansion would be helpful.--Greenguy1090 (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've offered at the proposal to notify all the prior proposal commentors with talk page messages using AWB is someone could write a succint message. But now it looks like this proposal could close and lead to a new one.
1. Do you want me to do this and could you write the message? (as your a lead for this prop I think)
2. When would a new proposal open so I'll know when I could begin compiling the notification list?
Oh dear, this is something I didn't want to happen - skipping from proposal to proposal for no apparent purpose. If this doesn't succeed, no others are likely to. For me anyway, this proposal wasn't my prefered method, I simply created it as it was the only one with the slightest chance of consensus and the only one that is workable given that we really don't have enough 'crats to burden with this. There still looks like consensus with this proposal, it may still lead to it's implementation - but if this was to fail (even after some minor tweaks) then we really shouldn't create a new proposal - it wouldn't lead to any better outcome than this. Ryan Postlethwaite20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the 2 main reasons this would fail are 1. Lack of notification (it soured people from the onset). 2. The strong focus on !votes, many editors hold to the idea that votes are evil, even though they are pretty much the norm at RfA and AfD. A nom done with extensive publicity and that maybe even combined the Support and Oppose section (a headache for the closing crat), might do better. Also, given the number of Admins de-sysopped for bad behavior, a large number of users seem scared giving them individual control over this sort of feature. MBisanztalk20:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we have to demonstrate consensus to the devs - this method is the only real way we can do this - i.e. numbers. We could probably post a bug now and the devs would implement it - there is clearly overall support for the proposal as it stands and as you rightly say, many of the opposes are for reasons that aren't really related directly to the proposal. Restarting the discussion would just create a mess - we have many many community views now and in a week/2 weeks should have enough to put it to the devs to take a look at. If they implement it then great, if not, oh well but further discussion would be a waste of time. Ryan Postlethwaite20:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't want to her account to be known - simple as that. There's no point in her continuing this account if you are going to make the information freely available. How many RfA's have that exact tally? Ryan Postlethwaite03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason for this username change was real life harassment - she doesn't need identifying and your efforts to out her are quite frankly wrong. If she wanted to be known by her old account, there would be no need for this RfA. Ryan Postlethwaite03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't appreciate that you accuse me of trying to out her. I don't see and cannot see how the tally from her prior RfA is going to contribute to revealing who she was. The fact that she did not abandon her prior account is on WT:RFA. Her contribs are there, as even she has pointed out. My purpose in the comments I wrote is not to out her, but to demonstrate that this is completely unnecessary. I would be most happy if the RfA were withdrawn and deleted. Avruchtalk03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is good, but revelation of any information without permission can be damaging. There are better ways of demonstrating the pointlessness of the process than posting it onwiki. Try email next time please. — DarkFallstalk03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in many ways with DarkFalls - I don't think it was your intention to out her, but that was the overall effect. This is one case where her previous username really can't be put into the wrong hands. Ryan Postlethwaite03:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disturbed by the belief that I intended to reveal her prior identity. I have removed all comments that could lead directly that result, and I will follow it up with an e-mail to Ryan to clear up something that I believe he is misunderstanding. Avruchtalk03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the notification - I thought I'd watchlisted the page when I made the edit, but obviously not. I've replied on the talk page. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ryan, my internet is being a right pain the arse and I can't get on to IRC, and I need to ask you something, so please check your email inbox in a few minutes. Qst21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka04:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created most of the instructions for salting in User:Acalamari/Test, and it can be moved to Wikipedia:New admin school/Salting whenever necessary. Would you mind reading what I've written to fix some errors I might have made, or add some things I might have missed? Also, I decided to cover transclusion as well as the "protect" button feature. Thanks Ryan! Acalamari20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, greetings. Just saw your new RFAR. I'm glad to see somebody with your experience trying to quiet the battleground. But I'm wondering whether the RFAR will be perceived as too broad. There are numerous I-P articles at various stages of contention. (For instance, you didn't mention Battle of Jenin or Palestinian people.) An Arb case could then draw in too many parties, etc. Perhaps you have a way to narrow the scope, either with a focus on specific articles or individuals? Or maybe an RfC would help engender a conversation about how to modulate the situation in a broad swath of articles? I'm not objecting to your RFAR per se, just trying to point out objections you are likely to face. Thanks and good luck. HG | Talk17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HG, thanks for your points. The problem with these articles is we get the same contributors edit warring over the whole topic - it's very hard to decrease the scope as then we miss key issues. I didn't give a full list of problem articles in the request, this can be brought out on the evidence section should the case be accepted. A year ago it may have been an issue, but the arbitrators have recently begun offering remedies that cover large subject areas and large number of contributors. Stopping disruption in the areas with greatest problems will probably have a knock on effect in the other articles. Ryan Postlethwaite17:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've objected to my presence in this arbitration, but I don't blame you for including me. If I'm found to have wilfully (or even accidentally) practised any of the monstrous bad practises seen in another editor, I will deserve an indef-block. PRtalk17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An inclusion of your name as a party to the dispute does not mean you have been disruptively editing, it just means that you are part of the editing in these articles and have been in direct contact with people involved in the disruption - it's no big deal being a named party. Ryan Postlethwaite17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've stated: "now all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption."
Now, I've been very, very careful, throughout the whole of my time at WP, not to edit-war (I can prove that the last accusation of this was totally false, with each of the 3 (4?) examples provided being good, solid edits taken up by other editors and are now parts of the respective articles). I feel sure that many of the other parties are not guilty of this either.
Furthermore, despite many strong accusations of "disruption", I don't believe any evidence for this behavior has ever been presented against me (nor, I warrant against many other parties to this arbitration).
I trust this case is not a back-door attempt to clear out one very, very poor Israeli editor and many fair to good editors who dare to criticise Israel. I trust this case is not a back-door attempt to finally intimidate everyone into silence on the subject of the I-P conflict, other than those who will edit (however tendentiously) in Israel's favour. It certainly seems very odd that a user in good standing has come forward to 'mentor' or 'help' the prime 'accused', an action that makes it appear the conclusion of this case is a foregone conclusion. PRtalk11:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There could be circumstances under which I wish to state that, as best I'm aware, my mentor has had no reason for concern with my editorial conduct since the start of his mentorship of me. Or, certainly, none have been brought to my attention. Would I be correct in that regard? (You may feel I've been demanding and time-consuming and perhaps even awkward on your TalkPage, of course, but I assume you expected something like that when putting yourself forwards as your mentor). PRtalk11:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I just realised, after avoiding Jaakobou for at least a month, I snapped at him for apparently wiki-stalking me on the 16th Dec here. My irritation may be better understood at the fact that he'd by then been following me around with his in-your-face denials, as in this case, where he arrogantly asserts that the Hebrew sources don't agree with what I've written in the answer to questions (but, as usual, makes no attempt to contribute constructively). This is almost certainly my most offensive edit (and likely my only one) since I tried to discover if he had a CoI at the Battle of Jenin in August, as you know all about. PRtalk12:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what it means "believes"; either I'm a party or not. It's very easy to check the log and see that I'm not an involved party. I object to being dragged into a dispute which I'm not a party to; Thanks. Itzse (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to you at this TalkPage. I think the nonsense has gone on quite long enough. This is 8 editors now held at bay for 16 months by a single, hugely problematical editor who cannot understand consensus and is totally unable to understand the use of sources (or even electric fence policies such as BLP). PRtalk21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I don't know why it's taken such an unfathomably long time for pretty ordinary, kitchen-sink, two-a-penny common sense to finally break through at this article. It cannot do the project any good whatsoever to have this happen - I only trust some real lessons will be learnt on this one.
I have a request of you - my participation in a very important discussion elsewhere is being undermined by claims that I am "currently under mentorship for disruptive editing and abuse of sources" - would it be possible to state here that (while I may be under suspicion of the former), nothing has ever been proved and that's not what my mentorship is for. And I was completely (even spectacularily) cleared on the latter. PRtalk23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is another accusation been made against me. I've been very careful not to "troll" Jaakobou, whereas he (as I've mentioned) did start to wiki-stalk me (he stopped after I complained to you). I have to say, abuse of TW is truly trivial in the scale of things - you're not really going to claim that answers the case, are you? PRtalk13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. You seem to be saying that an RfC is the next step - surely that's a step back down the escalation scale, with ANI as the last step before arbitration?
What's really important is that the personal abuse of participants is stopped at these "disciplinaries" (it's a change to have them aimed at me on someone else's case!). Without this degree of unpleasantness, I'm convinced we'd now have a much, much more focused and useful consensus at the ANI (ditto at many previous cases). I'm quite serious - if my ArbCom is re-opened (as I hope and beg), I plan to list some of the major accusations made against me by the other party - and the words "abusive", "malicious", "lying" and "cheating" might easily become very prominent in my contributions. But they'll be aimed at the parties (as they should be), not at the witnesses. PRtalk14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the arbitrators will only accept a case if it has an RfC to go with it - RfC is one of the final steps in dispute resolution - AN/I in fact is not part of dispute resolution in anyway so isn't really used when determining whether or not a case should be accepted. As I said at AN/I, this is heading to arbitration - I think that's safe to say. Ryan Postlethwaite14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, that's a relief. Do I need an advocate? I might choose to stay completely silent on the subject. Could I post evidence of really gross behaviors to you for inclusion? PRtalk15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought that you'd need an advocate - that's not what we really do in arbitration cases. Just collect evidence that you feel is relavent, and present it in a logical manner. Ryan Postlethwaite17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have protested the atmosphere at these "disciplinaries" over and over again. There are often the most outrageous accusations made against people presenting evidence, and this has happened again at the ANI on this case. The same thing now seems to be happening at the ArbCom "all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption."
So bad has it become that a serious chill is cast on anyone wishing to participate (it's very evident indeed if you wish to defend critics of Israel, I can't be sure whether it's actually wide-spread or not).
I believe that User:Kyaa the Catlord is quite disruptive at I-P conflict - but highly disruptive at any place where resolution is being attempted eg every single comment at the ANI just closed on this affair was partisan and unhelpful. Would you advise adding him to the RfA? PRtalk14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. I think HG raises some good points about your RFAR below -but I also see yours as well, so let's see what happens. One notable exception to the the list of involved parties is User:Timeshifter -IMO he's caused major disruption on Second Intifada and I think his behaviour needs to be examined as well. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan :). Could you please take a look over at the 3RR noticeboard - a user is trying to get me blocked for removing a picture which doesn't qualify for fair use. Cheers ;). TheIslander15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale you provided wasn't actually a rationale - it didn't explain why it qualified, as I point out on the talk page that you seem determined not to visit or comment on. Regardless, thanks for your help, Ryan, much appreciated ;) (and, taking a look at your userpage for the first time, I must say that I like your taste in work - Lakeland; home of 101 things that you don't really need, but so desparately want :P). TheIslander16:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* This discussion should really be happening on the talk page of the relevant article, but (as long as Ryan doesn't object), I will carry on here, so that an admin can keep an eye on this discussion. This was the rationale you provided:
"Use in the article Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, which is a member of LINK, is believed to be fair, within the meaning of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.30 (1988 cap.48) in the United Kingdom and the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Pub.L. 94-553) in the United State"
That's not a rationale. It doesn't explain how it fulfills point 3a of the fair-use policy (" As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary"), or point 8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.", which the LINK logo on that article certainly doesn't). Understand now? TheIslander16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reset) Okay, where do we go from here. Shall I repost my 3RR report under LINK rather than Norwich and P/Boro. Three reverts is a clear violation (and you will also note the timestamp on the talk page).
"Logo of the Link Interchange Network Ltd. Arundel House, 1 Liverpool Gardens, Worthing, West Sussex. BN11 1SL
Use in the article Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, which is a member of LINK, is believed to be fair, within the meaning of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.30 (1988 cap.48) in the United Kingdom and the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Pub.L. 94-553) in the United States
The exhibition of low-resolution images of logos, to illustrate the subject in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell product or said image. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The further use of this image on Wikipedia is not believed to disadvantage the copyright holder in any way"
To Chrisieboy - there is no way that a fair use rationale could be written for that image to be in that article to satisfy the fair use policy, so yes, it was removing a blatant copyright problem (even though it doesn't say blatant in the policy. The rationale you site is no where near good enough - a fair use image should be the subject of the article, this is not in this case so cannot be used.Ryan Postlethwaite16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Directly from the fair use policy: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". How does this image qualify under this point for that article? TheIslander16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify that it is your understanding of that policy, as an administrator, that three reverts at Image:LINK.png in a twenty-four hour period, without the proper discussion, is not in breach of the rule. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, he was removing non free content that cannot be used in the article. Further to that, he made three reverts, you need to make 4 to break the rule (although this was not a anyway). Ryan Postlethwaite21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit, I reverted a reference to a current event happaning in Australia where an indian cricket called an aboriginal australian cricket a monkey (a reference to sub human) the photo could be very insulting to some people and is generally not in good taste. I am undoing your revert.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"We are the Admin. Reverting is futile. Your will assimilate your POV into the collective. Your references will adapt to service us." EVula// talk // ☯ //17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have liked to thank the person who granted my request for rollback at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback. However, based on your comment, "Done by someone...." it seems that it wasn't you and I'll never know who actually gave it to me! But thank you anyway for being so kind. --Mysdaaotalk00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I prefer TW over the new rollback feature. Would you mind removing it from my rights? Obviously, if you could note that I requested this, and it wasn't "taken away". - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You note that the devs are currently considering the consensus on the rollback proposal. How does someone contact the devs with points to consider? HidingT22:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise to be honest, it's best to have discussion here - IRC's always good as a sociable venue however. Why I mentioned it was because you can go to #wikimedia-tech and there'll be plenty of developers in there. If not, I'll try and dig up an email address. Ryan Postlethwaite23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re this note: thanks for contacting them, it might have been nice to be told how I could contact them myself. But I assume it was via IRC. I strongly agree with Hiding: from my very brief experience of IRC, I feel that wiki talk pages are far better.
It's rather redundant now, but thanks. I had some rationales needed writing and then got sidetracked, and before you know it it has been implemented. All the best, HidingT16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, regardless of how short-lived it was. There really should have been guidelines in place before rollback was implemented though. -- ALLSTARecho16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a short note to offer my congratulations on the way you've handled the rollback debate. Your guidance of the whole thing has been exemplary and is a credit to you and confirms the trust the community has in you as an Admin. You've maintained your cool and handled even the most difficult participants with grace, style and poise.
What could have quite easily turned into the Mother of All Flamewars has remained controlled, constructive and positive largely due to your leadership and example.
Well done! Have you ever consider becoming a 'crat?
Hi Ryan. I added Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback to Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Can you help by advertising the practice place in a few more areas? Unless you think the current number (350+) will overwhelm that page? Most of those being granted the tool will know how to use it, but some won't and this should help them. Now - I'm off to start a sweepstake on when the number of rollbackers will overtake the number of admins... Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested arbitration in the matter of the consensus for rollback. Although it is not an arbitration "against" anyone, I think it fair to inform you as your name has been mentioned.--Docg01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only drama is the people arguing and complaining on the talk pages, and requesting arbitration over such a "little thing". Sigh. Majorly (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So this is you saying we should all shut up and allow the end-run round consensus? Eh? I've had enough being hushed. Arbitration should settle the matter one way or another, and Jimbo seems to agree.--Docg01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan,
Would you mind having a look at the Large Hadron Collider article, User:Homocion is continually adding unproven theories to this article. Most of it is fringe theory and is not verified, if you read here, you will see we have asked for the usual verifiability, and his arguments have been refuted by a number of editors. I left this message on his talk page, explaining the position as a final warning which was ignored. Now I can't use any of my admin tools etc, as it would be a conflict of interest as I work at CERN, but I think if you look through the talk page, at all times I have only asked for what is required by any information added to the encyclopedia. I have gone for third party opinion, and some of the guys from wikiproject physics have come in and have been ignored. Do I go for mediation next, as I've used all the tool I know of for dispute resolution, with the exception of RfC which is why I went to the physicists who would understand it better. Thoughts please? cheers Khukri10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to make sure you saw my second reply (the first part, not the second part, since the diff includes someone else's edit) on the request for arbcom page. I also want to further extend my apologies to you and others about this. While I think a lot of this happened because of the nature of Wikipedia, I still find myself feeling really bad about it. And Doc, while his frustration is understandable, shouldn't really be saying some of the stuff he's saying about you. I'm also sorry for the things that can't be explained as the "nature of Wikipedia", such as anything I might have said to you that was uncalled for, like my comment on the technical village pump. You've handled yourself better than I did, better than many of us did, in this situation. -- Ned Scott05:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ryan Postlethwaite, a special and sincere thanks for your support and confidence in my my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and you who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget.15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NHRHS2010 (talk·contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for the move. :) I was getting ready to do that, but you beat me to it. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to write it too. :) Acalamari03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome: I was glad to help. :) By the way, I saw this edit, and I wanted to tell you not to feel bad about any problems that may have arisen from the rollback feature: all of your actions have been in good-faith, and I think that this new feature has been working well, and in fact, I've been doing my best to make it work, as have several other users. Cheer up, Ryan. :) Acalamari04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is working well, and no doubt in part to your great work with it. The problem is, people were upset by it, and obviously I didn't want that at all - I guess it's time to heal infected wounds, and I hope I can make it upto people. Ryan Postlethwaite04:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I argue my case on the page for my case which I linked into the rollback request page. I can copy my arguements over there if you would like? As I said in my comments, if there is any doubt as to my motives then people should at least wait on the sockpuppetry cases outcome before making a decision on Porcupine. While it is true that my concern was triggred by behavior directly relating to me, I still do honestly have a concern about giving rollback priviledges to someone so hasty in his judgement... isn't that the most importnat concern with giving this feature to a user?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it's a simple tool and has nothing to do with your case. Your comments seemed more like you were trying to bring your case to WP:RFR, which really really is not the place for it. Ryan Postlethwaite16:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, perhaps I was reading too much into the guidelines for allowing rollback priviledges. Perhpas I didn't need to comment there.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Seth, please reconsider, you really aren't ready for adminship yet. You need to edit more regularly and actually do constructive things on the encyclopedia like write content or do admin tasks such as new page patrolling or looking out for vandalism. I fear that you may be hurt if you entered RfA now. Ryan Postlethwaite17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. I hope you feel that the ArbCom proceeding has been constructive. Thanks again for taking the initiative.
As you may have notice, thanks to suggestions at the Workshop, we started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I'm writing to ask if you would join as a member. In effect, by virtue of your mentoring responsibility, you are already making an important contribution within the scope of the Collaboration. So, by joining you wouldn't be commiting more than you are already doing. For our part, it would be beneficial to show who else is already working toward this mission and, in particular, to help build up a critical mass of uninvolved parties who are trying to quiet that battleground. What do you think? You can sign up here?
It seems that the arbcom is close to an end so I'm slowly returning to a few of the disputes I set aside.
Since I believe my understanding of the Saeb Erekat article is reliable source based, I am interested in pursuing dispute resolution or perhaps just convince you that you've missed something along the way.
This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a few minutes, please visit MedComWiki and give a glance at the version of the introduction now under consideration. I asked each of the participants, on their user pages, to do the same. Many thanks, Welland R (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It turned out that you blocked the user indefinitely for disruption while I was typing a message to him to try make him see sense. To check, I gather that he did no valid reversions? The computer I'm currently using was too cumbersome to go through his history. --Kizor20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images.
Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I know you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its meaning. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's an admin so he can sort it out himself ;) (I'm partly jesting; if it's still a mess in the morning I will fix it up, but I'm a bit lead-eyed now, and he should know better than any of us what goes where). Three lessons I guess: 1) don't use silly tricks on your user page, 2) don't revert each other like crazy, 3) and most importantly: kingboyk don't be an eejit. :/ Nite. --kingboyk (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. I think we'll need your attention at Saeb Erekat again. You'll not be required to consider "content disputes" (except perhaps regarding UNDUE and BLP), but the article needs someone capable of reading the sources and accurately repeating what they said. Up until now that's not been happening. Tell me if you want to recuse yourself, and/or get User:Durova and User:Kendrick7 involved. PRtalk11:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On top of the problems there, I'm seeing another appparent case of ownership here. Canadian Monkey seems determined to use a peripheral and un-notable source which doesn't cover important material necessary to the article. Can you make sense of it, just from that one TalkPage section? PRtalk15:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to your revert and BLP issues here [86].
I would appreciate it if you decide whether you're a neutral editor on the article working to improve it or a pro-active mentor for PalestineRemembered. I honestly can't see you acting neutrally if you do neither and refuse to recognize CNN, BBC and other high quality references. JaakobouChalk Talk17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just saw your comment on my not understanding the difference between vandalism and bad faith edits. However, I ‘’do’’ know the difference. Only recently has the problem been content issues, but quite honestly, there have always been vandalism problems on these pages. Now my request has been removed because of your point, which I don’t really feel is fair. You can ask anyone at the Pirates pages, which I know is a bit of tedious work ☺ but I really feel I should be given a chance on this. Please let me know what you and the others think. Thanks, BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've granted you rollback - please only use it on obvious vandalism - if there's a content dispute, or you're not sure whether or not it is vandalism, do it manually. Ryan Postlethwaite23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing tedious about it! When you click on any diff, it should be directly under the date of the latter revision. The rollback link is only there if it's the latest revision you're rolling back. Ryan Postlethwaite01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. My request for rollback was just denied, but I'm glad because it put me in touch with a more senior Wiki editor. I need help on David Gest's article. It has a history of NPOV problems, and extravagant, (self?) promotional claims with no research. I rewrote a bunch of it and painstakingly added many footnotes (it had none before). As soon as the semi-page protection came off, an unregistered user wiped everything out with about a million edits. Can you help me revert this back to a decent page with footnotes? Something weird is happening with an onslaught of massive deletions, but I can't figure out how to stop it and deliver a decent article for the wiki community. Thanks, Swilli88
Thanks, Ryan. Someone keeps injecting a lot of self-promotional, unsourced garbage in the article. I'm just happy to be discussing this now with a sane person. No one is responding to the talk page. I'm still learning about Wiki, so I don't know how to rewrite and "defend" this article from vandals. I wish they hadn't deleted my research and footnotes.
It's an interesting diff, and I'm watching the situation closely. I believe that he's walking on a very thin tight rope and it may be good to advise him that it would be in his best interests to drop the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Why was this page deleted? I'm not sure it's purely a user page, it's a part of the historical record of how recalls go, referenced from Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests... No other admin that was subject to recall has had their recall related pages deleted and had it stick. I'd ask that you reconsider the deletion. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c12:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lar, he tagged it for deletion, and as it's in his user space, I granted that request. As he's no longer an admin, I feel the page has served its purpose and little need to keep it. It was actually speedily deleted previously due to an OTRS request. If you give me time though, I'll happily discuss it with Mercury and see if he'll reconsider. Ryan Postlethwaite13:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi... On reflection, it's not really far to put you in the middle, I guess... it probably makes sense for me to take it to him myself (along with the other part of the recall that was deleted)... if he won't reconsider then I'll have to decide if it's worth a DRV over. The reason I ask is that itn's not really "his" page since multiple people participated in it, and not having it around means it is harder for others to draw needful conclusions about the overall process and what they should or should not do. ++Lar: t/c16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He tagged it U1, because it's in his user space he technically can have it deleted. But I fully understand your concerns here, it's now linked to from project pages and is an important part of recall archives. I'm trying to catch him on IRC so we can have a little chat about it and hopefully we can come to an agreement without needing to put it through DRV. Cheers Ryan Postlethwaite16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keilana's rationale is posted on the talk page of the DRV, I included a link in an edit summary posting it to the top of the debate page. Avruchtalk04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have anything better to do than criticizing me for calling someone a troll because they want to insert allegations that Bill Clinton supports scientology into his article? He is a troll. A trolling troll of a troll. Troll troll troll. Maybe he contributes usefully on other subjects, but he's trolling there. I suppose I will leave open the possibility that he is a crank, rather than a troll, if you'd like. john k (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just wow. I presumed a fellow administrator would know a better way to solve a content dispute, but obviously not. discuss edits in an amicable manner, the way you have done it it not how we go about these things. I'm shocked that you continue the attacks here. Please be aware that I will block you should you continue this behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no content dispute at Talk:Bill Clinton. There's one lone user who is promoting a fringe POV at great length. He should be ignored. I'm sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities by calling a spade a spade. I won't pursue this any further, block me if you want - it'll help me get stuff done if I can't edit here for a day, I imagine. I'd prefer not to be, though. john k (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to block you for no reason, but please remain civil in discussion - I said it to you previously; discuss content, not contributors - we're here to create an encyclopedia, if you feel there's issues with a users conduct, turn to dispute resolution, not attacks. Ryan Postlethwaite05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, making threats to people for disagreeing with you is unproductive. John did the right thing, per the essay you linked to. When someone is trolling, the best advice you can give is "don't feed the troll". Of course, I think calling Farenheit451 a troll is overly generous - he's engaging in personal attacks and editing in a disruptive manner. He deserves a block. If anything, your threat of a block is the problem behaviour here - it's not at all civil, and it's a threat to abuse the privileges that the community has extended to you. Threats and bullying are never acceptable. Please refrain from doing so in the future. You should know better. Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to link to trolling/disruptive behaviour from Farenheit451 and I'll gladly deal with it? Honestly I will. But my concern here is John calling users trolls that he's in dispute with, then when cautioned about it, taking it one step further. I'm neutral in all this, and very much willing to take action on other sides of the dispute, but please could you point to it? I must admit, I'm slightly disapointed to hear that you think this was abuse of the communities trust, it wasn't meant to be in any shape or form. Ryan Postlethwaite06:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I'd like to apologise for my recent editing patterns here on en.wp. The rare, and tremendous effort a relative put into degrading my wiki-credentials, have destoyed any respect I may have had. I understand those who agree that this may be a little over-reactive, but preventative measures need to be taken in order to protect en.wp from accounts that will easily disrupt Wikipedia, as proven in the case in point. You provided me with a great deal of support and empathy during my time here, and your great co-nomination in my recent RFA, did me a great deal of flattery. I enjoyed my time here, and I've probably forgot you and Ioeth in all this mess, but I feel now was the right time to contact you about this. I hope RJD0060 follows the same path as you, but not as me. I leave Wikipedia with a great sense of community spirit, and a great deal more knowledge. I'm only fifteen though, I really should be doing more for my education. Ironic that, considering I'm attempting to build an encyclopedia, but there you go. :) This'll be my last edit, under this name at least. Good luck with the editing, and lets hope the rain doesn't come down too much in the Manchester Meetup. Regards, Rudget.19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why you did not include Jeffrey's behavior at Rodhullandemu's RFA? That seems like a fairly crucial aspect of this case. Ronnotel (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that's the less important part of the case if I'm being honest - editing with socks to win content disputes is worse IMHO. By all means make a statement yourself to explain it. Ryan Postlethwaite20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because you express just one person commenting using an alternate account as an opinion. I am curious, are you trying to say that the timing for your requeust and the RfA is purely coincidental? It seems clearly a direct result of unethical behavior. the_undertowtalk02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I don't think the RfA oppose was ideal, far from it, and I believe it was an abuse of an alternate account, making it a violation of WP:SOCK, I was just more concenred about the article editing. That vote was extremely misleading and appeared as if it was from a neutral party. Ryan Postlethwaite02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that Socks on articles, while damaging, don't produce lasting results, as things can be reverted. That being said, Socks at RfAs can result in long-lasting damages to reputations of editors. That's why I find the RfA incident more 'jarring' than the article misuse, of which I was not aware. Either way, bringing it to Arbcom seems to be the best forum. the_undertowtalk02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Postlethwaite/AH, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK00421:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to correct any defects in the certification that you have noted. I should be able to provide the needed diffs to support the fact that Abridged sought resolution on Adam's talk page and Adam not only declined to apologize meaningfully but made a false statement about Abridged. My certification and participation in this RfC is less about the personal attack that Abridged perceived, and which may have been minor, but more about the pattern of behavior. I have withheld from introducing more examples, but can do so if this is appropriate. As I understood the RfC to be opened regarding a single dispute, I have kept closely to that one that Abridged raised for now. Please let me know what you need me to do to prevent the RfC from being deleted as uncertified. —Whig (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show evidence that you have attempted to solve the dispute over adams behaviour previously (and as the particular RfC is about civility, you need to show you've made a real effort to discuss his incivility with him). Asking for an appology and not getting one is far from adequate. You need to have engaged in real discussion with Adam, to try to curb seriously problematic behaviour (but looking at the diffs of the dispute, this is far from the sort of behaviour where an RfC is required). Ryan Postlethwaite00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much past history should I go into? I have documented some of this on his first RfC, where he was incivil and unfactual with me. I will be happy to show the steps that we took in this particular instance in detail, Abridged wrote up the RfC and I haven't put evidence into it yet other than agreeing that it is accurate. In this particular case it's a short recitation of facts that I can give and add later. —Whig (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The steps you took in this latest incident are not going to get this RfC certified - asking for an appology (which is basically all that was done) is not going to get it certified. If you look further afield, you need to show where you've actually made efforts to bring his behaviour to his attention and attempt to get him to stop. Ryan Postlethwaite00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The steps I took were manifold over the past few months but most recently in the first RfC[89] I brought his civility and misrepresentations of fact to his attention and he did not correct his behavior. Should I incorporate this statement or link it? —Whig (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you've mentioned it there, then there's no reason to bring it up in a second RfC, so close to his first. I'll be honest - this RfC isn't going to go anyway, what needs to be brought up has been in the first, what's new doesn't need mentioning. Ryan Postlethwaite00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that the first RfC was regarding admin abuses, not user conduct. It may be that a second RfC is not preferred right now in light of the ArbCom case underway but it isn't clear how or whether they intend to resolve matters subsequent to the Matthew Hoffman block and Adam's user conduct apart from admin abuses has not been placed at issue there either. —Whig (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read what other users have been putting in the second RfC? It's clear that people do not agree with you both that there should be an RfC here. I think the general thoughts are that his admin actions were bad, but generally speaking, people don't find him to be incivil here, so the committee don't have any reason to penalise him for that, unless you have some serious evidence to the contrary. Ryan Postlethwaite01:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of the sort, you just have slight bias against the user in question, so are bound to feel hard done by. You should listen to the wider community and accept that whilst you do, the consensus is that Adam is not incivil. Ryan Postlethwaite01:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I don't think you appreciate the situation here and perhaps I should provide more evidence to make it clear, but I am trying not to catalogue all of Adam's history with me in the past few months since he has received a good bit of feedback on his behavior and should have an opportunity to change it without being forever criticized for what he did before. I do not have bias against Adam personally, but he abused his admin privileges against me personally, and when that happened I was much more in an adverse proceeding than now. I have been in the minority in many conversations about Adam's misbehavior before the ArbCom took an interest in his abuses, and before the community came to agree that he had abused his admin tools. If this goes back to ArbCom (as it may) it will not matter how many users agreed or disagreed at this stage. If you are saying that I should drop it because it is unnecessary and there is a more appropriate forum for user conduct complaints, such as directing them to the ArbCom evidence in the ongoing Matthew Hoffman case, we can move it there. I have no desire to disrupt, but want to help the committee gather information to make an appropriate decision on how to deal with this user. —Whig (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryan - there is no objection to using this hate-source for this particular purpose, since there's nothing "surprising" that the perpetrators deny what's alleged and malign their accusers. (They have a very long and largely consistent history of lying denial). The problem is that the incident itself is trivial, it doesn't appear atall in most of the biographies of Erekat. The use of it is UNDUE, as 8 editors (by my count) have already stated. 4 editors have further stated that it unacceptable by BLP. I would argue that it's FRINGE, almost no other RSes accuse EREKAT of lieing - whereas most sources make his claims look mainstream. Not one editor supports Jaakobou in this respect.
And, of course, if we accept "Take-a-pen" as acceptable then we'll accept the sources that re-publish Ha'aretz's story of 9th April 2002 quoting Shimon Peres, then Israeli Foreign Minister, stating "In private, Peres is referring to the battle as a "massacre.". This story appears to pre-date any use by Erekat of the same word. (Actually, the usually short-lived Ha'aretz web-site has just re-published the story, it's currently here). It is FRINGE indeed to attack Erekat for using the word "massacre", when Israeli ministers and Israeli newspapers are already that word. It is FRINGE indeed to state that "500 dead in Jenin" is some kind of serious distortion, when the UN figure for all the dead due to the operation (admittedly over a bigger area and longer time-scale) is 497. PRtalk21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert bearcats new information? I was over at his house and he was just showing me that I could actually edit anything in this amazing website. We are friends me and bearcat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrispyKicks (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, I just wanted to say thank you for your support at my RFA. I was surprised by the amount of support I received and will work hard to live up to the community's expectations. I look forward to working with you, so feel free to drop in if you ever need any help. Thanks again! Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Dream team....hmm...it actually would be Ryan :D. Thanks for you comments, and now I know that Newyorkbrad isn't the only person watching my contribs and pages. O.o. -- RTalkContribs@01:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you have restored the AC2 RfC (temporarily), I was wondering whether Adam should be notified? BTW, thanks for making it available for everyone - it'll be useful for preparing a comment on the Whig RfC.
Whig has commented on his talk page that he doesn't plan to take part. Would it be appropriate for someone to note in his response section either that he is definitely aware of the RfC and choosing not to comment, or to include a link to (or a copy of) the talk page discussion so others are aware of his choice and reasoning? If this isn't appropriate, I am happy to include a comment in the section I will be adding, but I thought I'd ask first.
I'll let adam know about the RfC - it's only fair but I'm sure he won't mind. With respect to Whig, I don't think there's any need to note it on the RfC - many users decide not to participate in their RfC's at first, but offer a response later on. By all means note it in your comment though, or you could post a note to the talk page - either would certainly be acceptable measures of notifying participating members of the RfC that Whig isn't taking part. I hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that Adam is unlikely to mind, but I did think a notification was desirable. Following your advice, I have linked to Whig's talk page at the talk page for the RfC - I think to anyone outside evaluating the evidence presented, knowing the reason for the empty response is important. EdChem (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was right: he wasn't vandalizing. It's just that the diffs make it look like he deleted vast swaths of the article; I'm going to apologize (and notify the other people who warned him). WP:AGF. · AndonicOHail!00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, that discussion has not been open for the requisite 5 days. The edit history shows that the discussion was opened at 17:32 on 19 Jan and prematurely closed at 19:50 the same day despite not meeting the requirements for a speedy keep. Total time open, less than 2.5 hours. The error was found and corrected at 00:14 on 25 Jan. It could have been summarily relisted with a new nomination but that is not the norm for adminstrative mistakes like this. The normal course is to reopen the discussion, list it to the new day and "reset the clock". It is now approximately 11:00 on 28 Jan. That means we're up to barely 3.5 days of discussion time.
Yes, I'm going to be a stickler about process. This discussion does not and never has met the criteria for speedy-keep. Let it run it's course.
I am rapidly losing my ability to assume good faith here. If the fate of the discussion is as clear cut as the closers all seem to think it is, why are you in such a hurry to shut down the discussion? Why is everyone in a rush to close the discussion when substantive questions remain unanswered and so many of the "keep" opinions seem to be of the ILIKEIT variety? Rossami(talk)17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're reversing three other admins and that's not good. If you don't agree with it, take it to WP:AN/I to discuss it with a wider audience, but just reverting by yourself is going to get you a block off someone, and that really really isn't an ideal situation at all, and shouldn't be needed. Ryan Postlethwaite17:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is he trolling, in your considered opinion? If the answer is yes, regardless of my calling his obvious and transparent offensive trolling "trolling," why is he still editing? I mean, I know the answer to this rhetorical question, but give it a shot, anyway. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey -- I noticed this article has been protected for a REALLY long time (over 3 months now) and I requested unprotection at WP:RFP. I didn't know at the time about the mediation, which must be progressing pretty slowly; anyway, as the mediator, I thought you should know about the request in case you want to comment on it. Mangojuicetalk21:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me the name of your old account? Obviously if there's privacy concerns then I understand, it's just abundantly clear from your contributions that this is not your first. Ryan Postlethwaite19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a great deal of information to this article, heavily leaning on direct quotes, because there appears to be a problem of ownership, and I would not be surprised to see the whole lot reverted. Could you please keep an eye on it? Not all my citation is in place, but under the circumstances, I hope you'll understand if I go back later and complete the job once I'm confident I'm not really faced with vandalism. PRtalk11:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I've watchlisted it now and if there's any problems with reversions I'll step in. I've checked your edits - if you can finish off finding some sources quick, that would be good. I don't think there's anything too contentious in those edits, so hopefully everything will be ok. Ryan Postlethwaite17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I'd like to wait a bit longer before doing a pile of work finding the full titles, dates of the books etc, if that's OK. All of them need to say where I saw the citation, too, it's a perma-block offense to leave that out. (Bet you didn't know that!).
I was pondering whether to ask you to look at this, where I'm pretty sure I added highly relevant information back in Oct/Nov. The opposition there comes from several sources, I can't be sure whether it's really as unreasonable as I suspect. PRtalk18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I think you need to get into a massive argument - I dunno, do some rouge action and wait for the complaint and then you can decorate ANI with your sig lots and lots. ViridaeTalk23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a little something: [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<span style="text-decoration:blink; font-size:20pt; font-family:Algerian; color:#008080">Ryan Postlethwaite</span>[[Category:Pages that have been blessed by Ryan Postlethwaite]]''']] ViridaeTalk23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, it's very colorful and uh full of life! Kinda obtuse though don't ya think? Mayhap it's just me. I do hope that you are not seriously considering using that signature though. Just think of all the poor people who suffer from photosensitive epilepsy! :D 74.133.9.95 (talk)
Oh Ryan you are really quite silly! [93]. I can hardly believe you are using that sig. Could you at least lose the blinking, I'm sad to say I find it quite annoying and once again rather obtuse. Thanks. BTW I've had like 8 edit conflicts with my two posts to your page. You are the popular one! 74.133.9.95 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan no longer needs a block button - all he has to do is sign your talk page and you will be rendered unable to edit. --B (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, the signature is funny, but it makes it extremely difficult for me to read the discussion in the RFA without being distracted by the flashing. The joke has been made, and yes Roger's RFA is going well, so let's not make this an issue :) --JayHenry (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan I know you and like you so it's not a big deal for me, but the signature genuinely makes it difficult to read the text in discussions. It's a funny joke, but it's not fair to people trying to have serious discussions who aren't feeling the levity you seem to be feeling at the moment. --JayHenry (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I see your point. I'm going to keep it for a couple of days - we might as well have at least a bit of fun sometimes, I've been a little too serious here recently and that's not me. I'll try and stay away from discussions I could disrupt :-) Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if they give permission does it? Don't articles have to meet GFDL? See Talk:8th_Georgetown_South--article was deleted for copyright vio. See "Can you take a look at this" on my talk page to answer please. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since your the person associated with splitting the rollback feature out from the admin category, I figure I'll ask you this before I go bother writing a proposal. There are several non-admins who are major content creators (SandyGeorgia, Blofeld, etc) who have declined to be admins for whatever reason, even though they could easily pass. Their contributions are generally of a high enough quality that they are of near-bot consistency. On the other hand, they are also numerous enough that they clog up recent changes and newpages. So would it be possible to split out the admin feature that exempts admins from appearing in those pages? I'd suggest a process more controlled than RFR but less strict than RFA, maybe along the lines of BAG/VPRF that would vet users who don't want to be admins, but should be exempted from recentchanges/newpages. MBisanztalk03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this proposal is that it would add another user group to our current list, and many people would consider this another layer of bureaucracy. Many people would see it as adding a lot of process with very little benefit. The reason why I pushed for non admin rollback was because I believe it gives a real advantage to the encyclopedia - it gives regular users a tool they could use effectively. A usergroup that simply takes names out of lists would probably never be accepted by the community (although I certainly agree in principle it's a good idea). The best advice I can give is to encourage some of the great non admins we have to run through RfA - it would be the best way to achieve this goal. Sorry that this probably isn't what you probably wanted to hear. Ryan Postlethwaite04:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well thankfully I am neither an amazing content contributor or someone who never plans to seek RfA so it doesn't impact me directly. MBisanztalk04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you had payed attention Ryan, you would have noticed that my block was for 'outing' an editor which I did not know was against wiki policy and had nothing to do with so called 'bad faith editing'. While I appreciate your efforts, mccready has already been blocked and banned specifically for disturbing all complementary and alternative medicine wikis. If anyone is a 'bad faith' editor, it is him.
Please see my comment on User talk:The Librarian. I've seen too many admins issuing blocks as punishment, rather than them being preventive, as policy. I hope this is not the case here, which sure looks like it. ←Gee♥Alice05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why? Look at the IP going around posting. Why was one blocked and not the other? Surely this is wrong. What seems like an attack to you, may not be to someone else. Again, this is punishment, not preventative. If it was explained that this was not acceptable, and the user kept it up, then sure. But to decline like that? I don't understand. Now, there are hecklers posting to him/her. It's not right. Come-on, admins are not the police. If they are, I want no part. ←Gee♥Alice05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a clear attack and baiting, and The Librarian was by far worse than the IP. I've warned the user who keeps going to his talk page though, that's also a little out of order. Ryan Postlethwaite05:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about all that guys, I get pretty vindictive around racists, but don't worry Alice, I probably deserved to be temporarily blocked, no hard feelings, ciao =) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people at talk:Pro-pedophile activism who are not part of the mediation process would like to receive an update on the mediation, and the progress there. I was hoping you could give a general statement there, to keep everyone in the proverbial loop.(I like proverbial things) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, I was wanting some advice about this comment in a mediation (link). I asked for some links to these RfCs on the mediation talk page, but didn't get anywhere. Nobody else who is involved in the mediation has heard of these, and R. Bailey couldn't find any RfC bot edits to Talk:Animal testing (see discussion at User_talk:TimVickers#Re:_Hi_there). I am very puzzled as to why we are going straight into mediation when nobody apart from SlimVirgin can recall prior attempts to solve any dispute. Anyway, what do you think is the best way to respond to this? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, good to hear from you. With respect to the animal testing mediation, you pose a very good question - normally, requests for mediation are accepted after prior attempts at ealier methods of dispute resolution have failed, an RfC being an obvious choice before going to mediation. I can't find any links to the article RfC myself in this instance, but mediation isn't limited to having an RfC. I see this dispute has had a lot of discussion on the talk page, and there seems to be a serious deadlock, with a lot of extremely respected editors weighing in - an RfC at this stage would most likely accomplish very little (as many comments have been made already) so mediation would probably be a good step, where the dispute can move forward in a directed fashion. I see it's been accepted now, but mediation cannot proceed without all parties agreeing to it - if you strongly believe that mediation is not the best course of action here, then you are entitled to reject the offer, pull out, and the mediation will be ended and you could request an RfC. Hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite01:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that could be true, I'll wait until I see what exactly the problem is, before making that decision. Presently the issue seems rather ill-defined. Thanks for the advice, I may get back in touch, if that's OK. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems what I did, did disrupt WP:ANI. For that, I'm sorry. However, I do not believe I violated WP:POINT, because it was not my intent to disrupt the ANI: I honestly did not actually believe anyone would so arbitrarily delete userspace like that, because such requests open up a pandora's box of trolling, as noted in my last edit. If "policy" doesn't really care about good intent, only consequences, then yes, I did violate WP:POINT, in which case I don't particularly care because what I did was a good thing, per WP:IAR.
It all depends on whether it turns out to be good for Wikipedia. If doing what I did makes people wake up and see, "Egads! The idea that anybody can flush their talkpage down the memory hole whenever they want is insane!" and leads to policy reform, then yeah, what I did was precisely what WP:IAR was for. On the other hand if it changes nothing other than making the secret admin cabal place my name a few notches higher up on their Nixon List, then yes, it wasn't ignoring the rules, just being disruptive.
Also, I would still like to know why you asked about my previous account. Also, to keep the record straight (I think talkpage records are very important), I'm moving your comments here and mine over to my talkpage. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I just saw this. Thanks for clarifying why you asked. Couldn't you just have assumed high intelligence? Also, much of my beliefs about Wikipedia and so on were formed in the last months. I don't remember there being this many problems before, but then again, I was a lot younger then, didn't think about it a lot, didn't really examine the whole "wiki process" thing or look at scientific studies, and so on.
I'd love to try it, can you install it in my monobook because I really don't know what I'm doing!? It would be good if you remove ^demons tool so I can see what it's like for everyone. I've read the description - it sounds fantastic! Ryan Postlethwaite17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gigven the above humerous thread, I'm guessing you know the sig guidlines pretty well. A user has opined that my signature makes it very difficult to read talk pages. Since I'm not trying to be disruptive, I wanted a second opinion as well as any suggestions you might have. MBisanztalk19:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. Yes thanks for closing the MfD, it was perhaps a little soon, but the RFC should pick the debate up where the MfD left off. I am however a little concerned about the appearance of a chanop of #en-admins closing the debate (as I think perhaps you were, reading the talk). My view is that, in normal circumstances that should be ok, you are judged on the content of the closure - however, in these circumstances, where a lot of scrutiny is being directed towards the channel itself - I'm not sure it's so good. Local government councilors register either predjudicial or personal interests before debates - prejudicial interests preclude members from participation, whereas personal interests, just need to be declared, to ensure transparency. In a similar way, I think your interest should be declared. I tried to add a simple bald fact to your closure and have been reverted. I don't want to revert your closure, but will if necessary - we can get an uninvolved person to close. I'd really just like your interest declared though. Would you object? Doc appears to think I'm trying to stoke drama, which is a bit rich frankly - I'm trying to avoid it by preventing stuff that shouldn't be a problem, becoming problematic. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any reason to add that into my closure - I did this as a neutral party as I have no views whatsoever about whether we should have a page or not. Can I ask please, was there anything wrong with the closure? Do you feel it was biased by the fact that I'm a chanop? Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite14:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goood work! I've not really got involved in this one but would like to thank you for not closing as a 'keep' just yet, as I think some people assumed would have happened some time before now. Merkinsmum15:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Ryan, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIEStalk16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.
Should I move it into the template-space? I had thought about creating it there, but I wasn't sure about how appropriate it would be. Acalamari18:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ryan! By the way - you've been all over the wiki lately, doing a fantastic job of de-escalating conflict. It's not a fun job, but you're doing well. - Philippe | Talk23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks Philippe - it's very much appreciated. I like to stick my nose into difficult situations :-) I just want to find a bit of time to get back to writing some portals - much more constructive than meta-discussion :-) Ryan Postlethwaite23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your offer. I'll think about it. I've seen your colourful signature but don't know anything more. Everyone's schedule is different so I'd like to choose at least two people so that the chance of one of the two being online is greater. I'll appoint you the head of the committee to choose. I am emailing you with possible names. I haven't asked these people yet. It may be unnecessary as there are some people who are so angry at some of the blocks that they continue to protest against all of the administrative actions made in the future. Archtransit (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, 100 000 readers have most definitely not signed that petition, which contains numerous signatures either created by a single person copy/pasting or a bot - you can look it over and see that pretty clearly if you like. There's some discussion of it on enwiki-l, maybe other places . Cheers, WilyD21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite a bit advertisement of the page :-) I think I'll try semi protection sometime later today - hopefully that should cover the worst. Anything else can be met with blocks. Ryan Postlethwaite05:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, he was not calling you Mr. Nothing. That is his new signature and had not changed it when posting that message, so just wrote it out. Earthbendingmaster02:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Earthbendingmaster, and you are correct. Sorry for my earlier comments, Ryan, I was EXTREMELY MAD, but after a few minute WikiBrake, I have realized that I was wrong. To prove that I am not an uneducated vandal,
Basketballone10 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
We had some off wiki complaints about this and the best way to deal with this was to delete the article, given that the article was unsourced so went against WP:BLP. I've recreated a stub - can we try and get the article back upto scratch, with sources for everything ASAP? Ryan Postlethwaite03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I'm similarly not sure why a user's asking for deletion under a pretense doesn't raise your eyebrows. If I made a false claim (however innocently) and get an admin to take action based on that claim, I wouldn't be surprised if the action were reversed. Should Squeak's userpage remain deleted? Yes. Should it have been deleted for an inaccurate reason? No. Did SWATJester do wrong? No.
As for the threats, I agree that we should err on the side of caution; However, if the first reason for deletion wasn't accurate, that reduces my confidence in the accuracy of the second. On AN/I, there was reference to a threat from November. Is that what this is all about? --SSBohio12:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the the time-out, Ryan. No, really. It's given me a better perspective on this particular tempest in a teacup. Sorry we couldn't reach a resolution, and sorry I never got your input on the above. Thanks, SSBohio00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...on my talkpage. As an aside, of all the things that I could be upset about, the thing that bothers me most was that when you posted to my talk page, your signature didn't even blink. I frankly feel cheated. :-) --SSBohio02:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan Postlethwaite, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Looking forward to working with you as a fellow group member! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your help - I really appreciate it. :-) Once I create the suggestions page, would it be safe to nominated for featured status? Maxim(talk)15:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had chance to finish the DYK's yet - I need to add another couple of sub pages for the random content generator. I'd also like to go through everything again and make sure it's upto scratch. Is that ok? Ryan Postlethwaite16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review and let me know if another course of action is suggested. Due to the possible lower probability (not zero, though) of controversy, the action was performed while you were probably not online. Archtransit (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the request for Rollback and then went off vandal hunting and the very first article I found, I already had rollback! Wow...thank you. Legotech (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just calm down for a second, people shouldn't be getting hot and bothered over this - I'm fairly sure it's not breaking any policies or guidlines (is it in WP:SIG?), I repeat - I solely did this as a joke, not to upset people or break any policies or guidlines. I've been grumpy here for a while - I was just trying to lighten everyones mood for a short period of time. Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥01:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just wow. I can't believe I've been forced to change it back - I suggest some people grow a sense of humour. Yeah, it's a serious project, but if we can't have a laugh every now and again, what's the point? Ryan Postlethwaite01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature can't blink, but nobody ever said anything about the message itself, right? ;) In all seriousness, thanks for the laugh. --B (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone explain the context of the joke, if there is any? If it was just to make it blink, I don't really see the humor and think it was just disregarding a guideline for no reason. But if someone could explain the context, I think I would be okay with it. I know it's all over, but I am just sort of wondering. SorryGuy Talk 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a joke..... I'd never seen a blinking signature before, and I stumbled across a code that made text blink - didn't realise it was against any guideline when I did it. Ryan Postlethwaite03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Ryan's explanation, I totally understand, although I guess it doesn't really appeal to my sense of humor. But, Tiptoety, don't you think you are overreacting a tad? No one is condemning Ryan or anything, I think bibliomaniac15 was playing along and I was just asking for clarification. SorryGuy Talk 03:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)My comment had nothing to do with bibliomaniac15's comment, but instead all of those from the thread above and this one. Im sorry if i over reacted, it just seems silly to make a big deal out of this. Tiptoetytalk04:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I (as one of the more serious users here on Wikipedia) must say that I'm gravely saddened by this careless and disruptive behavior. Your reckless disregard for the optical health of your fellow editors it utterly shameful. How dare you, as an administrator of an online encyclopedia, blatantly disregard a guideline! You should be desysoped and pantsed!!!!Lara❤Love05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time to one up them, buddy. You need a BARNSTAR in your signature. Like so, as may appear on an RFA:
Support Not likely to abuse the tools.
The I Just Posted Barnstar
In recognition of this post you just read that I just posted, I award myself this barnstar for having posted it. Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Most terrible thing I've yet to see in my 2+ years on this site... simply and truly awful signature Ryan! Good Lord... Jmlk1709:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly few of you saw mine for which I was also told off:) [100] But As The Fat Man agreed, there's just not enough rainbow blinky text on wikipedia, which is so boring!:) Merkinsmum And as an escape from the dryness of wiki, I can think of more disruptive ones.:) Merkinsmum16:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this. Are you still interested in bringing an article to FA status? If you are, give me a list of articles you're interested in working on, or pick something from my userpage. Nishkid64 (talk)01:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow NickKid64, that would be great. I'm a little tired now to start hunting through pages looking for some candidates, but I'll get back to you on it tomorrow. I've got a couple of featured portals under my belt, but I'd really like to contribute to an FA and it would be good to have some guidance on my first one. Thanks a lot. Ryan Postlethwaite01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have somewhat of a background in biology and chemistry, so I might be able to help here. Any other ideas? If we have a larger list of articles, then we can be more selective. Nishkid64 (talk)19:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wanted to get my home town of Kendal up to featured. There's plenty of resources available on internet, and some good models to work from. Another one that springs to mind is Tennis, which has some good content already, it could use some formatting, more refs and maybe a couple of extra sections. Ryan Postlethwaite19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...it's probably best to write your first FA on a narrow subject. Tennis and Morphine seem a bit too broad. I don't have any issues with Kendal, but that may be difficult. Do you have any interest in biographies? I find those to be the most straightforward. Nishkid64 (talk)20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! On a side note, I'm also working (or rather, planning to work on) on Linus Pauling. If you're interested in that article also, let me know. As you know, Pauling's one of the most famous biochemists in history, and his article is good, content-wise, but needs work with referencing, copyediting, etc. Nishkid64 (talk)02:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had warned the user that his edits were un-constructive so I rolled them back. I didn't know that was not allowed. I told him that if he was not going to change the to the standard template, then the edits he was doing were non-constructive. I had reverted his edits before this, and the rollback was used because it was faster. Also, I was going to warn him for vandalism. He was only changing color, which, I had told him was un-needed. Undeath (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blaming you for anything, I just want to get that out in the open. But, I was wondering why I was not given a chance to redeem myself? I had used rollback multiple times before the template thing and they were good rollbacks. Undeath (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nominating me!My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺17:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, your recent edit does not in itself provide a reason that can be potentially disputed or agreed with, so no consensus can be reached by discussing the reasons for your edit. Your edits to the talk page also provide precious little clues (unless I've missed something).
I've grepped through the archives and the discussion (and consensus on the matter) appears to have moved back and forth numerous times. Admittedly it's a lot of work, and my approach wasn't completely thorough. Am I missing a key discussion that you are aware of? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about a single discussion - I just remember discussing this numerous times in the past and every time there's generally consensus to keep the confusing username section in. The reason why I reverted was because previous discussion has always kept this in (from what I remember) so 48 hours is no where near long enough to declare consensus on the matter, especially given the few numbers that commented. Ryan Postlethwaite02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tough one. Part of me thinks that they do no harm, any other website just about would allow them and taking action against them is just biting. I'd have to say though, a bigger part of me thinks a confusing username is a negative for the project. If we allow them, it would mean a relatively large number of usernames wouldn't get blocked - we'd therefore have a lot of confusing usernames out there. For example, we could have the following users; User:asdrytuhh, User:asdghhjjen, User:asdcuetikg, User:asdfvtnbru, User:asdfgentjry, Asdtrnwjqnww, User:asdbnwksmekt, User:asdfkjfmnrk e.t.c. All very different, but very very dificult to tell one from the next. When these usernames show up in histories or logs, you won't really know who's made the edit - many usernames will merge into one because it's just too dificult to tell usernames consisting of random characters apart from one another. I certainly go toward the side that these usernames should be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have Google Talk? I thought it would be best if we could have instant messaging while working on Pauling. I don't go on IRC so much nowadays, but I'm always on Google Talk. Nishkid64 (talk)20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on MSN if that helps? My address is Ryanpostlethwaite [at] hotmail [dot] com . There's a book at my university library which I'm going to go and pick up tomorrow which is about Pauling - it should really help as I'm struggling to get refs using google books. Ryan Postlethwaite21:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I picked up two books (Goertzel and Mead & Hager) from my university library. I haven't used MSN in a while, but I just logged in again. I've added you to my list. Nishkid64 (talk)02:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot(talk)18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are admins notified of requests for unblocking and editprotected requests? I know one can't watch the category, since that only watches description changes. The WP:COIN has a tag that transcludes a category for editors who have COI's who wish another individual to incorporate info in a page. And we're trying to figure out how those of us active in it, can be notified when a new page is added to the category. MBisanztalk03:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the school usually about. I'm interest on become and admin one day so I can block users, delete pages, and contribs, protect and semi-protect pages. Where in Southern California to attend school? I'm form South Orange County, California.--Freewayguy (Meet) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Freewayguy. I should clarify what the new admin school is - it's simply a few pages to help new admins test their tools so they don't do it on the main pages, we haven't actually got a school. If you are considering becoming an admin, might I suggest admin coaching? You might find that benificial, and the good news is, you can do it safely from your own home ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanztalk04:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any intention of making you look bad. The pokeratlas user unblock seems completely reasonable. The user has disregarded my editing advice. Wikipedia wins and doesn't look like a Nazi.
Since Bellwether BC is making a stink, I put the question up in ANI. I chose ANI because now it seems to be more urgent with BC being so mad about it. If BC is so mad, he/she should see some other admins. who are really Nazis as far as blocking. Archtransit (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Egg Award-To Ryan for mentoring effort and preparing administrator lessons. May he not have too much egg on his face. From Archtransit, 18 February 2008
Hm. Ryan, your mentee is in my soup: User talk:TenOfAllTrades#Block. He seems to be accusing me of being on an anti-American/anti-gambling crusade. Lest there be any further confusion, I understand him to be barred from using any of his admin buttons until given explicit permission from you and/or Riana to do so. I would strongly urge you to restrict him from declaring a 'consensus' in any discussion, given his interpretation of his recent AN thread.
I'm very likely to block him if he steps outside those bounds. I've stuck up for him before, but frankly I find very little reason to trust his judgement in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, he's digging himself a very deep hole with edits like this. I'd be inclined to sharply warn an editor with a clean history that that type of attack is unacceptable and might draw a block. Coupled with Arch's history (recent and older) and his rather POINTy report on AN/I where he attacks Bellwether and Friday as 'bitey', 'disruptive', and 'trolling', he's skating on astonishingly thin ice, and it is only my respect for you and Riana that's keeping him unblocked right now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TOAT. I'm concerned about this sort of thing because it doe honestly make me think that he doesn't have a clue - I'm in dialogue with him now where I'm bringing up these issues with him, he can't talk to editors like he has been, when to be honest - he's wrong. Hopefully we won't have to resort to blocks with this one - I'm going to suggest he stays out of meta discussion completely for a while. Ryan Postlethwaite21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ryan; I'm afraid I've been letting him get under my skin a bit, and I shouldn't be so testy with you. I wish you the best of luck with this, but I admit to holding out very little expectation of success. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TenOfAllTrades has wrongly accused me of "He seems to be accusing me of being on an anti-American/anti-gambling crusade." This is not true. Ten was merely asked why he thought User:thepokeratlas should be blocked or re-blocked. Ten has not said why. The only difference between the ANI and listing the user's name (which was an oversight on my part) was that the user seems to be American and pro-gambling. I just asked if this or the word "poker" would make him change his decision or if such information would make a material difference in the discussion.
Therefore, Ten's belief that he is being called anti-American or anti-gambling is incorrect.
One difficulty in resolving this matter is that it increasing looks like a personal grudge against me and not based on my actions. The reason I think this is that there is little evidence that the unblock was bad, except that some people are opposed to unblocking on principle. It would look a little less of a grudge if Ten or someone pointed out what was wrong.
For example, if someone said "the policy doesn't require blocking but in practice we always block that kind of name", then it could be an example to learn. If someone says "when an administrator blocks someone, we never unblock them unless the user has an airtight case and the administrator is clearly abusive; even if there is only a weak explanation by the administrator, this is sufficient" then I would follow this (and likely try to convince others that such practice is not good for Wikipedia).
You can be of assistance in mentorship. You could e-mail me and say "look Archtransit, we have some customs in WP that we don't ....." This unblock of thepokeratlas was an attempt to follow policy. Look at the big picture. Was Wikipedia harmed? Did thepokeratlas destroy articles? No. Did thepokeratlas try to advertise thepokeratlas.com? No, but I educated him on WP policy. Is thepokeratlas so angry that he/she wants to attack WP? I don't think so. Incorporate this incident into our lesson and it will help. Archtransit (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Maximillion. The reason why we have Special:Unwatchedpages only open to admins is because it's open to a serious ammount of abuse - even for a short period of time, a page could be subjected to seriously bad editing, especially BLP violations. Given the problems with rollback, I wouldn't suggest adding a new usergoup for this. It would be good however if somehow we could reduce the page to next to nothing, and then open it up - the problem now is that we just have too many pages on it. Ryan Postlethwaite05:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ryan. You closed out the Intellitech article as keep, and I believe that was an incorrect decision. The article as it stands still fails to meet notability guidelines (WP:CORP). There are two external references posted in the article. One is a reprint of a company press release (from business wire, where any business can release any press release they like), and the other is merely an entry in a list of 450,000 companies, with no discussion about the company itself. Since an AfD is supposed to be closed based on the merits of the arguments presented and not the number of votes, I believe that a deletion review would overturn your closing the AdD as a keep, and I'd like you to reconsider. — XSG16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was the right decision. It wasn't number counting, the consensus was the the sources were accpetable. Those wishing to delete said exactly the opposite, but after a user found some extra sources during the discussion, all other users who commented said keep. I don't think DRV would overturn my decision, but try by all means. Ryan Postlethwaite16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that rational then yes, you made the correct decision, however I don't think your rationale takes into account the validity of arguments made by those who said keep. The reason this article doesn't stand up to the WP:CORP notability test is that each and every reference (and I am not even slightly exaggerating here) is either a) written by the company, b) a corporate press releases posted on a third-party site through Business Wire, or c) provide merely trivial coverage (i.e. provides the name and address of the company). If I were just glancing at the article, I'd have thought it met WP:CORP, but on further investigation it really doesn't. I'd feel better if you at least told me you took a look at the article and agreed that it met WP:CORP notability guidelines. — XSG02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not my job to decide whether I believe the article should be kept or deleted - I simply work out the consensus. As I said, the people commenting keep believed the sources were adequate to ensure it meets WP:CORP. From what I recall, after the sources were added, there were only people commenting to keep the article. If I was commenting on the article, I would be on the fence - possibly even sway to weak delete because I'm not convinced (not completely unconvinced though) that the sources are adequate, but that's not what the consensus of the AfD was, and it's not the closing admins job to make the decision based on his own opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite02:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite fair, and I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to explain it to me. Knowing that one of Wikipedia's tenets is to err on the side of keep, I think it's best to see what becomes of this article over the next year. If it isn't improved (and if someone remembers to check up on it), we'll see which way the wind blows then. — XSG02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ryan, don't worry too much about what happened: you did what you thought was right with the mentorship (I supported your proposal), and you assumed good faith to the very end. I think you performed spectacularly through it all, and I want to congratulate you. I think that anyone mentored by you should be honored by the fact you're taking them under your wing. Best wishes. Acalamari19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oneonta Gulf Coast Collaboration
Yes; when you relist you add to the current day (as you did) and then remove manually from the previous log. It is also good practice then to go to WP:AFDO and then click on 'Refresh the number of open discussions' to avoid fellow admins from following completed trails. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd send you cookies or kittens or whatever those templates are I see on people's userpages, to send to folks who are having a bad day; but I'm not in a Hallmark-card kind of mood anyway. Listen: You and Riana really tried to do a good thing, and I'm sure you're getting a fair amount of crap (or at least "told you so"s)--but I just wanted to say, thank you for trying. People can say what they want and quote acronyms til they're blue, but the sad fact is, WP:ABF is way more commonly-observed than WP:AGF--and you two clearly AGF'ed WAY beyond the call of duty. I saw the length of one of those subpages you were working on with him--that's a lot of time, and I'm sure you have one of those wacky non-Wikipedia things I keep hearing about....what's it called again? Oh yeah: a "life".
Short form (nearly impossible for me): You tried, and you were right to try; try not to let this make you TOO bitter, even though you'd have to be nearly superhuman not to feel a LITTLE bit jaded after all this. Keep your head up--your effort, at the very least, was appreciated. Gladys J Cortez04:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. None of this was your fault. If anybody tries to rub your nose in it, you have my permission to tell them to FOAD (though you're probably too nice a guy for that). Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys, it means a lot coming from two respected users, but I do share some of the blame for this – there were clearly very serious concerns raised even without the sock evidence and I should probably have stayed out of it and let the RfC run its course. I didn’t expect this. Obviously my prides been hit now, but it’s not the be all and end all – I’ll bounce back and I’ll take this as a learning curve. Thanks again – I appreciate the comments. Ryan Postlethwaite04:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too, Ryan. Yourself an Riana did a super job in trying to work with the guy and giving him every fair chance. Not your fault at all and just about everyone was carried along with this. You both did your utmost here - Alison❤04:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Alison, it's much appreciated - I guess assuming good faith is better than assuming bad faith. Thanks a lot for your efforts with doing the CU investigations, this wouldn't have been uncovered without your time and efforts. Ryan Postlethwaite04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agree with all of the above, Ryan and Riana. And I hope one of the lessons you will take with you is that the community stands behind your trying so hard with Archtransit. I have no doubt that you'd do it again for another editor or admin who needs a helping hand. (Okay, maybe not tomorrow...but in due time) --Risker (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Risker, it means a lot especially considering me and you haven’t always seen eye to eye on some issues, but please be aware, I always respect your opinion because a lot of thought goes into it. I will most probably offer to mentor people in the future – it’s (unfortunately!?) in my nature, but as I said above, it’s a learning curve for me and I’ll take it into account when helping people in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chin up, old bean. You did a damn fine job in your attempt to mentor Archtransit, in the best traditions of Wikipedia community-building. Few (none?) of the rest of us noticed the socking; there's no shame in your not catching it either. I promise you that not all mentees will turn out to be abusive sockpuppeteers! Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what can I say? You took a lot of crap from Arch and yet I still tried to defend him (although by the end, my patience was wearing thin). Thanks buddy and as always, if you have any concerns, by all means contact me – by email, IRC or on my talk – I respect my fellow wikipedians opinions, especially ones who do so much for the project. Ryan Postlethwaite04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chin up. You went above and beyond what any normal person should be expected to do. You're a really good admin/Wikipedian/person, and I'm sure you'll keep doing well. You and Riana assumed so much good faith it spilled out of my computer screen, and I really commend you for that. I also made a special lolcat for this, enjoy. (every bad situation can be solved by a lolcat.) Keilana|Parlez ici04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha!! I love it! I guess it’s always good to bring humour into these things – we’d all get depressed otherwise. Like many of the above, I respect you a lot here, and your words are much appreciated here. On a side note, keep doing things as you have been – I know you get a lot of rubbish from SPA’s and socks, but all of us know you do a fantastic job. Ryan Postlethwaite04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say that I completely support your good faith effort to mentor this user. He obviously had many more people than you duped, and this should be looked upon as a positive aspect of your character, not a negative. I, for one, will look upon you with greater respect as a result of the entire incident. If you do need a good laugh (and you probably do), read Wikipedia:Village stocks. At worst, you could add yourself there for catharsis purposes. I would consider that "punishment" enough. Good day to you (and to Riana, these comments apply to her as well), and remember, no one thinks less of you over this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs06:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I ended up opposing mentorship at the RfC, and was on the wrong end of some of AT's abuses, you're without blame here. You tried, and it didn't work out. There's something admirable in what you and Riana tried to do, even if I didn't think it would work out. You both deserve kudos, not criticism. And if I ever decide to pursue adminship, you and Riana will definitely be on the shortlist of administrators whom I respect enough to ask for coaching, along with users like Newyorkbrad, WjBScribe, and a few others. You're a credit to this project. BellwetherBC15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to thank you for your awesome job of AGF. No one had seen this coming. I was a fairly strong advocate of him. I worked with Arch a lot at DYK before he became an admin it this whole incident is a complete shock. Now we can see why he had did such unusual things. There was no way that anyone would have any faith in what he did after the truth was found out, so the community ban was appropriate. You should hold your head up REAL HIGH for your effort! Royalbroil19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan, ta for the heads-up, I haven't had a chance to read up on AN yet but I'm doing so now. I just read the ban proposal and while that's understandable, I'm tending towards not endorsing - his article work has been fine so far. I'm thinking what took place with Qst worked out very well - RfA ban, civility parole (though that's not a huge problem here), perhaps a ban from project space, and naturally to stick to one account and one account only. As we know this worked out well with Qst and he's an absolutely delightful chap now. What do you think?
Anyway, we gave it a shot, we probably look pretty silly, but everyone deserves one last chance, I guess. Hope you get better, I feel a bit like my eyes are about to explode! :s Not very pleasant! lol ~ Riana ⁂06:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either of you look silly at all. Assuming good faith is an editing mode, a necessary attitude, it doesn't mean you're gullible or naïve. You may "assume good faith" against your gut feeling and even against better judgment. Probably there were people who had suspicions early on, but no one could know for sure. Both of you chose a commendable stance and course of action. The only one who looks silly is the person who invested all this time and mental energy into elaborate and pointless confusion and sockpuppeteering. ---Sluzzelintalk08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I had previously spoken on behalf of Arch, requesting that people not be too hard on him in his early sysop decisions - well, I was wrong and they were right. One of the benefits of age is the realisation that being made to look silly is part of the human condition... I respect that you were prepared to AGF, and then prepared to hold your hand up when you realised you had been gamed.
Speaking of gamed, Arch contacted me by email asking if I would be a member of a private review group advising him - and I agreed. I commented that I thought you would be a good mentor, but was willing to help him when requested. It seems that things changed before he could use my services! If you wish I will forward our mails (because my caveat allows me to do that), but I suspect you would prefer this thing to fade away.
A tag has been placed on Template:UsernameGuidance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment on main page deletion incident
As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)
This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event
From my perspective ScienceApolosist would be better off if he refused to communicate on talk pages except to suggest that anyone who wants his opinion should open their email so he can respond to their queries in private without the fear of administrative scrutiny. I too was unaware that forwarding is a no no. Can you please point me to the policy that forbids forwarding and deals with privacy issues in general.
I think that there may be a vendetta going on against SA. If there is it should be nipped in the bud before it polarizes admins to the point that they are at war with one another on a large scale basis . Any insights you can offer pursant to my comments wil be appreciated. : Albion moonlight (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm sure, I had a CU run on him after he openly admitted it to me privately. There's more than you think to it, but the privacy policy means it can't be released. Ryan Postlethwaite00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems likely that he attempted to start afresh with a good account, but you really can't edit if you've been blocked indef for harassment on a differenct account. Ryan Postlethwaite01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say, hard to believe it's true, but with Huggle, any user can increase their edit rate. he also gave me a [102].
He came onto IRC to complain about an admin who had emailed him. He then PMd me, and when he did that, I automatically get his IP. As part of the complaint, he had to tell me the full story of his accounts and when he told me he was EpicFlame, I passed the information to a checkuser who confirmed I had been speaking to Party (by the IP that I had) and that party and EpicFlame was the same person. Ryan Postlethwaite02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no doubt as to the correctness of your action, but your explanation is appreciated all the same. Thanks and cheers, JNW (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. Possibly you can answer a question regarding the edits which prompted my request for page protection: Was the spate of vandalism to Party's talk page self-inflected, or did they come from another IP vandal? Thanks for your help, JNW (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally couldn't answer that, but given a checkuser has tagged his IPs now as socks, yeah it was him vandalising his own talk page for no reason at all - that was one of the reasons I didn't just allow him to carry on editing even though I knew was a reincarnation of a blocked editor. The behaviour was strange to say the least. If you check out Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of EpicFlame, you'll see he's created quite a few more socks. Ryan Postlethwaite21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected as much after the fact. The one thing chronic vandals have in common with many good-faith contributors is the desire to be recognized. Thanks again, JNW (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know how you decided to keep the above as in its afd debate two voted for delete, a third commented non notable and two said keep? Hardly conclusive, if anything a delete! Paste (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was certainly no consensus to delete the article, and consensus isn't based on numbers. Given that half way through the page was cleaned up, and the only further comment after the debate was relisted was a keep, I believe the consensus went that way. I could of gone with no consensus, but I believe it was erring more on the side of keep. Ryan Postlethwaite18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because we're dealing with new users, and telling them that their talk page means nothing isn't really the best way to go about dealing with these people. It's just reduntant to {{UsernameBlocked}} if they get blocked, or if they don't, then the userpage shouldn't be deleted. By all means report users, but don't preemtivly judge whether or not an admin is going to take up your request - as I said, if a user isn't blocked, the page shouldn't be deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to talk man to man. I feel that the controversal re-syop was an outrageous abuse of comunity input. It's not personal. It's nothing to do with any of your actions outside this issue. But you've allowed yourself to become a posterchild for support of this action and not agressively approached the issue as a wrong done to the community. That's where I stand.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to oppose me for that - and I agree it's legitimate. The thing with the support for WJB's action is that I understand his explanation (and hence support it), but if I were a bureaucrat myself, I would have acted the minute it was suspended to instigate a chat between other bureaucrats to determine the consensus as a group - I'd have then expressed my opinion that ^demon should not have been promoted, and I'd probably have been supported in that if there were some more bureaucrats active. If there was a crat chat, it would have failed, and I certainly would have said it should fail. That said, I don't see the need now for me to start complaining - let's move forward and respect that this was handled wrong so we can learn from those mistakes and put them right in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite04:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your response. I have a strong reaction to the issue. I see your side. Early returns show i'm in the minority on opposing for this issue. I respect a lot of your actions and hope there will be no hard feelings if i leave this oppose on a strong held principle.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings whatsoever - you've got an opinion which I completely understand - it was inevitable in this RfB. I look forward to working with you in the future, I think we'll actually agree on a lot of issues. I appreciate your opinions in my RfB, the whole situation is something that I've put a lot of thought into before I nominated myself, and I'll certainly work on your concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i actually needed it because now due to overgrowing tensions in my personal life i won't be able to write articles as i once used to. now i can only maintain those. also i might take some wikibreaks also. in order to keep the articles maintained i needed this utility. i won't misusing it. and you can have a look at my record too. i haven't claimed any worthy edit as vandalism. would you like to know one thing, when i was new here many admins. and users claimed my edits as vandalism though were not; but yes they were uncited (but neutral). anyway if you don't want to give this utility then please don't give reasons which are unable to get digested. thanks a lot for your cooperation. Sushant gupta (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't mind answering :-) RfB standards are far higher than adminship and there really wasn't a chance that this was going to pass - there really wasn't any point in spending any more time on it. Ryan Postlethwaite06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's your call, of course, but when you closed, it had been up for a bit more than three hours, and the tally was 86.5%. The last bureaucrat I voted for was accepted with 86.7% support votes. Do RFBs usually get their strongest boost in the beginning, and slide downhill afterwards? (Serious question, I noticed this trend with some of the arbcom candidacies). ---Sluzzelintalk06:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically yeah - it's the same with RfA's. Generally speaking, a lot of people jump on board to support at first (there's nothing wrong with that of course) because they have no reason to oppose the candidate. The thing with opposing is that generally speaking you have to put up a rationale, and that can mean hunting for diffs or threads - it takes time, hence the lag. Also, when opposes mount up, people tend to agree with them. The general accepted level of support for an RfB is 90%, and given that mine was lagging at such an early stage, it was very unlikely to succeed, hence why I withdrew rather than spend further time on it. There were no hard feelings over it at all - just no point in continuing it further. Ryan Postlethwaite06:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a RFB cantidate, wouldn't the suggestion be "Don't promote Willy-on-wheels"? :) Seriously, however, I wanted to put on-wiki what I told ya elsewhere, Ryan. Your RFB ran for less than 24h, please, give it at least that! Supports, and, opposes come in groups :) My RFA for instance, didn't even reach "promotion" levels, until the last few days/hours. I really think you'd do well in the position, and, that we always need more active 'crats. SQLQuery me!06:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tough one, Ryan. It's too bad that some still have a bee-in-the-bonnet about Weber, which seems to have generated a majority of your opposes. I don't think he deserves indef or anything, but it seems a bit silly to oppose based solely (or mostly, even) on that. Better luck next time, and I'd like notification if you choose to run again, as I'll be supporting. BellwetherBC14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanksall for your kind words - certainly no point in beating myself up about it, if look on the bright side, it means I don't have any extra work to do :-) Ryan Postlethwaite17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
saw you removed the semi that was placed on Magic Kingdom. That's fine, but if you can then help with the edit war over what constitutes "near Orlando" vs "in Orlando city limits", then we'll take whatever recommendation you can provide. Basically, it's affecting practically every single Walt Disney World-related page, Sea World, and various other orlando-area attractions pages. Nutshell: one user insists that the Orlando category, which clearly states that it encompasses the surrounding area, is only for the Orlando city limits... which goes against what the category was defined as back in 2007. I can provide the links if you need them. SpikeJones (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that these edits are being made by someone who has been blocked several times from at least 12 different accounts or IPs for disruption and personal attacks? Please see the sock puppet log before dismissing this as an edit war. The person's edits are also being discussed at WP:ANI. Whether you think the geography dispute is vandalism or not, this is a persistent pattern of abuse from a combative contributor who rejects the community's consensus and repeatedly insults people. 72.37.171.164 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are certainly open to any assistance you can provide, but Spike and the above user are both correct. Semi-protection seems to be the best defense against this form of attack. We have asked time and again to bring his point of view to the talk pages so they can be vetted and discussed. Each time, the user resorts to name-calling and malicious posts and edit notes. The IP is blocked, which only causes the user to come back with a new IP mere minutes after the last one gets blocked. I do hope we can get this resolved soon, so more productive edits can be made to the articles. Thank you again for your attention and guidance. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually blocked the IP already for making personal attacks, but i do understand the disruption. A range block is being discussed on AN/I - we'll see what comes of it. Ryan Postlethwaite21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got a client now? You just need to log onto freenode with your nick (Pedro4 I think it was) and the type /msg NickServ IDENTIFY (your password)..... followed by /join #wikipedia-en and /chanserv INIVTE #wikipedia-en-admins - does that help? Ryan Postlethwaite21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, still have to use the java.freenode thing. But it refuses to even let me into #wikipedia (let alone en-admin), won't recognise my password etc etc -I guess it's easire not to bother or find an IRC client that's a portbale app. Never mind! Pedro : Chat 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That are often problems with the java program - best bet is either try again in a few hours, or get a client - a client would be the best option. Personally, I wish IRC wasn't so bloody complicated - I don't know what I'm doing myself half the time! Ryan Postlethwaite21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know what I'm doing myself half the time" :o! I thought you were a channel op. ;) Did I come here for something? Ah yes... Your RfB: I'm sorry how it panned out, I think you're one of the best guys for the job. Maybe next time? (There will be one, right?) Best wishes, AGK (contact) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any clue about notability criteria for computer games?
Hi Ryan, I'm looking for the guideline for these but can't find it. Any opinion as to whether I could find an acceptable reason to prod (or whatever the right process is) this and others like it:- Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter? Just happened to land on it via hitting the random button. SpecialRandom (Merkinsmum) 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Merkinsmum. Given there's no specific notability criteria for games, you have to revert to Wikipedia:Notability which is the general criteria. With respect to prodding it - games generally get prod tags quickly removed, so the best way to go would be through AfD - I'm not too sure which way it would go. We have a lot of game fans here, and they like to see these types of articles kept. The key to it is that the article should have reliable independent sources that discuss the game. I don't see any at present, but it could be worth taking a look to see if some could be found before AfDing it. Ryan Postlethwaite20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to draw your attention to Support !vote #8 and Animum's reply to Jmlk17's oppose !vote, as I'm unsure if you'd noticed them being added and they directly impact your opposition rationale. If you had already noted both and felt that they deserved no further consideration, please accept my apologies, along with my thanks for your assistance in identifying my shortcomings as an editor, and remove this notice. Jouster (whisper) 20:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to contest the warning you made on my talk page. For the last 3 or 4 days I have been reverting edits by various IP addresses on articles about attractions near Orlando, Florida. (e.g. various rides at Disney World, Magic Kingdom, Seaworld, EPCOT, etc.) All the IPs follow the same pattern: i.e. they come on the scene and change all these articles' categories from "in Orlando" to "in Orange County". They also change some articles to say the attractions are in Bay something rather than where they actually are. They also sometimes change them to say that the attraction is northeast, south, southwest, etc. of Orlando rather than just saying they are near Orlando. As I said, I have reverted them for at least 3 days with no comments. Why am I being warned now?
I assumed the person (by the way, it is the same person, as each time he appears he makes edits faster than I can revert them, and I am using huggle, which, if you didn't already know, can rival Cluebot in speed) is a vandal because he makes edits so blindingly fast, and when someone else reverted them with an edit summary that said something like "rv per consensus on location reached on talk page", he simply said something along the line of "I don't care what your consensus says. They are not in Orlando".
I'm sorry about that. I was mad and I wasn't thinking straight. In any case, as I did not make it clear before, I will respect the ruling on the fact that that guy is not a vandal, but I would still like you to remove the warning form my page, as I acted under the assumption that that guy was a vandal, and I was not trying to edit war. J.delanoygabsadds20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to remove the warning, obviously you can if you want, but it still stands. You were edit warring, and hopefully you've been made aware of it now. With respect to the IP, he's blocked now for making personal attacks so he shouldn't be bothering you for 24 hours. That said, please don't revert again. Ryan Postlethwaite20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of user J.delanoy, his reverts were in line with the same "trying to restore from vandalized pages" edits that many of us have been dealing with for the past week. As I said previously, I can provide all the backlinks to show you the history of where all this came from if you'd like, or put you in touch with other admins who are aware of the situation. SpikeJones (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a bit late, (does "better late than never" count here?) but I definitely owe you an apology for my reaction above. I know that you acted correctly, as I was effectively edit-warring, even though I thought I was reverting a repeat vandal. I did not assume good faith when you warned me. I immediately assumed you were attacking me and I reacted based on that false assumption. I know it took me a while to come to my senses, but can you forgive me? J.delanoygabsadds19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given your extensive experience in mananging disruptive users, I'd appreciate your feedback on this RfC. I'm trying to decide between three options: i) List the RfC at AN/I and request more input, ii) Drop it as not meeting the threshold for disruption, iii) push the matter up to RfAR. Ronnotel (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm told your something of an expert on anon. proxies and open proxies. This traceroute ends in a weird firewall [104]. If its not an open proxy, is it an anonymizer or other thing that could switch IPs/conceal location? O and its on this spamlist, whatever that means. MBisanztalk02:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May uninvolved users post statements at RFAR? Would you mind if I posted a statement on some of the questionable admin actions I've seen occur? MBisanztalk06:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, anyone can post at RfArbs - in fact, some of the most useful comments are from uninvolved users as they see disputes from a different perspective. Ryan Postlethwaite06:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added my piece. Isn't nearly as extensive as it would have been if I had not been entertaining today while others beat me to the main points. MBisanztalk05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This edit [105] he made to the header makes me wonder if he isn't trying to encourage blocked users to not bother contacting the blocking admin. Without the RFAR, I'd probably have ignored it, but I figure that not that many people watch that random page. MBisanztalk02:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, at the bottom of the BC discussion page there is a section about next steps, including whether and when the bot should be unblocked and if the consensus is that Betacommand's membership in BAG should be suspended. In some ways, it could be considered that requiring BAG approval for a BetacommandBot task is redundant, since he is a member and approval requires only one member. At any rate, so far the commenters have advocating unblocking the bot but I am curious as to your criteria for unblock (as the blocker). Avruch T 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your latest comment (23:54) and wondered whether it should stay, based on this claiming RTV. Which means she doesn't want them linked. Just wondering —αlεx•mullεr00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realise that - wouldn't have posted that if I'd have known. That said, RtV means you leave, not to cover your previous tracks. If someone excercises their right to vanish, they have to right to edit again. Ryan Postlethwaite00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes more sense. From some of the requests at WP:CHU to random usernames I was under the impression that vanishing was so that other people couldn't follow / see your contributions quite so easily. Though of course there are logs scattered all over the place (including meta) —αlεx•mullεr00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I got in over my head with the cleaning-up-the-BCBot-redlink-category thing, and though I've backed away from THAT mess, I would like to start doing cleanup on Wanted Categories. I find a lot of sockpuppet-based redlinks--usually "suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of xxx" or "Wikipedia sockpuppets of www"--and they look like a decent starting point for a n00b like myself. But I'm a little confused/conflicted as to propriety in some cases...
Here's a concrete example. There's a wanted-cat for "Wikipedia sockpuppets of RainierH"--redlinked, but containing 3 members. Under "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets", we have "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of RainierH"--a blue link, yes, but with zero members. Since I have no idea whether these are suspected or confirmed, would it be out of pocket for me to move the 3 members of the redlinked cat to the bluelinked "suspected" cat? Is an opposite move (moving members of a redlinked "suspected" cat to a bluelinked "confirmed" cat) any different, or is it (as I would guess) frowned upon??
Anything else I should know before I wade into the mire?? Thanks in advance for your help...
(PS: Could that repetitive guy in the BCBot discussion have been any MORE annoying??) Gladys J Cortez04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.
Thanks for posting the arbitration request. Everybody kept saying somebody should just take it to arbcom; you had the initiative to actually do it, simplifying the process and reducing the amount of chatter. I think it was correct to skip the RfC. In effect, the AN/I thread was the RfC, as I was about to say there when I saw your post re the arbreq. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The situation has changed. See User talk:Mikkalai and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Ignore all rules. I would like to ask you to consider withdrawing the arbitration request. If you choose not to, I would like to ask you to consider whether there is anything productive you can add to the thread I just mentioned, perhaps along the lines of explaining what is still insufficient about the current situation in your opinion. Thanks! --Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, since you obviously know cat policy (otherwise you wouldn't have blocked BCB over it). How is this edit [106] from this morning any different than the edits from before (ie unapproved, non-UCFD, persons-category edits)? MBisanztalk16:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
xCentaur | talk 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert to my user page! delldot | talk 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
J O R D A N [talk ] 15:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Done — the instruction via email, that is ~ Anthony 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
13:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
..----Cometstyles 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Ryan. Thank you very much for your kind support in my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you see me mess up, feel free to give me a dressing down =) Oh, and good luck with your exams. See you! PeaceNT 04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
..Cometstyles16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
..--Cometstyles 13:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
_-_Not_Too_Much_To_Carry_(1895).jpg)
Sheesh, all this time I thought it was done off those numbers, so I tried to update before the half-hour, just to help out lil Tango lol. Boy do I feel stupid. ~*Sigh*~ Thanks for telling me! Ariel♥Gold 23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ariel♥Gold 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Fully protected Ryan Postlethwaite 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
But a little angel came along and fixed it! 
Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Tiptoety 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ariel♥Gold 19:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
On this topic, I've saved the RfA for my own posterity to my scrapbook, but I think perhaps it would be a good idea to nuke it for now, as I've been asked when I'm going to fill it out, and someone has already commented on it, lol. We can re-created it when the time comes, and again, my most heartfelt thanks for your encouragement, support, and friendship. Ariel♥Gold 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome back, Ryan. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
--Shathaniel 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
// F9T 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
RFA thanks 
:.
){kind=link}
