User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive14

Thanks

That's just bizarre how things went down with Dlae... I'm used to insults from random vandals, but being told to piss off for a warning is a bit new to me... though I do find this kinda funny. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what his problem was to be honest - it's not the best way to react after a civility warning. According to him, you're not too bright - I've got a slight feeling it might be the other way round! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 20:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, I would have been happy to apologize for that first note (which I've done anyway), except he responded and removed it before I had a chance to see it; I compared diffs, and sure enough, I was in bed when he was responding. I admit to being slightly in the wrong with the initial message, but damn if his response wasn't all kinds of inappropriate... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but this is the crème de la crème! I nearly choked on my tea when I read the edit summary! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:-O I didn't see that! Unfortunately, I think the way he's going, he's cruising for another block. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Missed

Thanks for saying that Ryan. I missed Wikipedia too. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam

Just a note to say 'thanks' for taking the time to comment at my Commons RfA, which closed successfully. Please let me know if I can ever be of help, either on that project or this one. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

I just templated your mentee PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs) for a BLP violation on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification but please see my response on his talk. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Old Yeller (1957 film)

I am fully capable of placing warnings on users talk pages of edits whom I revert. Thank you. --Charitwo ^talk 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to come here with an attitude like that. It was obviously a mistake as I thought I'd rolled it back. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No attitude intended, just very particular about making sure I follow all the steps when I get into a routine. Sorry if you took it as otherwise. Cheers. --Charitwo ^talk 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hate-sources

The project is currently rife with these things, as the section starter of Robert Spencer suggests. But it goes much deeper than articles simply retailing material liable to incite hatred - because many of those so keen on these sources are also keen to give themselves and others ethno-specific labels - and savage anyone who objects. But you're right that it's extremely dangerous to challenge any such behaviour. PR^talk 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Shawqi Omar --- deleted article

Hard to tell what exactly was speedy deleted here, but do you have the authority to restore the history of Shawqi Omar to me anywhere? The deleting admin has retired. I was planning to recreate at least a stub as he now has a case before the U.S. Supreme Court; q.v. Florence, Justin (2007-12-14). "Whose Prisoners Are They, Anyway? The Americans you've never heard of who are being held in Iraq". Slate. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). -- Kendrick7^talk 23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kendrick, I've restored the article and put it in your userspace at User:Kendrick7/Shawqi Omar - sorry but it was only one edit and it doesn't look very good, but there are a couple of sources you might be interested in. Do what you do best, then move it back into mainspace at your will. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Check your e-mail, I've sent you a message. —Jonathan 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the email - I've replied. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again for the block for our school. If you were one of my students, I'm sure I would be putting stars on your paper... or maybe a barnstar! --EtonTeacher (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all - thanks for your efforts to combat vandalism from your school, it's certainly appreciated. Now you've made an account, why not edit youself? We could certainly use some new users like you, and you look like the exemplar person for the job. Even if it's just the odd typo or format channge when you're reading - it'd be great to have you on board. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome note and compliment. I already am on board. I have another account which I use for making some edits here and there as time permits. It's nothing huge, but at least I can take pride in positively contributing to such a great effort. I chose to make and use this screen name for requesting the block because I didn't feel comfortable mixing my professional life with my private life. Cheers!  :-) --EtonTeacher (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) PS... Don't worry, this account will not be a sockpuppet. I might use it once in a rare while for work related efforts, such as showing students how to constructively edit Wikipedia! --EtonTeacher (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you put in the block as requested, but user:209.254.252.186 still has the sharedIPEDU template. Should it be the schoolblock template? If so, could you change it, please? Thanks again and again!  :-) --EtonTeacher (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey again - to be honest, I didn't leave a block notice. We use notices to show a user that they have been blocked, but in this case, there was no-one really there to see the notice. In the case of a shared IP address like this, no-one is likely to see the talk page, but the sharedIPEDU template is useful for users should the block expire. The only thing people from you address will see is the block notice when they try and edit, which includes my block log entry, in this case being the {{schoolblock}} template, so if they do try and edit, they will have all the information available to them about how they can edit from this IP with a username. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. --EtonTeacher (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Thank you for stepping in with calm words. I have been frustrated, and would like to just move on. I have already lost 2 hours of valuable editing time dealing with this and would just like to continue writing my article. As a non-involved third party, is it within policy for you to keep an eye on both user talk pages (1, 2) to be sure this does not continue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, appologies if I sounded rude - I just think you both needed your heads banging together. I'll keep my eye on the talk pages and hopefully this will be the end. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, and I appreciate your offer and continued help. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though other third-parties are willing to let the matter drop. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of articles to smear others

I'm disturbed by what's happening in this article. As best I can tell, the cartoon inserted has nothing to do with the content of the article (I'd have thought it pretty obvious that anti-semitic cartoons have no part in Media coverage of Israel, either in the UK or anywhere else in English-speaking world).

Even if that were a "content-dispute" that you've no wish to involve yourself in, it would appear that the cartoon and the caption are an attempt to smear a British artist as anti-semitic. There's nothing whatsoever to indicate that he is anti-semitic, his cartoon bears no obvious relationship to anti-semitism - and complaints to that effect have been examined and rejected by a "neutral body", the PCC (Press Complaints Committee). How, other than engaging in a bitter edit-war (which, as I keep telling people, and despite accusations, I've never had any part in) is it possible to stop encyclopedia articles being abused in this fairly gross fashion? You will have noted that there are editors around who seem to delight in making these accusations on utterly baseless grounds - behavior that damages collegiality, wastes huge amounts of time, and can only be harmful to the project. PR^talk 13:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Input, please

Do you think Portal:England/Topics is ready for the portal's FPO nom? Qst 13:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, there's a few other little things I want to get sorted first - Can I have until tonight to review it again? (I'm just about to drive home from uni). Ryan Postlethwaite 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not in a hurry :) Qst 13:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you go onto IRC when you get a minute, please. Thanks, Qst 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	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) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

David Miliband

Hi, great shout on protecting David Miliband. Just a courtesy note to say that following a talk page compromise I have lifted the protection. Please feel free to slam it back on again if fresh hostilities break out! TerriersFan (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah brilliant, I'm glad they've come to a compromise. Thanks for sorting the unprotection out, hopefully we won't need it again :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

User:Little Cutie is impersonating me Richardson j (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, how do you know he's impersonating you? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now - I've blocked them indef. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Richardson j (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Unfortunately, I have to admit I have made two blunders in the past few days which I'd rather forget. The first, over at your suggestion of creating admin-like revert tools for non-admins, I'll admit was entirely my fault. I am now in big support of your suggestion.

But this recent scuffle over at User talk:Jimbo Wales I hope I can be forgiven for. I was simply abiding by the official Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice). And seen as the link he provided me was in german, I couldn't possible suss it out. If Jimbo wants foreign messages on his page, that's fine by him, and I hope this is not yet another thing that'll go down against me. (Just thought I'd tell you since it was Mr Postlethwaite who saved the day again! ;-) ). Lradrama 13:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And it also appears in obeying one of the rules, I broke another, which was not to ammend anything on a talkpage. Ah well, life goes on... You learn from your mistakes. Lradrama 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I missed this post Lra, don't worry about it one bit - we all make mistakes and this wasn't exactly major, it's called being human :-) I think Jimbo clarified now that he wants foreign posts leaving alone, I can fully understand why you and several others removed it. Hope everythings ok with you, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal:England

I've made an edit to Portal:England/Topics, because other subsections of the portal like Portal:England/Categories and Portal:England/WikiProjects don't use the bullet points after the final word. Regards, Rt. 14:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah thank Rud, I obviously wasn't paying careful attrntion. Trying to get it upto featured status, hopefully we'll be there soon. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Portal:North West England any time... :) Rt. 14:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks! We all make mistakes. :) Maser ^(Talk!) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course we do. I've left a more detailed response at Ariels talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. :D Maser ^(Talk!) 23:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way I can find out what the community thinks of me so I can know how to improve myself as an editor? Maser ^(Talk!) 23:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we have Wikipedia:Editor review - it's fantastic, and lets people review you, in a nicer environment than RfA. Thinking about it, I might ask for one now :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Grrrrr slow fingers! Ryan beat me again, lol. :D Ariel♥Gold 23:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

You got )'s instead of }'s? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I've been trying to work out what I'd done wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-stalking

I appear to be being wiki-stalked by two other editors. One of them may have stopped after I challenged him but this one is positively threatening. My carefully written objection to the proposed re-listing of this as a "Good Article" gets the kind of unpleasant triviality I've had a lot from this editor. I'm sure you'd prefer that you deal with it. PR^talk 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll deal with it of course, but could you clarify the major problem regarding stalking? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There was an incident at Saeb Erekat that simply denied the truth of the careful examination of the sources I'd applied and detailed. I felt this was calculated to provoke an unnecessary and unhelpful argument. However, I'm not in the habit of bleating, I'm looking to administrators to either protect, or empower others to protect, the integrity of the project. I've drawn your attention to the situation there before, the score is now 1 editor wishing to imply this (living) subject is a lier, and 7 against. We could be forgiven for thinking the project is a play-pen, with white-wash stories according to the (condemned) actors, by editors apparently from the same mould. PR^talk 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

PR, this is a content dispute, with a few conduct issues as well. Have you considered filing a request for mediation on the Palestine-Israeli topic? I think it would be a good idea, we need to nip this in the bud before the issues get too big and ArbCom have to get involved. With respect to Erekat, there's not one single source that suggests he lied, and many sources that discuss his way of thinking when determining the numbers that died - he really shouldn't be labelled a liar in the article, that would be a serious BLP violation. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute - it's an editor who tramples sources and BLP. And tramples other editors - 7 in this case. I once wrote you and pointed out the massive POV editing from supporters of Israel and the fact that these editors were getting administrator protection. You told everyone I'd sent you something "weird" - well, here we have an example of exactly what I told you! PR^talk 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Informing?

Actually the editor who listed those RFA's opposed mine, so it's not much of a cabal :) --Melburnian (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays Ryan Postlethwaite/archive14. Have a Happy New Year !

^{Rlevse:) (T/C)}

Likewise Ryan, take care good buddy. I have more to hand out after I fix the ones I've already goofed ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had these

Yummy :)

Mhh, I wish I had some of these lovely Jelly Beans. Hope you're feeling better :) Qst 13:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Merry Christmas, as well :) Qst 23:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Popcorn

the protection to popcorn has expired, is it safe to remove the template. Nevermind. some one took it off. --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal:England

Okay, Ryan — I've done some work for the selected biography bit and in the news bit of the Portal, however, I haven't linked all of the news to their story on the BBC, because I cannot find the links anywhere, as it quite old news now, but I'll have another look at that shortly. If to want to discuss it more, I'm on IRC, and will be for best part of the day. Qst 13:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation on Eugenics in Showa Japan

Hi,

I could not help noticing your lack of interest in this topic as your last evanescent comment was made almost a month ago. If you do not have time, just state it clearly and I will simply quit this useless process which, so far, is a mere remake of the meaningless quarrel I had for three months with user:Azukimonaka. --Flying tiger (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I appologise - my Wikipedia time has been very limited over the past few months with real life commitments, and I havne't been able to sit back and fully evaluate the mediation (which is extremely important). I'm off for a couple of weeks now, so I hope to push it forward in that time, so please stick with me on this one. Sorry once again, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, «Real Life» is sure better than anonymously editing or being involved in edit wars with anonymous teenagers from the other side of the world... OK, I 'll wait for some time. --Flying tiger (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd let you know of something...

RoryReloaded (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--RoryReloaded (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
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) 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

More wiki-stalking

It looks as if I'm being wiki-stalked eg here. Being almost entirely muzzled as regards editing articles, I've brought some historical/factual matters to people's attention in TalkPages, always with fairly considerable care that the points I'm making are defendable. I fail to see the point of following me round and denying the points I'm making. I find it particularily disturbing that "Jewish" is being inserted into my statements in an apparent attempt to make my points appear racist, when it would appear that it is my challenger who wishes to link the Jews to actions of extremely dubious morality and legality. PR^talk 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

About the IRC Arbcom

Unfortunately, Ryan, I am not a big believer in off-wiki communication. The progression of our debate in the "Giano restricted" thread was entirely predictable, as was the reaction to that thread on Giano's and Bishonen's part, and I might have been motivated to forewarn you had I thought it would be left to the two of us relative lightweights to battle it out. I had genuinely hoped that other editors would appear with alternate perspectives, but that did not happen, nor did any of the arbitrators choose to add their comments. Perhaps I am not the only one who saw the train wreck coming.

There is no use crying over spilled milk. I strongly encourage you to take a step back and start looking at the "big picture" of the project. It does not matter how many sockpuppets edit, as long as they edit well. It does not matter if people are universally polite if they cannot put a grammatically correct sentence together. It really, really doesn't matter if people are friends and live in love and harmony. This project is all about the encyclopedia. Yes, it needs deletion of junk and handholding of newbies and some interpersonal relations stuff. But it does not survive without quality writing. Giano and Bishonen are the most visible of the people who have left over this current round of nonsense. I personally am aware of several others. This isn't strictly your fault, it is even more the fault of those who stood by and let you put forth an argument that was so clearly focused on putting behaviour over productivity. There were a lot of people watching our exchange today. Many of them have had their suspicions confirmed. Risker (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a huge threaded debate about this, I have my opinion, and you obviously have yours. The problem we have is that people are held to certain standards here. Over time we have developed a civility policy here which all users are expected to adhere to, whoever they are. If we had no disruptive behaviour here, all would be fine and we would be able to get on with the most important things that you talk about, but that isn't the case with such a big project. Giano alienates people and takes things too far, he's had warnings in the past and had plenty of opportunities to stick to what he does best, but there comes a point when the warnings stop and action has to be taken to stop disruption that many people believe he is making. His edit warring over the admin IRC page was ridiculous, and it's part of long standing behaviour in the Wikipedia namespace that is quite frankly not needed, and shouldn't be tolerated. Yes he does a great deal of excellent article work, but his meta discussion edits are far from helpful. No-one is above and beyond any other editor here, and it's reached a point when his wikipedia space actions have to be stopped - I stand by this, and will continue to do so should he return (which I obviously hope he does as he's an asset to the project with respect to his article writing). Ryan Postlethwaite 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Dear Ryan Postlethwaite, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).

Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E ^talk 12:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tennis Portal

Hey RP, I've made a few changes per the FPOC for the tennis portal. If you disagree with them, no problem. Rt. 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, don't disagree with them in the slightest - they look really good - thanks for sorting it for me, I'm contemplating how to make it more interactive, but struggling. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's fine as is. But if you want to, you could add some icons next the the bullet points in the subsections, like in the topics section on Portal:Bulgaria for example. But really, it does look good. :) Rt. 20:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for catching the image problem, but you still need to protect the image with appropriate templates so that the Main Page isn't vandlaized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for that - I've never updated DYK. It should be cascade protected, but I've protected it for 9 hours anway and added the protection templace. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the page itself only works if the content is saved locally, rather than on Commons. Nine hours will probably be long enough, but I have updated DYK some mornings where it had been 10 hours since the previous update. Thanks for taking care of the update! --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology and completely unrelated question

Ryan, I apologize for my misstep in bringing RFAR issues to your talk page. It appeared to me at the time that that section of the RFAR had become a conversation between the two of us and might best be off the RFAR itself; it's clear that you did not share my thinking there, and I am sorry to have presumed that you might.

As to Mercury, he and I have had an ongoing conversation for some time on and off-wiki that has covered a lot of topics and, I believe, has established a level of mutual respect that may not be immediately transparent on-wiki. I can appreciate that someone unaware of our past discussions (particularly the off-wiki ones) might have found tonight's one a little odd. I shall leave it at that.

I've taken your advice and not bothered reading any further edits to the RFAR since the issue was raised; instead I have returned to my work on a partial rewrite and re-referencing of an existing article. It will (if all goes well) be ready for merging in a day or two. I have never tried to do that, and the only advice I have received is "ask an admin to do it for you." Could you please advise me where I should go when I am ready to insert the upgraded content to the existing article, while incorporating the history from my userpage? Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for you comments, they are appreciated and I wish to extend that I hope there is no conflict with us in the future. Well done with the rewrite, it's always a good thing to get a better article and what you descibe is a history merge that needs doing. Let me know when you're ready, and I'll happily perform the merge so the GFDL is met. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your assistance

I am the person who originally wrote the Wiki entry on Charles E. Spahr. It was my first entry, and I was and still am very green at writing these.

I have physical proof of everything that I wrote about Charlie with the exception of two small items that he told me personally (we are friends). The problem is that the materials are copyrighted, and I cannot post them on a site on the Internet for reference. I stopped working on the entry as his lawyer threatened me. My Constitution guarantees me the right to write, but one must be able to defend oneself if attacked through the legal system. I am a person of limited financial means and would have no way of doing so. Therefore, the entry sits out there unfinished.

I am going to write an entry on "Wild Bill" Potter, a murdered Cleveland, Ohio, USA city councilman in 1931. Having researched his murder extensively, I have all of the associated Plain Dealer newspaper articles as well as his coroner's report. His homicide file is missing. The building that he was murdered in still exists. I would greatly appreciate your coaching as I write this second entry. My user name is dcicchel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcicchel (talk • contribs) 12:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to sysop.js

Can you explain what was wrong with the existing dropdown box that is actually provided by the mediawiki software? —Random832 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not provided by the media-wiki software - it's a volunteer script. I simply provided a better one. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ryan Postlethwaite

Wishing you the best for 2008! Acalamari 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On a personal note, thank you for all your help and kindness this year, Ryan. I appreciated it. :) Acalamari 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

What is the best place to report an edit war and ask for assistance? ANI? Or, is there a better place that will get more immediate attention? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask here if you want - what seems to be the problem? Generally the admins noticeboard is a good place to start, or you can go to requests for page protection to ask for the article to be protected. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film) article, in which two editors have been warring over the plot synopsis, each accusing the other of adding POV. I think the plot synopsis is simply too long, and attempted an edit the other day, but this displeased the both of them. I warned the both of them for 3RR violation, and I hope that might dissuade them. But, article protection is probably the best thing until a consensus can be reached. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick action on this matter. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if I'm one of the editors that I take RepublicanJacobite to be suggesting as engaged in an "edit war," but I infer I may be, since I've made several edits lately. I have to disagree with RepublicanJacobite's description above: I don't think the problem has been a battle over POV, although the article does present POV problems -- almost inherently given the subject matter and the subtlety of the film, in certain respects. Rather, it's been a combination of disagreements over length, what's important and what's not, interpretation vs. description, and what counts as good writing, as well as POV. In particular, my last change, and the last change before the article was protected (and thus the one that I infer triggered RepublicanJacobite's objection), was a pure stylistic / anti-interpretive edit, deleting the phrase "a broken man" as a descriptive, when there is nothing in the film that makes that reading clear -- "dejected," "unhappy," "ashamed," etc. all would be perfectly fine, but "a broken man" takes a stronger stance than is clear from the film. I don't expect that Ryan Postlethwaite knows (or cares!) about this detail, and I'll post these points to the talk page as well, but I wanted to disagree here with RepublicanJacobite's description of the dispute. Also, as someone who's never had a page protected before (in response to my edits), I'm curious what the process is for deciding how and when to lift the protection? Do you, Ryan Postlethwaite, as the protector, review the talk page to see if there has developed consensus before lifting the protection? Or is it simply lifted as time passes? Any help (or pointers to Wiki pages on these questions) would be appreciated. Twins Too! (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The contentious issues are being worked out now on the talk page, and some other editors have gotten involved with good suggestions, so I think the page protection can be lifted. If you would be so kind. And, thanks again for your assistance. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Ryan, I wanted to get another evaluation from you, as I've gotten an offer from User:Wizardman to be nominated for RfA. I just wanted to see if you thought I was ready, or what I can do to get ready. If you think I'm ready to be nominated, you could talk with Wizardman about a co-nom. User:Rudget also expressed interest in nominating me a few weeks ago, so he might also be interested. But I leave it up to you: if you feel I'm ready, I'll go up for adminship. If not, I'll keep working at it. Thanks! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to eavesdrop Ryan, but if I may... J-stan, I think that you should be asking yourself "Am I ready" not "Do you think I'm ready". If you don't have confidence in your own abilities, it may not be the right time to go for the mop and bucket. Then again, I'm only knowledgeable about myself, and you should take everything I say with a grain of salt. :P KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Oh yes, a belated happy holidays to you Ryan. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was only asking because I was kind of in the middle of a task in admin coaching, and was wondering since I got an offer if he thought that I was ready, even though the task wasn't completed. I think I could be trusted, I just want to make sure that Ryan, as my coach, thought I was ready. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! Yes that does make sense! As I said, what I say should be taken with a grain of salt. ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I found it funny when you stated "I'm only knowledgeable about myself", and your username is KnowledgeOfSelf. HA! Well, I found it funny. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

lol, as it was meant to be! Sorry Ryan, we are using your talk page for completely irrelevant conversation now. ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Chill, chill chill - I've been trying to find the time to ask you if would like an admin nom for a while. Your admin coaching has been going fantastic and I'm proud to say I think you're ready. Would you like a nom? Please take into account KOS's point - do you peronally think you're ready? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'm ready. I'm actually kind of busy tomorrow morning (until maybe about 18:00 UTC), so we could do it now or tomorrow around 22:00 or 23:00 UTC, depending on what time works for the nominators. Keep in mind Wizardman's offer to nominate, and Rudget might still be interested; I just don't want to overlook them if they're still interested. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Wizardman got the RfA going: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J-stan. You can add your nomination there. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'll leave it to him. a little disapointed you let him nom, but c'est la vie. Good luck with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but thanks for all your help! (I tried giving you the mop and bucket manual, but it was gigantic, and it wouldn't include the caption. Sorry!) J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 16:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure you don't want to co-nom Ryan? I have no problem with it. Plus you'd probably have much better nomination than I since you're his coach. If not, oh well. Wizardman 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

OK I really screwed the pooch. How long do you think it will take for a devo to unscrew? JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

They're currently working on it - it was a good and proper screw up I've got to say! And they say no admin actions can't be reversed........ :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never been accused of doing anything small. :P JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle this one

We have a user CarolSpears (talk · contribs) who has become unhappy with the way her odd edits are being handled. You can see much of the discussion on her talk page under the heading #Hieracium albertinum. Part of it is simply that she has decided each page on Hieracium should open with a quote (e.g. Hieracium lachenalii). Part of it is that she quotes she is choosing are sometimes unrelated to the article, such as the quote about dead puppies ([1]).

Now she is adding "not a part of project project" banners to WP:PLANTS ([2]) and to "her" articles on Hieracium (e.g. [3], [4], etc.), and has added an odd gallery to this talk page ([5]).

She has deleted comments critical of her work ([6]) and posted this nomination to DYK ([7]) which is a link to a discussion on a talk page.

Frankly, I'm at a loss for how to handle this. I did post a vandalism1 warning for the WP:PLANTS edit, but the rest makes no sense to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm going to bed in a sec, but I'll take a look in the morning so leave it with me :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Any progress yet? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I don't think what she was doing was intentional vandalism - it was merely disruption. She's disrupting wikipedia to make a point. What she's doing isn't really block worthy at the minute, but it's certainly worth keeping an eye on her. I'd possibly suggest filing a request for comments about her editorial disruption, she just doesn't seem to get what our project is about. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget

I've been his admin coach lately -;) — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I do appologise for stepping on your toes - I didn't realise! When you think he's ready, let me know because I'll offer a co-nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, I know you probably didn't know. Actually, several people have offered to nom him, so I'm leaving that up to him. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going next week to RFA, but I've already have 4 other offers. I'm really stuck as to who to pick to do the co-nominations. :S Rt. 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it's upto you - I'm more than happy to offer one, but I'll certainly support you if you decide to choose someone else. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution. :) Regards, Rt. 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the other two co-nominators hasn't replied, so I'm going to offer the co-nom position to you. Would you be willing to do so? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Rt. 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So I was only a sub eh?! Of course I'll nominate you, I'd be honoured. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Rt. 14:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup stuff

Ryan, I noticed these semi-related rollback pages floating around. Maybe a move to a less-similar sounding title if the current proposal go through?

• Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges
• Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll

and just some cleanup in the user-space if your interested:

• User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Requests for rollback
• User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Requests for rollback/Header

MBisanz ^talk 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've just created those userspace pages for if the proposal is accepted - they're supposed to be the request pages that people can request rollback on. I was planning to move them to Wikipedia:Requests for rollback if the proposal was accepted. Thoughts? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That works, it follow the RfA, RfB format, but the shortcuts (WP:RFR, WP:ROLL, WP:RRP) all point to the failed proposal right now, so they'll need to be redone (ideally the failed proposal should go on the talk page and that page should be a redirect). Also, WP:RR points at the railroad project, so they might need a see also at the top of their page. Other than that it looks good. MBisanz ^talk 18:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess what?

		The Original Barnstar
		I noticed you haven't had one for a few months, so here you go! Seriously though, this is for being a great editor, an excellent admin and constantly making me laugh :D Keep up the excellent work, man! Majorly (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow Majorly!! Thanks a lot for the barnstar, it's much appreciated - I'll have to think of more ways to make you laugh now :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on Usurping a Username:

Hi, as you're listed as an assistant for changing usernames, I wondered if I could ask a question. When I joined, I wanted the username 'Islander', however it was already taken, so I settled for 'TheIslander'. I now notice that User:Islander is dormant: it has no edits to it's name, and no logs. It therefore qualifies for usurption. I considered doing this, but decided against it because of the hassel with my old signature being plastered all over the place, but have since realised that this could be solved by simply reclaiming the 'TheIslander' account, and setting it up as a doppleganger, which just redirects to 'Islander'. Is this a good/bad idea? Also, one further question: would all user pages be ported over to 'Islander', including my sandbox (User:TheIslander/labs) and talk page archives? Basically, I'd like to usurp an account, but am worried about the implications, and can't find them listed anywhere in an easy to understand format. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated :). _TheIslander 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi TheIslander - I've checked User:Islander and it certainly is available for usurpation - it has not edits and no deleted contribs. When you get renamed, all your edits are moved across to the new account and every page within your userspace is automatically moved to the new account (including your user and talk page). It's not a problem with the signatures as when someone clicks on your all signature, it will automatically be redirected to your new user/talk page. The only problem with changing a username is if you've registered for things such as AWB or vandal proof, you'll have to re-register for them. All in all, it's basically automatic and not much hassle at all (although you'll have to wait 7 days). Hope that helps! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply ;). I have one more question: if I were to change to 'Islander', what exactly would happen to the account 'TheIslander'? Would it cease to exist, and be free for a new user to take (in which case I'd quickly re-register it to change it into a doppleganger); would it still belong to me (i.e. I'd still be able to access it with the same username/password, and treat it as a doppleganger); or something else entirely? Basically I wouldn't want to lose the 'TheIslander' account, I'd want to keep it as a doppleganger, so what would happen? Thanks Ryan :). _TheIslander 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be available, but most users who usurp accounts recreate their old username to stop other users creating it. I've changed my username and created the old one to stop it being abused. We've had a number of problems with this in the past, so re-register it ASAP after it's been changed. It's a completely legitimate use of a second account. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wanted to know; I shall be filing my request for usurpation shortly. Thanks for your help! _TheIslander 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Dear Ryan Postlethwaite, Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 34 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. I appreciate your support! I promise I will wield the mop wisely, and do my best to improve Wikipedia.

-- AKeen (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on WT:NAR

[8] Do tell. --Charitwo ^talk 15:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, what exactly would you like to know? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How it works, proficiency is key. :) --Charitwo ^talk 04:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA?

Hey RP, sorry to bother you again. I've informed Rlevse about my editing patterns over the next week or so, and believe if I could, transclude the RFA tonight? Would you be able to write your co-nom now? I know this is really short notice, but I appreciate your offer the same. Best regards, Rt. 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah of course, I'll do it now - is there one created already or shall I create it? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's the right title, but it's here. Thanks once again. Best, Rt. 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created it, good luck :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 20:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's beautiful. :) Rt. 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's gone live. *slowly progresses from biting nails to eating fingers*. :P Rt. 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

All said. Acalamari 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Back to you. Acalamari 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ryan

Hi, I was wondering if it was okay if I copied the design of your userpage to use on mine. It's really nice. Thanks. -- ~ Ryan A. Taylor || talk || contribs 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah of course - go for it! Ryan Postlethwaite 03:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- ~ Ryan A. Taylor || talk || contribs 03:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

New Tennis Article

It seems someone noticed my tennis officials article!

I saw that you have added a link from the portal page, as well as choosing it for January's selected article. I know it isn't the most engaging of topics, or one with the widest appeal, but as an umpire myself, I didn't think the one section in the Tennis article did it justice.

I'm still relatively new to wikipedia, and I have made it one of my goals to take this article on to at least GA status. I added it to the project's request for assessment page, but judging by the queue that might not mean much. I'm looking for a peer review and some advice on improving the article, and it would be nice to have the perspective of someone who isn't as familiar with the subject to give it a look over.

Your help would be greatly appreciated!--Greenguy1090 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I should warn you, I'm not really good at peer reviews, but the article has certainly got potential. Have you considered an official peer review? You'd be amazed at the help you'd get through it. When I chose the page, I chose it because I found it to be very informative and it looked like a quality article. It'd certainly be worth looking into getting it uptp GA standard. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! I'm going to start a request for a peer review shortly. The biggest thing I would like to know is how the article reads to a non-umpire. Being an official myself makes it hard to judge what information is really notable, and if there are areas where expansion would be helpful.--Greenguy1090 (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback notifcation

I've offered at the proposal to notify all the prior proposal commentors with talk page messages using AWB is someone could write a succint message. But now it looks like this proposal could close and lead to a new one.

• 1. Do you want me to do this and could you write the message? (as your a lead for this prop I think)
• 2. When would a new proposal open so I'll know when I could begin compiling the notification list?

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is something I didn't want to happen - skipping from proposal to proposal for no apparent purpose. If this doesn't succeed, no others are likely to. For me anyway, this proposal wasn't my prefered method, I simply created it as it was the only one with the slightest chance of consensus and the only one that is workable given that we really don't have enough 'crats to burden with this. There still looks like consensus with this proposal, it may still lead to it's implementation - but if this was to fail (even after some minor tweaks) then we really shouldn't create a new proposal - it wouldn't lead to any better outcome than this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the 2 main reasons this would fail are 1. Lack of notification (it soured people from the onset). 2. The strong focus on !votes, many editors hold to the idea that votes are evil, even though they are pretty much the norm at RfA and AfD. A nom done with extensive publicity and that maybe even combined the Support and Oppose section (a headache for the closing crat), might do better. Also, given the number of Admins de-sysopped for bad behavior, a large number of users seem scared giving them individual control over this sort of feature. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we have to demonstrate consensus to the devs - this method is the only real way we can do this - i.e. numbers. We could probably post a bug now and the devs would implement it - there is clearly overall support for the proposal as it stands and as you rightly say, many of the opposes are for reasons that aren't really related directly to the proposal. Restarting the discussion would just create a mess - we have many many community views now and in a week/2 weeks should have enough to put it to the devs to take a look at. If they implement it then great, if not, oh well but further discussion would be a waste of time. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Be serious

She doesn't want to her account to be known - simple as that. There's no point in her continuing this account if you are going to make the information freely available. How many RfA's have that exact tally? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the reason for this username change was real life harassment - she doesn't need identifying and your efforts to out her are quite frankly wrong. If she wanted to be known by her old account, there would be no need for this RfA. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, this is for her to decide. Please do not reveal any more information. — DarkFalls ^talk 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't appreciate that you accuse me of trying to out her. I don't see and cannot see how the tally from her prior RfA is going to contribute to revealing who she was. The fact that she did not abandon her prior account is on WT:RFA. Her contribs are there, as even she has pointed out. My purpose in the comments I wrote is not to out her, but to demonstrate that this is completely unnecessary. I would be most happy if the RfA were withdrawn and deleted. ^Avruchtalk 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The intention is good, but revelation of any information without permission can be damaging. There are better ways of demonstrating the pointlessness of the process than posting it onwiki. Try email next time please. — DarkFalls ^talk 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree in many ways with DarkFalls - I don't think it was your intention to out her, but that was the overall effect. This is one case where her previous username really can't be put into the wrong hands. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please, this was my decision and the less drama the better. Keilana^talk_(recall) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm disturbed by the belief that I intended to reveal her prior identity. I have removed all comments that could lead directly that result, and I will follow it up with an e-mail to Ryan to clear up something that I believe he is misunderstanding. ^Avruchtalk 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD dropdown menu script

Hi, there's been some discussion about your recent edits to MediaWiki:Sysop.js on its talk page. Could you please have a look there and comment? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the notification - I thought I'd watchlisted the page when I made the edit, but obviously not. I've replied on the talk page. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

New email

Hey, Ryan, my internet is being a right pain the arse and I can't get on to IRC, and I need to ask you something, so please check your email inbox in a few minutes. Qst 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try, hotmails playing up though. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Email sent... Qst 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Schooling for salting

I've created most of the instructions for salting in User:Acalamari/Test, and it can be moved to Wikipedia:New admin school/Salting whenever necessary. Would you mind reading what I've written to fix some errors I might have made, or add some things I might have missed? Also, I decided to cover transclusion as well as the "protect" button feature. Thanks Ryan! Acalamari 20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your new RfAr

Ryan, greetings. Just saw your new RFAR. I'm glad to see somebody with your experience trying to quiet the battleground. But I'm wondering whether the RFAR will be perceived as too broad. There are numerous I-P articles at various stages of contention. (For instance, you didn't mention Battle of Jenin or Palestinian people.) An Arb case could then draw in too many parties, etc. Perhaps you have a way to narrow the scope, either with a focus on specific articles or individuals? Or maybe an RfC would help engender a conversation about how to modulate the situation in a broad swath of articles? I'm not objecting to your RFAR per se, just trying to point out objections you are likely to face. Thanks and good luck. HG | Talk 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG, thanks for your points. The problem with these articles is we get the same contributors edit warring over the whole topic - it's very hard to decrease the scope as then we miss key issues. I didn't give a full list of problem articles in the request, this can be brought out on the evidence section should the case be accepted. A year ago it may have been an issue, but the arbitrators have recently begun offering remedies that cover large subject areas and large number of contributors. Stopping disruption in the areas with greatest problems will probably have a knock on effect in the other articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've objected to my presence in this arbitration, but I don't blame you for including me. If I'm found to have wilfully (or even accidentally) practised any of the monstrous bad practises seen in another editor, I will deserve an indef-block. PR^talk 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

An inclusion of your name as a party to the dispute does not mean you have been disruptively editing, it just means that you are part of the editing in these articles and have been in direct contact with people involved in the disruption - it's no big deal being a named party. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you've stated: "now all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption."

Now, I've been very, very careful, throughout the whole of my time at WP, not to edit-war (I can prove that the last accusation of this was totally false, with each of the 3 (4?) examples provided being good, solid edits taken up by other editors and are now parts of the respective articles). I feel sure that many of the other parties are not guilty of this either.

Furthermore, despite many strong accusations of "disruption", I don't believe any evidence for this behavior has ever been presented against me (nor, I warrant against many other parties to this arbitration).

I trust this case is not a back-door attempt to clear out one very, very poor Israeli editor and many fair to good editors who dare to criticise Israel. I trust this case is not a back-door attempt to finally intimidate everyone into silence on the subject of the I-P conflict, other than those who will edit (however tendentiously) in Israel's favour. It certainly seems very odd that a user in good standing has come forward to 'mentor' or 'help' the prime 'accused', an action that makes it appear the conclusion of this case is a foregone conclusion. PR^talk 11:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There could be circumstances under which I wish to state that, as best I'm aware, my mentor has had no reason for concern with my editorial conduct since the start of his mentorship of me. Or, certainly, none have been brought to my attention. Would I be correct in that regard? (You may feel I've been demanding and time-consuming and perhaps even awkward on your TalkPage, of course, but I assume you expected something like that when putting yourself forwards as your mentor). PR^talk 11:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I just realised, after avoiding Jaakobou for at least a month, I snapped at him for apparently wiki-stalking me on the 16th Dec here. My irritation may be better understood at the fact that he'd by then been following me around with his in-your-face denials, as in this case, where he arrogantly asserts that the Hebrew sources don't agree with what I've written in the answer to questions (but, as usual, makes no attempt to contribute constructively). This is almost certainly my most offensive edit (and likely my only one) since I tried to discover if he had a CoI at the Battle of Jenin in August, as you know all about. PR^talk 12:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

email

Ping. :) Rudget. 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, got it and replied. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Which other parties do you feel should be added to the page? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see this. PR^talk 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remove me as a party to a dispute that I'm not involved in; Thanks. Itzse (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A party to the case believes you are, and I would tend to agree - that's no opinion on whether there is misconduct from you mind. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what it means "believes"; either I'm a party or not. It's very easy to check the log and see that I'm not an involved party. I object to being dragged into a dispute which I'm not a party to; Thanks. Itzse (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's ok I moved my comment here, don't want to clutter your talk page.RomaC (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

[9]!!! Acalamari 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NSFW BTW. Viridae^Talk 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:-( I liked that barnstar, it was my favourite! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

I've responded to you at this TalkPage. I think the nonsense has gone on quite long enough. This is 8 editors now held at bay for 16 months by a single, hugely problematical editor who cannot understand consensus and is totally unable to understand the use of sources (or even electric fence policies such as BLP). PR^talk 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification PR, I've responded there. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. I don't know why it's taken such an unfathomably long time for pretty ordinary, kitchen-sink, two-a-penny common sense to finally break through at this article. It cannot do the project any good whatsoever to have this happen - I only trust some real lessons will be learnt on this one.

I have a request of you - my participation in a very important discussion elsewhere is being undermined by claims that I am "currently under mentorship for disruptive editing and abuse of sources" - would it be possible to state here that (while I may be under suspicion of the former), nothing has ever been proved and that's not what my mentorship is for. And I was completely (even spectacularily) cleared on the latter. PR^talk 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is another accusation been made against me. I've been very careful not to "troll" Jaakobou, whereas he (as I've mentioned) did start to wiki-stalk me (he stopped after I complained to you). I have to say, abuse of TW is truly trivial in the scale of things - you're not really going to claim that answers the case, are you? PR^talk 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I answered it on AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. You seem to be saying that an RfC is the next step - surely that's a step back down the escalation scale, with ANI as the last step before arbitration?

What's really important is that the personal abuse of participants is stopped at these "disciplinaries" (it's a change to have them aimed at me on someone else's case!). Without this degree of unpleasantness, I'm convinced we'd now have a much, much more focused and useful consensus at the ANI (ditto at many previous cases). I'm quite serious - if my ArbCom is re-opened (as I hope and beg), I plan to list some of the major accusations made against me by the other party - and the words "abusive", "malicious", "lying" and "cheating" might easily become very prominent in my contributions. But they'll be aimed at the parties (as they should be), not at the witnesses. PR^talk 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the arbitrators will only accept a case if it has an RfC to go with it - RfC is one of the final steps in dispute resolution - AN/I in fact is not part of dispute resolution in anyway so isn't really used when determining whether or not a case should be accepted. As I said at AN/I, this is heading to arbitration - I think that's safe to say. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Whew, that's a relief. Do I need an advocate? I might choose to stay completely silent on the subject. Could I post evidence of really gross behaviors to you for inclusion? PR^talk 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that you'd need an advocate - that's not what we really do in arbitration cases. Just collect evidence that you feel is relavent, and present it in a logical manner. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have protested the atmosphere at these "disciplinaries" over and over again. There are often the most outrageous accusations made against people presenting evidence, and this has happened again at the ANI on this case. The same thing now seems to be happening at the ArbCom "all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption."

So bad has it become that a serious chill is cast on anyone wishing to participate (it's very evident indeed if you wish to defend critics of Israel, I can't be sure whether it's actually wide-spread or not).

How would I go about adding other parties to this case? PR^talk 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you could pop the names here, I'll add them to the case. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that User:Kyaa the Catlord is quite disruptive at I-P conflict - but highly disruptive at any place where resolution is being attempted eg every single comment at the ANI just closed on this affair was partisan and unhelpful. Would you advise adding him to the RfA? PR^talk 14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. I think HG raises some good points about your RFAR below -but I also see yours as well, so let's see what happens. One notable exception to the the list of involved parties is User:Timeshifter -IMO he's caused major disruption on Second Intifada and I think his behaviour needs to be examined as well. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR Problems

Hey Ryan :). Could you please take a look over at the 3RR noticeboard - a user is trying to get me blocked for removing a picture which doesn't qualify for fair use. Cheers ;). _TheIslander 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, taken a look at it and removing non free content is exempt from the 3RR - clearly no violation there. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this decision. It is not "a clear violation of copyright policy" if a fair use rationale is provided. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The rationale you provided wasn't actually a rationale - it didn't explain why it qualified, as I point out on the talk page that you seem determined not to visit or comment on. Regardless, thanks for your help, Ryan, much appreciated ;) (and, taking a look at your userpage for the first time, I must say that I like your taste in work - Lakeland; home of 101 things that you don't really need, but so desparately want :P). _TheIslander 16:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, yes it was... Chrisieboy (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* This discussion should really be happening on the talk page of the relevant article, but (as long as Ryan doesn't object), I will carry on here, so that an admin can keep an eye on this discussion. This was the rationale you provided:

"Use in the article Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, which is a member of LINK, is believed to be fair, within the meaning of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.30 (1988 cap.48) in the United Kingdom and the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Pub.L. 94-553) in the United State"

That's not a rationale. It doesn't explain how it fulfills point 3a of the fair-use policy (" As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary"), or point 8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.", which the LINK logo on that article certainly doesn't). Understand now? _TheIslander 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Okay, where do we go from here. Shall I repost my 3RR report under LINK rather than Norwich and P/Boro. Three reverts is a clear violation (and you will also note the timestamp on the talk page).

"Logo of the Link Interchange Network Ltd. Arundel House, 1 Liverpool Gardens, Worthing, West Sussex. BN11 1SL

Use in the article Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, which is a member of LINK, is believed to be fair, within the meaning of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.30 (1988 cap.48) in the United Kingdom and the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Pub.L. 94-553) in the United States

The exhibition of low-resolution images of logos, to illustrate the subject in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell product or said image. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The further use of this image on Wikipedia is not believed to disadvantage the copyright holder in any way"

is a rationale. Understand now..? Chrisieboy (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To Chrisieboy - there is no way that a fair use rationale could be written for that image to be in that article to satisfy the fair use policy, so yes, it was removing a blatant copyright problem (even though it doesn't say blatant in the policy. The rationale you site is no where near good enough - a fair use image should be the subject of the article, this is not in this case so cannot be used.Ryan Postlethwaite 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that is rubbish. The Society is a member of LINK, which is in turn owned by its members. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Directly from the fair use policy: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". How does this image qualify under this point for that article? _TheIslander 16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please clarify that it is your understanding of that policy, as an administrator, that three reverts at Image:LINK.png in a twenty-four hour period, without the proper discussion, is not in breach of the rule. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, he was removing non free content that cannot be used in the article. Further to that, he made three reverts, you need to make 4 to break the rule (although this was not a anyway). Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for intruding, but that image doesn't qualify on that article. Rudget. 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Blnguyen

In the edit, I reverted a reference to a current event happaning in Australia where an indian cricket called an aboriginal australian cricket a monkey (a reference to sub human) the photo could be very insulting to some people and is generally not in good taste. I am undoing your revert.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough, this was there long before this incident - I will re-revert you. discuss this with Blnguyen. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Beat you to it Ryan. And pretty much replicated what you said. Perhaps all admins here are becoming "as one"... freaky... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"We are the Admin. Reverting is futile. Your will assimilate your POV into the collective. Your references will adapt to service us." EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You have just been introduced to the cabal.... Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Phew, I need a shower... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaait Symonds is aboriginal? Viridae^Talk 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Checked the link, he's not. Viridae^Talk 22:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes!

This! I've just watchlisted it, so you'll get my help there now! Acalamari 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I know - I'm pleased! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just done my first one. :) Good work, Ryan, to both you, Mr. Z-man, and everyone else involved in creating it. :) Acalamari 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback added

I would have liked to thank the person who granted my request for rollback at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback. However, based on your comment, "Done by someone...." it seems that it wasn't you and I'll never know who actually gave it to me! But thank you anyway for being so kind. --Mysdaao ^talk 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the only reason why I tagged it was because I went to grant it and someone else already had done! Happy editing! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You too! --Mysdaao ^talk 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RFR

Well, I prefer TW over the new rollback feature. Would you mind removing it from my rights? Obviously, if you could note that I requested this, and it wasn't "taken away". - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Viridae^Talk 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Viridae, you're a good guy. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Devs

You note that the devs are currently considering the consensus on the rollback proposal. How does someone contact the devs with points to consider? Hiding T 22:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, do you use IRC at all? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone off it. I've become enamoured with the on-wiki is best approach in recent weeks. Hiding T 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise to be honest, it's best to have discussion here - IRC's always good as a sociable venue however. Why I mentioned it was because you can go to #wikimedia-tech and there'll be plenty of developers in there. If not, I'll try and dig up an email address. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Re this note: thanks for contacting them, it might have been nice to be told how I could contact them myself. But I assume it was via IRC. I strongly agree with Hiding: from my very brief experience of IRC, I feel that wiki talk pages are far better.

Anyway perhaps you could pass on this small request re the recent protection mods for me. Cheers, RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's rather redundant now, but thanks. I had some rationales needed writing and then got sidetracked, and before you know it it has been implemented. All the best, Hiding T 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ryan, just a quick thank you for granting me rollback: I'll be sure not to let you down in your judgement of me. -- Geoff Riley (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thanks for the rollback

It's a bit faster than TW. Thanks. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice until now

Thanks for this, regardless of how short-lived it was. There really should have been guidelines in place before rollback was implemented though. -- ALLSTARecho 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Heres to you —Remember, the Edit will be with you, Always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A Note on the Non-Admin Rollback Debate

Hey Ryan,

Just a short note to offer my congratulations on the way you've handled the rollback debate. Your guidance of the whole thing has been exemplary and is a credit to you and confirms the trust the community has in you as an Admin. You've maintained your cool and handled even the most difficult participants with grace, style and poise.

What could have quite easily turned into the Mother of All Flamewars has remained controlled, constructive and positive largely due to your leadership and example.

Well done! Have you ever consider becoming a 'crat?

Xdenizen (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Practicing rollback

Hi Ryan. I added Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback to Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Can you help by advertising the practice place in a few more areas? Unless you think the current number (350+) will overwhelm that page? Most of those being granted the tool will know how to use it, but some won't and this should help them. Now - I'm off to start a sweepstake on when the number of rollbackers will overtake the number of admins... Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have requested arbitration in the matter of the consensus for rollback. Although it is not an arbitration "against" anyone, I think it fair to inform you as your name has been mentioned.--Doc^g 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Its amazing how one little thing can create so much drama Alexfusco⁵ 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I said all along. Sigh.--Doc^g 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The only drama is the people arguing and complaining on the talk pages, and requesting arbitration over such a "little thing". Sigh. Majorly (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So this is you saying we should all shut up and allow the end-run round consensus? Eh? I've had enough being hushed. Arbitration should settle the matter one way or another, and Jimbo seems to agree.--Doc^g 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 1	2 January 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter"	News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Scouting
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 2	7 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Stepping in after delay
New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam	WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind"
Wikipedia in the News	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) 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind.

Hi Ryan, Would you mind having a look at the Large Hadron Collider article, User:Homocion is continually adding unproven theories to this article. Most of it is fringe theory and is not verified, if you read here, you will see we have asked for the usual verifiability, and his arguments have been refuted by a number of editors. I left this message on his talk page, explaining the position as a final warning which was ignored. Now I can't use any of my admin tools etc, as it would be a conflict of interest as I work at CERN, but I think if you look through the talk page, at all times I have only asked for what is required by any information added to the encyclopedia. I have gone for third party opinion, and some of the guys from wikiproject physics have come in and have been ignored. Do I go for mediation next, as I've used all the tool I know of for dispute resolution, with the exception of RfC which is why I went to the physicists who would understand it better. Thoughts please? cheers ^Khukri 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

An Editor You Once Blocked is Being Discussed

An editor you once blocked is being discussed here. Your input might be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_John_Celona David in DC (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my part in the rollback mess

I wanted to make sure you saw my second reply (the first part, not the second part, since the diff includes someone else's edit) on the request for arbcom page. I also want to further extend my apologies to you and others about this. While I think a lot of this happened because of the nature of Wikipedia, I still find myself feeling really bad about it. And Doc, while his frustration is understandable, shouldn't really be saying some of the stuff he's saying about you. I'm also sorry for the things that can't be explained as the "nature of Wikipedia", such as anything I might have said to you that was uncalled for, like my comment on the technical village pump. You've handled yourself better than I did, better than many of us did, in this situation. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Ryan Postlethwaite, a special and sincere thanks for your support and confidence in my my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and you who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Tennis's featured portal nomination

The portal you nominated at featured portal candidates on 21 December 2007 has been promoted to featured portal status. Well done. You can view eventual comments at the nomination page. Regards, Chris.B (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy (Old) New Year!

Two weeks too late, you say? Not in the Julian calendar! Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

Smile

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Wikipedia day! NHRHS2010 talk 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Salting

Thanks for the move. :) I was getting ready to do that, but you beat me to it. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to write it too. :) Acalamari 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, I've just been spending the last few days trying to catch up on everything and your page was excellent - thanks for your help! Ryan Postlethwaite 04:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome: I was glad to help. :) By the way, I saw this edit, and I wanted to tell you not to feel bad about any problems that may have arisen from the rollback feature: all of your actions have been in good-faith, and I think that this new feature has been working well, and in fact, I've been doing my best to make it work, as have several other users. Cheer up, Ryan. :) Acalamari 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

True, it is working well, and no doubt in part to your great work with it. The problem is, people were upset by it, and obviously I didn't want that at all - I guess it's time to heal infected wounds, and I hope I can make it upto people. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)