User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive15

WP:RFR

Many thanks --Rumping (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you look like you've been doing some great work - Keep it up! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Article

The Article List of Dragon Ball special abilities and for my own reference. Thank you. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Thank you very much. The article is good. I have to go for now. Thanks again. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How long am I allowed to keep that article? Earthbendingmaster (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: A new weekly feature
Special: 2007 in Review	Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added	Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect"	News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback#Porcupine

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)

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 Postlethwaite 16:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that wasn't my intent. I realize you don't beleive me but at least I've written it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

NOM

I'm gonna nom myself —Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Too late :)—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 17:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Quieting the Israel Palestine battleground

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?

Thanks very much. Hope this finds you well, HG | Talk 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Continue

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.

I've continued the discussion here.

-- Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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)

Article

I will be finished with the article on January 21. Thank you for your help. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of current NASCAR races

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of current NASCAR races, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current NASCAR races. Thank you. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:England

Congratulations, portal featured. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding PPA at MedComWiki

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)

User:Henry the 1st

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. --Kizor 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he was randomly warning people, reverting people that were reverting vandalism - I've just had to go through and rollback all his edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured; just curious. Thank you for that. --Kizor 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for rescuing my talk page from Henry....I guess I'm special now that I've been vandalized :) Legotech (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed images and Wikipedia:No original research

Hi Ryan,

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)

Hmmm, let me have a think about it and I'll get back to you. Thanks for the note. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

edits

Don't worry about it. But his whole userspace has become a bit of a clusterfuck, so sorting it out is a bit of a nightmarre in itself. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell Adam, I reverted myself as it looks like you were right! Although to be honest, I can't make much sense of it! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Saeb Erekat

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. PR^talk 11:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I'll have to defer to the Israel-Palestine collaboration project regarding the content side. Durova^Charge! 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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? PR^talk 15:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat II

I've replied to your revert and BLP issues here [1].

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. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with those sources, I just think you should provide sources that say he was telling the truth as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

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, BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :D I promise to do as you say :)BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback help

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

Wow, it's a bit of a mess - can you leave me with it until tomorrow and I'll take a proper look at it? Ryan Postlethwaite 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

ANI

Thread regarding you . [2] - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the notification - I've responded there. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this edit strike you? ^Avruchtalk 16:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avruch, which one was that? You linked to a revision not a diff. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, whoops. ^Avruchtalk 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See my last edit to this page. I'm conflicted about it, as you can probably guess, but better to stave off the drama I suppose. ^Avruchtalk 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mercury/Recall

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/c 12:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 13:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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/c 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

?

I'm guessing this [3] was a mistake. Didn't really make a difference to anything, just thought you'd like to know. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I do appologise - I wasn't meant to do that at all. Sorry about that, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, no harm done. Guest9999 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Finished

I am finished with User:Earthbendingmaster/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Thank you for your help. Earthbendingmaster 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you very much for your kind words! Kirill 03:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem Kirill - I was honoured, hopefully I can be a better Wikipedian by looking at the example you set. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV Rationale

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. ^Avruchtalk 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Avruch, I'll certainly take a look. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh please

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)

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 Postlethwaite 05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Postlethwaite 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Postlethwaite 06:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Article

Could I just blank the page and move it for something else or should it be deleted and I create a different page to use? Thanks for your help. Earthbendingmaster 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I hope I was not to persistent. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick question. In titles that have campaign in their name, should campaign be capitalized? Earthbendingmaster 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no, if there's a major issue someone will fix it, but it's certainly not *that* important. You were no problem by the way! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason I ask is because of this and this. One lower; one upper case. Earthbendingmaster 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

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)

RfArb

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)

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 Postlethwaite 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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_undertow ^talk 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just that's when the behavior became apparent. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an honest response. Thanks. the_undertow ^talk 02:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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_undertow ^talk 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Ryan Postlethwaite/archive15, 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. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC collab

I did some work on the Wikiproject; made some shortcuts (WP:IRCC and WP:IRCCOL), made a note on WP:IRC and added a template to the WP itself. Just running this by you so that I can keep you up to date on happenings. Sound good? Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent MoP - you've done a fine job. I'll try and spam a few places with it later. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you. We shall spread our message and soon shall rule the world! Wait, did I say that out loud? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden 2 RfC

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)

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 Postlethwaite 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Postlethwaite 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The steps I took were manifold over the past few months but most recently in the first RfC[4] 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)

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 Postlethwaite 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Postlethwaite 01:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a popularity contest or do policies matter? —Whig (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 01:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(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)

WTF

Don't you ever watch South Park, dawg? Asta Lavista, Baby! 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dayuum, bitch. Asta Lavista, Baby! 05:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, thanks for reverting that for me. I do appreciate it. WODUP 05:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, now are mans serving a 72 hour time out. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a strange week for wiki or is it just me? Don't answer that last part. the_undertow ^talk 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Blocked indef as a sock. Nice. WODUP 05:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lmao. I guess you answered my question. the_undertow ^talk 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat III

Still waiting on your reply here - [5]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually looking for some sources for the article, so I'll respond when I've finished looking - shouldn't be much longer. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll try to remain patient :) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

@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. PR^talk 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Krispy Kicks

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)

Thanks!

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 fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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. -- R ^TalkContribs_@ 01:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Document

Hello Ryan:

I'm posting this question here. I asked Jehochman and he referred me to you.

It is about:

My question, may I see the deleted document or is it gone, fini, caput, etc?

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wanderer, can I just ask - why do you want the contents of the deleted RfC? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan: Maybe you saw in the deleted rfc my opinion that it should be dropped. I gave the same opinion about the new rfc Whig 3.

I want to compare the contents of the two to look for parallels in support for my point about rfc Whig 3. Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Rfc on Adam Cuerden

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2 was deleted by you as "insufficiently certified RfC and strong consensus that there is no disruptive behaviour". I never saw it. However, it is being referenced at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3]. I would like to take a look at it. Could you restore it and its history, perhaps to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3/ForReferenceRequests for comment_Adam Cuerden_2, along with templates that say it is an archive not to be edited. Thanks. TableManners^C·U·T 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2. Protecting was a good idea. TableManners^C·U·T 23:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, two quick questions:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Thanks, EdChem (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Help answer

Ryan, can you help answer this question: "User_talk:Rlevse#MfD_question". — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that Rlevse, I've answered on your talk :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.87.173.219.

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. · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've AGF'd also and unblocked, I just hope he can be slightly more constructive in the future. Cheers for bringing it to my attention. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope the same; and also that he isn't disappointed with wikipedia... · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (7th nomination)

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)

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 Postlethwaite 17:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI - There is a thread regarding this at WP:AN/I. ^Avruchtalk 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So there is, thanks. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hohum

[6]. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[7]. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

and what response did you expect to this? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Pro-pedophile activism

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. Mangojuice^talk 21:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Other account

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 Postlethwaite 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathyn. I lost the password and changed my e-mail address since then (and can no longer access the e-mail account registered with it). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Was there any particular reason you asked, Ryan? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Samuel

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. PR^talk 11:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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. PR^talk 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Inniscrone/Enniscrone

Hi. As someone who has edited the Inniscrone and/or Enniscrone page recently, you may be interested in this. Regards, --The.Q^(t)(c) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New signature

test sig. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus :P Viridae^Talk 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it passes WP:BOLD. Cremepuff222 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it?! I'm just waiting for my next post on AN/I ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Viridae^Talk 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<span style="text-decoration:blink; font-size:20pt; font-family:Algerian; color:#008080">Ryan Postlethwaite</span>''']]

Ryan Postlethwaite

Try this. Cremepuff222 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I love this one! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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]]''']] Viridae^Talk 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, well done. :) Cremepuff222 (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has got to get this guy a hobby. C'mon, what's wrong with simple? Simple signatures are... in! That's it, they're in! Join the simple signature club. - Philippe | Talk 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've made my final choice.... Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

*Vomits* Viridae^Talk 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The hearts are... sex-eh. - Philippe | Talk 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• I like this one:

Ryan Postlethwaite

Isn't it good? :) It will be impossible to miss your signature with that! Acalamari 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Go and post someonthing on Tony Sidaway's talk page :P Viridae^Talk 23:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got a death wish :-) Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay now, that one made me laugh. :-) Risker (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going blind --B (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A background as well!? :-O Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 00:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for Heliotrope (color) - it has good contrast (Can you do marquee text in css? That would be good too) --B (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a word about your sig.

AIEEEEEeeeee! Dlohcierekim 00:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I like it ;-) We'll see how long it takes for me to get block :-) Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 00:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Blockip/Ryan Postlethwaite - even the block button is pink ;) --B (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Argh. My eyes. ^Avruchtalk 00:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh Ryan you are really quite silly! [8]. 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)

How very disappointing Ryan. 74.133.9.95 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. 74.133.9.95 (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If I weren't blind, i could find the button. LOL Dlohcierekim 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've done it! Here is the block you were talking about: Acalamari 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It has become apparent that your account is being used only to create flashy signatures, so it has been blocked indefinitely.   Acalamari 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My final signature choice

With thanks to B, I have chosen my new signature. Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow........thats....*blink, blink*.....flashy. Tiptoety ^talk 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Cool, I mean, cruel Dlohcierekim 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:-/ —Animum (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, WP:RFPP looks a lil' funny right now... - Philippe | Talk 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just could not help yourself could you? [9] ;) Tiptoety ^talk 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You've arrived at your final signature already? Why not try:

File:Dainsyng.gif

It's Ryan Postlethwaite, BITCHES ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ It's Ryan Postlethwaite, BITCHES ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

File:Dainsyng.gif

The perfect complement to any talk page dispute. Gracenotes^T § 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You should sooo do it!! Tiptoety ^talk 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll remember that next time I file a request for arbitration ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sig

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)

Chill out sir, I'll give it a few days and consider changing it back - just waiting to step onto AN/I for the first time! Don't worry, not planning on reverting you again. Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 00:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Copyright

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)

Re:WP:RFPP

Well, thanks. :) I guess we both just posted at (nearly) the exact same time.   jj137 (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting admin functions

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 04:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thankfully I am neither an amazing content contributor or someone who never plans to seek RfA so it doesn't impact me directly. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship means nothing, you're a great contributor so I suggest you carry on just as you are - keep up your great work. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 75.100.84.36

75.100.84.36 (talk · contribs) Dude, rangeblock maybe? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic Wiki

Ryan,

I'm sorry I don't follow you... where was my reply to Mccready a personal attack? I simply asked him to provide references for his assertions.

KV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.89.150 (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

KV 208.101.89.150 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: your block just now

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♥Alice 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't block, I just declined the unblock - but anyway, we don't have to warn before blocking for attacks like that. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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♥Alice 05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 05:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cordeyn continues... [10] - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

and blocked for 24 hours - he should have listened to his warning..... Ryan Postlethwaite 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Warnings, although mine was a polite suggestion. Thanks Ryan. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could protect the user talk page. There is a lot of silly talk back and forth going on now. ←Gee♥Alice 05:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Done by Cool Hand Luke. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant this one, User talk:The Librarian, but it looks like it's stopped now. <shrug> ←Gee♥Alice 06:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Rudget

See [11]. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I liked that statement Rlevse - I think it spoke a lot of truth. Hopefully some 'crat will come along soon and give him his bit back. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: My Rfa

Thanks again for the nom. And thanks in advance for answering the questions I'll ask you ;) - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation progress report

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)

Rfa thanks

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)

Homeopathy

Could you unprotect homeopathy, please? If edit warring resumes, we will quickly topic ban any involved editors. You may want to note that on the talk page if you agree with my proposal. Article probation is now in effect. Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Bigunicode

I meant deletion, not redirection when I nominated this at TFD, so I've renominated this at RFD to get it totally gone. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Flagicon

Something is wrong with the template, Zimbabwe flag does this: // F9T 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Been fixed now, as you can see... // F9T 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Eugenics in Showa Japan

Hi, I presume you noticed I announced I quit the mediation and explained why : [[12]]

However, I just saw that the user whom was the source of the edit war has been blocked : [[13]] [/wiki/User:Azukimonaka]

I suggest we simply unprotect the article and edit it for good. --Flying tiger (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

I just sent you one. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

new mediation suggestion

I posted a new approach on the MedCom wiki. Take a look at it, and see if you think it's helpfull. If not, feel free to revert it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation question

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)

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 Postlethwaite 01:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Disruption

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.

Regarding my last post: It was sincere. If you could restore my userspace in full, I would appreciate it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a speedy deletion criteria for this particular type of deletion so your reqesut was completely valid at first, but then you made it pointy and clearly did it to disrupt wikipedia, which led to admins having using their tools to "help you out" and then reverse these actions - hence why you got a block warning. I accepted you were misunderstood, but don't do this again. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

oh, and IAR is not there for disruption - you should sitll consider this a final warning for disruptive edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ryan, please see this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

Please disregard my paranoid suspicions. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

POINT, baiting, and CIVIL issues. This guy gets quite a bit of leeway :o( BigK HeX (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

blatant canvassing ;)

I want your opinion on my new script at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Delete reason dropdown script, since you worked on the current script —Random832 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sig guidelines

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. MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

You should have one from me. - auburnpilot talk 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the email - very interesting I've got to say. I've got some thoughts so I'll send you a reply ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Orange bar

Hi. And er, good close on the MfD. Majorly (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Postlethwaite 14:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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. Merkinsmum 15:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Showing your feminine side

Your signature on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gutza is amazing. Pleaseee say that you're going to continue to use that until Valentine's Day! нмŵוτнτ 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		My RfA
		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 DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Rollback template

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. Acalamari 18:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There's far far worse - I think it would be great to have it in template space. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, {{Rollbackgiven}}. Acalamari 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A comment

I have responded to your comment on Jimmy's talk page. Thought you might have some input. :-) - Philippe | Talk 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

and responded :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 | Talk 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		for calm and reasoned advice pretty much everywhere lately - Philippe | Talk 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC

As a chanop can you grant my access request? Thanks, Viridae^Talk 10:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries - done by someone else. Viridae^Talk 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I was at uni but I see it's been taken care of - sorry about that mate. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

Muhammad petition

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, WilyD 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to unprotect this (see my section on the talk page, "proposal for administrators")? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, didn't realise what had caused the latest. Agree entirely with a 24 hour protection. Daniel (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 05:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping delete my page, Wikipedia:Presidential poll. I just poured so much effort into it, that I'm glad that you helped destroy it. Thanks! :) Basketball110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? 01:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem - in future you should consider the appropriateness in creating content that is uncompatible with an online, neutral encyclopedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sir! Mr. Nothing 02:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketball110 (talk • contribs)

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. Earthbendingmaster 02:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

Mr. Nothing 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm sure you don't want a smile with Mr. Nothing on it... Cheers, Basketballone10 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Toni Tennille

Wow, I wasn't expecting that. You might want to look at Captain and Tennille, too. Also, you might want to look at MarineJourdan's contributions to both articles. She has gone from adding a huge and unnecessary amt. of detail to blanking entire sections. MookieZ (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox.

Oh look. There are no death threats that he is hiding in the history. Funny, that.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What? His userpage contains edits that have led to death threats, the threats themselves haven't appeared on-wiki. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet he hasn't said what they are or that they even exist, nor why he wanted the talk page deleted. Riiight. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? He wants his userpage deleted, there's a policy saying he can have it deleted, I'm not sure why you're not conforming. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And I dont want any of my talk page deleted, indeed I would protest against such a thing. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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? --SSBohio 12:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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, SSBohio 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Message for you

...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.  :-) --SSBohio 02:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The favor of your reply is appreciated. --SSBohio 15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto --SSBohio 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

MedCom on PPA

I've been directed to you for information on/access to the MedCom wiki. May I access the wiki? Thanks, SSBohio 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you send me an email to Ryanpostlethwaite(at)hotmail.com I'll create you an account. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good one. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ryan, go for it, we could use Steve over there. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User page

There is no way this is allowed? Earthbendingmaster 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Working Group login

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)

Portal:Ice hockey

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)

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 Postlethwaite 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. I understand that the selected list is out? Maxim_(talk) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review

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)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/124.185.79.125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archtransit (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence!

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)

Signature.

I'll have to follow suit... peer pressure is cool. B) · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to join the club! Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. Anybody else would be blocked by now. Please change it. - auburnpilot talk 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked? In all honesty, what for? It really isn't causing any harm - it's just supposed to be a bit of fun. Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone take a deep breath...its just a bit of fun. No harm has been done to the project...Tiptoety ^talk 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Right...to hell with policies and guidelines so long as we're having fun. What was I thinking... - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe i miss read the situation, but i guess i am a bit foggy as to what policies this violates? Tiptoety ^talk 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The one about blinding us with one's brilliance? Dlohcierekim 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Per WP:SIG, Your signature should not blink, or otherwise inconvenience or be annoying to other editors. [14] Nakon 01:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Amazing, you proved us all wrong! Tiptoety ^talk 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

e c It worked for me. can't stop laughing. Dlohcierekim 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was fun while it lasted. Tiptoety ^talk 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. Dlohcierekim 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Thanks for the laugh. Tiptoety talk 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Hehe - twas good whilst it lasted I guess! Ryan cracks open a beer in celebration! Ryan Postlethwaite 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaah! Thank goodness you stopped flashing! bibliomaniac15 02:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Postlethwaite 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – My god people, its over. This isn't the firing range, Tiptoety ^talk 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think there is something about prolonged exposure to Wikipedia that leads to bouts of profound insanity silliness. Dlohcierekim 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, you're such an arse... — DarkFalls ^talk 03:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

An arse? :-) You're being too kind DF! :-p Ryan Postlethwaite 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(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. Tiptoety ^talk 04:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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❤Love 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to one up them, buddy. You need a BARNSTAR in your signature. Like so, as may appear on an RFA:

1. 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)

Like that. Lawrence § t/e 06:38, 30 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... Jmlk17 09:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I laughed so much it started to hurt. That's fucking superb! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly few of you saw mine for which I was also told off:) [15] 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.:) Merkinsmum 16:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I think your talk page just gave me a seizure. нмŵוτнτ 18:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Want to help out with an FA?

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)

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 Postlethwaite 01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to hearing your ideas. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop by. Have you thought of anything you might like to work on? Nishkid64 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nish, yeah I've been giving it some thought - given my pharmacology background, I was considering working on the Morphine article, taking a similar format of Parecetamol which is currently featured. Thoughts? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Postlethwaite 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Wordsworth sounds good. I've never worked on a literature FA before, so it should be interesting. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

You know Ryan, hockey team FAs are very easy... ;-) Also, do you want to nom/co-nom the portal Monday afternoon/evening? :-) Maxim_(talk) 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

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)

Rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism. This was a content dispute regarding a template and certainly not for reverting vandalism. If you do need to revert a good faith edit, you should do it manually. As there is a current thread on AN/I (which can be viewed (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#An_editor_abusing_Rollback_privileges here) that endorses removal, I am affraid that I am unable to give you the tool back. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comment at ANI. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

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 Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Drunk?

Hey dude, are you drunk in that one picture? If you are you should put it on the drunk article.Д narchistPig (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am, severely. If you want to use it - by all means do. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, now I'm disappointed. I thought that was Ryan's perpetual facial expression. - Philippe | Talk 00:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

what uppp.

hi. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion on Wikipedia:Username policy

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).

However, you did mention there had been a previous discussion on the matter. Could you provide a link? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Postlethwaite 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussions seemed somewhat divided. What is your personal opinion? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Postlethwaite 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Linus Pauling

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)

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 Postlethwaite 21:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Portal:Ice hockey

Any decision? ;-) Maxim_(talk) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ar-Az-2

Hi, Ryan. I realized that the User:Babakexorramdin is one of the involved parties of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. The results of the arbitaration committee's decision was posted to his talk page by Penwhale on 28 August 2007. So, he's aware of the proposed decision and the enforcements. However, this user does not seem to take the ArbCom decision into consideration in his edits and comments. Actually, this user was also warned by Alex for civiliy on 17 November 2007. Recently, I posted a message to Alex's talk page about the latest personal attacks on 2 February 2008. Since Alex Bakharev is not available at the moment, i decided to post this message to you. I shall greatly appreciate if you take a look. Kind regards. E104421 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)