This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
RfB
Hi mate. I've no problem with you opposing me, especially as I know you'll have no problem with me responding on a few things, lol.
I see from the tools that I have 58 edits to WT:RFA, but I'm a perennial reader of it; I just rarely feel that I have much to add to the discussions, as I'm as baffled as anyone as to how we can improve RfA and I dislike making edits for the sake of blowing my own trumpet. Yeah, I don't have a lot of recent experience with usernames, but I think I've a good record of determining policy and applying it appropriately.
All of that is fine and dandy and you say tomato and I say potato, but I'm puzzled and somewhat dismayed by your comment about me putting the hard graft in. I don't understand why you would say that. I put in a lot of time in admin work, why would I not do the same with Crat work? I've already said in my answers that I'd prioritise it. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the major thing we need to deal with is the latter part. There's a couple of points I want to make about it - You're one of the best article writers we have, and you love doing it - I don't want any of your crat duties to disturb the article writing. If you look at the work TRM has done in crat areas since passing, it's not great - it's far below the level I would expect of a new crat, especially when there's been times that CHU has been extremely backlogged. We have to be picky on RfB's, and if you were to pass, we most probably wouldn't get another new one for some time - I really need to be sure that a candidate will concentrate a lot of his time in the role. Sorry mate, I think you've got more important and enjoyable things to be doing in other areas and I don't think you'd put your heart and soul into it (I fear a similar situation to TRM).
My main concern isn't about your policy knowledge of usernames, it's about your interest level in them - unless they interest you, you won't stay at WP:CHU because it's a very repetitive task so I want a good amount of experience in other areas such as UAA and WT:U. I just don't see it in your contributions and I think if you passed, in a months time you'd pop over to WP:CHU once a week to do a rename where we need people far more active than that. It's nothing personal - I like you a hell of lot and I'd support you joining MedCom or ArbCom without hesitation, just not this. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter15:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Mate, I find CSD boring as hell, but as an admin, feel it's my duty to help with the backlogs, so I dig in and it interferes not a jot with my article writing. And there you just see the deletions, not the homework I'll do before using my tools, or the often extensive manual rationales and comments I always leave for incorrect taggers and frequently leave for frustrated newbies (as oppposed to vandals). I would not be at RfB if I hadn't thought this through carefully and I do have both the time and will to get my hands dirty. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
btw I hate 'oppose-harassing' with a passion, so I hope you don't feel I've gone over the top with this. I 100% respect your oppose and don't have a gripe about it. If you'd not mentioned the hard graft thing I wouldn't have bothered you, but I felt this needed a response. I'll draw a line here. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I've sent you an email about my lack of effort. Of course I'm disappointed to discover how you feel about my contributions as a 'crat, especially as a sidenote to an oppose, but please don't group Dweller in with me. Sure I may have bitten off more than I chew in wiki-responsibility terms, but surely any positive contribution is a good one? Anyway, disappointed for Dweller much more than for me, that you doubt his commitment. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It would have been nice for to have discussed this with me before using it as an example as why to not support Dweller. At least I'm still considered an "active 'crat", one of only 12. Anyway, as D said, this isn't intended to be oppose harassment. I'm gutted to discover an undercurrent of uncertainty about my abilities but I'll draw my line here too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moni3
Hey Ryan. Long time since I last ran into you. I very very rarely do this but still, I wanted to drop a note about Moni3's RfA. I don't want to badger you on the RfA page itself (though I guess I sort of did in my support note) but really this is one candidate for which your oppose makes no sense. Yes, it is easier to have AIV and CSD reports and XfD participations to evaluate a candidate. But it's not so much the experience itself that's important. Most of the time, these are just very convenient because you can tell from them that a user is clueless. The real important qualities of a candidate are really level-headedness, patience, intelligence, ability to communicate, understanding of the project. If you can survive the gauntlet of FAC with such regularity, you undeniably possess all these qualities and then some. Can you honestly say that giving her the bit is going to be a negative? She might make a few mistakes but she's got friends all around, she'll ask and adjust if need be. I feel like this is DrKiernan's RfA all over again (by far the RfA I fought the hardest for). Same sort of candidate, same sort of qualities. Can't say we've had much complaints about him... Anyhoo, sorry for the rant. Cheers! Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Pascal - long time no see as they say. I actually had a quiet look at your contribs a couple of weeks back to see where you were hanging out these days! I'm going to have to disagree with you on Moni. She's a great girl, but I really really want to see some experience in admin areas. Just a little would be fine, but Moni hasn't got any. FAC is all good and well, and her article contributions are great, but there's nothing in her contributions that indicate she'd make a fine admin. After she added some answers to optional questions, I changed to strong oppose and my rational here is really quite important. Her answers show she doesn't understand WP:BLOCK or WP:CSD too well at all - I think that at a minimum, and admin candidate should know the CSD criteria and know when to block, or the difference between a block and a ban. I feel quite strongly about this, so you're not going to change my mind - it's just two different wiki-philosphies and I think it's best to just agree to disagree. Anyway, I hope you're well in real life. Best regards, RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter02:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not as active as I was. Still do a bit of deleting now and then and I do gnome work on an alternate account but I haven't done serious article building in a while and I've removed a lot of project-space pages off my watchlist. But I see you haven't! All the best, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
DYK update
Hi Ryan, are you online? I know your not really one of the "regulars", but I've finished setting up the next update, and I believe it is ready to be updated, but I can't have access to T:DYK since I'm not an administrator. If your online, can you take care of the update please? But before you do that, the balance is slightly loose as the "On this day" section has more white space. Could you help fix that? Thanks, and I hope your online, RyRy (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, I'm wondering why when you closed this discussion with the consensus to place restrictions on Beta, I can't find a matching entry in the editing restrictions page. This concerns me because ArbCom declined the Beta 3 case since "the community is dealing with it" and there have now been (at least) 2 blocks of Beta citing the Beta 2 remedies rather than the community decision. If community consensus is to form a solid alternative (prequel?) to ArbCom, shouldn't we be forming a solid basis for admins to base their blocks? I've asked Daniel about this too - here. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Franamax. To be honest, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is a little out of date because admins often forget to update it when restrictions are placed on an editor - this is what happened in this case, and when reviewing the concensus and deciding there was support to ban bot edits, I forgot to add betacommand into the editing restrictions page. Here is the comment where I notified Betacommand of the editing restriction - please feel free to add it to Wikipedia:Editing resrtrictions. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, I have weighed in a little on the BC situation, unblocking him as he has been (since the community sanction) using what are being called "semi-automated" tools, so I think it is quite unfair that this "edits that appear to be automated" suddenly hits him when hits the wrong button once; I can say from personal use of twinkle that this can happen, it looks like what did happen, and he has assured me that it is what happened. As you were the one to summarise his community sanction, and are suitably uninvolved, if you do review my comments on this and think I have gone too far in unblocking, I'm all ears. John Vandenberg(chat)10:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I'm not in for long this evening. Frankly, I popped in just to check if I had anything urgent to respond to (I did... needed to apologise to/thank someone) and I'm just a little stunned by what you wrote at my RfB. I could wax quite lyrical here about my reaction, but I've not got the time. Suffice to say: 1) I truly respected your oppose, though was slightly surprised by elements of it 2) Your switch of !vote makes me think even more highly of you - having taken such a difficult stance, it must have been all the harder to switch it 3) Your faith in me means a lot and if I'm successful I'll do all I can not to make you regret it. Over the time I've spent here, my views have matured and I not only see the Project as an it, but also it being the sum of all its people. I'm tired and rushed and probably not making best sense, but for now, that's it, night night. --Dweller (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I just did this before it occured to me that this was not vandalism. However, I believe my edits (the edit summaries while spot-on when viewed from a certain angle notwithstanding; if you would be so kind to ignore them please) are improving the dab page. You were one of those who advised me to seek input from other people in such situations. Imho, the other version is clearly worse (read: less encyclopedic) than the simple and straightforward variant as I worded it. What to do here? Unfortunately, I lack the belief that explaining the situation to a user who has twice restored (once reverted from another user's edit) that version would have much merit. Also, I'm away from my PC until tomorrow, so I'd be grateful if you could take a quick look. user:Everyme13:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Everyme - good to hear from you. I'm of the thinking that disambig pages should be short and to the point - it's basically a list of articles that come under one generic title. If people want to know anymore about the topic, they can read the article. The key is that it should make it identifiable to the reader, but without putting facts in that should appear in the article. The problem is, what do you do now to keep it at your version? I'd normally suggest a content RfC, but I honestly don't think they work too well, especially on such a small dispute. A third opinion might be a good step here, but I wouldn't do anything unless your edit gets reverted again. Let me know if it does, and I'll go and have a chat with whoever has reverted it. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter17:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
But why do you bother yourself about me? Over the last month, I encounter three cases of Wikipedians enforcing policy in the most stupid & letter-conforming method possible. When I asked why, all I receive is a suggestion to RTFM. Royally pissed off at one & all, I blank my pages & protect them from stupid comments -- it was that or indefinitely block a number of Wikipedians for Stupidity. However, all this did was to show me no one gives a fuck whether I edit or not. (Didn't it ever occur to you to wonder why I did that before you left your routine comment??? Have you bothered to look at anything I have done in the last week? Or maybe you are just another Wikipedia hack, more interested in edit numbers than figuring out the proper thing to do.)
But I find it an insult that the lot of you sure are worried that a mediocrity like BetaCommand is treated fairly, while someone who has tried to add hundreds of useful articles is ignored when he leaves. (Had I wrote my edit summary in a different manner, would you have even bothered to contact me?) Maybe I ought to just delete all of the articles I have created over the LAST FIVE FUCKING YEARS & see if any of you care then. Until then LEAVE MY TALK PAGE ALONE. If you have to talk to me, email me. That takes more effort & brain power than templating one of the regulars. -- llywrch (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
llywyrch (who is obviously under a lot of stress) seems to have gone on break (hope it's not permanent - that would be a loss). Ryan, I'm not sure what happened here, but it might be best to leave it for now and let things calm down? I know people protecting their own pages annoys you, but sometimes it is better to let things drop. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I've exchanged emails with llywyrch and I'm ocnvinced this is merely a temporary issue. I do hope he returns soon because he's a fantastic editor who's been here longer than most of us. I think leaving him to it would be the best thing here as well upon retrospect. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I've just read this and this as well. Do you have an opinion on the original dispute that riled him so much? Addressing that would be really helpful, though I realise you are right about protected talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that; of course, my comment on RFArb was definitely unclear due to the term "regain", which probably was a poor choice of words. I guess the wording's just second nature to me because there were desysoppings in the case, and it's rare to see ArbCom ban someone from seeking adminship who never (rightfully) had it in the first place. I've changed the wording. Ral315 (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
He also used the same server February 8. Unfortunately, that talk page no longer exists. The only way to be certain is to run a CheckUser. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, e.g., provide diffs, but certain information does a way of... disappearing... 76.171.171.194 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your RFArb statement
My apologies, but I have already dedicated all the time to this issue that I could today. I also see Deacon used 1200 words, and Irpen, 1300... My post was a response to Deacon, and I am afraid it had to be so long to be a comprehensive reply to his post. If I see a new, shorter, refactored version by him I will see about shortening my reply. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You know right well that I don't do IRC, or email. If you owe EVula an apology, I have no idea about it. I won't be bothered whether you do or not. I simply said I'm saving the diff. Lately, and please take this the right way, I've found myself differing from you in several arenas, which is a total surprise to me. That doesn't mean you are evil-incarnate, I would never say that. But to post something, anything, on wiki, that says "I'm watching you offline", gets my hair to stand up. Keeperǀ7622:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Woah, it wasn't anything like that! I had logs sent to me of a group of admins completely slating me, my pictures on facebook and my name in their little channel. I misinterpreted someones name as Evula, and that made me upset because I've always got on with him extremely well, and I couldn't believe he said some of the things he was saying, especially as he's a bureaucrat. As it turns out, it was another administrator who said that - I'm still upset about it, because there were some really harsh things said about me personally, but less so because it didn't come from someone I respected as much as Evula. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Odd coincidence. When you told me that during my RFB you had "heard a few concerns off other people that said you wouldn't be active", I would have appreciated some honest, upfront discussion rather than leaving it to go septic. You heard harsh things about you personally? Snap. Perhaps IRC is the root of all evil/truth? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The thing about you is that the concerns also said that you're a fantastic guy, great article writer and nice guy - a couple of people mentioned that you might not be that active, that's all - nobody said anything harsh about you, and I certainly can't fault you as a crat, apart from the fact that it would be nice to have you a little more active - the thing is, you haven't done anything wrong with what you've done. I'm not very good with words and my oppose against Dweller came out wrong - I didn't want to make you sound like a bad crat, you haven't been one at all. God, when the crats get paid for what they do, I guess I can start complaining about their activity levels. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's it. I'm doing my best to make the encyclopedia better from a number of perspectives. While an admin and a crat (and a lapsed featured list director, as of a couple of days ago) all I've ever tried to do is improve Wikipedia. Opposing someone like Dweller from becoming a 'crat is incredible (in my opinion) as all he does is what I've done but more. He's more mature, stable and considerate than I can ever be. I'll be disappearing for some time and it'd be great if he could just step in and (inevitably) do a better job than I've done as a 'crat. You seem to have missed my most critical point - if I wasn't doing the job then I would have appreciated a personal note. To bring it out as an aside in an oppose to someone else's RFB was really demoralising. Needless to say it's made me consider my position here. All I ask is that you consider Dweller entirely independently of me and take into account that being a 'crat is like being a referee - if you do a good job, no-one notices. As soon as you fuck up, they're all on you like a rash. In over two years, he's been a gem. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about this a lot over the past few days, I see no reason to expect any minimal level from you. You're more active than a lot of the crats there, and everything you've done has been correct. I honestly don't have any complainsts about you - you really are a good guy and I can only offer apologies for being a dick at Dweller's RfB. I've learnt a lot this week. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter22:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted you to talk to me personally if I'm not putting in enough "graft", as you put it. Nothing special, I'm not being precious about whole thing but since the whole thing has blown and since I really appreciate your honesty, in future I'd appreciate it if you could approach me before publicly dismissing my efforts. That's about the size of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, just wanted to appreciate you for how you conducted yourself with the (successful) RfB. Be well, HG | Talk10:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
related
I goofed, Ryan. That diff (that you rightfully removed from your talkpage) where I made comments about you personally instead of the issue at hand was a mistake. I was irked at your responses, irked at what you posted on EVula's talkpage, and felt you were dismissing me. I said, however, in that diff, not only what I was feeling at that moment, but also said I would apologize if I were proven wrong. When you removed it with a "nope", I interpretted that as an unwillingness to discuss my concern and I retorted without thinking. You have every right to remove attacks from your talkpage. I was wrong, I was editing emotionally, you have nothing to prove, and I apologize. Keeperǀ7614:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you have fully protected this page ... would you mind replacing the tag at the bottom "disambig" with "disambig-cleanup" to attract the attention of editors familiar with dab pages? Thanks. Abtract (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to change the version just attract attention to it, but if it's a matter of principle then no problem. Abtract (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
VICS
Please could you revert the VICS dab page vandalism by user:Tile join, with it being semi-protected I can't with this account and I am not prepared to have my main account vandalised. NVFC (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure you meant to endorse my view? We seem to be saying different things; you think Majorly needs to take a step back, I'm saying that he doesn't. GlassCobra00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I meant to sign it. The only concern I have is when Majorly takes things too far. It doesn't happen often, but he sometimes starts making ad hominem attacks to defend his position. 90% of the time he's fine, but still gets flack for it, hence why I endorsed your view. I should probably put a cavaet on it actually.... RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter01:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Moving forward on the BC mess
Hello Ryan, CBM, Jennavecia (same message on all three talk pages). Seems like the ANI thread has gone stale although this idea of small-committee discussion has received pretty solid support. Look, we're never going to have 30 people agreeing on who should be working on this so I'd suggest you three take a shot at it. Am I dumping this thankless task on you guys? I sure am. I don't mind helping out but BC has gotten this idea that I'm out to get him so that might just increase drama. I know Jennavecia has expressed concern that she might be viewed as a BC cheerleader but you're all reasonable people and, as Jennnavecia put it, I think you all "understand the grievances of most editors who want to see Beta banned and at the same time, find great value in his contributions". CBM has bot experience, Ryan has MedCom experience, you're all admins, you've all been around and you've all followed the various BC ANI threads and ArbCom cases enough to understand the situation. I expect that both ends on the BC-love spectrum will spit at whatever compromise you come up with but at this stage it'll have to do and cooler-heads can probably prevail... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, seeing as Tony Sidaway - the fellow doing all the sig refactoring - has changed his name to a number of wacky (and rather long) sigs, I think you should be fine. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I also left him a note about that. I notice you're mass reverting. Is it worht it to leave it in any articles which already mention the dyslexia, those that cite it, or jsut blanket revert and let him redo it right? ThuranX (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Whew, done. Took 45 minutes. I restored a couple of his edits, because he'd alpha'd the cats as well, or because there was citation (or AGF info that can be cited) about it. However, he's got other BLP issues. ThuranX (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
no resolution. cna you review this thread? I know you put out one fire already tonight, but this one's a CHILD issue, so it should be urgent. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I’m not inclined to plunge into the Betacommand swamp, but regarding the proposal, I’m wondering if it would be any value to have a ’crat “close” any polling that occurs on the VPR. Frankly, whenever he posts a script or anything there for community review, that thread is going to end up looking like the present AN/I subpage. All his enemies are going to weigh in with “nays” and his supporters “nays”. Having a mere admin close it will subject that person to nasty assertions of partisanship and for the same reasons the blocks and their removals do. A ’crat might just be seen as above the fray. Just a suggestion. Askari Mark(Talk)22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I disapprove of greg's rather strong worded criticism in the last sentence of his post, which may in this case border on personal attack, and fully support a request to him to refactor this. I've send him an email asking him to do so. On the other hand, I see his attitude no more problematic from the bad faithed attitude Boody displays, and I would expect a warning and request to refactor posts to apply to more than only greg. There is also an important issue of whether greg was baited into his behavior by Boody confrontational attitude over the past few months of their interaction.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Classic, Piotrus. What does my supposed "baiting" of Greg (your own colorful interpretation of my removing some of his hateful, Jew baiting posts) have to do with Greg threatening violence against Jayjg?? And perhaps Piotrus you might want to consider the complete non-sequitorial and counterfactual character of your odd post--If Greg is going to have to refactor his anti-semitic posts, than I will have to refactor my....uh, what exactly? BoodlesthecatMeow?20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:CABAL, your repeating claims that greg is antisemitic, starting from the very few posts you exchanged, has, I am sure, not improved greg's view of you and of the POV you represent. What you should refactor and apologize for are your repeated claims that greg is an anti-semite, based on your disputed interpretion of his POV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't know what WP:CABAL has to do with a single editor's record of anti-semitic commentary, but sorry, I stand by my characterizations of Greg's longstanding hateful comments. His offensive rantings preceded any characterization I made of them. If he has an issue with my "POV", he is free to take any action that suits him. BoodlesthecatMeow?20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, there is nothing threatening in the idiom "I would kick your sorry ass. It's a metaphor commonly used in classrooms by teachers, in boardrooms by its members, at any political and assembly meetings, even between co-workers and friends. No reason to refactor this one. greg park avenue (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I've got to say Boodles, I've got absolutely no interest in that - especially considering I'm clerking the case. I'll happily deal with problems on the case pages themselves, but perceived incivility outside of it is nothing to do with me. If there's a problem, I'd suggest taking to WP:AN or WP:AN/I. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
He does not seem to have edited for days. Would it be possible for you to refactor at some point in the near future? I don't want to nag (and tell me if I am), but I feel strongly the remarks have been in place far longer than they ought to have already. IronDuke01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Personal request on this matter
Ryan--thanks for stepping in re Greg park avenue. Note though, if you look at his "evidence," it consists almost entirely of offensive, off topic ranting, largely directed at me. In addition to the anti-semitic parts which rightly should be refactored, Greg (who does little else on WP beside posts such rants, often directed against me) accuses me of sock puppetry (which he has done half a dozen times in the past with zero evidence presented), in between his rambling and vulgar rants. I'm frankly fed up with his garbage; I've apologized for my unkind email sent a while back in frustration at having to endure this sort of abuse without relief. And note that the editor who received that email had in the past threatened to block me simply because I had dared to remove a similar Jew-baiting, BLP-violating rant by Piotrus' ally Greg Park Avenue.
I'm asking at this point that the entire, fairly useless and vulgar posting by Greg park avenue be zapped and he be given the chance to post something that might perchance be uncharacteristically civil. Thanks BoodlesthecatMeow?01:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but reading through the entire original thread which includes Boodlesthecat's accusation of antisemitism ("Can you justify that anti-semitic comment [1] with a list of "Jews who are tired of Thane Rosenbaum?" Boodlesthecat Meow? 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)"), referred to above as a "Jew-baiting, BLP-violating rant", there is nothing in Greg park avenue's comment that is anti-Semitic. Read through the entire conversation and find exasperation at Boodlesthecat's contentions? Yes. Anti-semitic? No. Taking editorial disagreements and painting your opposition as an anti-Semite, Hitlerite, Jew murdering ethnicity, etc. (I've gotten some of those myself) would be libelous accusations elsewhere. On WP such accusations are indulged with rarely any consequences to the accuser unless they are so over the top as to be nonsensical. Garbage in, garbage out. Improve the tone and quality of the conversation and the situation might improve. Instead, we shop for editors to suck into WP:BATTLES. —PētersV (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to concur. I've asked Vecrumba to comment, on the chance I was missing something. I've asked Boody on his talk page several times to explain clearly what is anti-semitic in greg comment's, he refused, simply repeating that greg makes antisemitic remarks. If I were to substitute the word "Jew" to "Pole" in greg's cited diffs, I wouldn't call him anti-Polish. I find Boody's accusation of antisemitism a much more serious issue than greg usage the word "Jew". PS. I don't fully agree with greg's arbcom comment, up to and including greg being too emotional and for lack of better words, flowery. But he is no less flowery than several other editors who posted in arbcom, Boody included. I think quite a few statements/evidence sections could use good faith refactoring along with greg, but greg's statement doesn't seem to be a special case. Bringing the unjustified "antisemite" gun into this is a completly different issue, one related to straw man fallacy (and also association fallacy, as argument is made between the lines that anybody who agrees with greg and disagrees with Boody is an antisemite). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL, gimme a break you guys. If someone wrote, "So and so (an ethnic Polish person whose parents were in Auschwitz) masquerades as a son of Polish Holocaust survivors" you'd be running to half a dozen boards filing complaints hollering "anti-Polinism!". (Not to mentoion the fits you would have if accused either of you of "imitating" a caricature of a Pole). But Piotrus, if you seriously wanted to understand how anti-semitism manifests itself in discourse, why not bring your inquiries to one of the Jewish issue noticeboards, rather than asking someone who shares you views to comment. That would be a way to actually learn something, rather than continuing your usual method of playing team edit warring politics.. BoodlesthecatMeow?13:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Come now, if someone (falsely) portrays themselves as a victim when they are not, exactly what is "anti-" that person's ethnic background to point that out? That's a ridiculous contention. —PētersV (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration is an area where users are somewhat free in what they are "allowed" to say. The marker set for an acceptable standard is fairly low, primarily to allow all parties to get their full views across. Whilst Greg's accusations aren't really of the best form (e.g. without any actual evidence to back them up), the arbitrators will give them whatever weight they feel they deserve. That said, labelling other editors as Jew like is unacceptable, even at arbitration - that's why I've asked him to refactor just one sentance. My advice to all parties is that the best way to present evidence is to provide diffs, or other firm evidence to put your view across - without these, it's fairly meaningless. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Park avenue greg's accusation of sock puppetry against me ("were reverted by this user or his mirror accounts User:Malik Shabazz or User:Malcolm Schosha etc") with zero evidence provided (other than his fertile imagination) is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL ("Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors.") Unless there is a specific rule in arbitration that allows editors to one can lie through their teeth without penalty, I would like that refactored too. The rest of the stuff can stay cuz it's kinda funny. BoodlesthecatMeow?15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem, it was mainly to give Greg one more chance to retain an iota of credibility. BoodlesthecatMeow?
In running across Greg park avenue's edits in past travels, I thought this was a fellow New Yorker I'd like to meet in person. The accusations above, upon investigation, have not changed that, and I am not in the habit of fraternizing with people lacking in integrity. "Last shred?" Let's shed the melodrama and return to constructive editing. —PētersV (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider a word Jew an offensive word, just like the word Polish or American are not offensive. Discussing whether an editor has a Jewish (or Polish, or Russian, and so on) POV is perfectly acceptable and is not antisemitic (or anti-Polish, or anti-Russian). Again, I ask - can somebody explain to me in detail what's antisemitic about greg's post? It is somewhat emotional and flowery, as I noted above, but that's completely no different - or likely less offensive - from comments by Boody above, expressing bad faith on the part of Polish editors and suggesting some Polish cabal. While I'd support clerk's action asking editors to be more civil in their statement, I see no point in singling out greg just because what appears as baseless accusation of antisemitism was pointed his way (on the other hand, constant smearing of his character should be addressed and stopped). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have refactored that one sentence Ryan found offensive and explained on my Talk [1] there was nothin anti-semitic in it. To tell the long story short it couldn't be since there is no slightest evidence Boody is of Jewish descent, neither on his User Page nor in his attitude. greg park avenue (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Any other antagonistic comments you want to pass Greg park avenue's way? This sort of attitude and expression does nothing to advance constructive dialog. If you weren't out to WP:BATTLE, you would have written a simple thank you not this, quite frankly, saracastic crap. —PētersV (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Greg Park Avenue "refactoring
Is nonsense, and he's mocking everyone here. His "evidence" remains nothing but a nasty personal attack against me (and I am not a party to this arb and only commented when my name came up), and his bogus "refactoring" leaves it still an offensive ethnic rant about me. I want it removed. This twisted BS needs to stop now. BoodlesthecatMeow?04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible you could unprotect the page and let User:Sharnden try to rewrite it? I feel bad for speedying it now. My original concerns was the WP:COI because single-purpose accounts from the company were editing, but Sharnden is a neutral third party and had been trying to improve the article. I'd even put it on my watchlist to make sure no single purpose accounts worked on it. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ryan. I just had a second to take a look at your proposals for the Sarah Palin arbitration case, which I think are a good blueprint to hopefully resolving the situation. The only thing I wanted to point out, though (and you may well have already read this elsewhere), is that at the time the block was made, the policy read that blocking was a course of action to resolve an active wheel war. I think it helps put WilyD's action in a bit more context, but I'm not sure if that has any impact on your proposals, hence my mentioning it here rather than rehashing it there. Take care, user:j (aka justen) 23:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1. Like the "mess" comment
2. Your DYK nom.... make sure there more than 1500 chars of text in the article. Any chance od a pic? Infobox? Well done. cheers Victuallers (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I had Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Kalb open while deciding whether or not to close it as "redirect" since it already had been redirected. After I decided to do it, I noticed that you had relisted it. One of the drawback of Zman's no script is you can't see if somebody else did something with a nomination before you push the button.
You are the interested party, how do I re-write the Hammes Company article so it gets approved. Do you think it's not a significant company? I have a hard time believing it is less signifant than many of the companies that already have pages. I look to your guidance to help define how to get an article approved. The latest version of the article that was posted yesterday included sources, was written from a neutral point of view, had relevant external links, and told the story of how Hamme Company has designed two huge parts of American culture. Wikipedia is a very important resource, and having a neutral wikipedia page for Hammes Company would seem appropriate. Please give me any input or ideas. Thank you! Sharnden (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK Ryan, I've got the new page up with correct citations and notability. It can be found at User:Sharnden/Hammes Company. Please give your opinion, let me know what I should change if I need to, and feel free to edit if you feel you can help in any way. I appreciate your time, thank you. Sharnden (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
as well as a ridiculous sockpuppetry accusation here. Why is this abusive troll still allowed to post on Wikipedia, given that his entire output is nothing but bizarre, offensive, personal attacks, groundless accusations, and ethnic rants? BoodlesthecatMeow?20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
At arbitration, users have more leeway in what is acceptable. Greg's statement is strongly worded, but puts his view across - I'm not suggesting I agree with it, but it's his view. If you believe Greg has a history of making uncivil comments, then you would be best to create an evidence section on Greg showing this. If you believe his arbitration statements are uncivil, you can include them there. After looking at his comment on the evidence page, I've come to the conclusion that I wouldn't create evidence like that, but there's nothing worth getting upset over. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter03:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly care if he wants to make a fool of himself, I'm simply baffled that WP tolerates a troll who violates half a dozen civility rules with every post. I've seen editors blocked in a second for a minor comment, yet this troll rants at will with no consequence. So my question remains--Why is this abusive troll still allowed to post on Wikipedia, given that his entire output is nothing but bizarre, offensive, personal attacks, groundless accusations, and ethnic rants? BoodlesthecatMeow?04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to continually bug, perhaps I don't fully understand Wikipedia. However, I would like to know why the topic I posted on my user page was deleted. If you could unblock the title Hammes Company, it would be much easier to slowly edit the page. The company is obviously notable, who can I contact to get it added to Wikipedia. With the power Wikipedia has, an explanation is due. Sharnden (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think a better closure would have been no consensus, leaning keep. The IP's didn't bring up lots of useful things in their comments, but two other registered users did. The argument centred around whether he was notable enough - there's clearly a disagreement about whether or not he is, and that's what led me to the conclusion that defaulting to keep was the right move. I'll add a rationale to the close. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter23:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SatyrTN about the keep arguments' lack of policy-backing. Your keep closure cited number of Google hits. Number of Google hits does not make a difference to notability. It's the actual sources that matter. seresin ( ¡? )23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. Samwell has clearly got enough coverage from reliable sources - Whether it's for the video or not, those sources document him. If you're suggesting a merge, you're free to be bold and do this, or start discussion on the talk page yourself. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter02:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
3 users saying a blog, "the truth", and 3 PR reprints are good enough; doesn't make it referenced to reliable third party sources. It's not about how many people claim notability, it's about the reliability of the sources as required by wp:v and in bold by Wikipedia:Music#Albums. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-14t10:27z
My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Ryan, thank you very much for your kind words and your affirmation of your support and especially your confidence. I respect you and coming from you I truly appreciate it. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A warm hello to all those signed up as guarantor members of the soon-to-be-rebooted UK chapter! Voting is now open over at meta - there's tons of information online over there, and the mailing list has been very active too. Discussion, comment (and even the inevitable technical gremlins!) are most welcome at the meta pages, otherwise please do send in your vote/s, and tell a friend about the chapter too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)I'm not actually involved in the election workings, and am just dropping these notes in to help try and spread the word :-) I welcome any or all comment too, but 'election related' stuff really is better suited to the meta pages :-)
Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
Whether there is a valid reason to exclude the proposed infobox from the article
I should note that I am involved in the discussion, but I do not want to influence your opinion should you choose to offer one. I merely want some uninvolved editors to view the discussion and then offer an opinion. If you choose to participate, please post your opinion in the RFC comments section there. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe05:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
IRC request
Can you help me get access to the en-admin channel? I'm DOUG_WELLER on IRC. I see you work for one of my favourite companies! ThanksDoug Weller (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you need to register your account. Use /msg nickserv register password email@address.tld where password is the password you want to use and email@address.tld is a valid e-mail address. More information is available at WP:IRC. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I can imagine that. Actually the instructions I saw suggested contacting somone like you to speed up the registration process - "If you wish to access a non-public channel, please add your name and details below. Alternatively it can be quicker to leave a note on the talk page of any user of that channel (who might be able to help, or can add you to the access list) who may see it, or another appropriate talk page." I admit that although I've used IRC before, I don't understand how this works and how I avoid putting a password somewhere people can see it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Right - choose a nickname (something like Dougweller) and log into freenode. Then you need to register - when you're logged in, type /msg nickserv register password email@address.tld where password is the password you want to use and email@address.tld (as MZMcBride said above). Don't worry, nobody will see your password - it goes straight to something called the nick server. You think you're typing into the channel, but the "/msg nickserv" part stops you typing into the channel. Does that make any more sense? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, thanks. I thought I'd done that before and it didn't work, but clearly I did something wrong. I've done that, received an email, followed those instructions./join #wikipedia-en-admins tells me I need an invitation from an existing member. Doug Weller (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
See my post just a couple of sections above yours. Perhaps what we could do is make it clear that "my" section is one for the Crats to post in/discuss the issue and "yours" is for community consensus? What do you think? Seems a little too proscriptive for Wikipedia (it probably won't work!) but seems worthwhile trying... --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds cool - that was the reason why I didn't post under you. I should make it clear that I personally think you'd be good at closing these discussions, as I'm sure the newer crats would be. It's just a big change, and completely out of the remit that we give the crats at the current point in time. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter10:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Your plan to re-integrate Kurt back into the project does seem very thoughtful and carefully planned out. But I did want to mention that the main reason for the last thread on WP:ANI against him was in relation to his (perceived or otherwise) attitude towards newbies. There was also the thread he started at Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Administrators in relation to him being denied access to the ACC due to the tool administrators' lack of faith the he wouldn't bite the newbies. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a restriction of interaction between Kurt and new users might not be completely unreasonable once we take into consideration all of the reasons beind the initial decision to indef-block him. What do you think?
For that. I wonder whether it would be of good taste to create a page with my alternate account, and then decline the speedy in my admin account...so thanks for declining it! ;) « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 23:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I've temporarily undeleted the RfC you just deleted so that I can recover some diffs requested by Jehochman on AN/I. I'll re-delete it shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I arguably misused Twinkle in a single series of reverts against some encyclopedically challenged folks and you unilaterally decided to remove it for two weeks. But here you seem far more cautious. Has that to do with a difference between Twinkle and Rollback? Everyme12:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, he didn't actually misuse the tool per se. He's only used it to revert vandalism, although to be fair it's most probably his own vandalism. It would be extremely punitive to remove a tool that he hasn't misused, although I'm concerned with the fact he's been using it to mess around with his own vandalism, hence why I supported removal, but didn't feel the evidence was strong enough for me to remove it on my own accord. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter13:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Makes some sense, I guess, although I cannot agree with the line of reasoning that vandalising and subsequently undoing it constitutes anywhere near proper use of vandalism-fighting tools. It does betray a serious lack of clue, which would imho be reason enough to give him some time to consider. Everyme15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Umm huh?
That thread[2] was archived prematurely by the bot - it had been date tagged but the bot somehow didn't read it. Why are you reverting this? It's a current topic? -- Banjeboi22:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You keep adding new timestamps so it wouldn't get archived which was getting disruptive. Jimbo has chosen not to answer you, which basically means he has denied to listen to your appeal. Jimbo hasn't overturned an arbcom decision ever, and I highly doubt he would do in this case. If you really want to take this further, you should email him directly, not keep messing with his archiving system. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You may have missed that Jimbo wrote Thanks, I have seen this, and I am looking into it. Benjiboi, are you intending to edit articles on this topic if the ban is lifted? From what I have seen so far, it does not look like overturning the ArbCom on procedural grounds makes sense. So it seems we need to turn a bit toward the content issue, which looks to me to be complex, and it will take me a few days (at best) to study it (and a couple of weeks is more likely). --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I was hardly being disruptive or messing with archiving. Both of us were simply adding sate-stamping to address the 2-day archiving on that talkpage. Other solutions are welcome. -- Banjeboi22:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The two day archiving is there for a reason and the thread had been up for 8 days because of you adding additional time stamps - that's why it was getting disruptive. Email might get a response, but he's not going to overide arbcom - you're just going to have to live with it. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree this was disruption but understand why you see it that way. I'd prefer to let Jimbo speak for himself but appreciate your opinion on the matter. -- Banjeboi22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Topic Ban appleal archival
Please see this diff, Jimbo said it may take a couple weeks, so please let him answer on his own instead of assuming. He has answered, and he is looking into it, give him time and please do not archive this.— DædαlusContribs /Improve00:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Stop unarchiving it. I've already seen that diff. Jimbo will post when he's ready to on the content talk page when he's ready. Ping him an email to hurry him up up if needs be, don't attempt to force a reply. I've removed it again and I strongly advise you not to un archive it. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter06:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone19:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Unmerged merge
Back on 5 Sep, you adjudicated an AfD for Ingild, Eoppa, and Eafa, with the outcome of Merge. I just noticed that the Eafa and Eoppa pages are back in all their glory, including the old AfD banner, while the history shows no modification since the 29 Aug initiation of the AfD process. Your implementation of the outcome seems to have had a very short t½. What's up with that? Agricolae (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't know how, unless you just mean editing the page to change it to a redirect. The odd thing is that it was done, after the AfD they appropriately redirected (I checked), but then they somehow returned to an earlier version without leaving any record of the changes. Agricolae (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the page protection, but would you please revert to admin Bogdan's or my version? Rez. while trying to remove references from the article (again) left broken links there (see "References" section). Squash Racket (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Bogdan is an admin who was not involved in the dispute, his version is acceptable for now? See the red "cite error" tags at "References". If it's no problem, then forget it. Squash Racket (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, would you please stop piling in on me every time someone drags me into a "troubles" conflict. You know as well as I do that Western POV is rampant on Wiki which merely gives the impression that people trying to temper it are "pushing" their own POV. (Which is not to say there are no POV-pushers; but they often don't see the beam in their own eye). Read what I say and stop reacting in this knee-jerk manner. Please. I thought you were sensible till your call to "ban me for life" during my "trial" a few months back. But I forgave you (that's the sort of person I am :) and now you are at it again. Sarah777 (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Sarah, you can be a fantastic editor at times, but I too often see you running head first into disputes and escalating them with incivility and revert warring. That doesn't mean I still support a ban on you, but it does mean that I think you need to change your ways here somewhat. Why not leave the troubles area completely for a while? It might be refreshing to edit in a less contentious area. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter10:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That is good advice! I made one single edit to a NI article and got slapped with probation. If anyone else made that edit (bar a banned sockpuppet) it would have passed unremarked.Anyway, it is somewhat reassuring that you ain't out to lynch me any more :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You have threatened to remove me as an editor because of "reverts." Please don't take such action without understanding the massive amount of effort made with regard to keeping a fair and balanced approach to the article on artist Chris Heimeridnger. Study the history of edit warring a little and you may understand the "trigger happy" manner with which some editing has occurred lately. There are specific legal adversaries of Mr. Heimerdinegr who can be identified by the following IPs: 216.49.181.128 and 72.25.162.110 and 67.164.196.10. There may be other IPs since this individual is a computer programmer, but these are the IPs identified specifically to one Michael Collins who also posts an anti-Heimerdinger website on a different URL. I am not a direct associate of the artist, but I know the legal situation though reliable sources, and I have been had identified for me documents provided wherein Mr. Collins names dates and changes made to the Wikipedia page. These are the IP addresses that match those dates and times, but not all. I am happy to lay low and let admins such as yourself take over the situation, but please recognize that the ongoing edit battle has "conflict of interest" editors on both sides, and the vendetta is very real, related to expensive financial matters, and the stakes in legal circles are high. I will respect your wish to avoid reverts so long as the page remains neutral. It neither has to be a fan site or a defamation site. And so long as after a brief period of assessment by admins, such tags as "self publshed" or "unverifiable info" or other things are removed in a timely manner. If I feel a change is in order, I will happily discuss it with you beforehand. This will eliminate any accusations of "conflict of interest." Frankly, ALL editors can be accused of having a conflict of interest if they have a serious interest in a subject under discussion or an opinion regarding any subject. The science of journalism is heavily influenced by personal opinion. But most Wikipedia editors are lazy or unwilling to cite resources beyond what is visible on the internet. Too much legwork. If certain information on this particular article is judged to be unsourced, let me know and I may be able to provide non-internet sources for all information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumper10 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Indefinite vs infinite
Hey Ryan, I was on a wikibreak for about a month and some things have changed... one thing I noticed is there is now the "infinite" option for blocking. Do you know of the thread where this was decided on, etc so I can read up on its application? Or if it's easy, can you just let me know... Tan | 3922:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Tan, the diff where it was changed is here. Basically, I think there were two indefinite options - one at the top and one because it's the most common and one at the bottom because it goes by length of time. I guess it was confusing, so the bottom indefinite was changed to infinite - it looks like it wasn't discussed. Hope that helps! RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter22:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, I have withdrawn myself from the above mediation for the reason I provided on the talk page. As the editor who initiated this third attempt at mediation, I don't know if this would be a 'black mark' against me for withdrawing myself from the mediation, and to be brutally honest, I don't care if there is. Thanks for taking this on, but my time and energy is being diverted into more productive areas of the WP project. Cheers --RussaviaDialogueStalk me07:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You redirected this back to the main article, but did not remerge the information; were you going to, or are you against it being included at all? --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Golbez, I didn't realise the content was actually merged out. I realised the content came from the main article, but I didn't see it come out. What are your thoughts on it? I see Space elevator article is rather large already, but the Space elevator safety article was in fairly poor shape. I'm thinking possibly keeping the Space elevator safety page but after giving it a complete rewrite. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
An article that I created, storm train, had a deletion request tag placed on it by Bongomatic, and Runningonbrains removed the tag and said that it was not appropriate for that article. But I don't know what to do, because I left a message for Runningonbrains, and I got no reply. Do you think that the article should be deleted, or do you think that the tag should be removed for the second time? -- IRP☎16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Things I would like to address: I have archived the article (just in case), and if it's deleted, it can be revised, reviewed, and restored. Also, if it was deleted, it could be reviewed for restoration by an administrator. And one more thing, I was thinking that there should be a section in Training (meteorology), and a link to the main article. Does that sound like it will work? I would say a paragraph and a link to the main article. But I would like to know what would be best. -- IRP☎21:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for being a pleasure to work with during my time on WP, I really appreciate it. You've even got a mention on my userpage. ;) You can still talk to me on Facebook if you want. ;) Lradrama07:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Potter Fell
On 6 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Potter Fell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Ryan Postlethwaite, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, SpencerT♦C02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: I'm a PC
Excuse me, but did the definition of WP:LEAD alter drastically within the last week or so? While the Lead is an introduction to the subject matter, it is also an overview/summary of the article itself. The bit you keep removing is well-documented, been rewritten (not reverted, as the successive edits address the concerns brought up in talk - you might want to look at the edits again) and in a summary of the criticism section. I suspect that, were this to occur in any other article, there wouldn't be a lick of conflict.
The "consensus" you speak of is largely in favor of utterly ignoring any mention of the cited criticism, and one of the editors even suggested other ways that Microsoft could improve their ad campaign. If that doesn't represent a pov in favor of MS (and a protection of the article subject from criticism), I guess I am going to need you to redefine it for me.
Since you were kind enough to post the warning in my discussion, let me know if you would prefer to reply there or here. I tend to like keeping conversations in one place - my page will be fine. - Arcayne(cast a spell)14:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
At first, I didn't know what you were referring to with the 3RR report, but can see he blew off the warning. Even though i gave him a warning, do you want to offer the user the chance to self-revert? If not, I'll just file the 3RR. The depressing part of this is that the user is likely a regular, and editing anonymously. A block would likely not be reflective of the primary account block history. - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Right. after the anon started in again about my involvment in the discussion yesterday, I figured it was best to simply back off, and let the feller find his feet, so to speak.
As for the IP check, can't it be run against known IPS of banned users? Noobs at least stop to ask for direction when warned they are about to break a rule. This IP didn't even blink, which makes me wonder what else they haven't blinked at. We don't have to reveal the ID, but simply verify that it isn't a previously blocked sockfarmer or banned user. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Unblock message now on the IP's page. As you've been working to get discussion going, I will leave it in your hands to determine if unblock is appropriate. I'm logging off for a few hours now. Best, Risker (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not choosing to use several IP's. And I'm not agreeing with myself or pretending to be more than one person.. I don't control the internet and the Ip's.76.217.93.176 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. Remember me? Well, I'm finally back, after a bit of deliberation. I was wondering if you could catch me up on anything I may have missed since my retirement.
Hey - good to see you back! To be perfectly honest, nothing much has changed - we haven't had much new happen. You might want to check a few of the cases currently at arbcom, we had a wheelwar over protection at Sarah Palin and there's some interesting thoughts come up about it - worth a read. Oh, Chetlong and Peter Symmonds were desysopped for sharing their password with Steve Crossin, and Steve got banned for 6 months - that's the only real big news from the wiki that I can recall. If I think of anything else, I'll let you know! RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I am pretty sure you have the privilege level to edit the page history. The user typed the same obscene statement into the edit summary, and vandalized the page history. That's the reason I contacted you. -- IRP☎20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Admins can't remove edit summaries, we can remove whole edits, but we would only do that when there's privacy concerns, in which case we'd also email the oversight mailing list to remove the edit from the database. Yeah, the edit summary is vulgar, but there's no privacy issues at stake. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter21:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, my master, this is your Padawan. ;-) I've got the mop for almost 2 weeks now, so I'd like some feedback on my work in that time. Could you, if you got some time, please look through my admin related actions and tell me, what you think about them? TIA SoWhy07:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the mess and blocking the user. Please keep an eye out for the user resuming vandalism after the block expires. -- IRP☎22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Xymmax RfA
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x]15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1
Ryan could you have a word with this editor. Is he supposed to be neutral if he is too become a mentor for The Thunderer with comments like this he is staring off on an antagonistic vein and I will not stand for accusations about tag team partners any longer. As this was a cry of the Thunderer and now his mentor is echoing these cries. Thanks. BigDuncTalk15:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End Of An Error - Deletion Review
There was a Prod placed on The End of an Error album article which was challenged so it was taken to an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End Of An Error) on September 6, 2008. You closed the AfD on September 11, 2008 with a "keep". The three Editors who voiced a "keep" used links to user submitted news releases and "It's a real album from a real band" as reasons to "keep". I feel there was not enough involvement in the discussion and it should be reopened in order to receive input that will be based on Wikipedia guidlines. While the cited sources may be fine in order to "verify" if an album was coming out they do not meet the guidelines for allowing an album to have it's own article: WP:NALBUMS states: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG for definitions. The cited sources are links to user submitted information on the albums release date and track listing only and do not establish this album as notable nor are they significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive19 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ryan Postlethwaite/archive19's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Ryan Postlethwaite/archive19!
he's run into a new account on that page, and since things are busy on the Domer AE case (see that for the latest), can you provide a helping hand over there? I've full-protected the page for six hours to get any editwarring cut off at the pass. SirFozzie (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know Foz. I've been ill for the past couple of weeks so my editing has been sparse to say the least and I haven't had chance to get stuck in with thunderer. I've left a suggestion on the talk page which will hopefully break the stalemate. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Whay has the page been protected instead of dealing with the editor who is well aware of the 1RR sanctions that were imposed yet continues to revert. How many times has Thunderer reverted on the PIRA article? Are the sanctions dropped? BigDuncTalk19:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
No they haven't. Ryan: Several users have emailed me with PoV concerns on some of Thunderer's edits. Can we talk about this (here, IRC later today, or email, doesn't matter). We could use the help. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan just want to point out how when clear evidence of his mistakes in his editing is pointed out, he magically turns it round into a massive attack on me. The Gamble book is not a WP:RS, that sabotage quote is from an official government White Paper and obviously there's what Hattersley said too. Obviously they take precedence over a UDR member's self-published stories. BigDuncTalk21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I was about to start a Checkuser request on the above account, when I noticed that you had blocked it indefinitely, then reduced it to a week for trolling. Just to check in - does this mean that I don't need to request a Checkuser, or is that still worth doing? :) - Bilby (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A CU request is not necessary. More than one CU has looked into this already. There did seem to be a consensus at ANI to leave the userid unblocked though, so I was a bit surprised to learn of this. ++Lar: t/c12:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Your oppose
Hi Ryan, this is just a note to let you know that I've responded to your comments at my RfA. Your concerns are indeed justified and perfectly legitimate. I am not here to sway you in another direction, just for notification : ) Wisdom89(T / C)16:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain this edit? As far as I can see, User:Mixwell moved his own comment from the support section to the neutral section. I don't see why that should be reverted and described as "trolling". --Conti|✉01:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Cream and a few others were trolling on IRC - they were being silly and getting each other to make stupid comments to the RfA (you'll see the ones gurch made). I only saw what was added to the page when looking at the diff, I didn't realise he was moving his comment from support to neutral. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter07:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.
Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.
Thanks for what seems to have been an attempt at compromise, but you said, "without the conclusion"? You left the conclusion in. Fut.Perf.☼13:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should now put a more dignified photo of yourself on your userpage? What do you look like when you are looking magisterial? Fut.Perf.☼13:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
-_Good_pic.jpg)
