User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ED

Go to Encyclopedia Dramatica You're on it.

And before you ask: NO! this doesn't mean I'm returning, I'm mooving on (or up, to me) to Fanfiction

—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

As far as I'm aware the evidence I posted was 990 words, the only extension has been responses to comments by others. I was under the impression that responses to comments by others did not come under the 1000 word limit. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. The word limit is for your entire section, so all responses come within the word limit. Ideally, responses shouldn't even be on the main evidence page, they should be on the talk page so they can be discussed. Some users post responses on the main evidence page to highlight their points and give them more attention - the only downside of that is that you have less space for actual evidence. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Moved to talk page, all OK? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent - very much appreciated Justin. Thanks for acting quickly. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all your efforts to keep the case pages in good order, but could you please let me know what pages I need to consult to make sure I've reviewed all the on-wiki statements and evidence before I post Workshop proposals and a Proposed Decision. Of course, the case page and its talkpage, the evidence page and its talkpage, but has anything been subpaged or moved anywhere else? Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brad. When I refactor the pages, I move the evidence I've removed to a user subpage and link to it from the evidence section I've removed it from. The evidence is still linked to prominently so it's unlikely you'll miss it. For example; I removed evidence here, placed it at User:Ecemaml/Arbitration evidence and then linked it back to the evidence section here. I don't think it's in my remit to just go around arbitrarily removing evidence so I think this is a better solution. Are you okay with me doing it like this? As I said, it's unlikely you'll miss anything as the evidence is there and well linked to. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As long as I and the other arbitrators can readily find everything, we should be all right. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Full support

While I fully support your block of the editor highking, I am wondering do you mean indef, it says you have done that, he is disruptive but you mentioned 24 hours, I fully understand if you are extending. Block log here Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops - it was only meant to be 24 hours. I'll change it now. Thanks for spotting that! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Theatre Dependere

There were 3 articles listed for deletion. WP:Articles for deletion/Theatre Dependere. I'm wondering why the other two weren't deleted as they are all part of the same AfD. Thanks. Clubmarx (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed them - I've gone ahead and deleted both of the other articles as well now. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks! Clubmarx (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DustiSPEAK!! 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DustiSPEAK!! 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC) X2 instead of spamming your page with TB's. DustiSPEAK!! 17:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

[1]: Somehow you wiped out my submission. Woogee (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I use a script and obviously something went weird. Sorry about that. Is it all fixed now? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the bot which makes sure that all of the steps are followed, took care of it.  :) Woogee (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

HighKing

Ok he got sucked into a edit war and his block was justified, But he has never socked before and the IP concerned is located in Germany not Ireland. I think thats a bad call --Snowded TALK 18:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering the IP made exactly the same edits HK was making just after he was blocked, it seems clear that the IP was HK. I'll contact a CU though just to double check. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, if he has socked I'll give up on him but it needs to be proved. There are other editors (now blocked) who use IP socks to delete BI so I suspect it was one of them. --Snowded TALK 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with that, its appreciated --Snowded TALK 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Ryan. Would you fix up HighKing's block. It's erroneously set to expire 'tommorow'. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:67.180.84.52

Hi. You declined to block an IP I had reported at AN3, saying that the editor had not continued reverting after the 3RR warning, but it turns out that this is not the case.

My 3RR warning is timestamped at 00:12[2]. The IP reverted at 00:13[3]. Another editor re-instated it at 00:13[4], and the IP reverted the warning for the second time at 00:14[5]. His last (6th) reversion on the article itself was at 00:20[6], 6 minutes after he had reverted the warning for the second time.

You may still feel that a block is not warranted, but I did want to bring this to your attention. Also, this IP has edit warred in this fashion three times in the last couple of days: this current case, the one I reported just beneath it,[7] and here. At the very least, I would think this pattern of editing would merit a warning. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I see - Sorry I missed that. He's been warned sufficiently now - I think it's too stale now to take action. If you see the IP do another revert, ping me again here and I'll take action. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's the fifth revert on the article Wang Guowei

I don't quite know what to do about this editor. They do revert a good amount of straright our vandalism, but they also tag a lot of short articles with PRODs, speedy deletes and AfD, without a lot of regard for those articles which have the potential to grow into something reasonable, and those which are obviously not valuable to the project. When reverted, he has a tendency to blind revert make, he doesn't often use edit summaries, and he routinely deletes warnings form his talk page without comment.

I think what bothers me is a serious lack of judgment about the quality of new articles and his knee-jerk response to being disagreed with. Add that to the fact that the IP jumped into life a week or so ago with apparently full knowledge of how to get around Wikipedia, and I get concerned. I can't spend all my time checking his edits and fixing his mistakes, and yet nothing they do is egregiously bad. I hope that perhaps a short block and a comment from an admin might help them stay on track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had an exchange on my talk page, but I don't know if it will help any. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it back to my attention - I've blocked them for 24 hours - hopefully they'll chill a little bit after the block expires. Keep me posted. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

At least fix it

You cut out my first message. It starts with JBsupreme's message now. Phoenix of9 08:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Phoenix of9

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Zazaban (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Xnacional starting it up again

I don't want to let things get out of hand again, but Xnacional immediately started reverting to his preferred (and incorrect) version when he returned from his block. I've restored the consensus version, but I doubt this is the end of it from him. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What you've described is an on-going edit war and one which you're still participating. One revert over the issue is an example of "be bold, revert and then discuss", but given you've made multiple reverts yourself, you're still part of the problem. To be perfectly honest, you're lucky you aren't both blocked again. Consider this a warning. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ani

You are being discussed at ANI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare, Trusilver, Hell in a Bucket, and my bleeding eye sockets

What in the world is going on with ArbCom? I can't make heads or tails of it! Any chance you get it? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... where shall I start?!
  • Brews ohare was initially topic banned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Remedies.
  • Tznkai extended the topic ban (which can be found here) to cover the Wikipedia namespace.
  • Brews ohare broke this topic ban and was blocked for a week by Sandstein.
  • Trusilver unblocked him early (I think there was only a few hours to go, but he did it because of the principle).
  • Trusilver was desysopped for that by ArbCom because last year ArbCom enacted a motion that said administrators were not allowed to reverse aribtration enforcement blocks.
  • Hell in a Bucket et al. have been kicking up a fuss left, right and centre about it all. If they'd have been advocating in moderation, it wouldn't have been too bad, but they've taken it to excess. Now ArbCom are voting to ban them for advocating for Brews.

Hope that helps explain things!

Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's probably the best summary of an unwieldy situation I've ever seen on Wikipedia. That's exactly what I needed and wanted to see, and it clears things up for me quite nicely. Thank you so much! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The characterization of all that has been said in opposition as kicking up a fuss left, right and centre doesn't quite qualify as “the best summary of an unwieldy situation I've ever seen”, although, on reflection, the bar is not set very high. Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
A bit more detail about the "fuss" would be that it concerns opposition to unwarranted acts by a few officious administrators based upon their poor understanding of vaguely written sanctions, and a myopic letter-of-the-law series of actions that did not consider the welfare of WP or its editing environment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket's reverting and templating

Hi there, is this revert restoring a personal question and this edit involving templating the regulars valid? these three edits seem to imply that my removal of the comment was valid. He also leaves the misleading edit summary, "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments", which is untrue. I noticed that you received similar behaviour from him. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 273° 15' 0" NET 18:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted things out with Hell in a Bucket, but just to confirm, was my removal valid? Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 278° 49' 15" NET 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It's amazing what happens when people ask isn't it? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of peace

Would you be willing to back down on the Twinkle issue? I will in turn agree to not do the things I was doing. I've calmed doqn considerably and have decided to take a different course. I will do my best to avoid templating regulars and I do attempt to make amends when I act a little off. I still am upset about the ARB case but life goes on. I still have much I plan to do here and hoepfully it won't be arbcom related. I just figured to ask, all you can do is say no. Either way for the moment I'm actually not going to comment on the whole arbcom thing so as not to completely screw myself over. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair. You have also done a lot of constructive things with twinkle as well (I just deleted a page you tagged for speedy deletion for instance). Regarding the warnings, it's often more informative to actually type things out yourself so you can explain exactly what your issue with. Warning templates are good for new users, because they help explain particular policies and guidelines - they're very much general spiels of text aimed at a very basic understanding of Wikipedia. When you need to warn a regular editor, they don't need pointers to a general guideline, they need to know specific things that have caused you concern - hence why I think it's best to type out warnings to regular editors. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually that is me blowing my stack. In many ways I wish I had never ran across the Brews Ohare fiasco. It has taken not only from my productivity but has also been something I've allowed to get way too far under my skin. I still think that he has merits but I really need to find better ways to express myself. Amazingly enough I work customer service and the way I talk here is nothinglike how I deal with customers. I'm actually going to try to treat people herre like they were my customers and see if that helps. Sorry for being dickish and thank you for meeting me in the middle. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe people can change ... many times, if necessary. :-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, we all get passionate about certain things on here and go little over the top - I've done it quite a few times. I guess it's because we all want whats best for the encyclopedia, but we have differing views of what is best. When I get stressed over something, I just click on "unwatch" and move on to other places - I might go back an revisit it after a couple of weeks and I often find I'm in a much better frame of mind to put my point across better. No harm done in this situation if you ask me. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do?

Ryan, since you were the last admin to take action on this, I thought I'd follow up with you first. The first thing that User:MidnightBlueMan does on his return from the block is to revert numerous times again (various editors), without discussion. The task force is trying to analyse usage of the term and create guidelines while examining articles in turn. The page was set up to centralize the discussions rather than having debates on numerous Talk page (especially since some editors are less than civil). In the past, we implemented a 1RR policy (policed by admin User:Black Kite) but he retired. Since then, levels of disruption have reached extreme proportions. MidnightBlueMan has been involved in numerous incidents over the past 6 months, is obviously an SPA, and shows no signs of modifying their behaviour. Last time, I reverted MBM and started discussions (which were ignored), but I got blocked anyway (even though I didn't breach 3RR, had asked him to stop and discuss, had asked numerous other editors and two admins to intervene, and finally filed a breach of 3RR report). I can't help but feel more than a little set-upon. So now what? I get the feeling that if I simply revert, I'll end up getting blocked again. So what to do? --HighKing (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. Hopefully he should get the message this time that his edits aren't acceptable. Should he continue after this block, the length will be escalated further. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Question.

I am asking about a block you instituted. I'm asking only for clarification really, things to avoid. In my understanding this prevents us from advocating for not speaking about or to the user. Am I wrong? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you can't discuss him or advocate for him. I don't see a problem with talking to him - that's not discussing him or advocating for him. Let me give you an example; say you're working on an article together, you can discuss edits with him. Should there be a dispute on that article, you wouldn't be able to argue for a position he's taking. Does that clarify things a bit? If you need any more help, then feel free to ask. Generally speaking, you should never have to mention the words "Brews ohare" whilst the restriction is in effect. The edit that Likebox made was a blatant violation of the restriction. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It was pointy. But it just made me curious as to the extent of things. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said, if you need any advice before you post, feel free to leave a message here, or if you want me to look over a draft before you post then by all means email me - I'll let you know whether or not it breaks the restriction. It'll save you getting blocked for merely a technical violation. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer but I highly doubt that I will be commenting on anything close to this for a while. I'm taking a break from it, write a few more articles, only 20 left til I hit 100. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

RFB

Are you interested in becoming a bureaucrat? I feel you meet the criteria and want to nominate you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rin tin tin 1996 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Q?

I missed that, are there rules listed somewhere? Also does this only apply to IP's? I'm not the only one over and I don't see other warnings about third party refactoring of comments at the other involved party's talk. Thanks. 99.135.173.194 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in the big pink box on the request for arbitration page. Generally speaking, I don't enforce it if someone goes over by one hundred words, but it's enforced for everyone, not just IP's. Can you point to where someone else is over? I only clerk arbitration pages, I don't clerk individual user talk pages so it's not really my place to look at the refactoring there. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like that restriction applies to the complaint, "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators..." It's one thing to say, he did this, that, and the other thing. Another thing completely to respond to that. 99.135.173.194 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the other large one is at 126% of limit.99.135.173.194 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It's actually for each persons entire section - You get 500 words to make a statement and for your responses to others. Who made the other statement that you're talking about? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The page separates the complainant and his 500 word limit[8] from the person "Responding to a RFAR"[9]. It makes a clear distinction between defining the issue (500 words) and responding to the charges. Maybe the archives will have a clearer answer, I'll take a look there. 99.135.173.194 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Community practice shows an effort to be concise (although it is, as you note, not strictly adhered to), I will whittle it down. You should correct the page if you believe it to be a rule for respondents, the text as it now stands does not support that interpretation. 99.135.173.194 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be unable to meet the word count limit within the deadline, a waiver is requested. I won't even be able to read a response here for at least 20 hours. The archives do show frequent posts exceeding the filing limit - and I was unaware that an unwritten rule existed for respondents. Thank you for the understanding in advance... 99.135.173.194 (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure - I'll give you till around 22:00 (UTC). If I do refactor it myself, you can always re-edit your statement and I'll link to the full version anyway - it's not a big deal. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the consideration, I'll probably have to go with the "it's not a big deal" version if you feel the need to re-factor. I have an organic farm west of here and the weather has broke for spring planting, sugar snap pea, lettuce, etc... I've got about two more days of full tilt left. Thanks again.99.135.173.194 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare??

Why (Brews ohare) did you delete (Brews ohare) comments off my talk (BREWS BREEEWS OHARE!!!) page? Don't0 (Brews ohare) do that. Also, I think ArbCom members have low intelligence, and I don't like you very much. Brews ohare, him I like. So Brewsy day to you, Ohare!Likebox (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why you didn't block me! That's a very Brewsy thing you did! You're quite the ohare. I actually imagined that you people weren't like Brews ohare at all.Likebox (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Ryan I've blocked Likebox for another 24 hours. It seems likely this is going to end up with him indefinitely blocked. This is the first AE block I've done, so I thought I'd leave any further action up to you. AniMate 03:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Corp user names

Ryan, with all due respect, promotional editing is not a requirement. WP:CORPNAME simply says: Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. Your username should represent you. Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below. Since usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group, accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked. "LLC" is like "Limited" in the UK and makes this a corpname, IMHO. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, they don't have to edit to be promotional, but it's a good indicator that their username is promotional. That said, given that his edits don't appear to be promotional, we have to look at other things to decide if AdamLLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is promotional. Firstly, a google search shows that the term isn't inherently a spam promotional term. The search brings up many hits that aren't promotional in the slightest and merely an extension of someones name. In the absense of definite proof, we don't block usernames that are possibly promotional. If you disagree with this, then you're more than welcome to take it to WP:RFCN. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Trigger-happy blocking

Hi Ryan, I expect you've now forgotten, but a week ago you blocked me. Here's a bit of advice from someone older and wiser than you; before wading in to an issue you are not familiar with, you should brief yourself fully on the subject at hand. Had you done so with the current British Isles debacle, and in particular with HighKing's complaint about my edits, you may have noticed that I didn't actually revert any of his edits, despite his feeling "set-upon". Furthermore, you would have noticed that I only carried out a single revert on three edits, each of which would normally fall within the scope of WP:BRD. The fourth revert was on the article Big Dipper and was to revert another egregious removal of British Isles by an editor who is not only an SPA, but is also a Single Article Account. In fact, all he's ever done is remove BI from Big Dipper (User:Fionnghlas). It seems as though you are unilaterally banning me from anything to do with British Isles. If that is so, then you are acting way outside your realm of authority. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem was, your reverts were exactly the same type of reverts that you did to get yourself blocked a few day previously. People have issues with you adding in "British Isles" into articles - this needs to be discussed. You can't just go around unilaterally making up your own mind when it's obvious that not everybody agrees with your interpretation. I'll block you again should you start reverting people over the same issue again. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Will you. Well if you do I'll take up the matter at where ever it is these matters are taken up, citing abuse of your powers as an admin. As for not everyone agreeing with my interpretation - again I suggest you look at what's going on here. You'll see that User:HighKing is a serial remover of British Isles and over the last couple of years or so has caused mayhem throughout this project and continues to do so. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I was so hoping this was a discussion about me... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we already know that you're trigger happy with the block button - it's so well renowned that people no longer care anymore! ;-) Ryan runs quickly away! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
And here I thought all those dissenting voices were in my head! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Question

See [10], I presume as with WP:TPO it is unacceptable at arbcom to refactor statements after they have been replied to? Not egregious on this occasion I agree but I have already had a discussion with him about refactoring comments like that and he didn't take kindly to it. An outsider commenting is more likely to be acceptable. Regards, Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 16:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning ??

I saw that you placed a warning on my page dealing with Hungary_Slovakia_relations. I saw that you did NOT place a warning on several other users who consistently refuse any update of the article (Hobartimus, NMate). If you read the discussion page you see that I have been trying to make changes, in the history page you can also see that I made changes. All have been reverted by the above users. They do not want to listen to any change and keep reverting the newer article of Happenstance which can be a good starting point. You may also note that i have been the one who asked for help on different boards (see my contributions page). Yes I have been reverting, but it is utterly unfair to warn only me ! I have stated several times that I am willing to rewrite the article, but I can't read Slovak or Hungarian. But the two Hungarian activists do not want to listen to any change. See f.e. the discussion page of Happenstance as well. So as you are an administrator you should have a good look at the page, set a NPOV banner and maybe protect the page and warn the Hungarians as well.Knorrepoes (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I now name you brave and virtuous

As noted in the AN posting, this is entirely separate from my opinion in the matter; I would have posted it before you expressed any opinion, if not for the fact that it might have looked like an attempt to sway you. In any case, thank you for grasping the nettle here. I don't give barnstars, but I have been known to occasionally mention that I would do so if I ever gave them out - and this is such a case. Mind you, this won't stop others from disagreeing with your close - but you knew that already. Thanks, again, for making the close regardless. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Hero of the Wiki, definitely. Encyclopaedia 1:0 Drama Guy (Help!) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you both for your comments. I know there'll be some people who are dissatisfied with my close, but it was going to happen however it was closed. I just hope people on all sides will be able to see that some thought went into my closure - it wasn't just done on a whim. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Although I !voted to keep the image, I do want to compliment you on your closing, which was reasonable and cogent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Can I ask your reasoning on why the image fails NFCC#1/8? As I said in my (lengthy) rationale for keeping, most !votes for deleting it under NFCC#1 were based on a faulty/incomplete reading of the criteria which would delete, say, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, and I argued that use of the screenshot was justified as a (spiritual) member of the list at WP:NFCI (even though I didn't link to it by name). I'm more concerned about listing NFCC#1 as a reason, to be honest. While I can comprehend why and how the image may fail NFCC#8 (as may any other website screenshot, FWIW), I'm having trouble understanding the deletion under NFCC#1. In any case, I commend you for deleting this image for policy reasons (and if I felt the image failed the NFCC, I would argue to delete it), and not for some silly reason born out of disgust of the image, which was sadly the norm among those wishing to delete. Sceptre (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • My job as the closing administrator was not to start putting my own thoughts forward about why, or why not, the image fails NFCC#1/8. My job is to decide whether the consensus shows that the image failed the criteria. In my closing rationale, I made it clear that it was based on the fact that overall, there were few sound reasons put forward by those disagreeing. If 40 people say it does fail NFCC, and a couple of users (the majority of the keeps were based on the fact that Wikipedia is not censored) say they disagree, then there is a clear consensus among the people commenting that it does fail the criteria. There was no defence that overwhelmed the participants that said that the image failed the criteria, so the consensus was that the image did in fact fail the criteria. I don't hold any personal view on whether the image does or doesn't, but I do hold the view that the consensus strongly showed that the image failed the criteria. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
      • That seems like a bit of a cop-out, to be honest. The job of the closing admin is not only to weigh up the arguments, but to also make sure the arguments have been made correctly. Say, in a given AfD, ten people say that an article is "notable", but do not show that it is (namely, by showing that the subject "received significant coverage in reliable secondary [and independent] sources"). In a hypothetical case where eight people said it wasn't notable by that baseline, but where the ten people just said "it's notable", the article should be deleted even though those wishing to delete were in the minority. In this case, I have concerns that the majority of people citing NFCC#1 did not cite/understand it correctly (and I said so in my rationale to keep it), and I wish to ask if you discounted these citations, and instead just evaluated the arguments about whether a text replacement would save the encyclopedic purpose. Sceptre (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
        • But that's solely your opinion that they didn't understand NFCC#1 when they were commenting. I fully agree with you about the AfD/notability issue, but the analogy you're suggesting is when people who commented gave no legitimate reasons for saying the article was notable. I believe that it's the closing administrators job not to decide if something is completely legitimate, but that it has some legitimacy. In this case, I based my close on the fact that I believed that the people quoting NFCC#1 as a reason for delete did have a somewhat legitimate concern, so I didn't discount their opinions as you'd have probably wanted me to. This is one of those cases where people will disagree on an interpretation of a policy, not that either are necessarily wrong. In this instance, I looked at the greater picture to ascertain whether the people wanting to keep the article came up with a satisfactory defence to the claims that the file broke NFCC#1/8 and I came to the conclusion that they didn't. To answer your question in short, no I didn't discount anyone's comments because I believe that neither side were wrong, they were merely differing in opinion. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
          • As I said, I can accept the delete-on-NFCC-grounds-unless-convinced-otherwise explanation, especially as I generally agree with that. And I do agree that little was said to convince you it did pass NFCC#1 generally. However, I am concerned about people just saying it could be replaced by text, with no reference to the fact that the text replacement has to serve the encyclopedic purpose for an image to fail NFCC#1, which indicates to me misunderstanding (or, worse, deliberate ignorance) of the clause. It took until Ale_jrb's post to cite this, and Ale's is the only one to explicitly argue that a text replacement would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. And, reading through the "delete"s, very few of them cited NFCC anyway, and most of them seem to have forgot/ignored that part of the clause. Still, I guess that there's no crying over spilt milk, but I do hope that, in the future, people read the NFCC before citing it. Especially 1 and 8, as misunderstanding of them can be problematic in cases. Sceptre (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
        • If I may, Sceptre - saying that the closing sysop must decide whether the arguments are "correct" leads one down away from consensus. It's not that everyone is trying to convince the admin to do one thing or another (at least in theory), it's that everyone is trying to convince the others. The admin just reads that and does what they agree on. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I had a discussion with this with another Wikipedian a few months ago, funnily enough, regarding this exact image, who argued that a vast numerical consensus of faulty arguments could, in some cases, be instrumental in influencing a XfD closure, where I was more idealistic, saying that closing admins should be cognizant of the policy and compare the argument to the policy to see if they are in sync. Of course, NFCC#1 is murky ground and miles away from something more objective (in theory) like notability, but I believe that there are a few cases where people can cite the NFCC incorrectly by any reasonble standard. Sceptre (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Surely you're not suggesting that folks used the NFCC argument to hide their true feelings? –xenotalk 20:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
              • I'm trying to AGF here, but in some cases, I do believe that, yes, policies are routinely cited incorrectly by people to hide an ideological reason why they like/dislike content and why they want it kept/deleted ("it's notable" in AfDs and "it fails the NFCC" in FfDs seem to be the two major offenders). Sceptre (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The specific problem I have with this is the "adequately conveyed by text" bit, which I do not think should be used to disqualify unique images. No argument was ever given, by any user, of how to justify this. It calls to mind Rama's RfC edit warring over his horrid stick drawings as a valid replacement for photographs. Tarc (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Bear in mind that some of the people arguing replaceability did so on the basis that it was replaceable by text and a link to the website the screenshot came from. That was certainly part of my argument. I do wish that more of the editors who addressed NFCC#1 had addressed the link issue specifically. Like screenshots of readily accessible websites, the issue of whether and when an external link is a part of the encyclopedic content is a large gray area in our content policies. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As one of the people who has been voicing the "Keep" quite a few times during the discussion, i think i should voice in as well. And i wish to say: Well done, good job. This is one of those closure's that no admin really wants to do, either because of the amount of text that has to be read, or because he or she will be the target of controversy from either side. Personally i am glad you stepped forward and took it on you to close this discussion. While i may not agree entirely with the outcome, i found the deletion rationale more then satisfying. It was well versed, took both sides arguments into account, and above all, it showed you at least read (part of) the discussion before deciding. Again, well done. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Didn't see this earlier, but yeah. I wanted to barnstar you for daring to do it, but I didn't know which barnstar to use... :P SS✞(Kay) 07:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Fred the Oyster

Sorry for not dropping you a note sooner. I just saw your note about the duration of talk page protection on ANI, so I think we're good. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all - thanks for fixing my goof! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Deletion_reason, thanks Gigs (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

changing standards

When I first started participating in RFA (Spring 2006), I adopted 3,000/3 months. Some saw this as too high. Certainly I opposed a candidate who was actually ready at the time, but I was into "setting high standards." Since that time, I've seen opposes for "< a year." People have made arguments for 6,000/6months based on the expansion of the admin role since Spring 2006. I still hold with 3,000/3 and advise waiting till 6,000/6. Don't know why people still insist on litmus tests. Some editors with >20,000 edits will never have a clue, others with < 3,000 are quite clueful. I look for indications in the candidates edits and talkpages. Dlohcierekim 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I guess you have to have some experience, but 3,000 edits is easily enough to show the community you know what you're talking about. You're right - some candidates who have 20,000 edit have no clue and should never have the tools, but someone with less that 3,000 may have shown themselves to be capable of using the tools wisely. I still don't get why people use a minimum number of edits - it's kinda meaningless when you get about 1,000-2,000. Jamesofur has easily enough experience to be judged on whether he has a sufficient amount of clue or not, it's sad that some can't see it. In my opinion, people opposing him due to number of edits are either creating a battleground mentality, or simply express no clue themselves. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

snerk!

[11] have a red bull, there's a good chap =0 –xenotalk 20:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I know - I couldn't believe it when I realised what I'd done wrong! I think I need an early night! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Evil crats strike again :D -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Same ol' same ol'

User:MidnightBlueMan still reverts, as he has just done here with no discussions or reasons given. You have been very clear to him in the past that this behaviour won't be tolerated. --HighKing (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Will you stop following me! The revert was because yet another editor with a thing against British Isles removed the phrase from that article without discussion, so I've reverted it. If you want to discuss it then do so at the article Talk page. That same editor also removed the phrase from other articles, which have been subsequently dealt with by other editors, but I note you are not complaining about them. I am not aware of any sanction against me personally that would prevent me carrying out such a revert. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Following you? If I was following you, I wouldn't have missed this revert where you returned to the article you edit warred on, and reverted another editor. --HighKing (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Reverting on the basis of a perceived bias of "with a thing against British Isles" is against AGF, and you've been repeatedly warned many times. --HighKing (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Ryan, you may have missed this initially. I'm also now drawing your attention to these comments on the Talk page where he refers to an anoymous IP as an anti-British-Isles editor, and refers to me as an editor "whose primary objective is to remove the phrase "British Isles"." This is tiresome, but only an admin like yourself can enforce the rules. --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

BI silliness

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force/Specific_Examples#Ref_the_ANI_thread. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson at Catholic Church

Pmanderson (talk · contribs) promised in December 2009 to avoid the Catholic Church article to escape a block for edit warring there. It seems that he has gone back there, posting comments and making edits to the article, in breach of his promise. I would take the opportunity to inform you that a case has been filed at AE regarding his participation in style guidelines, in breach of his arbcom restriction. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ping

I emailed you. Tony (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully taken care of, but see my email. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ditto: you've an e-mail from me. AGK 01:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Reconsider?

Would you reconsider this? Maybe taking on a note that it's a banned user?— Dædαlus Contribs 09:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Daedalus, he's a banned editor and his contributions aren't welcome here, especially when they're filled with rhetoric and drama seeking intentions. If a respected user here wishes to convey to Prodego that his actions were wrong, then that's totally fine, but CoM stirring up trouble when he's banned (for precisely what he did in that thread as it happens) isn't something I'm going to let happen. You're a very respected user - why don't you have a word with Prodego? I have every confidence that you'll make a significantly better job of it than CoM. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean restoring CoM's edits, I mean restoring Prod's. I've deleted edits by banned users before without deleting those by others who have responded to the banned user, not knowing they were banned.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Warning

Hi

Could you tell me what exactly I did to 'disrupt' Wikipedia. I made an edit that removed what I believe Wikipedia calls "weasel words", and you threaten me with an editing ban. 86.165.75.158 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Email

Please check your email. KnightLago (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're good to post your statement. KnightLago (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sent one your way. I didn't think the message was suitable for publication, primarily because of the secretive nature of the context. AGK 11:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The general election

It worked! I'm astonished. I asked Ged UK to unprotect it and he did and I created an editnotice and managed to get right through the election without having to protect it. Better still, there were plenty of very constructive edits from IPs and new accounts. Result. Btw, good look in your own election (I'll vote for you!). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I had actually followed your work there and was impressed. Unfortunately on election night, I had far too much coffee so wasn't really capable of doing anything! I like solutions like what you did - it's not the standard "protect" which puts a lot of new editors off, it allows editing from all to continue with little damage to the encyclopedia. It doesn't work in all situations and one requirement is a dedicated administrator to patrol the page - fortunately in this case you were on hand! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well hopefully we've got a few more productive editors out of it that we wouldn't have had otherwise. If that's the case (and there's no way of knowing really, but I'll be optimistic) then it was worth the hassle (even if I was up until 4am!). apologies for the belted reply! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

AN/I

Thank you for merging those sections posted while I was composing the request for review I stated I would be making in my unblocking statement. If you have any advice for de-escalating this, I would love to hear it. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries - it was good of you to bring it for review yourself. I'm trying hard to think how this could be de-escalated - there's far too much heat in the topic area, but I really don't know how it can be taken out, apart from taking a few of the main problematic contributors out of the equation completely (and by that, I certainly don't mean Lar - he is free to comment as an involved editor and I can't see any cause for concern regarding his editing in the area, he simply isn't neutral anymore). ArbCom might be the best people to handle this after all. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
When changing section headers, it is probably a good idea to add an {{anchor}} with the old title. –xenotalk 20:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you're right - I always forget to do that, it didn't cross my mind that it's probably linked to in notifications. Thanks for reminding me. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
And moreso, watchlists, page histories, etc. =) –xenotalk 20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
lol perhaps one of the silliest WP:SMS edits I've seen. I thought you said "x" because you were replying to "x"eno - fwiw ;p –xenotalk 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I had to inject some humour into proceedings as in my neck of the woods, when you blow a kiss at someone when they're giving you advice, it inevitably means that you're being sarcastic and antagonistic - I had to clarify that that wasn't my actual intent! (Plus, I didn't want you to get overly excited at the fact that super-stud Ryan Postlethwaite was blowing you a kiss, my girlfriend would be extremely jealous!!) ;-) Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. The one that always gets me is when I type "<tab><tab><end>re", then decide to edit my comment a bit, and then type "<tab><tab><end>re" again, leaving the edit summary "rere". Which as you may know is a derogatory remark on some places. =) –xenotalk 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed at with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Sent one. Best. Acalamari 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional party

2/0? Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Scibaby, GoRight, whichever banned user is currently proxying up all the pages? Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Ratel? Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added 2over0 - I'm not going to add banned users. They have no right to edit anyway, but if you have evidence you can present it anyway if the case is accepted. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ratel is not banned Polargeo (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to insist you add User:Lawrence_Solomon. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You may want to add user:Collect. Up to you. As I commented, this request in my view is premature, a bit anyway, so there's time. I applaud your effort just the same. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your suggestions. I've added all three users onto the list of parties. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC

There is already a very constructive RfC in progress, which you appear to have overlooked. The Arbcom action at present does not help matters. Polargeo (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There's been literally years of squabbling and disruption on this topic area - I doubt very much that the RfC will help at all. If the arbitrators think it will, the so be it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think your arbcom request is poorly constructed and comes at this topic from the wrong angle. If you were to base a request on the RfC. Which to be fair is the first proper review since the enforcement began it would be vastly stronger. Therefore you are acting prematurely. Polargeo (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I may not agree with the specific wording but I agree with Polargeo in substance. Premature, let the RfC go a bit, let the narrow request get answered. There is no particular rush I don't think... ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Honestly Lar, I think it's gone on long enough already (the dispute that is, not the RfC). Arbitration here is inevitable and I really don't see the need in waiting. True, one could argue that an RfC could help frame the arbitrarion case, but let's face it, the minute it hits ArbCom, the RfC is going to fly out of the window and it's going to be a free for all - Best we have that free for all now in my honest opinion. There's too many good folk like yourself being dragged down into this sorry mess now - best we let the committee remove the most disruptive users from the area and give the people enforcing the probation more teeth to help clean up the mess completely. That is of course my opinion which you are completely free to disagree with. You may perhaps be right and I'm certainly not trying to say that I know better - I'm just offering my opinion on the dispute. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion - your call, just want to make sure I wasn't overlooked

I was going to joke that I haven't decided whether I'm insulted or relieved not to be on the list. However, I realize it is no joking matter. If you used an edit count for your hurdle, and I don't meet the hurdle, I'm fine with the decision. As a consequence of work commitments, my involvement has been inconsistent, and very limited lately (my edit count overall is actually higher than usual, but I'm working on a non-CC project.) Although my edit count in the CC arena pales in comparison to many of the other names, CC articles are 7 of my top ten talk page edit counts. If this sounds like a plea for inclusion, it isn't. I'm quite indifferent to the inclusion decision, but absolutely not indifferent to the outcome. I think I can participate in the fact gathering whether I am named or not (if I'm mistaken, then I want to be named), but I don't want to participate as if I'm uninvolved, and then waste time on a sidebar discussion about my status.--SPhilbrickT 20:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Fancy sacrificing your "wiki career" for the good of the community?

You could put your name to my "view", at the CU&OS RfC, suggesting a method of counting that would have permitted the election of the required numbers of CU's and OverSighters... with the honourable exception of thee and me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) ps. Isn't it nice to know someone has ruffled more feathers than you?

Excellent view! I had been thinking of posting something of similar lines all day but hadn't got round to it. My thought is the same as yours - the neutral votes would mean very little to us, but they would mean a hell of a lot to many of the others (in some cases, a lot more neutral than support or opposition) - I think a better way of counting securepoll votes is needed. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Global warming

Hello Ryan. I have never edited a global warming or climate change article or its talk page in my wikipedia life. I commented as an uninvolved editor on the ArbCom page. I will no make a comment in this case. However you have omitted admin 2/0 from the list. Mathsci (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mathsci - I added your name because you have commented as an uninvolved admin. If you take a look at my statement, you'll see I note this and there certainly no claim of wrongdoing - I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of the request. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Ryan, did you think about including SlimVirgin as a party in your request? I was kind of surprised not to see her name there. --JN466 20:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks JN, I've added SlimVirgin as a party to the case. As I've already noted - I've added anyone with a cursory interest in the probation - mainly so they're aware, certainly not to show they are guilty. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I too will take this chance to "pop by your talk page"; but the purpose of my message is to convey how unspeakably angry I am at being listed as a party when my involvement is as an uninvolved administrator. AGK 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • What? Once again you fail to read into things properly. I've stated quite clearly that I've listed everyone, including uninvolved administrators acting in the area so they're aware of the request, not because of any fault. I'm not sure what your problem is Anthony, but you've been completely irrational with regards to me for the last couple of weeks - you seriously need to chill out. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I read the bold print note in your statement. I just think that that fails to mitigate the problem. Don't you think that it's fair to be aggravated at being named as a party to an arbitration case when one's involvement is as an uninvolved administrator? I'm sorry if I've came across wrong, but I can't help but feel very angry at seeing my name (and the names of other administrators) listed. As for the CU/OS vote, which I think is what else you are referring to: I raised a concern with you, again in what I thought was a reasonable way; so to tell me that I'm behaving inappropriately or going on some insane witch-hunt against you is a bit silly. I thought we knew each other well enough to be able to easily criticise one another without it being taken the wrong way, no? AGK 18:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Isn't that fair to say? AGK 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, two key CC editors not listed as parties are User:KimDabelsteinPetersen and User:Guettarda. I don't know to what extent they've taken part in the probation, but any CC RfAr would have to include them as involved. SlimVirgin talk contribs 11:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, it's been the better part of a week since SlimVirgin asked this. I find myself in agreement with her about Guettarda and KDP. Were you planning to add these editors soon? If not, why not? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oversight

I'm sorry for the results of the the election, and I can't help but feel that maybe my scenario may have had something to do with that. I apologize for offing an overly broad question with too much grey area, because it may have had an unintented negative consequence in some voter's minds. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wood for the trees

You tagged Ola Rapace as unsourced, but you left in this vandalism from February. Fences&Windows 00:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Hello

Just letting you know that that Facebook friend request you just got is from me. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Listing me as a party in the CC case

Could you give your reasons for listing me as a party in the CC case. I've never edited CC articles besides maintenance. I've only commented on three probation enforcement requests as an uninvolved admin, in a ten days period, never got myself involved in disputes between uninvolved admins. And now I am listed as an 'involved editor' in a controversial high profile case. I do not want to have anything to do with this case, and I've done to thing to have to. Cenarium (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The return of GoRight?

A few months ago, you indefinitely blocked User:GoRight following this AN/I discussion. A newly created account, User:TheNeutralityDoctor, has been reported to WP:SPI as a possible sockpuppet of GoRight, based on behavioural evidence. Your views would be welcomed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Speed of Light

Recently the sanctions on Brews was lifted as well as the restricitons against Count, David and myself however these have not been added to the arb case. Can you please look into this, I'm loathe to be blocked for a missed motion that wasn't recorded. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Regarding the (former) Michael Guillen article

Dear Ryan Postlethwaite, Please forgive me if this is not the most graceful way to contact you, but I am lost in the maze of Wikipedia protocol. I read somewhere that you had something to do with the removal of the article about Michael Guillen (self-styled science writer). If so, I want to thank you for doing this. Last I checked it, it was nothing more than a puff piece for an overhyped wannabe science writer. When I tried to make it balanced, one of his henchpersons just reverted it back to the self-serving puff piece it had been. I am glad to see it gone, and frankly hope that nothing replaces it.

I'm just curious about the story behind its removal, and that's the only reason I'm writing you. If I should be writing you via some other means or some other page, please forgive me and tell me what is best and I'll contact you that way in the future.Daqu (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users

I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 03:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi Ryan! Logging in with my alternate account to let you know I've sent you an E-mail. Best. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 16:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Roux

Hi, Ryan. You around? Roux has asked for an unblock. It's being discussed at ANI. Seems no one's told you.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ryan Postlethwaite.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Ryan Postlethwaite.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ryan Postlethwaite 2.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Ryan Postlethwaite 2.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ryan and Adele.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Ryan and Adele.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User: Spartan

Can you unblock me now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.86.207 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How about now? 96.50.86.207 (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. Does AWB count as an "automated program"[12]? Thanks! 67.80.250.138 (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Community enforced administrator recall

Template:Community enforced administrator recall has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 15:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rfaprod

Template:Rfaprod has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RFCNDiscuss

Template:RFCNDiscuss has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RFCNdiscussion

Template:RFCNdiscussion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RFCNno violation

Template:RFCNno violation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet - would you be interested?

Hey. I'm proposing a Manchester wikimeet on 24 April - would you be interested in coming along? Mike Peel (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ori-Pei for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ori-Pei is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagle hound until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Graham87 05:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet in June

Hello. The next Manchester wikimeet will be sometime in June (date TBD) - would you be interested in coming? See Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 8 for details. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Orphaned non-free image File:Front magazine cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Front magazine cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Auntie Beeb (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Blank

Hi Ryan, could you please delete my user page? Thanks, America69 (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I rushed into that. Let me first read wikipedia guidelines. Ignore the previous. Sorry and will get back! America69 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jade Cole

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jade Cole, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ApprenticeFan work 13:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Coronerreport (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

MSU Interview

Dear Ryan Postlethwaite,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.34.167 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

File:ANI screenshot 2.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ANI screenshot 2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:ANI screenshot.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ANI screenshot.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Ryan Postlethwaite a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow, it's been five years since your RfA! Happy adminship anniversary, Ryan! :) Acalamari 10:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow, it was five years since I became an administrator?! How time flies! Sadly, I now have a life (!) and have little time for the project and I suspect I'll never be active again - I enjoyed my time on Wikipedia though, although it did seriously impede on my social life! How are things Acalamari? Are you still active? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Boo real life. Boo socialization. How's law school going? MBisanz talk 00:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Haha, so true. Yeah, law school is going well - I finish my law degree in June and then I have to do a one year course to specialise as a solicitor - I have a couple of jobs lined up as well! How about you? Are you working yet? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, bro! 207.158.9.208 (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I finish the JD in May, then an internship at a firm (fingers crossed on a permanent offer), then an LL.M done in May 2013. The legal market over here is miserable; congrats on finding work in the UK! MBisanz talk 18:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

E-mail

Hey Ryan, I e-mailed you about something. :) Best. Acalamari 23:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive23&oldid=1144610849"