User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive6

Thank You.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thank you for all your hard work in updating my tally. Acalamari 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much Acalamari, I tried to hit in with a few comments when people were out of order for opposes/neutrals. As I said, keep up the good work, and you'll certainly make it next time, thanks again Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for doing that. No one was happy when Rlevse opposed me for being too young. Even Sarah, who wrote the longest oppose I've ever seen, wasn't impressed with that. Acalamari 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

indeed! - Alison^☺ 23:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if their going to desysop for age, they better desysop me too, because I'm like a 14 year old off wiki! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Desysop you for your age? Why? You're Alison's father, remember? :) You can't be de-sysopped. Acalamari 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

*snerk* :) - Alison^☺ 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must be really old then! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Haw haw!! Troll of the year award :) If only they knew!! Anyways - you guys know my age. I'm ancient - Alison^☺ 00:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Acalamari, I didn't mind what Rlevse said and I think s/he is entitled to make up whatever RfA criteria s/he wants to use, just like everyone else does. In my experience, some young admins are great and some are immature and quite hopeless, just like some older admins. As for my long oppose, I just did what I always do at RfA and wrote what I thought needed to be said. Sometimes it's possible to do that in a sentence or two and other times more needs to be said. Sarah 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you sarah, it was very diligent statement and one which gave Acalamari points which he could work from, as always, you gave thought to the candidate which is important when many people just jump in and be nasty Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 08:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're a charmer, Ryan. :) Thanks, but I found it very hard to do. It's hard to write an oppose for someone you think is a genuinely nice person. I hope that next time Acalamari is up for RFA I am able to fall under the support column. However, I would advise him to wait until someone he respects offers to nominate him, rather than self-noming again. I think it can be very hard to know when you're really ready for adminship and having someone(s) respected willing to put their name up there next to yours is a good sign that you may be ready in the eyes of the community. Sarah 07:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kncyu38 Owning Article

Please don't let Kncyu38 own the Manfred Von Richtofen article. He is dismmissing consensus and Jimbo guidelines, along with promoting propaganda while telliing others not to edit without his permission. After this all was seemingly , including with him, resolved a few days ago, he is now reverting the article and attempting to "own" it. Thanks! JohnHistory 18:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

[1], [2], [3]. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Help please

Your urgent help would be most appreciated here. -- Jreferee 21:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever

I don't see how edits to my own user page can be vandalism, but then again, I;m not an admin, so I can't make things up as I go along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.90.96.17 (talk • contribs)

I'm currently blocked from editing, so I can't. I don't want to have to return to this cesspool another day. --Nélson Ricardo

As you're online now, I'll unblock you for 10 minutes (per Wikipedia:Right to vanish) so you can put up your own {{db-owner}} message. Work for you? - Alison^☺ 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive blocked the IP Alison for a week as well, but unblock for 10 minutes an I'll personally delete the page Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, I guess you can go ahead and speedy the page as the anon editor requested. Up to you. You can't really put an {{indefblock}} on it 'coz they're not. - Alison^☺ 22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to delete the page, if the user puts {{db-owner}} on, until then, it can stay as it is because we don't know for sure who the IP is. I'm leave a message on the blocked users talk page asking them if they want it deleted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's done. You're quite right to be cautious. That anon IP could have been anyone - Alison^☺ 22:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting talk page?

Why delete a talk page? It may provide a useful record of past events. Friday (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish, the minute the user comes back and starts editing again, I'll undelete everything, does that seam fair? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's no big deal. I just see no value in deleting it. Right to vanish is fine, but IMO this shouldn't include a right to make rude, unreasonable demands and have them followed. Friday (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored and re-protected until the user gets back from their block, we can re-evaluate from then Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In the film version, I will be played by a young charlton heston

I must be a rogue admin, from the looks of my talk page tonight ;). A Train^talk 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

By the looks of things you better join CAT:AOR or I can see an ArbCom case being filed! Ha, you actually look like you've been doing a good job! Had to jump in with the ADERANT issue, there were no reliable sources, bring on DRV! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This.

Did you see this yet? :) Acalamari 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I just reverted this. Acalamari 20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow Acalamari, you're quite the ladies man, your ahead of me by far and that's what I'm trying to do!! Can feel User:Acalamari has a wikicrush on all the wikiladies coming on! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I just received an award for this too. :) A Train gave me the award. Acalamari 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bribe

		The Original Barnstar
		I hope It's good enough Sethdoe92 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• First of all the hidden comments were just a joke,
• and so was the bot shutoff thingy (I was just trying to have fun)

		The Original Barnstar
		Spare me Sethdoe92 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don't even think about it <!-- It's Funny -->
• I did it for you (and I also want to be a sysop too)
• So I guess you're my adopter<!-- A Train Told Me -->Sethdoe92 19:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with User_talk:Belbo_Casaubon. I've never been attacked like that before. It was kinda shocking to see that vicious of a post. You know, he actually seems proud of it: [4]. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah no problem, after looking at the contribs, there were some which could have been seen as constructive, hence why I didn't indef block. If the user makes one more edit to their talk page I'll protect it for trolling. Could you let me know if you have any further problems with the user? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly will! Thanks for the help. Some of his edits are pretty good, but then he does stuff like this. He appears to be quite fond of you now: [5], [6]. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Page now fully protected, I'm not taking anything like that Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also block extended to 1 week for continued personal attacks Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

email

I hate email, but it's temporarily enabled. =) — coelacan — 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine; just give me a 24 hour heads-up (not by email though, I don't check it unless wild horses drag me). — coelacan — 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant then, I'll let you know in due course Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. Best regards, Húsönd 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Perversedork

I sent him a message asking him if he would change his name. I will not be around much for the next two weeks, so please keep an eye on how he responds, and submit an RFCN if you think it's warranted. Thanks. YechielMan 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Chears for the heads up, will sort RFCN out if it needs it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheels?

Who was Willy On Wheels? I hear he got the phrase: On Wheels!!!! to be a synonym of VandalismSethdoe92 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Review

Can you review me? You can reach the page via the tilde in my signature.  ~Steptrip 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly.  ~Steptrip 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Ryan, thank you for your nomination and ongoing support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sethdoe92

Well, Ryno- the first thing you ought to tell your new charge is that it's a very bad idea to spoof other users' signatures. I was about to go leave him a message myself, but I saw that you've already been over to talk with him and I don't wish to go over your head. A Train^talk 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Help

I need your help. I'm now very tired and annoyed reading, since days, advices and pages about wikipedia policies without finding a real solution. Since days I wait for an administrator to cancel my account. I found incredible being in the impossibility to cancel an account I created. "Do I have to make vandalism in Wiki pages to finally found someone clever enough to answer to my request and cancel my account?" I asked.. I had no reply. Please accept my request and cancel definitively my account from wikipedia. Thank you. MDMDMDMD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeMcGD (talk • contribs), 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi there Mike. I think Ryan's not around, so why don't I take this one for him. Accounts can never be deleted on Wikipedia; the reasons for this are spelled out at Wikipedia:Account_deletion#Deleting_your_user_account. If you would like me or another admin to delete your user page, then just add {{db-userreq}} to your user page and user talk page. Your contributions, however, will remain in the system. A Train^talk 20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

R E T I R E D

You got me good

You got me good until I checked the diff. I first thought "wtf, mate" when I saw my watchlist! – Chacor 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too

My first reaction was WTF??? Then I looked at the date. Nice one, dude :) - Alison^☺ 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, yet another Wikicide. :( — MichaelLinnear 02:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What a mean joke. I was so excited for a minute there. Shathaniel 14:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On Wheels!!!!

I love A good Laugh! <!-- Sethdoe92 16:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC) -->

Funny

• It's Funny <!-- Sethdoe92 16:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC) -->
  • Yeah He's Funny WReform Group 17:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You've retired?

Hahaha. April Fools on Wheels! — zero » 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

Hey, Ryan. I noticed from your contributions that you may still be online, so could you review me? (I've asked you this before, but I'm just making sure that remember about it.)  ~Steptrip 12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm Ready

I'm Ready For My Coaching. . . Coach Ryanpostlethwaite Sethdoe92 16:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1 week block

Is a "1 week block" for seven days, or just five? Dreadlocke ☥ 23:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, should have explained, I unblocked the user yesterday as he sent me an email explaining the situation and appologised. If you want to see it, email me and I'll forward you it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New RFCN schema?

Ryan, should I take it that your new plan involves putting every single RFCN'd username on its own subpage, regardless of length of discussion, and transcluding it onto the main RFCN page while it's being discussed?

If that's the case, it might save you a bit of work to see what we did over at WP:SSP with inputboxes, notably WP:SSP/Create -- since that automatically starts a page, pulls up a template for it, and puts your own customized instructions above the edit box. I'd happily adapt the idea to RFCN if you like.

But please notice the downside of subpages compared to the archived one-page-history: the subpages take up a bit more space, and are vulnerable to post-discussion editing (vandalism, vote-changing, or deletion) -- they don't necessarily stop being used once the case is "closed".

Give me a hint of what you want, and I'll try to code it for you. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For instance, try this inputbox. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"What's an editintro?" you ask. Welllll, me boyo, y'see, just start creating a request for, say, "Swenian Fine", and look at the text above the edit box? Informative, eh? Next try creating a request completely the wrong way, say, by deleting everything in the filename after "comments/User" and clicking the button. Ooooooh, now THAT is what an editintro looks like when you do something wrong! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And actually I've created two "likely-accidental" pages just to warn users when they make these likely accidents: "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME" and "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/" with the ending slash (not the same as WP:RFCN!). You can protect those, or you can delete them and let the editintro warn the users off. Either way..... -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've protected them, I think it's a good idea to have them already created, or someones going to balls it up, does that work for you? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 08:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you also list all the other templates which should be protected? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Inputbox coded onto {{RFCUsername}}: Done. "{{Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/_Docs/_Inputbox}}" was all the coding needed.

Files used: see Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/_Docs/. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

All templates now proteced, let me know if there's any you need to edit. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 08:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:RFCNblocked

Since this is posted to the blocked user's talk page, why make the notifier type out the whole filename, when the template can produce that automatically?

Replace {{{1}}} in the template with

[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]

Minimize therbligs! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 10:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats a great idea Mr Template! Just added it in and I'll add appropriate instructions for usage in the relevant areas Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Sorry, I saw your message too late (it coincided with my having a relatively early night); I see that someone has closed the RFCN, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cheers anyway, at least it's closed now! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hey! Got a question about an issue with another editor who actually edited one of my posts, claiming that WP:TALK gave him that right, since I made a minor change after he responded to it. I know I shouldn't really edit my own posts after they've been responded to, but this edit was very minor and did not affect either the post or his response - and it isn't prohibited by WP:TALK.

So, I took it to ANI, but I wanted to see what you thought (they're not responding very quickly, busy page!). This is the notice on the ANI board, and when I asked the other editor what context had been changed, this was his response - I mean, there was obviously no context change that affected his answer... I don't want an editor to think he can run around changing other's posts, unless it's for truly egregious and violates WP:BLP or WP:NPA (even npa can be problematic.) What do you think? Dreadlocke ☥ 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah just has a quick look at it, it seams you edited you comment after you originally posted it, and Minderbinder changed it back. The changes you made were only very minor, more grmatical than anything so I don't think there's an issue here with regards to you, changing is frowned upon, but it's not against policy. With regards to Minderbinder, I think he felt he was doing the right thing, even though again, it's frowned upon to edit other peoples comments. Can I suggest just leaving it? It's not like there were any personal attacks or other serious issues in the edits he made to your comments, if tht was the case, I'd go and have a talk to the user, but I think it would just erupt the situation Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good advice. Minderbinder definitely felt he did the right thing, which is where I think the problem is - he wasn't right and shouldn't be doing it again.

So, editing other's comments is just "frowned upon"? Man I thought it was a totally outrageous and forbidden thing to do! Well, thanks for the advice. Guess I'll just drop it. Maybe with all the static I caused him, he'll think twice before doing it again.

Wonder what would happen if I edited a comment of his? Bet I'd be blocked so fast it would make your head swim... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 18:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to totally drop it, I'll leave it up on ANI for the time being. I really think he should know that what he did wasn't right. Doesn't look like it gets much response, just the one to chastise me! Hah! Dreadlocke ☥ 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, leave it up on ANI and someone may differ from my opinion, if not, I'll go and have a friendly word, any chance you can let me know what happened? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Which part? :) Dreadlocke ☥ 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean on ANI? Sure thing! Man, I really appreciate your help! Dreadlocke ☥ 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just fyi, the user still feels he can edit my posts to "correct my violations" after I've changed them.[7] He just now copied an old version of an edited post by another user, but I'm not sure if there's anything wrong with that. (same link as above) ANI is intersting, they keep addressing the BLP stuff, which is irrelevant to my issue. One editor even thought I made the attack...sheesh... Sorry to bug you with all this crap...I should probably just ignore it... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I've got as much from ANI as I'll get. If you want to drop a friendly note about not editing others posts that would be great. I'll just drop it from here and see if he does it again I guess. I guess I'm making a big deal out of nothing? Dang, I hate it when I do that... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

JohnHistory time and again

Ryan, could you take yet another look at this. JohnHistory keeps turning up every few days, changing the article against consensus. I'm not so much interested in or concentrated on that article, so I noticed only today [8]. On the talk page, he is attacking me as conspiring against him and destroying the article once again [9]. To be honest, I think the article is as good as it gets for now, and I'm tired of cleaning up behind JohnHistory, I've got better things to do, as do we all. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it with me and I'll take a look at it, but have you considered either a user Rfc, or article Rfc? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never filed an RfC before, but it's an idea. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly the expert Rfc filer either! I'll go out on a limb and say article Rfc, it seams to be Johns only concern. Get a load of diffs together as part of a neutral explanation of events (in your userspace) and I'll help you put the request in Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

On it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Kncyu38/soapbox. Feel free to comment/edit there. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:3 - fine by me, thanks for the suggestion. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Y —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN

Certainly. Please see the thread you started on the admin board, where several people were objecting to the complexity. I suspect my version may be overly short, at any rate. >Radiant< 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for implementing the change I suggested on WT:RFCN regarding the subpage link. Perhaps it would be better to change the 'View RFCN' to 'RFCN' so it looks more appropriate when viewing the subpage. Just my thought. (the necessary pages are fprotected otherwise I would have done it myself) G Donato (talk to me...) 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it makes more sense to put view RFCN, so it's clear what the button does, let me know if you desperate to make the change Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sprot

Hiyya. I took the liberty and semi'd your userpage this morning as you were taking a hammering. Hope you don't mind! - Alison^☺ 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(BTW - thanks for keeping a level head during the recent WP:RFCN hell which spilled over into a page of its own. Well done!)

"Consensus"

Where is the consensus for this change to WP:RFCN? As far as I can tell, you implemented this change less than 24 hours after proposing it on the talk page. That's not consensus. If you had happened to propose it on some other date, because of the short period of time it would have been roundly rejected, just because different people are online or notice a page on different days. If you wish to make a major change to something, you need to allow sufficient time for others to consider and discuss the proposal. It is not necessarily bad to implement it right away if there is a favorable response, it is false to say that you are following "consensus", when no such thing can be formed after so brief a time between proposal and implementation. —Centrx→talk • 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's RfB

Hey Ryan, thanks a lot for your kind support on my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate your support and I do intend to run again eventually. I hope you've been enjoying your admin tools, and once again it was a pleasure to nominate you. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job

		The Original Barnstar
		This is for taking the initiative at RFCN to improve the process. It's been a bit of a mess for the last week; hopefully we can take this improvement and steer RFCN in the right direction. Leebo T/C 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Great work on the new method of RFCN. Well done! G Donato (talk to me...) 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that the new process could people to actually think about some of the names they report and not be so trigger-happy, but it seems like a good number of people would rather do away with it than make it better. Some make good points, but I dislike the attitude that RFCN visitors are wasting their time and "should make themselves useful by editing the encyclopedia". Editors who focus solely on RFCN are fairly rare -- most contribute in a variety of other ways to the encyclopedia. Leebo ^T/C 13:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My Canberra friend

... is now requesting unblock. Hehe. – Riana ^ऋ 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Netsnipe took care of it. Cheers :) – Riana ^ऋ 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Improved CaseForm display

Ryan, would you please move or cut-and-paste the text now in User_talk:Ryanpostlethwaite/_CaseForm over to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/_Docs/_CaseForm ?

It not only looks nicer, it keeps the header format compatible with the pre-subpage header format.

You'll notice Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Jesusfreak10 is a test case. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, looks far better - you don't stop impressing me! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

ready?

Xiner's getting mighty impatient for my RFA and Physicq210 is trying to make me an offer I can't refuse. Would you be ready to do the nom soon? — coelacan — 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan RfA

It doesn't matter, just as long as we get this thing done. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bril then, well if you get time write the nom and I'll co-nom when I get up so I ca have a think about it, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coelacan and give your opinions on the nom statement (this is actually my first RfA nomination). Thanks! —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you can add the co-nom, notify Coelacan, and transclude it on the main page, as I'm going to sleep now and won't be back online until around 00:00 UTC April 8 (16:00 PDT April 7) (argh...these time zone discrepancies...). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• ooooh! :) - Alison^☺ 06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan! — coelacan — 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology student, eh?

Have you seen WP:PHARM? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

JH

Hey Ryan. Well, bibliomaniac15 responded to the request here. As the latest bit of the discussion revolved around the exact wording and JH offered another lenghty reply, I asked bm15 to specify and he replied in agreement with my version. Since then, everything has remained silent. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:RfA

Thank you very much for the nomination, (I hope you didnt mind the momination here and not emailed!). I am honoured by this but I very recently had a second nomination which I withdrew at 17/16/1, this was mainly due to the fact that I had once voted on 6 AfD's in 8 minutes and that caused many people to oppose, therefore I'd like to give it time to fix that and get my edits up to about 20K 'ish. I thank you very much for this and I would love for you to nominate me in the future months (possibly July??) but I'm going to have to decline for the minute to work on some of the issues raised and not come over as too eager, again - I am thrilled by the proposed nom. Thank you very much - Tellyaddict 12:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope your not offended by me declining the nomination, also the Semi Protection tag on your Userpage can just go into the corner by adding |small=yes}} to the end. Just incase you wanted it like that. Tellyaddict 17:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked for the link to my previous RfA, here it is, that was a month ago, Thanks and please do nominate me in approxiately July. Cheers - Tellyaddict 10:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:172.133.56.51

Appears to be a sock of a user you blocked for vandalism on this page. This user is now doing the same- and IPs are in same range. GDonato (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah got it, now blocked!! (Just left you a message on your talk page about it!) Cheers for the reverts Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I'm not in violation of WP:3RR because I'm editing different versions of the page.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1st revision, 2nd revision, 3rd revision, 4th revision. Thats breaking 3RR to me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The 4th revision is different than the other 3--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From 3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He just reverted again as an IP [10]. he admits it's his here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And again as himself...[11]. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, would you mind reverting Ed's last revert of Moreschi's version? I don't want to fall foul of 3RR. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all I wanted. Hopefully this dispute will now cease. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just changed the redirect at Wikipedia:Esperanza and removed a notice from the esperanza page accordingly. Is this breaking 3RR? Should I revert myself? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, just seen you do it, I was thinking oh god, whats he doing? But I think the disambig link removal is uncontroversial, and you explained in your edit summary. If someone else re-adds it, will you just leave it and I'll sort it out tomorrow? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility

After I got this ? — Indon (reply) — 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My head was just a bit boiled up. Thanks for the advice. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got my Mr Cool hat on today so I'm sorted! All the best Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection at WP:BIO

I noticed that you protected the music notability page. You might consider the same for WP:BIO. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Holly James

Hello. I was wondering why you deleted Holly James. There wasn't a lot there yet, but the Spanish page was developed quite a bit.--Kidd Loris 12:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Teledildonic Man

I swear while looking at User:Teledildonic Man's contributions that he reported himself to AIV as his first act, and then was reported again for exactly the same reason (using exactly the same text)... odd SGGH 13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when he self reported himself, I removed it as trolling - it's a bit strange to be honest! I think I'll keep an eye on the account, but at the minute, he's not doing anything too disruptive. By all means block though if you disagree Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He changed jazz fusion to cold fusion in an article - at least he's funny. – Riana ^ऋ 13:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, so he did! Looks like definate future admin material! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Teledildonics." A Train^talk 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sethdoe92 (talk · contribs)

Yes, I will. I dont actually think how close he is coming to being blocked. I was looking at his edits and I noticed he often said Ass cream, even when voting on RfA's? I will tell him and if he continues I'll leave you a note, I think he means well just doesn't know quite what he is doing and the results which could be blocked. Thanks for telling me - Tellyaddict 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I will, cheers! Tellyaddict 16:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

TA clearly means well but I'm running out of good faith for Sethdoe. We should consider popping over to the community noticeboard next time he makes an inappropriate edit. A Train^talk 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good call Atrain, and it's coming from mr AGF himself! I'll keep an eye on his contribs and CN it if needs be Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of him too, I've left a long and boring warning on his User talk page and told him in kinder words that if he makes one more wrong move he will be blocked, most probably idefinitely. I am removing the Userbox from his Page saying I'm his adopter, I just cant adopt a Vandal, his intentions here clearly aent good. I've also provided loads of diffs to his bad edits. Cheers - Tellyaddict 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just read it through! It was quite very well researched, loving the diffs. To be honest with you, I think it would be a waste of time trying to help him and your doing the right things by knocking him off your adoption list. He's out to disrupt and I really doubt he'll be here for much longer. Next bad move and I'm proposing a community ban Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, their he goes! Cold you please just block him as he warned me at my Sandbox (which I aksed him to yesterday for training on User warnigs) but guess what edit summar he used? (Ass cream) and totally removed loads of comments from my long and boring warning. If you would you mind if I add the blocked tag but say in my edit summary I'm not a sysop. I'll blank his Userpage and add it their, assuming this is OK with you? Cheers! - Tellyaddict 19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thats one problem sorted for the minute. Thanks for what you've done! Tellyaddict 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA accident

Do you think i should leave the rfa-nomination template on Radiant!'s page? I know i removed it and replaced it with "what the...?"....... :) Simply south 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah do! Just put it above the rest of the comments, its funny! :) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Erm.... Simply south 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He'll think it's funny! There's no harm in it anyway! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Maybe i should set up a second nom page or is that going too far? Simply south 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be going too far ;-) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll see. I think i left the wrong edit summary on radiant's page. Simply south 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Ryan I just wanted to know if this user has gone through WP:RFCN Because as you know I just came back after nearly 3 weeks and Iam not sure>>(User:Jesusinmysock)....--Cometstyles 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No but leave a {{UsernameConcern}} message on their talk page or you'll get shot! (Take a look at WT:RFCN, it's all kicked off whilst you've been away!). Leave the concern there a few days, and if the user continues to edit, or requests a discussion, take it to RFCN. Does that sound ok? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

yes its ok and I did just that and he 'kindly' replied>>"Man get over it It's just a name. You may be concerned but thats your problem. I refuse to change my username. I'm trying to be as nice as I can. I can kind of understand your concern then agin I cant. Oh I get It my Middle Name is Jesus."People seem 2 like me a lot nowdays..I'll just leave it at that..bye..--Cometstyles 20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd take it to RFCN then, I'm not sure if it is against policy, but it's worth a shout Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RebeccaC21.

You were quick with that one; I went to search for Project For Pride in Living and found it was already gone. Thanks for that. Acalamari 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Project for Pride in Living

I can't log into my old account because I had to change my name to RebeccaC21 because they said before it was blatant advertising to have my organization name. Is there any way I can still delete this? My boss is very upset. It's a;ready sorted now Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anagrams

Radiant probably got the anagram from a server like this one: http://wordsmith.org/anagram/ ... personally, I much prefer "Satan pee holy writ." Obviously, you have some strange religious views... ;) Mangojuice^talk 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, that's a brilliant one! I see my true religion has come through! As if I'm going to be editing wikipedia for a bit - I've got anagrams of all my friends names to find now! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

protection of EA?

IMHO, we weren't edit warring this time. In fact, I really think that we're making good progress here. Since the middle of February, my edits were continuously reverted by Dev for no good reasons. However, she began to accept two of my edits! I don't see how reverting grammatical changes constitutes a major enough situation to make an edit war.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you were edit warring over spellings. I'll unprotect the article for now, but if this reoccurs, I'm going to protect it again, and for considerably longer becuase it's not helping the encylopedia in any way Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted a message on Dev's talk page. I'll see what's up with her.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, just remember to discuss before acting...... Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You think I haven't tried that yet? So far, I reached the second step of WP:DR...Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[12] :( Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that discussion will help: all previous attempts have failed. Requests for input at the VP and HD have returned no helpful remarks. Dev has removed about half of the messages I sent to her. Right now, IMHO the only way to get my point across is by going up the dispute process--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What stage of DR are you on at the minute? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Second step. Also, I managed to compile a conflict log here: User:Ed/Dev920 v. Ed Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By second step what do you mean? Mediation? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah. If you look at my conflict log, you'll see that the main dispute is over a few sentences on the essay. The stage I'm in right now is a combination of disengagement by moving on to a different issue in the essay (ie spelling, grammar) and by attempting to discuss more often.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, might I suggest a RfC? I think in this case it might be a good idea. Or maybe mediation? I'd be happy to start mediation at Wikipedia:Esperanza/mediation if you and Dev decide to accept (if you agree will you ask her?). Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to attempt mediation. I'll contact Dev right now--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

64.251.53.130

I'm curious why you indefinitely blocked this IP. Could you explain further what the situation is with this IP to warrant such a block? Thanks. --Geniac 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for further info. I checked the whatlinkshere for the userpage and user talk page and didn't see a checkuser request. Wouldn't it be helpful to have a link to it on the IP's userpage? --Geniac 15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it most probably would, but I'm not sure whether this was a private arbitration checkuser? After all it was Mackenson that originally indef blocked Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk

Re:Sorry

Just rolled back one of your edits by accident [13], pressed the wrong button! I've corrected my mistake now though. Sorry about that, hope there's no hard feelings Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I saw, no problems. We're taking bets on IRC as to how long it is before all of these get reverted as a clearly rouge abuse of power :) --bainer (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted 2, does that help piss off the IRC cartel? Sure hope so! --kingboyk 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Next time I won't correct my mistakes then! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt Furey

Hey there again. I'm back for a few days and I am already getting this stuff. I'm ignoring it for now, but should I report this kind of behaviour somewhere? I'm on lunch break right now so I won't be able to respond right away, I'll be back at around 3 o'clock. Nice to be back for a bit. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. As to where to take it, you could take it to AN or ANI? But I'm more than happy to sort it out for it whenever (As long as it isn't urgent). Are their any more IP's out their harrassing you? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just him. I don't even know what their problem is, or if they are even referring to me, as I only turn 17 in two months time. I'll deal with them as they come. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So

Look at this. [14] I am really disappointed with the way we have become so inconsistent with administration of policy. I have noted that policy is being translated willy nilly with little regard for what is normative. People are anti precedent, yet do not seem to see how if there is not some form of consistency in application of policy, people are not treated with equity. Anyways, not so sure I will bother with that RfC much any more. I am not convinced it is working well at the moment. Thanks for listening to my gripes. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It was good getting to know you a bit in there, regardless. Peace, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the end :( Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I ain't going nowhere. Just frustrated at the lack of valuing of consistency in actions among administrators. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorting autoblock

Thanks for that. TomGreen 13:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No probs, glad it worked Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Stepping out for a bit

Ryno, I'm going out for a bit; keep an eye on this one and this one for me if you can, will you? A Train^talk 13:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly will do, have a nice day :) Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 13:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, RP. A Train^talk 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of Jeffhardyfan*17

Nice, you beat me to the block, lol! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, I was secretly butting into the convo, and wanted to get in before you - looks like I did :-) Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 16:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

lol, yea. I gave the notice then was going to block. you blocked and then gave the notice! Well done good sir, well done. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to decline the block. He made it clear he had no intention of stopping. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I'm just doing some research to make sure it isn't true - which it certainly isn't! Apart from this myspace which Jeffhardyfan*17 probably created himself! Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, i couldent find anything to substantiate it. And myspace does not count. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Put the guy out of his missery and decline! Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is his talk page screwed up. I.E., every edit opens the section below it and the bottom section when you click edit givesyou a blank page? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it is!!! I thought it was just my computer! Your the programmer chris so I volenteer you to fix it Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted a request at the villiage pump (technical section). Im not sure what is causing it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN, you beat me by doing the EAXCT same thing I was doing. I was just going to replace it with a regular welcome! You are TOOOO quick. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on form today Kreider, anything to stop the good old uni work! Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 17:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Transparency in Wikipedia

User;Ahwaz's violation of 3RR had nothing to do with BLP, and was the result of his edit-waring to place a notability tag on the article, since he's claiming the subject is not notable to have an article, eventhough the subject generates thousands of google hits in several languages, and User:Ahwaz's argument was refuted several times. Furthermore, User:Ahwaz has been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and sockpupetry 17 times by now, in less than a year. [15] Please note that User:Ahwaz was still edit-waring, even after he was explicitly told by an admin the last time he was blocked, that he was very close to being blocked indefinitely if he doesn't improve his behavior.[16]. I am afraid unblocking him, will only encourage him to continue on the disruptive path he's been on. Would you please, for the sake of transparency and accountability, reveal the name of the user who e-mailed you off wiki requesting an unblock for User:Ahwaz. I am asking this because there is extensive off-wiki lobbying going on, and it's important that such matters be discussed publicly and openly on Wiki to prevent any abuse. --Mardavich 18:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

After originally decling Ahwaz's original unblock request (because on the surface is does look like clear cut edit warring), he emailed me explaining exactly what he was doing. I went ahead and again at the article on Nasser Pourpirar and saw clear cut BLP violations. When I actually checked the diffs, Ahwaz had simply been readding citation needed tags onto the page. Please note in WP:3RR, it specifically states that this rule does not apply for users trying sort out WP:BLP issues which Ahwaz was attempting to do. It may have not been as clear as removing the BLP violation texts, but he was attempting to get sitations for the violations. If it had been clear cut, I would have unblocked comepletely, as it happens, I don't think it was clear BLP violation removal, so I reduced the block down to 24 hours with consent of the blocking administrator. I have since attempted to remove all BLP violations from the article as it was no way appropriate at the state it was in. I am not willing to increase the block myself Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 19:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist add request

Ryno, I'm going to you and Alison for a little back-up here.

Damian Chapa is an article about an actor that is a source of constant vandalism that violates WP:BLP. The vandalism comes from a dynamic IP (or several?) and comes at a rate of once every few days. It's too infrequent to semi-protect the page, and it's been going on for many, many, many months. Even if s-protection was a viable short term option, the vandal is so persistent that it would not be tremendously useful in the long run.

Do me a favor: add the article to your watch list and help me keep an eye on it. I've never seen a Damian Chapa movie (and judging from the filmography in the article, I doubt that I ever will) but I don't need to explain the dangers of running afoul of BLP to you.

If you've got any better ideas, drop me a line. A Train^talk 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah just had a quick scan of it and can see the problems , it's now watchlisted you'll be pleased to hear! I see the last edit stayed up for 4 days! I've had a bit of a BLP day today, cut a shed load of Nasser Pourpirar out - BLP violations are probably wiki's biggest threat. Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and a scholar, Mr Postlethwaite. :) A Train^talk 20:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

JH

I didn't check on the article in a few days and meanwhile this happened. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

?

I didn't make any of the edits you showed in the diffs, I'm sure you could have checked that out for yourself. Not sure, exactly why this witch hunt still continues? I am not really going to take too much time with it, though. I have no reason to willing violate any policy, and I have shown myself to be a thoroughly reasonable person in my logic and discipline. JohnHistory 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Do you own the said source in question, or is kncyu38 just feeding you this garbage? He doesn't own it either, he reall doesn't even care about the article. I do own it, and it is propaganda. Do you disagree? I am trying to find a shcolarly debate or solution to this. Many of us have now agreed. I don't see how your contributing anything to the article, or the solution of this problem, in a positive way for Wikipedia. JohnHistory 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

I saw what you meant. In fact, I was trying to enforce the Wiki Jimbo Guideline policy, after waiting along time and I see nothing wrong about my edit, and alot right about it. Please tell me why its bad, as I own the source in question that I am talking about? Nothing is a violation about that diff at all. In fact it is the exact opposite. That quote shouldn't even be there at all under guidelines. However, if it is, then it needs to state the dubiousness of the source (which describes itself as propaganda). Unless of course you want to endorse propaganda on Wiki along with a select minortiy of others do, as in this case? The revert is actually very misleading as it stands. You should be talking to that person, not me. BTW, this subject was already concluded before succesfully. JohnHistory 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

SuperNESPlayer (talk · contribs)

Hey there Ryan, I was wondering if you could offer this user mentoring in your spare time? I can tell that his edits are made with completely good intentions, but he still makes a whole lot of mistakes, ranging from single unverified facts to completely mucking up the seventh generation consoles page based on a personal opinion. He definitely seems like he could be made into a fantastic editor, but for the time being, more often than not, it feels like a babysitting job has been added to my other editing duties. Also, I'm sorry if I should have taken this request elsewhere first, I've just heard that you're very skilled at solving this kind of problem and I could use your help. Thank you! Thores 07:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed

I came to the the conclusion round about February that Ed isn't trying to make constructive edits to the page, he is pursuing some weird agenda of his own that is apparently based on making Esperanza look as good as possible. I say this because the versions he has trying to insert always soften criticisms and somehow phrase like "nice idea" get turned into "excellent idea". He has wanted to replace the essay with at least three different versions for varying reasons, from "It looks better!" to "It needs to be neutral!" to "It doesn't fulfil the closing MfD comments!" Every time I talk to him he moves the goalposts, and frankly, I'm removing his comments from my talkpage because I'm sick of talking to him and it getting nowhere. I'm sick of taking the time to write him a half hour message and it just sliding off his back, sick of my every message apparently giving him attention that spurs him on to another excitable attempt to get more people involved that just don't care. Look at the number of compromises in Ed's subpage (btw, the name Dev920 v. Ed hardly exhibits the put-upon-oh-why-is-she-reverting-me-I-only-want-to-help attitude he is currently displaying to you, does it?).

Where Ed's documents starts is only where it resumed after a month of Ed's apparent acquiescence to the version that everyone supported. It was only Quadzilla's edit that spurred him onto the the revert war he got into. This actually goes back to January 2, the day Esperanza was deactivated, when Ed added a extremely biased section about fostering the goals of Esperanza, which I removed. One may note that the version in that edit is the exact same one I have been trying so hard to maintain against Ed's onslaught. It is version accepted by virtually every editor to the main page, the version not in any way disputed whenever Ed goes over the Village Pump to drum up support, it is the most accurate and most accepted version of what happened to Esperanza. Ed's attempts to change it have only ever been met with "OMG, are you still arguing over this? Leave it alone." But Ed won't leave it alone, and I was not prepared to let him trample all over the consensus of the community.

No, I'm not assuming good faith, how can someone assume good faith of a little boy who is edit warring over spellings? The additions I made was the only changes I made to Moreschi's version, and Ed seems incapable of accepting any edit I make (and I don't mean the reverts, I mean the edits to compromise suggestions by Steve Block, and by Moreschi). Ed inserted a semi-colon instead of a full stop, even though I had specifically made it a separate separate because a) it flows better and b) it emphasises on the fact that they did very little. This is important because it was a major factor in their being deleted, the first MfD had closed as no consensus only because they promised to reform themselves, and what they actually did was delete the most disapproved of pages and then get bogged down in proposals over governance. "nice" is similarly important, not only because it is a direct quotation from my nomination statement at the MfD, but because it carries a cutesy value that one applies to soft cuddly objects, which is the epitome of everything Esperanza stood for. That and a change in the common term for a member of Esperanza was what I changed about Ed's edit, for very good reasons as I have just explained to you. I left the rest. But I guess one has to ask why Ed made his changes, and why Ed wished to draw me into a discussion to discuss spellings. If he is as keen to end this dispute as he so oft claims, why is he still haggling?

I acceptd Moreschi's version, as I did Steve Block's compromise, with a few small, but vital, changes in each case to ensure the meaning was not lost. One may notice this is exactly what I have done with all changes to the essay. When EWS23 added a paragraph I removed the proselytising, which I find important because the essay mustn't forget that Esperanza was shut down for a reason. I have tried to pursue that policy for a long time. Ed's first real attempt to change the essay was to remove the criticism section entirely, claiming it was giving undue weight to criticisms, which I think says much about his motivations. He appears to have forgotten that Esperanza was deactivated because of those very arguments. Unsurprisingly, I reverted him. It went back and forth for a few and the article got protected. Afterward Steve Block tried to write a compromise version that I accepted with a few changes and Ed wanted a few as well - we were thrashing it out on our talkpages when Elaragirl made her edit, and the compromise died. This is when Ed made his second attempt to fundamentally change the essay,which was exceptionally badly written, removed the criticism section again, and was generally awful, which was why I removed it. Ed claimed it was "a 2nd compromise" - compromise between what and what exactly? A compromise between my desire to keep the original version agreed upon by the community and his desire to remove all criticisms? The article was protected again. Convenient how Ed's compromises always change after article protections, because it changed again after that time. Again he called it a compromise, again I have to ask who and what he was compromising between. Note his arguments thus far have been "undue weight" and "compromise", up to about the end of March. Then he changed tack and started claiming the text was "biased" and shortly after that that it violated the MfD closure. It was protected again.

At this point Ed suggested a "truce", and the main terms we agreed on was that the article would be unprotected, neither of us would edit it and I would provide proof that my version was supported by the community. But I was under a lot of pressure at the time, and as I have explained already, I am loathe to give Ed any more attention that I absolutely have to because it is a complete waste of my time. His constant version and excuse changing had convinced me he really wan't interested in any kind of reasoned argument. I think the best example of this is the Village Pump where he tried to drum up support for his version, and both I and Steve Block took the time to respond, as well as several other editors, but it became obvious Ed wasn't actually listening to any of what we were saying, instead, ludicrously, comparing the whole thing to a murder inquiry that he had to solve. You can read the entire discussion here. My reasoning for reverting him was thus:

"Yes, we are. Why? Because these changes you suggest do not improve the essay. They attempt to skew it to talk about how marvellous Esperanza was and what a pity it was shut down. That you said "The essay would give the impression that helping the Wikipedian community is a bad thing." is very telling, as it says no such thing. It says that Esperanza is a bad thing: surely you have learnt by now that Esperanza != community? The community made it very clear where it stands on Esperanza, and the essay reflects that. It is you who insists that the essay needs to be unbiased - unbias does not equal equal weighting. Due weight is given to the feelings of the community, the community which DELETED Esperanza. They didn't say "Oh look, what a spiffing idea Esperanza is, I know, let's close it for fun.", they made strong and valid criticisms that are listed. Read your comments, you are chafing against the reverts themselves, not your edits that have been reverted. You don't have anything to say about WHAT changes you would like to introduce, just that we won't let you. And that, I think more than anything, demonstrated that you are just replyng now to wind everyone up than because you actually want to make meaningful, constructive edits. You just want to whitewash."

So, you can see, I did explain to Ed exactly why I didn't like his version, but he didn't heed it. I announced I wasn't going to engage him anymore - this was the point when I stopped replying to his messages and removed them from my talkpage, as it became utterly clear to me that Ed just wasn't interested in dialogue. Steve also couldn't be bothered to talk to him anymore.

After the truce broke down, which Ed laughably put down to cowardice rather than sheer mind numbing apathy, Moreschi proposed the version we see today. Ed didn't like it, edit warred over it and got blocked. I made a few small but vital changes, but left it at that. Ed made some changes, some of which I disagreed with, and have explained above, and reverted, and Ed is now making himself out to be some kind of martyr.

It has been a wildly frustrating three months, as Ed appears to have only one aim in mind and that is to change the essay for the sake of changing it, and then revert warring whenever I point out that what he changed had been there for a very good reason. I have thus become convinced that he is doing it for base motives, whatever they are, and WP:AGF says I don't have to assume good faith where it would obviously be stupid to do so. I am sick of talking to him, and if he really wants to cease this dispute, he shouldn't be edit warring over three fucking spellings. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What issues do you want to sort out? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Those spelling mistakes, that's it, we'll come to some agreement, and then I'll protect, that will put an end to the case Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I start at Manchester a year after you leave. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlucky! Where are you from now? and just to let you know, I'm studying medicine after I've finished this degree so I'll still be there when you are!Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Want to help me set up the Wikipedia Club of Manchester? :) I'm in Chelmsford at the moment, then moving elsewhere for a volunteering project. No idea where, maybe I'll end up in Manchester a year early... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully object to Dev's explanation of this edit war. Her arguements have had no substance the whole time! In fact, if you read my conflict log, Dev has never referred to any policies when providing any basis for her actions. I have repeatedly edited the essay, at some times introducing different wordings for it, for 3 reasons:

• The arguments in the essay were unduly weighted. (i.e. more anti-Esperanzian than pro-Esperanzian) This is a violation of WP:NPOV.
• The essay did not comply with the MfD closing comments. (WP:MFD/EA)
• The essay is biased and does not satisfy WP:NPOV.

Every time Dev made it clear that she was not happy with my edits, I introduced a new wording of the paragraph in question. In fact, I even attempted a compromise for our edit conflict on User:Ed/Sandbox. In addition, I would present different reasons to edit the essay after it appeared to me that Dev has counter-argued against me quite well. (look at the list above) However, now that I look back on my link tables, it became clear to me that Dev has ’’never’’ any reasons based on policy to keep the essay in the version that she wants it to be kept at. Take a look at the tables and appendices on User:Ed/Dev920 v. Ed. None of her edits have presented evidence to support her arguments. For example:

• If you look at the main table on User:Ed/Dev920 v. Ed, none of Dev’s edits have presented no policy-based arguments against my edits. She has never proven that the essay is currently unbiased.
• Dev also claims that I’m insisting on editing a page which everybody is okay with. She says that there is an overwhelming consensus in support of that essay. However, I have asked her to present proof of this during a truce (User:Ed/Dev920 v. Ed#Appendix D), she has never kept her side of the truce. In addition, a majority of the edits made to the essay ranged from January to Febrary, 2 months ago! This shows her ignorance towards the dispute resolution process and the principle that consensus can change.
• I have also argued that the essay does not comply with the closing results on WP:MFD/EA. (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 27) Dev has never provided any tangible arguments against this. I have repeatedly attempted to discuss this with Dev (per [[WP:DR#First step: Talk to the other parties involved|]]), but please see Appendices A, B, and D in the conflict log for more information.

It is clear that Dev is continuously reverting edits for the sake of reverting it to a version established 2 months ago in February. She is expressing ownership over the essay. This is a violation of WP:OWN. She has no policy-based reasons for keeping the essay the way it is. She has never responded to my arguements that the essay violates the MfD comments, nor has she even attempted to satisfy any opposition to her edits.

Also, whenever another user introduces another change to the essay that Dev doesn’t agree with, she doesn’t bother to improve on it; she just reverts! I, however, have been implementing different compromise attempts. This is a violation of WP:DR#Avoidance: “Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.” Again, Dev’s actions clearly show that she has no interest in following dispute resolution policy.

I have taken a few breaks from the essay per WP:DR#Second step: Disengage for a while. See notes 19 and 20. Obviously, the Wikibreaks for both of us didn’t work. Dev reverted the essay immediately after the unprotection without a policy-based edit summary.

Eventually, Dev agreed on a truce that I proposed. (again, suggested by WP:DR. See Appendix D. She promised to fulfill the conditions of the truce, part of which were to provide evidence that the essay is supported by the community at large. However, after a full week passed, Dev has never presented a single shred of proof. This further proves Dev's ignorance towards the dispute resolution process. I, however, presented note 110 on Appendix C of my conflict log during the attempted truce. To this, Dev has also never responded.

Even if we ignore WP:DR, WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV, the archives of WT:EA shows Dev's horribly anti-Esperanzian interests. Yes, I acknowledge that Esperanza became bad in the end; however, Dev is trying to send the message that spreading kindness to the Wikipedia community is a bad thing. My edits to the essay aim to show all future Wikipedians that spreading good cheer and kindness is a good thing. We need to emphasize this point. The underlying community is the only thing that keeps this encyclopedia alive and running.

Dev has, again, stated an intent to refuse dispute resolution. I don't know what I'm going to do yet, but I'm no longer interested in a mediation with you as a mediator. I want completely unbiased mediation from people who had no interest in Wikipedia:Esperanza. I'll get back to you ASAP. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another edit protection, another proposed version from Ed. This time he is trying to add as many positive things about Esperanza that he can think of because he's finally given up on removing the criticism. Given that he has apparently decided to not bother with mediation, can you skip that step and go straight to the protection-forever-more stage? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am considering mediation. I've emailed him around 2 days ago. Just wait for a response.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate input

Ryan, as a username expert, would you care to offer an opinion on this? RJASE1 ^Talk 18:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza

Hi, I protected the page seeing that edit warring had resumed and posted at WP:ANI about it. I now gather you have started to mediate this dispute- best of luck! Feel free to unprotect the page, but I suspect it may be best to take the temptation away from the participants... Your call. WjBscribe 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks. :) Bubba hotep 18:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance Mr H! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro!

Yes you are! Even without the sig! Thanks for the star! NikoSilver 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice new siggy, Ryan! --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I got it from the best! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks vaguely ... familiar, somehow. I've seen it somewhere before. Now, where ...  :) - Alison^☺ 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Enlighten me Alison, before I revoke Mr Silver's Barnstar!! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I better stash it somewhere fast! The shop was almost out of business Ryan, thanks for the advertisement! NikoSilver 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm .... ;) Alison 22:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Different colour scheme?! Might let Niko off on this one, I was ready to be a rogue admin and block him indef but it looks fine to me (just to be on the safe side, you better revert your sig back :-P!) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! I might wind up blocked for copyvio! - Alison^☺ 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a patent on all abusive sigs. Confirmed by the registration office! NikoSilver 23:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh hey, now that's pretty neat! Kewl. Do you think you could do anything with my boring sig? (pretty-please? :) ) - Alison^☺ 23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the shop window and mind your step inside please. Although yours is cooler than I could imagine for now... I'll think of something tomorrow (02:19 in Athens now) NikoSilver 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh - shiiiiny. Your shameless and blatant advertising seems to have paid off. How could I resist? - Alison^☺ 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Emails

I've sent you an email back, it really did put a smile on my face :-). Matthew 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It put an unhappy one on mine!!! Nah, I've emailed you back Ryan Postlethwaite 14:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, as mistakes go that is probably my stupidest. I do believe I'm improving my self everyday though :-). Matthew 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mrr Ooompap

He must have roaming ip's because he keeps creating accounts. I am watching account reation log and blockign em on site! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked him yday for tagging jimbo as a sock, at least you'll be able to increase your block log numbers! Ryan Postlethwaite 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Category seems to be working Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of User:Mr oompapa..--Cometstyles 14:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it blue linked for you? Just purged my cache and it's still red linked Ryan Postlethwaite 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At least my feet wont get cold, i think that is the 4th sock ive just blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the problem with the catgory. It was user:Mr Oompapa,. not just Mr oompapa. I fixed all the improper sock tags. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah noticed that, attempted to fix a few myself, this is gonna be a long day!!! Ryan Postlethwaite 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hell prob get bored and give up. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, don't mind if I join in do you? Bubba hotep 15:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The more the merrier! Ryan Postlethwaite 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

←Nope, my sock drawer is getting full. {{sockblock|Mr oompapa}} is currently stored on my clipboard for quick paste action. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He's back and he just vandalised my page as User:Buddha eating curry BLOCK HIM PLIZ..Thanks..--Cometstyles 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr Kreider already had that under control! Ryan Postlethwaite 15:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Hi there, just thought I'd point it out that you've got a great sig, really good colours like combining each other. Thanks - Tellyaddict^Talk 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you Mr Addict! User:NikoSilver created it for me so I won't take the cred - I love it though! New username, new sig! Ryan Postlethwaite 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Eyy ay, I never realised you username had changed, hope you like it! Tellyaddict^Talk 17:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

Ah, darn. Looks like my RFA didn't succeed. No doubt I'll take another run at it in a few months when my edit count isn't such an issue. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 02:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And to you, too.

I respectfully disagree with your characterization. If you feel the need to provide support for A Train, do so on the discussion at his Talk page. I have no interest whatsoever in my Talk page being overrun by typical Wikipedia posturing, and have already made my stance on his comments crystal clear. Italiavivi 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite serious, I've no interest in your two's ad hominem spree over "massacre" discontent. Keep it off my Talk page. Italiavivi 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A Train is engaging in very typical hollow posturing over the Virginia Tech naming dispute. I will only discuss that dispute at Talk:Virginia Tech massacre in the presence of the article's editors, and have no interest in your support for A Train's posturing appearing on my Talk page either. Italiavivi 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

hey there

Hi Ryan,

I've seen you gain experience on WP with pride. I was here when you joined and I remember bumping into you several times during RC patrolling. Although, since now you're an admin and meet a lot of people, you might not remember me :P

Just wanted to say you're doing a fantastic job, and WP needs more editors like you :)

Regards, xC | ☎ 12:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It definitely is addictive, I can vouch for that!

About the RfA, its very kind of you to offer to nominate me. But I doubt I'd pass it. I don't have enough edits, and despite WP having an essay against editcountitis, it is still a very common disease.

How many more edits do you think would be respectable? The thought of self-nominating myself had crossed my mind once before, but I didn't because I didn't want to be brushed off as just another ambitious newbie.

Either way, its a compliment that you felt I would be worth nominating. Thank you so much :)

Best regards, xC | ☎ 14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense, about the spread of edits being more important.

I've only recently started taking a more active role in AfD debates. For example, I nominated this article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sashank today. Have a look at it if you're free :P

Honestly I don't roam about much near the policy pages, and for the life of me I couldn't say why. Once in a while I answer questions on the talk of WP:AIV, but thats about it. I guess I could start there.

Really, more than the policies, I'm concerned about losing good editors. I've seen a lot of fantastic contributors leave, and it worries me. I'm a student, I have limited time on WP, and its frustrating to spend such a large chunk of time simply reverting vandalism or removing fangush or arguing with POV-pushers. The vandalism only takes seconds to revert, but the cumulative amount of time we editors spend fighting vandalism or trolls could be better spent in improving articles.

When I said the same thing on AIV, and suggested indef blocks for users who have a history of violating policies, User:Theresa knott said that I din't have the right temperment [sic] for fighting vandals. What she didn't know at the time was two of my friends had retired from WP the same day.

I apologise if my small reply turned into a bit of a rant. Its a little sad that vandals try to throw a wrench into good intentions.

I'll start participating on the policy pages more. In a few weeks or so, if you still believe I could be a good admin, I would be grateful to get the chance to help. Again, thanks for the offer, its kind of you.

Regards, xC | ☎ 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI

Per your warning of Embargo (talk · contribs), He didn't violate 3RR. Don't get me wrong... he deserved his block, but you might want to be careful about warning editors about 3RR in their userspace.--Isotope23 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, your right, I didn't realise, thanks for alerting me to that. I guess 3RR is slightly ambiguous in that respect, because it does only say that it's normally an exception, Wizardman actually blocked for 3RR, maybe this was an exception to the exception?! I don't know, but I'll certainly be more careful in the future, sorry. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Italiavivi

Well, he's removed my comment from his talk page (something that he seems to be in the habit of doing; note that he's been blocked before for 3RR but likes to whitewash his talk page of any criticism). He continually twists my comments around: in a discussion, suggest that the word "massacre" is sensationalist and fraught with emotion, which he then re-interprets as me calling him names. Oh well. He doesn't seem to be interested in any sort of civil discourse, and I can't imagine that he'll go far here with his attitude, so I suggest that we just leave him alone. A Train^talk 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Ryan Postlethwaite. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. Thanks for your kind rant on me. By the way, someone else got a rename :)-> --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your help on my RfA. I appreciate the constructive comments. Although I realize that my RfA was pre-mature, I was impressed at the kindness of the wikipedia community. Happy editing, and thanks again for your help! --Trumpetband 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

re:Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation

Don't worry about it...the mediation can wait! I'll get together a proposal tonight if I have time. My priorities right now do not include Wikipedia due to my school stuff, but I'll see what I can do. Cheers!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot! I'll be done by Saturday, Sunday at the latest. Cheers!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt's talk

You've got mail. // Sean William 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail back! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 05:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, is there anything you want me to do? Also, you said you had some ideas about my signature. Just wondering. --Trumpetband 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Zzuuzz

Oops! I just applied semi per request on WP:RPP at exactly the same time as you did!!! Sorry! Shall I revert to your time? - Alison^☺ 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, don't worry about that! At least it's protected now. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Extra big ha! Look at the protection log for the page!! 3 admins all at the same time! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! And all within 2 mins of each other. There are a lot of eyes on Zzuuzz right now - Alison^☺ 22:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for giving me my first barn star! :DWolfmankurd 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, you deserve it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Catch up

Hey Ryan; I know you're under-active at the moment, so I won't be upset if you don't reply ;) just stopping by to see how things are? anthony^[review] 23:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

adoption help

Hey Ryan! I need your advice: I adopted Tedejomadrid this month after sending a welcome message. I've been checking his contribs, and you can see that he hasn't been editing too often. He did tell me that he's been busy lately, but do his contribs show that he's not a fully dedicated editor yet? Should I prod him into editing, or should I just be patient and see how things turn out?

BTW I am working on my proposal, but I think I'd like to hear your comments on the matter before I proceed to make more serious changes. You can see what I'm doing on User:Ed/Sandbox. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate to nag, but is mediation going to resume anytime soon?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) Tell me about it...my English teacher assigned us a new paper today. Now I have another paper to work on. Don't worry about it; we all have many things to do now that the end of the year approaches in about 4 weeks. As you can probably tell, I'm taking much more time off WP for school.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question from RfA

Could you please help me by elaborating on what Wikipedia pages I can help on? There doesn't seem much to edit to / discuss.

Thanks, microchip08 10:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Creating article about helicopter pilots.

I would but the problem is I know very little, very VERY little about helicopter pilots, that's why I was looking. Thanks for the help. TheBlazikenMaster 12:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the site. Anyway, it isn't a big deal really, I was only wondering. Sorry about being unspecific about my question. TheBlazikenMaster 12:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

User:84.13.241.233

Hi, I was wondering if you could block 84.13.241.233, he was impersonating an admin, vandalising pages and then made a personal attack on my user talk page against me, cheers! Tellyaddict 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, thanks for quickly reverting that vandalism to my User talk page, much appreciated! Tellyaddict 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ay thats fine with me, I didnt see your personal attacks warning lol! Thanks - Tellyaddict 17:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question

Hey there - thank you very much for the offer. A couple of other users have asked me about it too and I would certainly be interested in it. I am quite busy over the next few days, but I will put some serious thought into whether I think now would be an appropriate time to run for it and get back to you. Thanks again. On the subject of RFCN, I think that your suggestion is a novel approach that would, in my mind, certainly be worth trying out. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK well thank you very much and I'll let you know soon! Will (aka Wimt) 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Userpage deletion

You requested that your userpage be deleted, so I have gone ahead and deleted, if you need anything restoring, let me know. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only requesting my userpage to be deleted because in some cases I have more userspace edit counts than the mainspace so I often have to request it for deletion in order to reduce userspace edit count. ↔ ^tz (talk · contribs · autographs) 12:28:25, Thursday, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

re:yeager bot

hello! The "bot" does not have approval, as it is an assisted bot which i manually approve its posts. this has been an accepted way to use a bot without approval. I am not trying to message every single person on wiki, just merely attempting to bring the new users a nice welcome and some guidance. Matthew Yeager 00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to intrude, but stated under bots:

When seeking approval on Requests for approvals, please state the following:

1. Whether the bot is manually assisted (run by a human) or automatically scheduled to run 2. The period, if any, we should expect it to run 3. What language or program it is running 4. Its purpose

According to this, it needs to be approve even though it is manually assisted. And:

1. Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously. A bot operator is encouraged, but not required, to post their IP address on their bot's user page so that the owner of an anonymously running bot can be found.

Unfortunately, I think the bot needs to be blocked until it goes through request for approval. Sorry! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Assisted bots

Assisted bots are defined as any software that allows rapid editing of articles, while not saving any changes without some human interaction. Typical assisted jobs include those which are repetitive, but cannot be done fully automatically e.g. disambig repair, stub sorting and typo fixing.

   * Assisted bots don't necessarily need bot approval, though some software has built in approval detection,
 whereby approval from an admin is required (developers are encouraged to build in approval mechanisms).
 If you have any doubts, it is safer to go through the approval process.
   * A separate account is advised if many edits are going to be made.
   * Always make extra sure there is consensus before making a large series of edits.
   * Make it clear that software is being used to perform the edit.

doesnt this state otherwise ? its on the WP:BOT page. let me know what you think, i dont want to be in the wrong on this. My bot does is assisted and then doesnt need approval, right ? Matthew Yeager 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know: after discussing the issue on ANI here, M. Yeager agreed to halt the bot until getting feedback on it. I unblocked the bot account as a courtesy to him, since you seem to be gone for the night. CMummert · talk 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ESP Mediation

Hey! I do have my proposal ready in my head; I haven't made any major changes to the "official" proposal on the sandbox. Before I keep on trying to implement more changes, I would like to hear your opinions on the topics being discussed on the mediation page, especially about the community.

I would also like to hear your opinion about the MfD closing comments. Now that the discussion took place 4 months ago, we really can't interpret the closing comments as well as we should. After reviewing Mailer diablo's statement for another time, I'm beginning to question the meaning behind his message, rather than read it literally. Should we add comments about criticism? I would appreciate your input, however.

In addition, I do apologize if my comments on the Mediation did insult Dev. If you read my response, you can see that the main idea of my statement was that a community will only be formed through the right conditions, etc. I then acknowledged the fact that Dev and I will always have contrasting viewpoints, and at that moment I brought up the contrast existing between our sexual orientations. I don't intend to bring an already occuring religious debate to this mediation, but I hope that Dev will understand the true meaning behind my statements.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Idea

You know, we could go one better than just us two. Why don't we try and organise a Manchester Wiki-meetup? That'd be fun. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 13:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows Manchester smells. – Steel 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... depends when it is. – Steel 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking early June, but think up a few dates and I'll create a proper meet up page in the next few days. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be better anytime after June 11th, since I have exams before then. Weekends preferable, but I don't think I'll be doing anything. I really have no idea how far I am away from Manchester (I live about 2-3 miles from Stockport). Majorly (hot!) 10:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be a pain, anything before the 11th is better for me. – Steel 10:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Before June 11th is fine too, just better after. I'm open to any dates so long as I don't have exam that day, or the day after :/ Majorly (hot!) 10:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Any sign of this page, Ryan? If it's early June, it needs to be made ASAP so enough people know about it. Majorly (hot!) 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, my undergraduate final year project hand-in date was today, so I've been concentrating on that, now that's over, I'm going to create the page tomorrow, and spam users pages with invites. I'm thinking a chinese in china town. followed by a few drinks in town for whoever wants to. My house is free for people to stay at if anyone needs room (maybe I should save that for the meet-up page!). Can you have a think of a few activities we could do? i.e. a get-to-know-eachother questionnaire. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me :) I personally won't need anywhere to stay, but it's good of you to open your house up... not sure what my parents would think of me doing that :P Um activities... I'll take a look at some other meetup pages for ideas. We also need to work out a time, date, and how will you find which users to spam? Oh and good luck with your project! Majorly (hot!) 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Going to bed now - it's been a long day!! But as for spamming pages, I'm thinking a quick post at WP:AN, might get shot down, but it's worth a try, there's actually quite a few established users up for it by the sounds of things, (Steel, Guy, Deskana) so hopefully they might know a few people who are around the area. I'll contact the people that organised past meet-ups to see how they went about talking to users. I'm personally thinking June 8th, but as I said, I'll create the proper page tomorrow and then we can get it propoerly organised. Cheers for looking at activites, I personally make you the activites clerk! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 2. Majorly (hot!) 00:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for the barnstar, Ryan. I was feeling bad for my mistake and you brought some tranquility to my mind. My real life issues are about to end as I'm moving to a new place this weekend and I'm leaving all the problems behind. Thank you for caring. Best regards, Húsönd 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Golden Quackstar
		For caring, I hereby award you the Golden Quackstar. Once again, thanks! Kindest regards, Húsönd 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

IP user

Ryan, your e-mail to me has crossed with mine to you. I may need to apologise for mine.--Anthony.bradbury 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound good! :-) Just checking now! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

...dont be so nice

...I'm a vandal. You're supposed to yell at me. - \ASOCKPPPET

On the contrary, we never yell at people at Wikipedia; now I ask - please stop vandalising ~ AGK 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

{{UsernameBlocked}} Ryan Postlethwaite 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You read my mind - I was just about to go to WP:AIV :P ~ AGK 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Inbox Alert

You have email ~ Anthony 19:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

...another email sent ~ Anthony 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done — the instruction via email, that is ~ Anthony 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC Kelly Martin: numbers and spaces

Hi, Ryan. You do in fact need to move your Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 2 to number 4, as there have been three previous ones. The reason your page was blank when you created it is that the real number 2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2, doesn't have a space before the 2. The real number 3, on the other hand, does: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 3. Confusing system? You said it. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Cheers for the heads up, I've now moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4 to avoid confusion, cheers for clarifying. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martins RfC

Hi, I've left some comments on Kelly Martins request for comment, this users recent behaviour appears to be outrageous and highly incivil, anyway I wont bore you, feel free to read it if you wish. Thanks! Tellyaddict 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

72.205.44.185

Thanks for the block. -- Ben 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

Why is the above mentioned tagged for deletion??--Cometstyles 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should have read the nomination before you asked that question, Cometstyles. Sean William 21:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry..Already did and gave my View..Thanks..--Cometstyles 21:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the email, i have taken a few minutes to add an outside view and certify it. My wiki time will be really splotchy as I am in the process of moving, preparing for grad school, and several other things. Thank you very much for supporting me here it is really appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA Prod

Hi Ryan, I have to say I really like the idea of the RFA prod mentioned on WT:RFA, I know it's Gaillimh's idea but you look like you've taken it on board. You mentioned you had a guinea pig for this but if you need another one I'll be willing to help out. And I would have no problems running a normal RFA in parallel or afterwards. Let me know if I can help out. ^Khukri 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, yeah I'm going to work on it over the weekend, might need to go through the village pump first, but it's going to be quite a big task getting all the CAT's sorted, and proposal of how to transclude it onto the main RfA page - you seem like a template king, so when I've got it sorted, could you take a look? I'm guessing it's going to be Sunday before I get it up and running. Your more than welcome to try it out, if it fails, consider yourself nommed by me! Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No probs at all, one the best I know for parsers etc is User:Gracenotes but on the format, wording, or integrating it within RFA, etc, just let me know if I can help. Cheers ^Khukri 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No rush, I'll still be here, and I've been busy as over the last week preparing for a selection baord coming up on Friday to make my position permanent, so stressful times ahead for all it seems ;). Take it easy. ^Khukri 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gwernol

Ryan

I am quite certain that I fully blocked this user's page, and the logs support this statement. Is there a bug somewhere?--Anthony.bradbury 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the page now, I see that it is only blocked level 2 (new and unregistered). I have amended to admin only, which I am quite certain I originally did.--Anthony.bradbury 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, your comment noted.--Anthony.bradbury 23:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

I'm guessing you don't know about this, because if you did, I would think you would be a member of it. I found it in Alison's categories: This. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 05:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you a member? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey R (Mr Teck)! Actually, someone else suggested I join WP:PHARM last week, what I'm currently doing is looking through the articles in their scope and seeing what I can do to help. I certainly am going to join, I just don't want to go into it half heartidly (I think by next monday I will be a firm member!), cheers for kicking me into action with it! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! It'd be great to have you on-board over there. There's a lot to do - Alison ☺ 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just joined :-) Might take a short break from the admin tasks and do some pharmocalogical editing for a bit - it's probably better for my degree! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, and welcome! I've replied to your post on the project Talk page. Feel free to get cracking any time—as Alison said, there's much work to be done ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome and the darkside

Thanks for the welcome, it is much appreciated. All of the hard work you did as part of the RFC and everything is very much appreciated. I know ther is an essay out there somewhere about the value of defending your fellow wikipedians, and you hvae done that admirably. For the life of me, I cannot find the link so you have my apologies for that. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yay, I found the link! why we should defend each other -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the cleanup of the vandalism on my userpage, I wouldn't have seen it while I was offline. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I think the users block now anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Thanks a lot for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Cheers. Will (aka Wimt) 16:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

....Not a problem again :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 16:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking troll

Thanks for blocking the apprentice troll just now. I suspect he'll be back just as soon as he can and earning himself a longer block. Nunquam Dormio 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I hate to use phrases used ad nauseum in the past, but I really did think you were an admin. Are you quite sure you're not? I will certainly support you, and if this position has not been taken , I would be thrilled to support you. Please let me know ASAP.--Anthony.bradbury 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you are, as I thought. Please look at your userpage and tell me what is going on?--Anthony.bradbury 00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He IS allready an admin. The thing on his page is just a test of an idea of his. -Mschel 00:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I am fully aware that there is a great deal of ongoing discussion about the whole RfA subject, and I am presently in e-mail contact with User:Durin on this topic. We agree that RfA is broken, and needs repairing. But. If a new user puts your template on his user page, and no-one notices it, are you happy for him to be sysopped? Or, assuming that you are not, what control do you propose on this? Just this week a new user, whose name I will not divulge (except by e-mail, if you ask) put himself up for RfA with a total edit count of 142. OK, he might well have been spotted. But if not?--Anthony.bradbury 12:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Ryan

There is a vast amount of ongoing discussion on this topic, and there seems to be an assumption that a simple vote is intrinsically bad. But in reality, is a vote from the community actually a bad way to choose admins?--Anthony.bradbury 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The key to it is, that people are still going to check through users contribs, there are many users that seam to get kicks off opposing candidates for stupid reasons, and if want to do this here, all the have to do is remove the template, all it takes is one person to remove the template and it's game over. If you take a look at the proposal, you'll also notice that the closing 'crat gives the candidate a final check over to make sure they're suitable for the job. I would also propose that a bot is created that could list the candidates by the date that the template was added, so it would be easier for people to distinguish who is about to be sysopped so in effect, who needs mopre attention paid to there contribs. If the candidate has the template removed, it's no big deal - one person doesn't want them to be an admin and they are encouraged to run with the normal RfA procedure straight away. Obviously 143 edits is nowhere near sufficient to be an administrator, but at the end of the day - it's no big deal, the emphasis should be put on will they abuse the tools? Not are the experienced in all namespaces. I'm actually interested to hear your idea's on the RfA system, have you and Durin had any thoughts? The key should be a simpler system that promotes more candidates. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

note, I actually think a straight vote would be for the best, a simple support or oppose, thats how they do ArbCom appointments and it works fine. Get over 70% and you'll become an admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AldeBaer/Kncyu38

Kncyu38 has changed his name to AldeBaer and is herassing me again. He has reverted the MvR page, against consensus and Jimbo guidelines when no one active there, to include again the prejudiced propaganda that calls me a pagan, etc. Not to mention it violates the undue weight and tiny minority jimbo guidlines as only 2 self proclaimed propaganda books, with sinlge sentences devoted to MvR, make such crack pot claims. I find this driven desire to include prejudiced propaganda as the sole source (or at all really) to be a serious violation of Wiki. what can I do to stop this once and for all? He is trying to get me banned too. Thanks. JohnHistory 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)johnHistory

Replied here. —AldeBaer 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

adjusting end times in RfA

Not that it matters much, but I'm just curious: why did you change the end time of my RfA from 02:43 to 02:46? As you can see here, I saved the full form at 02:43. Errabee 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Very much so! Thanks. Errabee 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I couldn't help but notice your name. Are you by any chance related to Pete Postlethwaite? Sorry if you get asked that once too many times. Feel free to not answer this. Errabee 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love to say I am related to the great Pete Postlethwaite (I think he's a great actor)...... But unfortunately I'm not! (You wouldn't believe how many times I get asked that!!), thank you for taking an interest! Ryan Postlethwaite 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adjusting mine too then. I was rounding to the nearest quarter hour, but I should have striven for greater accuracy [17]! At least I know that I won't get a run of opposes in the last five minutes now. Have fun. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi, I know this is (very!) late but I thought I'd tell you that user:Aquasplash who supported you on your RfA was me, I had abandoned this account after the comments at my second RfA which I reconsidered the next day after realising it was stupid, I'd left this account so I wasn't violating WP:SOCK as I didnt vote as Tellyaddict as well, just thought I'd give you a heads up.Tellyaddict 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Naughty boy! I'll let you off this once as you did support my RfA! Any chance you could provide a link to your last RfA? Cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, seriously though if you want to check exactly you can lol, my second and failed RfA is here, I was not going to run but when the nom was created I thought I might as well, I have asked User:Husond to give me admin coaching, he says he will in a few days but he's busy in real life he says, thanks! Tellyaddict 18:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your report on WP:RFCN

Oh, uh, I forgot to mention that I already took it to administrators noticeboard, and they told me to take it to you guys. So...? -- Reaper X 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I was oblivious to the fact the user has already been blocked. Everything's good, case resolved. -- Reaper X 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I only realised that you had been directed to RFCN from AN/I after I posted it on there, User:HighInBC blocked, so I removed the new thread on AN/I, as you say, it's all resolved now :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you, Ryan Postlethwaite, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO Talk