User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive24

Latest comment: 11 months ago by The Herald in topic Happy Birthday!


The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Vanishing Editors

Ryan, I have a question. I have been an admin, partly thanks to your support, for just over five years. I am still interested in maintaining the encyclopedia, although I will concede that I do not make as many edits as I used to. But I cannot help observing that a very large number of editors who I regarded as role models are no longer here. How can we stop senior editors, and indeed senior admins, from losing interest? Or is it just a Darwinian evolutionary process? Either way, I am not happy about it.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Anthony - Good to hear from you! As you will probably be aware, I'm not really active anymore. From a personal perspective, it's mainly that I don't have time to edit anymore. At the height of my editing, I found Wikipedia was my life. It wasn't particularly healthy and when I look back, it wasn't particularly enjoyable. Generally speaking, our very active editors tend to be of the younger generation (18-24) - I get the impression that many good editors simply grow out of Wikipedia - They either don't have time when they get a full time job, or no longer enjoy contributing. I've got nothing against people editing the encyclopedia (they do a great service!), but I think there's a lot more to life than just editing. If people are making thousands of edits each month, then it's probably a good thing that they find other outside interests to occupy their time. I've never felt better since I stopped editing - I feel I have a much more fulfilling life (and I've had a lot more opportunities come my way by making myself available!). All in all, people will come and go all the time, much more so than a paid job - That's the nature of a voluntary project. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, as you say. For the record I am 68 years old. Best wishes. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

A kitten for you!

 

Hi, Ryan. Good to see you back.

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

 
Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

 
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Catching up

Ryan

How did the law degree exams go? Please feel free to ignore this post if the answer is less than ideal.

Tony--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 23:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Tony - How are things? I finished my Law degree in July, I'm now studying the Legal Practice Course which is required to train as a solicitor. I've got some exams on 3 January, then my main exams are in February. This is the first time I've logged into Wikipedia for about 2 months!! I hope you have a fantastic Christmas! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm taking the bar exam in February! I actually sat down to start my review course this morning... MBisanz talk 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I have ultimate respect for you as I know what you're going through. Plus, on top of all that, you have to take exams in a crazy country with crazy laws - I feel for you! ;-) Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Season's tidings!

 

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Francesca Hogi

Hello! If you don't mind, could you have another look at the WP:RFPP request for Francesca Hogi when you have a chance? I added a comment based on new developments as the edit warring is ongoing. Thanks for your time! --NickContact/Contribs 00:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. Just letting you know that I have decided to protect the article and the accompanying AfD as they were rapidly descending into total chaos. Not disputing your assessment at all—I would have asked you to reconsider first if the situation hadn't seemed so urgent. Cheers, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all - I was fast asleep at the time. Thanks for handling it Fvasconcellos :-) Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kendal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lakeland and Heinz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

AfD concluded as merge: nothing to merge

You closed this AfD with a merger decision, although nobody had proposed merger, and there is no substantive content to merge. Your suggestion as to how we should act please. The suggestion of other respondents (redirection) seems odd for an article that is an orphan, linked from no other article. Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Kevin McE - Nice to hear from you. I've redirect the page to 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup right away as you are correct that there is no substantive content to merge. I'd normally leave it a while to give editors to merge content, but it seems silly given the page was basically empty. I hope that's okay for you. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, I hit the wrong button when I closed it - I see what I've done, it should have been closed as a redirect - silly me. I'll go and sort it out. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Cyrus Cylinder....

.....while you were declining, I already protected pd lvl.1. Feel free to undo my protection any time. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no worries - This one was definitely a discretionary call and I'm sure plenty of administrators will have very different views on it. Thanks for popping by though - Much appreciated. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Talkback

 
Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Revolution1221's talk page.
Message added 20:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Revolution1221 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Speedy deletion nomination of April Wilkner

 

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ApprenticeFan work 08:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

1RR restriction no longer necessary

Hi Ryan,
This is going back some time, but about 3 and a half years ago, you placed a 1RR restriction on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident now titled (Climatic Research Unit email controversy) due to the constant edit-warring over the article. The edit-warring has seemed to have stopped a long time ago. In fact, no one's even edited the article over a month and there have only been 14 edits for the year so far. I don't think the 1RR restriction is necessary anymore. I started a discussion on the article talk page about lifting the 1RR:
Does the article still need 1RR restriction?
Only one editor opposed it but they changed their mind when I explained that the ArbCom descretionary sactions would still apply. Anyway, can you please lift the 1RR restriction? If, for some reason, the edit-warring resumes, we can always add it back. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Hey - Thanks for the message. It's great to see things have improved on the page. I've lifted the sanction and left a note on the talk page. Hopefully things will continue as they have been. Thanks again, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Bad close

Bad close on Imagery of nude celebrities. This was just relisted for additional input and you slammed the door shut as "no consensus." There was no cost in letting things play out for another week to see if consensus did emerge. If there's no clear consensus and you're not able to make an obvious policy-based call and things are only minutes hours into the first extension, the sage play is to butt out. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just investigating Deletion Review on this and it said to go to the closing administrator first. Could I con you into taking down the no consensus close and allowing the second listing to play out??? Or should I seek a relisting at DRV? Carrite (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree with you Tim. I will admit that I misread the timing of the relisting from Sandstein, but even so it was quite clear that the debate was totally polarised between two connflicting camps (as I noted in my closing rationale). I felt confident in closing the debate without extending it. I believe it would be highly unlikely that this would be overturned at DRV, however you are more than welcome to try. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
By the way - Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, rather than going straight to DRV - It's certainly a courteous thing to do. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Imagery of nude celebrities

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Imagery of nude celebrities. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 166348

Hi, this is in response to your close of this AfD. The thing is, if we redirect the article to the List of stars page, we end up with a redirect to a page that does not (and should not) contain any information on the object in question. Therefore, we end up with a misleading redirect that does not help the readers by any means, and instead gives them the idea that WP is disorganized by missing information on a non-notable star. Therefore, I feel the article should have been deleted, especially seeing that the majority of votes were to delete. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - Thanks for stopping by. How about we add an entry for HD 166348 to solve this? I personally think that would be the most sensible option given the AfD. Let me know your thoughts. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
While yeah, I admit that adding an entry would appear to be a good idea on the surface, there's a few reasons why I disagree with this. For one, these lists are only meant to list the notable stars of the constellation, as seen at Lists of stars by constellation#Criteria of inclusion, of which this star does not qualify under any of those. Including this star would give the readers the impression that it is somehow notable, which we see that it is not. What also bugs me is that including this star in the list sets a bad precedent: as this star could be included, why not include other non-notable stars until the list gets impractically long? I do see your point though that summary info may not be bad, but I feel in this case, the harm outweighs the good. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply - You make sensible comments. How about we change the redirect to Corona Australis? Then we don't have the issue of linking to a list that the star isn't included in. I respect your comments about the star not being notable enough for inclusion in the list, and I would agree it would set a bad precedent. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
While I still believe the article should be deleted outright, I would be fine with this compromise. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks StringTheory11, I've gone ahead and changed the redirect. Thanks for taking the time to come here with such a collaborative attitude - I'm glad we were able to solve the issue in what I consider to be the best possible way (and hopefully you do as well!). Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Varsity trip

I think you misjudged the consensus on [[1]]. Please give it another look. I see only one keep vote. I don't know where you saw another. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise, Binksternet listed some sources, which I thought was also a keep comment, however it was just a comment. That said, we have one delete, one weak delete, one keep and one comment offering suggestions of sources and also what should be done if the article is kept. I'm still of the belief that there is no consensus in the AfD. This is even more so considering the article has survived 4 previous AfDs - I'd want to see a very clear consensus before deleting it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I did not really say "keep", even though I brought up some sources which describe one single scandal that appeared in many news stories. My thoughts are that an article could be written about the scandal but not the so-called "Varsity Trip". Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD for the remaining members of the council of grandmothers

Hi Ryan, this AfD has closed shortly after an IP editor says I'm attempting to spread misinformation, leaving me no way to respond but the talk page. Djembayz (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Djembayz. If I was you, I would just forget about it. I know it's difficult sometimes when someone says something that is really frustrating and untrue, but in this situation, I think it's probably for the best. You know you're not attempting to spread misinformation, every other editor knows you're not and that's all that matters really. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reliance SCADA

Hello. To my unpleasant surprise, my article Reliance SCADA has been deleted. Although I am aware of the fact that every single article is unique in its own way and, therefore, can’t be compared with other articles, I find it quite common the authors draw their inspiration from other, already published articles. I did the same. I was interested in articles belonging to the same category, such as WinCC, Ignition SCADA, Iconics, Wonderware, or InduSoft. It is beyond my competence to judge whether these articles meet all the requirements for publication on Wikipedia. The discussion says that, in my article, there are not enough references from independent sources. But, for example, the references for the article WinCC, which is on Wikipedia since 2010, mostly lead to the producer, i.e., Siemens. Compared to this one, my article contains many more independent references. Moreover, the way the article is written does not promote nor praise the product (Reliance SCADA) and, in my opinion, it brings much more valuable information than WinCC does. Yet, the article has been deleted. I find it unfair that not all articles are judged in the same way. I do not wish any of the mentioned articles to be deleted. On the contrary, the more of such articles on Wikipedia, the better. Wikipedia is a huge storehouse of information where fast-growing fields such as control and SCADA systems deserve their place. These systems are taught at schools and that's why I think that, on Wikipedia, students should have the opportunity to find information about various systems that could be utilized in class. Therefore, I’d be very glad if my article could have the same chance as the other ones. I’d like to know whether my article could be republished and what should be done to achieve the republication (e.g., add some more references from independent sources).Jiri Svobi (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Jiri Svobi - Thanks for your message. I'll try and explain a little bit about how deletion discussions work. Any editor may nominate an article for deletion. There are a number of ways, but in the case of your article, it was put through a 7 day community discussion at the articles for deletion process. After 7 days, I closed the discussion and came to the conclusion that the consensus was that the article should be deleted. I respect what you're saying about the other articles, but in deletion discussions, articles are judged on their individual merits, not by reference to other articles. You are of course welcome to nominate the articles you mention if you believe they don't meet our inclusion criteria. The problem with your article was that there were few reliable sources that showed the page meets our notability guideline. You can of course work on the article in your userspage (I'll put the article at User:Jiri Svobi/Reliance_SCADA), but make sure you can show that the subject matter has been discussed by a number of independent sources - In order to do this you should provide the sources as references. When you believe the article is complete, pop back and see me and we can look at instigating a deletion review to overturn the initial deletion discussion. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Really?

We just gave another editor shit for removing threads on ANI instead of hatting them ... then you go and do it? You're making Dennis and I look bad. I mean, WP:DENY and all, but hatting is just as effective (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't check the history! You should know me by now - I jump in head first to everything ;-) By all means revert. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll let you fix it ... too many posts between then and now :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete should have been userfy

I was the nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollow Bodies (2nd nomination). The other editor and I discussed userfying the article instead since it's clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Any chance we could undelete it move it to my user space? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure! I'll pop it at User:Walter Görlitz/Hollow Bodies - Great to see that you want to work on the article! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Natalie Holt

Could you userfy this?--Launchballer 06:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure - I'll put the article at User:Launchballer/Natalie Holt. Kind regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

 
Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Suresh 5 (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my email isn't letting me reply. What you're essentially asking me for is Ipblock-exempt to be added to your account. You'll need to contact a checkuser for this as they need to look behind your username at your IP address to determine whether you have a legitimate reason for having Ipblock-exempt added to your account. As I can't look at which IP addresses you've been editing from, I can't confirm this. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Question about AfD you closed

Hi Ryan, I'm contacting you as the admin who closed the AfD for my page "Concerns for an early Mars sample return"

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return

There were many irregularities in the AfD which I mention here:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Back-contamination#Previous_AfD

It has also been taken as a reason to remove all the content I wrote about contamination issues throughout project Mars and as a basis to show that I am not competent to write on these issues.

In view of the amount of opposition I have to this content on Project Mars, I am not sure that a deletion review would succeed, one of my friends just commented that Project Mars "Seems to be being used as a pro-colonization advocacy group rather than an information source"

But feel it might be worth a try. Especially if the review involves people from other projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microbiology.

Also wondered about filing an incident report on the admins incident board.

So not asking for a deletion review yet, right now, but welcome suggestions or advice if you have thoughts about it as the closing admin.

Am considering whether to do a deletion review, but at present generally looking into my options and looking for admins and wikipedians with sympathy for my case. Robert Walker (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As the closing admin, my only interest in the article was the consensus of the deletion discussion. There was quite evidently a consensus to merge the artice. In fact, it was one of the clearest consensus' that there could be. As such, I doubt very must that deletion review would overturn it. Deletion review is there to decide whether I closed the deletion discussion correctly - I think it's fairly clear that my close was correct, as such, it won't be overturned. Personally, I don't believe that there has been any behaviour (certainly none that you have highlighted) that has been so egregious as to merit discussion on the incidents noticeboard. You probably don't want to hear this, but I suggest you move on and forget about it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I do realise it is quite possible that there is nothing I can do. Hope you don't mind a few more questions?
What about the irregularities in the AfD - that the first votes and comments were on content written by my opponent WP, who removed just about all the content that made it of interest as a separate article and prevented me from editing it for some time until N2e stepped in?
Also that during the AfD I was working hard to get the article ready for the AfD and only got it ready by about the last day?
Also, that hardly anyone involved in the discussion actually writes on Project Mars or Astronomy or any topics related to the AfD. Only WP and BI both of whom are diametrically opposed to my writing for wikipedia because they are strong space colonization advocates?
The only other author who writes on related topics, N2e, who writes on spaceflight issues voted with a weak keep. Does none of this count? And that the article was heavily cited but the AfD did not discuss the citations or the details of the article?
Does any of that count as reasons for a deletion review or to contest the way all my content was removed from Project Mars as a result of the AfD?
I suspect not from my experience of wikipedia arbitration methods so far during the last month or two, but want confirmation to be sure that I've understood right as it seems rather extraordinary to me that this can happen on wikipedia which I've always had good experiences of before.Robert Walker (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not criticism of your conduct as I'm sure as an admin you acted appropriately. They are things you couldn't know about. Robert Walker (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Deletion Review

subst:DRVNote|Stax Inc.

Hi, Ryan,

I've written you several times over the past three weeks to ask what guideline exactly the page violated, but I have not received a reply. So I opened a Deletion Review. (I see now that I misspelled your name in the review, and for that I sincerely apologize).

jks825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks825 (talkcontribs) 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Rodney Marks

Can you please allow Rodney Marks (astrophysicist) to be moved to Rodney Marks. Only one article of this name. I thank yew. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 15:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

All done :-) I'm sure you could have done it yourself though - I don't think you need to be an administrator to move the page to a red link. That said, I've been fairly inactive for a while so I could be wrong! Take care, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. I couldn't move it because you had protected it from creation. Cheers. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 21:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

3MB

Sorry to bug you but will you look at the third nomation of the artice titled above you deleted before? The results once again result in favor of deletion and for the page be salted because they aren't really notable, the page is poorly sourced barely sourced as it is. They're are barley a team. Per Generally acceptable standards for pro wrestling, fails WP:ENTERTAINER - recently-established team of "heels" with no history of influence/notability. Also, article's references (all of which emanate from the WWE) fail the reliable source standard of being independent of the subject. We can put the information in the singles articles. -- Miss X-Factor (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Updating Reliance SCADA

Hello Ryan, it looks like I've finished the article you put at User:Jiri_Svobi/Reliance_SCADA. Thanks for allowing me to work on it (see your previous reply). I think the article is complete now.

As you will see, I’ve made quite a lot of changes to it. I’ve added or modified some sections, e.g., SCADA software, where several well-known SCADA software products are mentioned, or Reliance for education and research, which includes some reliable references from educational and research sources. The question is whether the length of the article is OK or whether, for example, the section Software modules is not overly detailed.

It would be great if you could give me your opinion on the article. Is there anything else I should change? --Jiri Svobi (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Looking to reinstate or create new article for Aaron Belz

Newbie--please don't bite.

I would like to contribute an article on poet Aaron Belz, but I see that you deleted his article in June of this year. Here's the archived discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Belz I don't know whether it would be better in this instance to make a case to reinstate (with possible major revisions) the old article or to create a new one for review, since I cannot access the old article. I believe that Mr. Belz meets Wikipedia requirements for notability and he has another book of poetry that will come out in February 2014, and his work continues to be published; he is currently active.

Your thoughts on how to proceed (including if I am going about this the completely wrong way) are much appreciated.

Crossing my fingers that I did this correctly. Thank you! Ydogar (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Happy Adminship Day!

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee
 
 

Wishing Ryan Postlethwaite/archive24 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Request undelete of Arnold Motor Supply page

I am original creator of Arnold Motor Supply page which was deleted on 20 Dec 2013. I feel the topic has more than enough external sources and wide enough interest to justify an article. I would like to try to re-write the article but don't want to start over from nothing. Could you restore the article so I can make another attempt at publishing it? Eric J (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

Reliance – deletion review

Hi Ryan, are you still active here? It's been a year since I asked you to have a look at my article... Please see posts 82 and 106.Thank you. Jiri Svobi (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Clarification motion

A case (Palestine-Israel articles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

  Happy First Edit Day, Ryan Postlethwaite, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Vatsan34 (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Happy Birthday Ryan

  Hey, Ryan Postlethwaite. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Vatsan34 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Nomination for deletion of Template:RollbackWait

 Template:RollbackWait has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Birmingham meetup

 
See you there? Well... not here... this photo is from a pub in Manchester... but that's cos there haven't been enough meetups in Birmingham.
Hi there! Did you know that there will be a meetup in Birmingham on the 15th of November?

There hasn't been many meetups in Birmingham. I will be passing through on the 15th of November, so I thought I would see who fancied meeting up, while I'm in the area. I'm leaving this message on your talk page because you have previously expressed an interest in a meetup in Birmingham or Coventry.

Yaris678 (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

File moved

A file you uploaded has been moved to File:Ryan Postlethwaite in church.jpg so as to avoid a name clash with an image on Commons. Cheers --LukeSurl t c 21:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

rana hospital shahkot

sir i wanted to know why my page is deleted. it is a real information it is not promotional. its contribution of legendary late dr. nirmala dhanda in our area. thanks Samchhura (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Ryan Postlethwaite.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

Happy Birthday!

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
  BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

Ten years of adminship, today!

 
Wishing Ryan Postlethwaite a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ryan Postlethwaite in church.jpg

 

The file File:Ryan Postlethwaite in church.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused personal photo - WP:NOTWEBHOST

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

Nomination for deletion of Template:RFApremature

 Template:RFApremature has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
 
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

Pugese listed at Redirects for discussion

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pugese. Since you had some involvement with the Pugese redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Pugairn listed at Redirects for discussion

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pugairn. Since you had some involvement with the Pugairn redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Frenchie Pug listed at Redirects for discussion

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Frenchie Pug. Since you had some involvement with the Frenchie Pug redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

Precious

England + tennis + ice hockey

Thank you for quality articles such as Potter Fell, Carlos Morales Troncoso and Simon Richardson (Welsh cyclist), beginning in 2006 with Wild Beasts, for improving articles such as Anne Keothavong, for admin service and mediation, for nominating users for admin, for caring for portals England, tennis and ice hockey, - Ryan, repeating (26 October 2008): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Awesome
 
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

12 years of editing

  Hey, Ryan Postlethwaite. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 


The Signpost: 28 October 2018

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

Happy Birthday!

A 10 fireplane Imform me 20:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

"it's a breath of fresh air"

Thank you for quality articles such as Carlos Morales Troncoso, Egyptian medical papyri and Anne Keothavong, for making three portals excellent, for help from 2006, and admin services, for "it's a breath of fresh air", - Ryan, repeating (28 June 2007, 26 October 2008, 23 February 2009): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Awesome
 
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

ArbCom 2019 special circular

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

  Hey, Ryan Postlethwaite. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
PATH SLOPU 13:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

Happy Birthday!

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

Happy New Year

Hi Ryan, we didn’t always see eye to eye, but I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. Giano (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
 
"it's a breath of fresh air"
... you were recipient
no. 2153 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

My song, "Tools"

You just stay around to keep the tools, you just stay around to keep the tools! You think that we're all fools, you just stay around to keep the tools! Making minute edits every year, you make minute edits every year! We can see it's very clear, you make minute edits every year! Users such as yourself who make a significantly low amount of edits just to keep your administrative tools sicken me and many others. Just give up the tools already!!! What are you holding on to them for anyways!! What a selfish thing to do!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.97.209 (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

Your draft article, Draft:Michelle Babin

 

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Michelle Babin".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

Happy First Edit Day!

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

Happy Birthday!

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

Precious anniversary

Precious
 
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

Happy First Edit Day!

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

Happy First Edit Day!

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

Nomination for deletion of Template:StatementTooLong

 Template:StatementTooLong has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 07:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

  Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

  Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

  Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux Talk 01:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

Nomination for deletion of Template:RFCNblocked

 Template:RFCNblocked has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

Happy Birthday!

 
Wishing Ryan Postlethwaite a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

Happy Birthday!