User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive10

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Amistades Peligrosas

... maybe, but the article didn't claim they did! :-) Sadly, I'm not omniscient (though I wish I was!) — Coren ^(talk) 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it didn't - I agree the article makes no ascertation of notability, but they are notable enough for inclusion. I may add it in later if I get time. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed. I still plan to continue to edit however. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotta love it when there's ten million "My RfA" messages on your page though. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up on protections discussion

Hi Ryan. In follow-up of the discussion here, there should be a short-course training school for new admins on how to use the new tools. Are you interested in setting one up? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(Copying response from my talk page) That would be good; unless one already exists and I've never heard about it. It would help new administrators get more familar with the tools. Acalamari 17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, that would be a very very good idea - I know how hard it is when you first start up. It may be good to include length of blocks and protections in the school, along with things such as what to delete when speedy deleting pages, how to close AfD's including all the different templates. Would you suggest a page that new admins can look on with all the relevant information in 3 sections:Deletions, blocks and protections - maybe a help desk on top of that for new admins to seek advice? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a bunch of written material for admin. For the school Ryan, I would suggest setting it up to cover whatever you found missing and wish existed when you first became an admin. However, I was thinking more of a tech school, one were dummy pages to protect and deleted were set up to practice on, a dummy user to block, etc. For example, Exercise #1 - Protect test user page #1 for 5 days. Exercise #2 - unprotect test user page #1 before the 5 days are up. Exercise #3 - Block User:dummy #1. Example #7 - Closed Dummy AfD #1. Once the basic skills are mastered, you could create scenarios. Example. Exercise #27. User:dummy #24 has been doing xxx. Block User:dummy #1 the appropriate length of time. There might be problems with reports for such actions, but there may be a way to address that as well. Perhaps the exercises could be copied to a sub page of the new admin, the new admin runs through it, and an experienced admin reviews the results and gives critique. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Something I found very interesting was this set of questions on my editor review. If somebody could set up a similar set of common admin decisions as multiple-choice questions that show the "correct" or recommended actions after you have answered them, this might be very helpful to test and expand our knowledge of policies. Tim Vickers 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your help

Ryan, there's an IP I've just blocked. I need your help with something. Acalamari 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Enlighten me...... Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I blocked 71.212.63.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and when I did the WHOIS and RDNS, it said the IP belonged to Qwest Communications Corporation. Is there a banner I need to put on the talk page of that IP that says who the IP belongs to? Acalamari 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you're fine - a bot will come and do that for you over the next few days. When you block someone, always remember to tell them on their talk page they have been blocked - that's the only thing you have to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Okay, thanks; I thought there was a template that administrators had to put on the page. I didn't know a bot did it. Thank you. Acalamari 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz

Hi there. I'm not so sure this IS his real name. Search for it on the internet, and you find a Nigerian fraudster baiter using this name in one of their correspondences with the scamster [1]. Mr. Kuntz is apparently the managing director of Eros Erotic Supplies Ltd. Also, think about it logically - why did he include his middle initial, which turns a relatively benign name into a potentially rude one? If you were called "Richard Head", and suffered years of abuse for it at school, would you go around calling yourself Dick? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A lobby of editors are trying to provoke me for a edit war.

They are removing cited articles http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pranava_Veda&diff=next&oldid=143660034

I tried to put the same at Veda but they took off the same. Now I created a separate page. They are taking that off too. BalanceRestored 08:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps seek dispute resolution, Ryan is too "busy" at the moment to help. (Whatever that means) GDonato (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, Ryan, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Hús ö nd 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Obrigado, Ryan, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Hús ö nd 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos
Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Well, what can I say, I was speechless after seeing your comments on my RfB. Thank you so much Ryan. Best regards, Hús ö nd 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

LadNav

There we go, for atmosphere GDonato (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User blocks

I just went though User blocks at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/New admin school/Blocking. That was great! My first block. I'm looking forward to the rest of the school. Here's a suggestion. I'm at DRV and want to see the text of an article that's been deleted, but don't want to restore it. How can I see the deleted text? (See my post Here -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I saw that post. That's a good suggestion, I'll get it in the deletion practice page. Aslong as I've got the right idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I added it to View and restore deleted pages, a title I took from the special page of the same name. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Batsignal

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_blue_links. A Train^talk 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear ne - the things that now go on AN/I! I would sort it myself - but I'm tired in bed :-( Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the sorting that I was hoping you'd do as the coaching. Sleep, old man. A Train^talk 02:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see - consider it done (after work)! Ryan Postlethwaite 07:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks 08:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TiW sock?

GrotesqueOldParty (talk · contribs) has been accused of being a sockpuppet of TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs). Any ideas on this, I think contribs make it possible but inconclusive. GDonato (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the bud in, but I'm not sure. He hasn't been quite as vociferous yet. We'll see. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to determine, I think I might be sockpuppet-paranoid just now, though. Also, 70.110.235.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be up to something? GDonato (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Defo sockpuppet - request a CU then lets hit the block button. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, glad I'm not paranoid, bagged and tagged as appropriate, thanks for your help once again. GDonato (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Philippe's RFA

Psst - I'm pretty sure that Phillippe is a she. :) -- Merope 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought until I asked him :-p Ryan Postlethwaite 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously!? Man! Of course, I also can't spell his name, so I just suck all around! -- Merope 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about his name, it took me ages to get it right whilst writing the nom - well, as long as the people commenting can recognise it, he'll be fine! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have not laughed so well for days. For the record. Philippe = Boy. OK, when I get drunk I'm not exactly the most masculine thing around, but still... - Philippe | Talk 05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral's RfB

I believe I understand your honestly held and rather passionate feelings regarding my role in this RfB. For now, at least, I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I appreciate your kind words and that you appear to take RfA/B as seriously as I believe a Wikipedian should. -- Cecropia 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA

The page is transcluded. Thank you! - Philippe | Talk 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

user:Dukeufan14

I cannot find what I have done, if anything, to annoy this editor; but thanks anyway for blocking him. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted John Francis Mason. Very reasonably. Perhaps that's his problem. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 01:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalblock

Ryan, it is extraordinarily annoying when you beat me to the block by about ten seconds. (only kidding) --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that's 1-0 to me Tony, although I have to admit, you've beat me a couple of times before ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

YOU PISS OFF MATTHEW!?!

I GET YOU BLOCK. RWAAAAWAARRR!!!

But seriously, it looks like our favourite IP came back for more stalking earlier. *sigh* They just can't learn, can they? Will ^(talk) 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He's such a lovely guy! Can't believe he came back with the same IP. You may wish to request oversight for one particular edit you reverted earlier........ Ryan Postlethwaite 23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That'd be the second time I'll have emailed oversight-l in four days. Will ^(talk) 23:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Q: Would either of you care to explain *where* I violated this specific set of rules you've blocked me for? I'd like to have the official justification handy so I can e-mail it to Jimbo Wales. 24.242.164.153 17:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philippe

Hi Ryan. I've made a brief reply at the above. I'm a little suprised than an admin finds it acceptable to cross examine an editor on why they supported / didn't support or didn't ask questions about a particular RFA. I'm very suprised a respected editor like you actually brings it up in the middle of an RFA when it can clearly adds no value! I'm still a bit disapointed you couldn't see that my question was designed to head of opposes. I accept however that I may have worded it badly in your (and anothers) opinion, for which I apologise; but as I'm sure you know by now I never comment or question at RFA "on the fly" as, sadly, other seem to these days. And if I haven't made it clear yet that I believe maintenance is as important as article writing please check my contribs at RFA!! Cheers mate. Pedro | Chat 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit more for info mate - I supported Derhexter mainly based on interaction (see my support comment). The instructions at the top of RFA clearly state that if you don't know the candidate check their contribs. I do "know" him in the wikipedia sense of the word. So I just followed those instructions. :) Seriously, personal interaction is just as good IMHO as ploughing through 2K of contribs to get a feel for a candidate Pedro | Chat 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If I feel strongly about something during a request for adminship, I bring it up - it's as simple as that, remember, you said it yourself - it's a discussion after all! Maybe you boar the brunt of my overall RfA frustation at the minute, the fact that users feel the maintainers of the project are not worthy of the tools - yet they are the ones that really need them. Maintainers clear the back logs and do the small gnomish tasks to keep the article writers free to do what they do best - write articles! I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with you and a few others that if a user isn't a prolific article writer they can't be an admin - it actually makes no sense. The users that use the automated tools are the ones that generally need that delete or block button and they are the ones with the experience of knowing when to use them. I also didn't understand why you placed yourself in the neutral section pending an answer, you could have waited for an answer to the question and then decided whether to support or oppose the candidacy - there was little need to be neutral simply because a question had not been answered yet - it was as if the candidate had to prove something to you, IMHO, that is fundamentally wrong, you would soon have had the answer to the question you asked, and had over 4000 contribs to go checking to decide if you trusted the user - the only reason for your neutral comment was a stop gap in between you posting the question and Philippe answering. I brought up DerHexers RfA because you are essentially supporting a candidate for the same reason as staying neutal on another - regardless of having personal interaction or not. I just got the feeling that it was slightly hypocritical of you to comment on many RfA's as an oppose or neutral because the editor has no article writing experience, then to go and support someone who has just about no writing experience - a plain old vandal fighter (don't get me wrong, I believe vandal fighters need the tools, but I am going on what I believed your views on the matter were), it just seems a little inconsistant to me that's all. I'm sorry that you seem to disagree with what I am saying, but you should know yourself that RfA isn't a vote, and any user has the right to question anothers comment - I just hope I have explained my reasoning behind it now. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryan - per but I strongly disagree with you and a few others that if a user isn't a prolific article writer they can't be an admin please find me the diffs where I've opposed or gone neutral at RFA based on writing contribs. To save you some time, there aren't any, but happy hunting! I'm really sorry if I've offended you, but you are utterly wrong on this! Cheers ! Pedro | Chat 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note my friend Apology? Pedro | Chat 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry for that one statement you highlighted but the rest stands - the question came across as if the maintainers of the project had no real need for tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if it did. I guess I'm most suprised by your preception as I would have thought my viewpoint was abundantly clear given how often I point out at RFA and T:RFA that I believe maintenance is now vital; indeed I had a long running debate that really article writers have less need for the tools than people who want to maintain / vandal fight etc. I even ran into that at my RFA where a lot of opposition was because I don't do a lot of writing - so I'm hardly likely to fire that back at anyone else! My other concern was you referencing the way I !voted in another RFA. Forgive me but that's dangerous. I understand the point you were making but I can see it now - comments of "you have to support this editor because you supported this other editor" or "you have to oppose this editor because you opposed this other editor" flying around every single nomination - the last thing we need in RFA is more politics! Anyhow, I hope we can move on from this - I've supported the candidate and I can only hope my comment disuades others from opposing on the basis of "doesn't write an encyclopedia" which was my aim all along. Cheers. Pedro | Chat 12:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

Hey dude, didn't want to bug you while you're on Wikibreak, but I noticed you posting on a page I was watching and thought I'd see if you were around.

I put in a 3RR vio, but since the page is now protected, I dunno if any action will be taken - but I definitely think an admin or at least someone who's not me should warn him about this type of behavior. Perhaps you could do that?

Also, if you have the time to check my understanding and presentation of what OR/Sythesis is...I would totally appreciate any feedback! Thanks dude! Dreadstar † 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with the above, got answers to all my questions...just ignore...;) Dreadstar † 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neo-nazi/troll is back (yay!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Holocaust&diff=144795180&oldid=144789525 (I mean "John celona" of course.) --HanzoHattori 14:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Honoured, sir. Thank you. Pedro | Chat 18:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! Ryan Postlethwaite 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I have sent one. :) Acalamari 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

and I've sent you one back! Ryan Postlethwaite 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied to that! Acalamari 22:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Magnus Animum

You are currently enthrolled in quite a nasty campaign of checking through Magnus's contributions and finding fault with many aspects of his work
— User:Ryan Postlethwaite, [2], 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

...I do not stalk his contributions, so short of someone putting a message on his Talk page with an eye-catching headline that I'd see on my Watchlist, or him editing an article I Watch, I wouldn't know [that he is violating the rule in question]
— User:Jouster, [3], 17:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Even a cursory examination of my edit history or my Talk page would have revealed that I am involved in a number of other areas on the Project, and the only reason I noticed this change and commented on it is the fact that it was on his User page, and specifically served to excoriate the old wound of him never having acknowledged wrongdoing when he put large amounts of unnecessary load on the servers and broke several transcluded templates the first time he did it. He's an administrator, against my strident objections, but that doesn't give him the right to ignore guidelines and to justify doing so by saying it's all in his User space, despite the bolded text at WP:NOT#USER. Jouster (whisper) 00:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick present...

File:What a great editor!.bmp.jpg

Congratulations Ryan Postlethwaite; you have been awarded the great editor award by the Wikipedian of the day project. Although you have not been made the Wikipedian of the day we would still like to congratulate you on your great edits! Great work.

Hapy editing;
Wikipedian of the day account.
16:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This was delivered by Wikipedian of the day account, which is owned by Rlest

PS, you also have email from the owner of this account (Rlest). WotD account 16:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Rlest 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A very big thankyou

Thankyou for your support in this thread. I rather felt I was under attack there for quite a simple issue. Viridae ^Talk 23:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, I was actually a little shocked by the attitude some had over the issue - WP:BOT is quite clear, if someones running a bot on their account, which BC quite clearly was, then they get blocked - no need for any warnings. As far as I was concerned, you did things correctly by the book, then posted for review - there's not much more you can really do in those situations. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Another very big thank you

Ryan, I appreciate so much your support and your wonderful nomination. As you know by now, my RfA closed successfully. I have no doubt that your shepherding me through the process contributed to the strong measure of support that the community gave me. I'll do my best to be worthy of your trust. - Philippe | Talk 03:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

MedCom Nomination

Ryan - best of luck in your nomination. I'm currently sitting at neutral, but once I've seen you Mediate this upcoming case (pending acceptance), I'll definitely be supporting.

No hard feelings - this is just a temporary measure ... I've not forgotten your support in my nomination (and RfA), or when you helped me out that spot of bother a while back.

Kind regards,
Anthøny (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem AGK, if I stink at being a mediator, I stink - that's life, but it certainly is important that you guys get a feel for how I mediate and whether or not you believe it would be a positive or a negative having me on the committee. Please though, don't let the fact that I nommed your RfA get in the way of anything, seriously, if you think I'd make a bad job of it, oppose me - I nommed myself to help the project, if I'd do more harm than good, I want to know about it and I'll completely understand. Cheers for the message, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Ryan, that sounds fine to me, I see no reason to split this into two complicated mediation cases, especially as I expect the copyright issues will be fairly open and shut, because at the end of the day with copyright one of us will be right and the other will be wrong. I think the main talking point will center around which diagram is used and whether or not talk page comments I made should be removed, as thats the real sticking point right now. I read User:Cuddlyable3s comments to mean he was happy to discuss the first point with you but not the copyright, on second reading of it though I wonder if he actually meant he didn't want to discuss the copyright issue as part of the mediation at all, whoever mediates. The copyright issue isn't my main concern, but its still fairly central to the whole problem. We could mediate without discussing it although ideally I'd like all the issues between me and User:Cuddlyable3 have to be resolved in one go and then we can go back to normal editing. Good to see your a final year pharm student, I'm a final year biochemist :) WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case then, we'll see what Cuddleable3 comes back with and proceed from there. It's just really important that everyones happy with the set-up before we start. If it is how you say it is, then a good first step would be to clarify exactly what is going to be mediated - as ever, that's entirely upto you and cuddleable3 to decide together. I'll see what Cuddlyeable3 says, and then we'll take it from there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

re WTF its Eamon

Sorry. First username block. I unblocked, and reblocked with account recreation and ip addy boxes unchecked. I also templated the talkpage after rolling back my previous notification. I may get it wrong, but I learn quickly (lots of practice, I'm afraid!) Cheers. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I understand, I was just a little confused - we all make mistakes and at least this was easily corrected. I've removed the autoblock as well, so hopefully WTF its Eamon will be able to create a new account or request unblocking. Thanks for sorting it out. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Ryan, thanks for the support on my RFA. It's going well so far, I'm keeping my fingers crossed --AW 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh

Thanks for the revert. :) -WarthogDemon 18:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Boinketh!

You've got mail, Mr. Postlethwaite! And let me tell you this was awesome! ;) Love thee, Phaedriel - 09:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Pete K page problems

User:Pete K, a page you protected, has been unprotected by a BOT and promptly reverted by an IP-user to the version that provoked the protection. Hgilbert 22:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No-warn AIV

Sorry about that AIV, thought I clicked cancel not submit :-( Q ^{T C} 12:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's an easy mistake to make. Thanks for all your efforts, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate RfA behavior

[This is a courtesy copy of a message posted at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Awiseman, since you do not appear to read followup to complaints you post at RfAs, and just move on to another one, ergo would otherwise unlikely to ever see this.]

Mr. Postlethwaite, I would appreciate it if you would stop following me around from RfA to RfA attacking me, in the middle of someone else's big moment, for simply having asked a slightly challenging question. This is at least the second time I've directed you to please raise your concerns with my questions at User talk:SMcCandlish#RfA questions. I hope I will not have to do it a third. Both the candidate here and the other RfA participants have better things to do that read you raising repetitive left-field complaints about something trivial and of no direct concern to you, on page after page. If you'd actually bother to read the talk page topic I've referred you to multiple times now, you'll find a very full explanation of my purposes in asking this question, as well as an explanation of why your interpretation of it is excessively literal and pessimizing (in reality it typically takes very little time to answer the question.) I hope we both have better things to do now than continue this discussion, though if we must, I hope you'll do it elsewhere than in RfA. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, can you please elaborate where I have followed you around post you suggesting we move it away from the RfA page? I commented on two RfA's that you asked questions on, once on each RfA, then I left it and moved on. I haven't replied on the RfA page because you suggested I didn't. So if you are trying to say I'm harrassing you or attacking you, then I strongly disagree - I made my comments and then left it at that. You say you've referred me to other places, well, quite frankly I haven't replied because I have nothing else left to say on the matter - I summed up my feelings the other day exactly how I wanted to, then moved on. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear Ryan! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! (do I hear you crying? ;) Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh-my-goodness... you sure didn't know what you were getting into... gifting yourself to me?? Well... I feel uncomfortable taking you away from Adelle... now get to work on your stuff, "Wikipedia administrator!" (hint hint!) ;) (I promise a reply to your mail in the next hours, cross my heart, hope to die) xxx, Sharon

FYI (usurpation request)

You were involved in a previous WP:USURP request of mine. Just letting you know I have a second request pending in case you would like to comment/have any opinion on the matter. --Jeremyb 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Thank you :) I will probably continue to edit Wikipedia while I'm in Finland, I am addicted after all ;), but I won't edit from this account. I may use Aec is away (talk · contribs), or I may not log in. You enjoy your wikibreak too :) A ecis^Brievenbus 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So much for a wikibreak - I'm on more than before I went on one! Well, if you get chance, pop on with your sock, it'd be good to see you :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And... thank you :)

For reverting my talkpage, and though it's late congrats on becoming an admin.QuagmireDog 08:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Gazh

There's some criticism of you block of User:Gazh over on his talk page,(my last diff). --sony-youth^pléigh 13:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have posted a 3-revert warning on my talk page asserting I am in breach of this rule. This is incorrect. I have not violated the 3 revert rule. In fact, the other party in the dispute has violated this rule, a fact which I have made a note of in the article's edit history. __meco 08:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as you say, I reverted 5 times in 2 days, including 3 times within the last 24 hours. Which means I have not violated the three-revert rule. I am well aware of this rule as you will know by observing the fact that I notified the opposing party in the current dispute in the article's edit history for having in fact violated the rule. Your warnings, well-intentioned as they may be, are unnecessary. __meco 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, you are not entitled to 3 reversions. If you are engaging in edit warring you may be blocked. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have requested second opinion at WP:AN/I as I find it unfair that this injunction should apply one-sidedly to me when the other party was in the only violator of the 24-hour 3-reverts limit. As you can read on my talk page, Postlethwaite begins with falsely asserting that I have violated the three-revert rule. __meco 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the IP aswell, so it's not just you! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at ANI. Ryan has warned both parties and done nothing innapropriate here in my opinion. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Please be aware that you have just broken the three revert rule on Human penis size". That was the first notification I got, and that upsets me. Because that is not correct. I have read the fine print about consistent edit warring giving reason to intervene despite the fact that the 3RR count hasn't been reached, and that is not what this statement calls to attention. The best I can do is to recommend that another wording would have avoided the impression that Postlethwaite acted based on an incorrect counting of the number of reverts in a 24-hour period. __meco 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

While the template may be ambiguous, it would not even need to be used at all if you had done only 2 or 1 reversion. I reccomend you carefully edit from now on avoiding all edit wars, and not trying to use days to spread it out so you barely avpoid breaking the 3RR. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tag-team badassness

Thanks for taking care of the redirect for me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Add that to you wheelwarring with me [4] and I think we make the perfect rogues! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bwuhaha, that's great. May the Postlethwaite/EVula Cabal live forever! EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana#Transnistria_.28again.29 This may clarify something. --ŞtefanIaşi 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if edit waring continues, it can be re-protected. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The user that asked again for protection hasn't presented a single argument favouring his edits. Instead he asks to protect the article to his version. --ŞtefanIaşi 18:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there's disruption from one editor, they can be reverted and reported to WP:AN/3RR - if there's multiple users edit warring, that's when we have a problem and protection is required. I delined the protection anyway, so you don't have to worry about one persons version being protected over another. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The article should be opened and all the arguments should be presented on the talk page. May I ask you what is a fact? --ŞtefanIaşi 19:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What is a fact? If United Nations does not recognize Transnistria as a state isn't it POV to say it's a state? --ŞtefanIaşi 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this version is good?

A sourced version (from United Nations and State Dept. of USA.) might be:

Version 1.

Transnistria, is the easternmost part of Moldova^[1] ^[2] ^[3]. Transnistria's sepparatist regime is not recognised by any state or international organisation, and it is de jure part of Moldova.

I removed any references to forced terms like "republic", "state" since it's not recognized by UN. ŞtefanIaşi 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One more question please: that user that asked that the article to be protected (2 times!!) to his version, without presenting any arguments on talk page can be considered as disruption? --ŞtefanIaşi 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW can you adopt me? --ŞtefanIaşi 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:ŞtefanIaşi

Probably related to the above discussion, this user asked his block to be reviewed. Since you are more familiar with the case than I am, could you double check it? Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --El on ka 01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

RPP

You declined a request for page protection, and I replied to your comment (see here). Could you please explain your motivation a little further? Thank you! Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 12:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the question, appologies in advance, but I'm going to give you a general answer :-) Basically, wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit - so we try and keep all pages accesible to all users at all times - don't forget, we encourage users to be bold!. Unfortunately, when there is disruption, some pages and/or redirects have to be protected, but these are protective measures for the encyclopedia. We only protect pages when there is disruption, or a real threat of disruption to a page, not before it happens. Hope that explains the reason why I declined to protect the page, basically, because it had no previoud vandalism to it, and there currently isn't a real threat of serious vandalism to it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seems reasonable. I thought that high-risk templates were an exception from the no-protection-without-disruption rule, but you're right that it isn't really necessary. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

Hey buddy, just swinging by to say "good luck" on your nomination for the Mediation Committee. I (of course) gave you my full support, and we should only be so lucky to have your nomination pass. Best of wishes! Jmlk 1 7 05:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Algerie/no

I'm curious why you deleted Algerie/no as a blatant copyright infringement. You do understand that no:Algerie is, like en.wikipedia, distributed under the GFDL. Perhaps this page should have been deleted as WP:CSD A5 instead, because duplicate Norwegian content does not do us Englishers any good.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was a GFDL infringement as the individual edits are not attributed on en.wiki - it was essentially a cut and paste move from another wiki. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding a link to the other wikipedia attributing the source would have been enough to satisfy the GFDL, so I do not believe a G12 deletion is appropriate. I do believe the content should have been removed because it wasn't in English, already existed in its appropriate transwiki space (and also because it was an article sub page and was orphaned and didn't serve any obvious purpose). So I really should let this drop. I just think that in the future if there is valid GFDL content that we are using, it is preferable to simply bring the article up to the terms of the license instead of outright deleting it.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's a valid point, it's something I'll consider next time, I would restore it - but I guess there's not much point to simply delete it again! I hate the fine points of the GFDL! Thanks for the advice, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Metalupyour___10

I was afraid that the username wouldn't be blatant enough to get blocked and I was going to get that template that said it wasn't blatant enough. Thanks for blocking him. Savie Kumara 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That seamed blatant enough for me (and there's no-one complaining just yet :-)!), Thanks for the report and keep up the good work, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to become a member of the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks template, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You are also encouraged to join the Committee's internal mailing list; please email Daniel directly so he can confirm your email before subscribing it). If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask myself or Daniel. Congratulations!

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Ryan! I'm away for another week or so, but I'll deal with your mailing list subscription during that period. If you have any questions, WJBscribe is all ears :) ~~I'll also sort out IRC channel access, so if you could include your IRC nickname (I couldn't remember what it was, sorry), that'd be great.~~ already done by WJB :) Cheers, and congrats again, Daniel →♦ 07:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar congratulations from myself as well, Ryan. Best of luck in your new role as Formal Mediator :) Regards, Anthøny 16:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Well deserved indeed. You'll make a fine contributor to MedCom. Congratulations :) - Alison ☺ 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well played old bean. Just don't get burnt out by the stress... The Rambling Man 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow guys, thanks alot for the congrats!! I'm not going to spam everyones talk pages with thanks - most people probably get sick of it! Let's just say I'm honored to be joining the committee and I really hope I be an asset to MEDCOM. Now, back to being ill :-( Ryan Postlethwaite 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Late congrats, sorry I didn't comment my computer was also ill for much of the duration that I knew about. Get well soon (if not already) GDonato (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bah. Missed it. Glad (unsurprised) you made it without me! --Dweller 20:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another belated congrats :-) --Boricuaeddie 03:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Battle of Vauchamps; Battle of Ratisbon; Napoleon II of France; Battle of Brienne; Napoleon Louis Bonaparte; Battle of Caldiero; Battle of Mormans; Caroline Bonaparte; Six Days Campaign; Zénaïde Laetitia Julie Bonaparte; Lucien Bonaparte; Sarah Hills; Cool (aesthetic); Battle of Sacile; Battle of Abukir (1799); Antoine Drouot; Trial of Saddam Hussein; Berlin Blockade; Alex Rodriguez

Cleanup: Ashton United F.C.; Henry Clinton (Napoleonic Wars); Panic! at the Disco
Merge: AOL; MSN Hotmail; Hard copy
Add Sources: Sonny Moore; Jim Crow laws; Battle of Solferino
Wikify: Moral victory; Battle of Bukit Timah; 2nd New Jersey Regiment
Expand: Zinedine Zidane; Battle of Pindus; Battles of the War of 1812

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCN Archives

I hope you're feeling better! Since you have closed a good number of the RFCN discussions, I thought you might be interested in this. Per some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Questions, I have started to alphabetically archive recent RFCN reports at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Index. I have also put a link to the archive on the main RFCN page. Feel free to comment either on the archive talk page or at WT:RFCN. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

How much longer?

Do you not think it time to remove the "under formal mediation" banner with your name on it from Fuel_injection ? Cuddlyable3 07:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The template can be removed upon the case closing. I have done so now. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 12:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection onFernando Collor de Mello

Thanks for the help Ryan... that should give the RfC some time to get its magic working. Cheers!--Dali-Llama 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No probs, hope everything gets sorted out - after a quick scan of things, an RfC seems like a very good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Justification

I´d like to inset this paragraph:

"According to Philippe Faucher [19], the Plano Real, from Itamar and Fernando Henrique Cardoso benefit not only from Collor´s initiatives (privatization, free trade) but also form his failures. Faucher even emphasizes that Cardoso´s political maneuver was the beginnig of Collor´s impeachmen: "the unexpected succes of the Real Plan is due to hyperinfaltion, to corruption scandals and by the way Plano real was implemented." [20]."

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 22:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is aimed at proving that Plano Real´s succes is due to Collor´s failures which are a FHC´s political manauver. As we agree that Plano Real is understood as "end of inflation". So, the end of inflation, that is, Plano Real success, is due to Collor´s hyperinflation, that is, Collor´s failures, that is, FHC´s poltical manuver. It is fully cited.

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 22:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, the best thing to do is discuss it on the talk page and try and get a consensus to add it - the reason why I protected the page was due to edit warring and me adding this paragraph would infringe on my responsibilities as an administrator - sorry. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Editions: Hello, Ryan,; Iam facing a lot of persecution from the user Dali, as you might have noticed. He is reverting, and deleting all of my reent editions: João Goulart, Fernando Collor de Mello, 1964 Brazilian Coup d´Etat.

I should also tell you that he began this dispute in a clear anti-Collor behaviour, even linked a cover which entitled: "The year we got rid of him". This image was imediately deleted --not even authorized. While doing this he changed pics from their original place, deleted and reverted in a way I have never seen before (see history).

He is now saying he will rewrite 1964 Brazilian Coup article all again. And guess what: he even declared (see talk page) that will add Elio Gaspari comments. Gaspari is one the most famous pro-Lula,, pro-left-wing, against-Collor, against-Fhc, against- privatization, against-liberals...etc. I see an obvious pro-left-wing edition --and even against my editions, facts, citations fully provided.

It is the third time I ask amds to block him, and keep a very close watch on his editions which are cleary driven by personal views (antiliberals, antirightwing, antidemocratic). Ludovicapipa ^yes? 10:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ludovica, there's a process for making complaints against users, and you certainly wouldn't involve an administrator who just protected a page for a dispute you're involved in. If you'd like to make a complaint against me, my understanding is that you first start out with a request for comment on users or go directly to Administrator noticeboard for incidents. Let me know how that goes, but I have to admit this is the first time in my life I've heard anyone accusing me of being a communist. LOL.--Dali-Llama 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert

Sorry about my quick revert. I guess I thought it was vandalism at first glance. However, I don't need four people telling me about it on my talk page. Nevertheless, thank you for the message. — Super-Magician ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, I believe you do need 4 people telling you on your talk page as there seem to be a number of instances of poor reversions. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems all the problems were about the same edit, so I appologise for my last comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, Okay

Just to triple check myself, my revert of that was done appropriately right? >_> -WarthogDemon 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct, yours was fine - the revert that SM did after you was completely wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Hi Ryan, you have deleted my page (chris bosse) for blatant copyright issues. i can assure you that the text , that appears on various websites is written and owned by me. so are the images. pls reconsider. mail@chrisbosse.de

regards

chris

When?

Ryan you posted on my page: "if your[sic] not happy with me mediating the copyright implications part of the dispute, then we can find other users to mediate the dispute". The [sic] just means that I quote you literally and that you need to learn how to spell YOU'RE properly. There is no reason to be unclear about my opinion that your performance as a mediator between me and WikipedianProlific on the recent issue of choosing a diagram was incompetent and merely fed the (his) dispute. In hindsight you may conclude that WikipedianProlific called for mediation on choice between two diagrams neither of which he actually wanted as a manipulation of your gullibility. Or not. You may have learned something about mediation from this and now the issue is moot. However the issue of copyright implications was accepted for mediation, no mutually acceptable mediator has stepped forward, and it is obviously still a hot issue for WikipedianProlific. I don't care much for being put on hold indefinitely either. So WHEN will that issue be mediated? Cuddlyable3 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

While I don't mean to hijack someone elses talk page I feel your overtly aggressive stance towards a good, well known, unbiased editor justifies my comments here. Copyright isn't a hot issue for me at all, I'm not even sure I'd accept further mediation with you as you backed out of the last one as soon as you didn't get what you wanted and additionally your editing motives have been seriously called into question recently, such as the recent 8 hour block of your account and IP for editing warring and contentiously inappropriate use of WP:RPA. The older animated diagram will probably go up for deletion soon anyway (along with the old static version) as its been obseleted by the new animated version that came about through mediation, so its hardly even an issue anymore. For further information, [sic] tagging a users comments is considered uncivil. Infact, spelling anywhere other than on the article mainspace is not commented on usually as its unimportant if its technically incorrect as long as it can be understood. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith edition?????

I see you not only edited my version, but you also deleted few parts of mine. Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fernando_Collor_de_Mello&diff=154031871&oldid=154031827

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 09:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment process in the midle of the Collor´s initiatives subtitle? Where is the last paragrapgh concerning inflation rate? You deleted? Is this some kind of joke? The article is not expecting yr conclucion. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 10:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ryan,: I have no idea what the yser Dali has done now. Can pls help me: Can you see th link above? He edited and then deleted my verion an then put a new one online as if it was mine --with the last paragrapgh missing. And the online article is VERY STRANGE. When I put my version online and save it, it does not appear online... !!!! Ludovicapipa ^yes? 10:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Links

Can you see this version?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Collor_de_Mello&oldid=154070819

He repeated the impeachment paragraph twice. Under the "Collor´s initiatives" paragrapgh and under "Corruption charges and impeachment".

On August 26, 1992, the final congressional inquiry report was released, where it was proven that Fernando Collor had personal expenses paid for by money raised by Paulo César Farias through his influence peddling scheme. Impeachment proceedings were installed in the lower house of congress on September 29, 1992. Collor was impeached, and subsequently removed from office by a vote of 441 for and 38 votes against.[9] Fernando Collor resigned his term in office just before the Brazilian Senate was to vote for his impeachment. The Senate did so anyways and suspended his political rights for eight years. In 1994, the Supreme Federal Tribunal ruled he was not guilty of charges of corruption, but did not reinstate his political rights.[10]. In 1994, the Supreme Federal Tribunal threw out the charges of corruption,[11] citing a lack of evidence linking Collor to Farias' influence peddling scheme. The only piece of evidence, Paulo César Farias' personal computer, was found to have been obtained illegally and thus void as evidence. [12]

And he also deleted the last paragragh (check this link: [5]) under "Collor´s initiatives":

Thus, as a result of the setting off of this program < ref > [57] < /ref >, inflation reached 50 percent per month by June 1994 and averaged 31.2 percent a month in 1994, for total of 2,294.0 percent that year. Inherited from Plano Collor, as result of Real Plan (Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Collor´s successor), inflation declined to monthly rates of between 1 and 3 percent in 1995, for an annual rate of 25.9 percent. In 1996: 16.5 percent; 1997: 7.2 percent. By 2006: 3,18% annualy < ref > [58] < /ref >.

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 10:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ludovica, it's called a compromise edit. I started with your version, and edited according to NPOV and OR.--Dali-Llama 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ludovicapipa, might I suggest seeking a third opinion or starting an article RfC? I'm not really sure what you expect me to do about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've explained this to her before. Both an RfC and a Third-opinion request are in progress. Both are up on the respective request pages.--Dali-Llama 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Andyjohnston.net

You recently blocked Andyjohnston.net (talk · contribs) for an inappropriate username. This user is requesting unblocking. As the account was created before January 1, 2007, I believe this user account should be grandfathered in as per WP:USERNAME. It also does not appear that this user is advertising his domain. I left a message that I would contact you and so here you go. I think in this case, it may be worth unblocking but I leave the decision to you. --Yamla 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw the unblock request actually and it's got me thinking. I actually think the username is promotional if you look at the guys website [6] - I know he says it's not but if you look at the content it clearly is. I'm not particularly concerned with it being a web address - my impression was that it was grandfathered in, but the promotional aspect makes me think it's still a violation. Maybe I should unblock and take it RFCN? Would appreciate a second opinion off you. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(Moved comment from my talk page) andyjohnston.net has been responsible for the development of web sites on a local, national, and global scale. I disagree with you and I think he shouldn't keep this username since this website is a commercial one. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

hehe sorry yeah I got caught in doing something else and forgot to save the same message on your talk page ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no dispute at all that the website itself is commercial. As such, it is reasonable to say that it violates the don't-use-Wikipedia-for-marketing. However, this is confused a bit by it being the person's real name (apparently) and the fact that he does not seem to be using it for promotion here on Wikipedia. I'm unsure. The best option is to have him choose another username. That would eliminate the problem. May be worth asking him to consider a different name and leave a link to this discussion. He may be quite happy to do so once the problems are pointed out. I don't monitor WP:RFCN but it would certainly be an appropriate forum. In my opinion, this is an edge case. I think the user was acting in good faith, the problem is simply that he has a low-traffic commercial site at that URL. --Yamla 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah exactly, that's the problem with the username. A username block isn't because of editorial misbehaviour - it's simply because of the users username. Although Andy certainly looks like a good faith user, every time he edits he is leaving a small advert in the article histories and every time he signs his name, he leaves it on a talk page - hence, although he doesn't mean to do it, he is promoting his website (which is comercial) every time he edits. I'll wander over in a second and explain the issue at hand to him, it he still disagree's with me, I can easily unblock and get a bit of community input over at RFCN, hopefully he'll understand and agree to change his username. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. My initial concern was solely that domain name user accounts were grandfathered in though that doesn't apply to commercial sites. --Yamla 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

user:used1

What a rotten trick; I was just about to hit him and you beat me to it! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, wasn't sure whether to just give him a week vacation or an indef - he seemed to have caused subtle disruption over a number of months though. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Got a napkin?

So I can wipe this egg off of my face? Where's that darn "blush" smiley face! Sheesh, all this time I thought it was done off those numbers, so I tried to update before the half-hour, just to help out lil Tango lol. Boy do I feel stupid. ~*Sigh*~ Thanks for telling me! ^Ariel♥Gold 23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I saw you do it the other day but kept quiet, couldn't let you go on any longer this time. At least you don't have to rush to a computer every half an hour now :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't feel bad to tell me those kinds of things, seriously, how else will I learn? I'm not afraid to say I don't know, or I didn't know, or I'm wrong, lol. And I honestly appreciate it, because I love to learn as much as I can about these types of things. I wasn't running here to do it or anything, but if I looked at the clock, and checked the page, I'd update it. Nice to know I don't have any real reason to do it though, lol. Usually I do it on the ones I'm watching prior to commenting. You probably noticed, but I don't just "per above" at RfAs, and if I have nothing to add, I don't tend to comment unless I feel it would contribute something helpful. So, I tend to watch RfAs for several days before voicing my thoughts, and I try to address any issues that have come up if I feel I can provide useful input. (So it isn't a huge deal to update the count.) By the way, this has been bugging me for some time: Why aren't the different parts of the RfAs sections, (i.e. support, oppose, neutral) to make it easier for people to add to them? When we're talking about RfAs with 100+ opinions, and more, it is really a pain to sift through the entire page to add a comment, especially if there are multiple conversations regarding oppose or neutral points, and really frustrating when you get edit conflicts. Am I the only one that finds that difficult? lol ^Ariel♥Gold 23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because........ RfA's a supposed to be a discussion not a vote, so people like to see it in one big section! I agree it would be much easier to have seperate sections. RfA used to be one section for the whole page, and I'll tell you now - that got confusing. It's good that you look at RfA's, they give some really good advice - even if users don't pass, it's a really good editor review. Many things at RfA are something that we could all improve on, I know since I became an admin, I've learnt a hell of a lot from RfA's and changed my practices accordingly. Another good place to look at is WP:AFD - that's where you can get some really good experience with our inclusion policies and guidlines which has got to be the most important thing about our encyclopedia. Oh - there's WP:AN/I as well, but that's more for a laugh :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh oh sheesh, one section for the whole page I'd hate! lol. and I don't mean separate pages, I just mean to section the three categories with headers, so the [edit] link is at the "support", "oppose" and "neutral" sections, for ease of adding comments. I completely know it isn't a vote, but I just personally find it really difficult to comment when the request is really full of threaded conversations, and multiple un-sectioned areas. {And yeah, I've participated in AfD, AN/I, RFCN, and other areas as well, like AfC, RfM, etc.) I just find it really frustrating to try to comment on an RfA when I have typed up this nice comment, and it took me 30 minutes, and then I get an edit conflict and can't figure out where on the page my comment should go! lol.

^Ariel♥Gold 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Three questions

I wanted to ask these before making any foolish errors:

This edit here was the correct thing to do?
Are you aware of this account?
Can I delete SLSB's user subpages, as they are the subpages of a banned user, or should I wait for a day first?

Just wanting to double-check. Acalamari 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Acalamari, good of you to drop by. I'd leave it a day or two before we go through his subpages. Could you go through "whatlinkshere" for his userpage and remove his name where he has a formal position? As you did above. Didn't know about the alternate account, I'll deal with it now! Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks; I'll go into the "what links here" then and see if he participated anywhere (I looked for active RfAs, but there were none that he had participated in). With the subpages, I'll wait for a day before deleting them. I caught the alternate account by chance when going through "what links here". Thanks again. Acalamari 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Editor review/SLSB? I just found it. Acalamari 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that can go with the subpages tomorrow. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

After I've deleted it, I'll inform those that reviewed him. Acalamari 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warning

How is what ^demon's doing ethical at all? If you look at the AfD page where he deleted the article in question, it wasn't a matter of vote amounts. There were numerous Keeps and comments from unbiased users citing sources and good reasons for the article's retainment, but he wrote them ALL off as WP:ILIKEIT. Now he flat-out refuses to discuss the subject. If I can't talk to him who can I talk to in this enormous bureaucracy? - The Norse 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV, that's what it's there for, not ^Demon's talk page after he has chosen to remove it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

Looks like I'm support you :). ~ Wikihermit 03:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, good work - I should head the osama bin laden cabal! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week

WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: recent block

Hi, i noticed you blocked a user for posting apparent nonsense, I suspect they may be posting in Hebrew, and not have very good English. Could you possibly consider unblocking them? I did warn them about posting in foreign languages, just before you blocked them. Thanks.It's User:ישראלי כוסוןDuncanHill 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I understand your concern that you think I blocked the user for merely posting in a foreign language, that was not the case. The user also created a nonsense breast shaping article, along with vandalising a page [7]. Hope that explains why I blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's hardly the worst vandalism I've ever seen! And warnings to level 4 first? DuncanHill 22:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not the worst vandalism, but he did have warnings, not the full 4, but we don't need to give out the full 4 to block. I used my judgement to realise that he wasn't here to act responsibly - I mean, replacing Gordon Brown with arabic???? It was quite simply put, a vandalism only account. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I have requested community comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Italiavivi. I know you have contacted Italiavivi previously in attempts to resolve issues, your input is appreciated. This is just a friendly notice. --Hu12 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking the inititive, it was something I was considering myself. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mail

You've got some. Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd...

I saw you here today by total coincidence! Weird! I got a chance to have some free time on the computer at school, so I took the oppurtunity to do some vandal-patrol. Talk to you on IRC maybe... *Cremepuff 222* 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's strange! It's always good to see a friendly face :-) Can't go on IRC tonight, got drunk last night and dropped my laptop so I'm having to use my dad's which hasn't got IRC installed on. Will certainly catch up soon though. You back for good now? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, probably not. Sorry about your laptop; that really sucks! I might be on wikipedia more often now, though. I may even change my long wikibreak notice to a short one soon! :) Nice to see you too. *Cremepuff 222* 23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week

Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:

Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.

Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.

Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My edits

Just a double mistake between editors. You can't ban someone from using twinkle unless you delete my monobook.css (& all skins) and protect it, delete all pages ever containing the script, and beat me over the head so I forget it. :-P --Ben^complain 07:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be tagging a lot of pages as well for speedy deletion that simply aren't speedy candidates as well using twinkle. As I said, abuse of automated tools is grounds for being banned from them. And yes, you got it right, I'd probably have to deleted your monobook and skins to stop you using it. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Anywho, I apologize, and note none of my edits were done in bad faith. All my thanks go to you for discussing it first before a harsh action! Much more civilized than another sysop (link removed, WP:RPA. don't take pot shots at other users. Daniel 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)) I've dealt with. Cheers --Ben^complain 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So is there something wrong with tagging a sockpuppetter with a template?

[8]--Funnyguy555 08:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Harassment? Well, maybe SV shouldn't have violated Wikipedia Policy.--Funnyguy555 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was in the past, and bringing it up now is harrassment. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So if I sockpuppeted a year ago, would it be harassment for someone to put a tag on my userpage? Or is slimvirgin getting special treatment?--Funnyguy555 08:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't tag respected users that haven't even been blocked or desysopped for there actions. I'm astounded you know so much about the situation considering your little time here. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So she gets away with it because it took her a while to get caught? And obviously I'm a sockpuppet myself that's why I care so much. I need to know what to do in order to get away with it like Slim did. --Funnyguy555 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your last sentence is a textbook defintion of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Cut it out. Daniel 08:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(He sort of has had to cut it out, I blocked him) Ryan Postlethwaite 08:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That'd do the trick :) I added the userpage to protected titles anyways, just to make sure reincarnates don't have opportunity to troll about some more. Daniel 08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Shocking AfD decision

Thanks for ruling keep in the Bayern Munich AfD. I'm glad that contributors felt that the magnitude of the shock result in the match was sufficient to demonstrate notability. I'm also glad a pintful of my editing time didn't go down the sewers... the way (I recently discovered) that 10% of my edits have! (Mind you, that includes a lot of speedy tagging before I was an admin) --Dweller 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete the article, and it looks like there's been some great work done on the article since it was nominated. You're not just a pretty face! I'm planning to pop over and see you and TRM soon - wouldn't mind helping you guys with an FA if you'll have me :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Crikey, we can always do with help. Current project on the go is Donald Bradman, but it's a bit bogged down. I'm supposed to be working on taking Stay Puft Marshmallow Man to GA for Clio's birthday present, but I've been neglecting it. --Dweller 11:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you have something in mind Mr P? The Rambling Man 11:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly easy to be honest with you, I'll just tag along with you guys. Might be nice to get a few rugby union articles up a notch with the world cup coming up???? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a jolly good idea. What about pushing the England team article through a bit? Or maybe Joe Rokocoko seeing as he's probably going to single-handedly win the thing... The Rambling Man 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, England national rugby union team is a FAC at the min, and it looks fairly good to be honest. Joe Rokocoko is start class, but would probably be a good one to go for, there's plenty of sources. I say we go for that! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm game. The Rambling Man 12:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

←<groan> My to-do list just gets longer... --Dweller 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I and legal threats

Given your recent deletions regarding legal threats at WP:AN/I, you might want to have a look at this. --Calton | Talk 12:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

...And, speak of the devil... --Calton | Talk 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah cheers for that. I actually read (some of!) the text on the unblock mailing list. It's a very strange situation, I don't think that anyones sure how legitimate all these threats are, or exactly what power these groups hold - they're going to a lot of trouble though it seems. I think the best thing to do is just remove any posts that they make - probably one of the cases where WP:DENY has to come into force. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is mildy strange considering the last IP Ryan blocked was based out of Germany and this one is from The Netherlands. — Moe ε 12:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, that's very strange indeed. I smell a troll for the second IP. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The next ones were from the Czech Republic and Malaysia. Checking the origin of the e-pol.org website says it's based from Belgium. I'm thinking an open proxy might be used here. — Moe ε 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, sounds like a proxy to me. Do you know how to tell whats a proxy and what isn't? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that it shows the signs of an open proxy. I'm trying to test for it now though, but I haven't been successful because of my computers limitations. User:Zzuuzz knows how to check for them, however. — Moe ε 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just stink at checking for them. I'll have a wander over to zzuuzz and see if he can help. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's offical, my computer is very outdated :) Can't get the proxy checker to work, but it seems Zzuuzz sees that they are using anon servers. Not quite open. I would just continue blocking on site, it should send the message. — Moe ε 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the IPs all belong to privacy.li, a well known anonymising service. For example dark.lastunicorn.info [9] [10]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

←I have taken up the cause too. It appears he started trying to canvas other administrators. I just reverted all of it and blocked. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Chris, they just aren't the sort of people that are welcomed here, especially when they are linked to epol.org (or whatever it is). It's just annoying that they're so persistent. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It it the kind of stuff on here that makes me sick. What I thought was a but funny was when he said he had lots of IP's and gave us the "option" to talk it out with him instead of him using all his IP's. He most recent post on JZG's page he was then complainig about all the VPN's of his that we blocked. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your AN/I contribution reverted

Hi, Ryan. An anon-ip has deleted your posting to AN/I. --Rrburke^(talk) 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, yeah I noticed that. I removed it due to the group being linked to a group making legal threats against a contributor. Calton has reverted it though, the best thing to do is just to keep on reverting them - quite frankly, they're not welcome here. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Ryan. I just wasn't sure you were aware of it.

On a totally unrelated matter, may I pose the eternal question:

Can I Get a Witness? --Rrburke^(talk) 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the link, I've left a warning for Sesmith about putting anything unsourced in articles on living people - hope that sorts it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Man..........

that was fast!!!!! I tried my best to approach the guy but it looked bad from the start. Cheers Ryan. Pedro | Chat 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No probs, I blocked account creation as well due to the vandalism coming from him - I'm on form today :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lightning baby! Pedro | Chat 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request

Hi Ryan, and thanks for your very kind and supportive request. Per this my 1st RfA was at the end of June so I think maybe a couple more weeks to alow three months to go past. I genuinely now feel that I can contribute more with the admin buttons, and believe that I have sufficent knowledge and a clam enough manner to be wise in their use. However I see too many candidates opposed purely on the basis of a lack of time between RfA's, rather than based on their intervening edits.Pedro | Chat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)