User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive11

ANI

User:Blaxthos has opened a complaint against you at ANI, accusing you of WP:ANI#Dishonest behavior during RFC, but didn't think to tell you about it. -- Zsero 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up there, that's one of my pet hates when users go behind your back and try and get you a shady block before you've even had chance to explain. At least this was a complaint with no substance. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Espousing sensationalism"

Perhaps you already know, and are playing dumb, but I believe Italiavivi keeps on thinking that this exchange was you because of this exchange. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, maybe he does. Hmmmmm, I actually couldn't remember that. I can't believe how much some people hold grudges. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, it wasn't even me that said any of it! :-O Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't really care one way or another, but wanted to know what the remark was all about, so off I went begoogling. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with that. A hui hou. --Ali'i 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cheers for that, good work finding it! I'm just a little shocked that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I kind of forgot the middle step in the jump. My bad. My missing links:#1, #2. Hope this connects more dots for ya. Aloha. --Ali'i 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for that - much appreciated. :-) --Ben^complain 10:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, good to see you back. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

71.107.163.19

You recently blocked this user for 31 hours. A look at his Contributions indicates some pretty wanton vandalism. This edit pretty much is a personal attack, as is this one. Add to that the user is blanking user pages who revert his changes.
I am thinking that the account was created for some Friday Nite Fun for those a tad too young to drive. Maybe he needs to find another venue to occupy his weekend, as Wikipedia doesn't need any more fools this evening?
Sorry for all the prosifying. Can we ban this ass-hat, rather than just blocking him? I'd point out that this user's first instinct after getting reverted was to blank the pages of every user who reverted him, replacing the pages with the word, 'Britfag'. I know you blocked him for 31 hours, but I am thinking that our charming little scamp's issues aren't going to be resolved all that quickly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry but this is an anon IP vandalism, so tomorrow, the IP may be given to someone else, someone more responsible. The 31 hour block will give the user time to think about his actions - if the IP isn't reassigned and he continues to vandalise, he will be blocked for longer next time, but at present, 31 hours is quite fair. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

6/4 chord mediation

Dear Ryan

Do we have a solution at hand? It would be nice to close the mediation, since it's gone on for a long time and the article remains locked. Just need formal agreement from the others, I guess. Tony 10:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because

Ariel♥Gold gives you a huge smile, just because it is early Sunday morning! Smiles promote WikiLove, and hopefully hers has made your day better! ({{subst:smile}})

^Ariel♥Gold 07:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mail

Ryan - I have e-mailed you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it now then, I hate hotmail! Ryan Postlethwaite 13:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Pedro

Per this - You might want to scroll down a bit further to this message ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey DM, loving the new name ;-) I've added a co-nom, just a strong support wasn't enough! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support is never enough. We seriously need to think of a new category. *gives Pedro a whopper support* Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comments

Please don't remove other peoples comments like you did here. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not see that happen. There must have been an edit conflict. Italia^vivi 19:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Easily done, I appologise for the tone then in that case. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

What a weekend for my ISP to decide to have problems! Finally got on.....! Thank you Ryan - copying this to others and then I guess we go !...... Pedro |  Chat  19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleion

First, I would like to thank you for all your head work here on Wikipedia. While I !voted to keep my Senator page, you did it because you feel it was right. In light of that, just to inform you, I am pretty sure I will leave Wikipedia. I will wait out the discussion. Thanks. Pat^{Politics rule!} 20:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's ok. It is not your fault. I am too conterversial, and that is why I may leave. Pat^{Politics rule!} 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to stay. I believe you and I can become friends! Pat^{Politics rule!} 22:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's very good to hear, as I said, I believe wikipedia will be at a loss without you. Continue your good work. I don't even think you're that outspoken. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks. I am made at you again. My girlfriend was here, and she "liked" that picture of you! Peace, Pat^{Politics rule!} 01:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not trolling

I am a long time-contributor and am disappointed in Wikipedia and hence do not want to be thanked by Wikipedia. Andries 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are trolling, you're upset with ArbCom and tried to kick up a fuss. Respectfully, please cut it out. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not want the be thanked by Wikipedia and I think the statement should disappear from the main page. That is not trolling but expressing a sincere wish. Andries 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lizzie_Grubman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Talk:Lizzie_Grubman -- AnonMoos 11:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Content_review. AnonMoos 12:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Grubman

Despite one of the clearest possible consensuses that the article is notable, the AfD was closed by you as a deletion due to alleged WP:BLP issues. While there may be a word or two that could be misinterpreted by the paranoid, the article as it stands is encyclopedic, accurate and properly sourced to support all claims made in the article. If there are any genuine WP:BLP issues -- and I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of editors would agree there are none -- imposing your personal opinion in this manner, without any effort to seek consensus or even a second opinion on the matter, without any explanation of what the supposed issues are or providing any opportunity other than destroying the article to address them, is improper. Before starting what seems to be a very much needed WP:DRV, I am approaching you to ask you to reconsider your actions in deleting the article, by undeleting the article and providing the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors who feel that this article is encyclopedic the opportunity to address detailed, specific examples of the portions of the article that you feel violate the WP:BLP policy. Alansohn 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Content_review. AnonMoos 12:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to undelete the article, I don't care whether or not it was encyclopedic or not, the fact is, it was completely unsourced - not one single one in there and is was mostly about a felony that Lizzie Grubman had commited. Biographical articles must be sourced, there's no room for error in these articles. Whilst she may have been notable as the AfD showed, BLP trumps notablility every time. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Too bad that you acted in an aritrary and high-handed manner which will make it very difficult to produce a better article, and will actively discourage people who worked on the article in the past from working on the article in future... AnonMoos 12:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP goes above anything that you can say to me. I'm not disputing the notability, consensus was clear in the AfD for that, it was just completely unsourced, and as it was about a living person, it got deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• The unfortunate fact is that you still have never disclosed what the supposed WP:BLP issues are with the article in question; all you've done is shouted to the high heavens that they exist and that your judgment on this subject trumps that of any and all other Wikipedia editors. Thanks to the power of cold hard cache, the article was recreated, sources were added, and extremely minor changes were made to the article to prevent possible misreadings by the uber-paranoid. Alansohn 12:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

---

The matter seems to be at least temporarily resolved -- no thanks to your heavy-handed blundering unconstructive actions. Who nominated you to be an admin anyway? AnonMoos 12:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorting out BLP violations is a thankless job, especially when some users don't understand it. Majorly nominated me. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, that wasn't very nice, dear AnonMoos. Remember, comments on the edits and actions, not on the person. Ryan is by far one of our best admins, as many can tell you; and even if you disagree with his judgement on one particular issue, remember we're all human, and therefore fallible. Questioning his capacity of wielding the mop altogether is not a nice thing, when you may find he's a very reasonable and nice person - but nobody reacts well to assumptions of bad faith beforehand. Phaedriel - 13:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boink!

You've got mail, wikilover! :) Love, Phaedriel - 12:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah thank you, I'm reading it now - it's a breath of fresh air :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lizzie_Grubman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

You may wish to get someone to sort out the copyright mess that you've just created by doing a cut and paste restore of the article. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm being serious, you have to get someone to sort out the GFDL issues with the article now, all the edits are missing their attribution in the history. For some reason I can't restore on the laptop I'm on. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is a sad, pathetic joke. You delete an article, overriding clear consensus for retention, due to unstated WP:BLP issues that you still refuse to disclose. Your excuse for deletion states that the article should be recreated with sources. Now the GFDL nonsense? You created this problem by deleting the article in the first place. Whose copyright is being violated here? Alansohn 13:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted for someone else to sort the GFDL issues out, you obviously don't understand the problem, but you cut and paste created the artlce, meaning there was no article history so no attribution of edits (quite a serious problem) hence the coyright problem, someone needs to restore the rest of the article, but I can't on the laptop I'm on. Don't do that again. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that you obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works: There is a clear consensus to keep an article that you have summarily overridden. All we have as an excuse to justify your actions is a claim that WP:BLP is involved. Whatever problems you have with your laptop, there is nothing stopping you from disclosing what these alleged issues are. By continuing to refuse to disclose your issues, by deleting the article without allowing these supposed problems to be addressed, you are perpetuating and exacerbating the problems that you claim to be solving. The latest appeal to conjured-up GFDL violations were created precisely because you deleted the article improperly. If you can't fix this mess you created, why not find someone who can. In the meantime, justifying your actions with clear, concise and specific examples of the WP:BLP issues that you feel were so egregious that the article had to be deleted. Without this explanation, your actions are not only unjustified, but you are creating a scenario where the good faith efforts to recreate an article for an individual that even you acknowledge is notable, will be deleted again by you or some other admin for further imagined WP:BLP violations. Alansohn 14:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got someone to restore the article, but you should have done that before you cut and pasted the recreation. The problem was that the article was not sourced, so was removed as quick as possible as unsourced material leaves a potential legal threat. As I said after deleting, it was without prejustice on a recreation, just at the point in time when I deleted it, it contained unsourced claims of a conviction that is against BLP. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• At what point did you disclose that the nature of your WP:BLP issue was related to "unsourced claims of a conviction"/ It certainly was not in the AfD, and the first recreated version of the article (the second version deleted), provided an explicit source for the claim. The far easier means to have dealt with your concerns would have been to respect consensus and keep the article, removing the statement that bothered you from the article and noting that there was an unsourced statement with what you thought were WP:BLP issues that had been removed. Following this approach would have respected clear and overwhelming consensus AND would have provided an opportunity to address your concerns. Deleting the article AND not disclosing the specifics of your issue, was not only counterproductive and destructive, but created the trap that the same BLP concerns would exist in future recreations of the article. I strongly encourage you to consider this approach in any future such situation by disclosing your concerns immediately and allowing other interested editors to address the concerns you have. Alansohn 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war

Thanks for the info but I cant understand have I rights to revert the unrelated information from the arrticle or no? For example my reverts for today. A user added previously discussed source related to Albania and Arcakh to prove something related to ...Arran and Karabakh. What must I do for a better way? PS - I didnt remember if even I deleted any relevant reliable information from an article. Is there such a fact?...Andranikpasha 10:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you just deleted the info that Karabakh was part of the region called Arran. This info is sourced, but despite that you keep on removing it form the article. Grandmaster 10:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

see our discussion at the articles talk page! And pls dont start to Wikistalking me!Andranikpasha 11:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Accusations on edit warring

Sorry, but why you didnt answer to my questions? I think its better to complete a work which you started and explain why you added me for supervision if I keep the rules of Wiki. Simple "edit warring" word is not enough. Pls see again! Andranikpasha 12:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Politics rule MfD

As you are aware, the MfD you nominated on User:Politics rule's user subpage has (along with other factors, admittedly) made him consider leaving Wikipedia. By coincidence, this all happened just as I was writing Wikipedia:Editors matter, which is trying to address exactly these kind of issues. Don't take my comments the wrong way; you're an admin who I respect, and I know you didn't intend to hurt him or incite him to leave Wikipedia. So I'm not trying to blame you personally for this situation. But I think that, as a community, we need to stop inflexibly applying the userpage guidelines, and instead allow contributors some leeway in their userspace if it makes them happy. Editors are our most valuable resource, and we need to put their feelings before arbitrary rules, otherwise we'll basically lose more and more editors. As such, I think you should withdraw the MfD nomination; I can't see that anything good will come of it. Walton^One 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of my comments above are a bit unfair, as he's told me that your MfD wasn't the main reason he almost left. However, my opinion about userpage deletions still stands; the community as a whole needs to change the way we approach these issues. Walton^One 19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't reply to this comment - I'm sorry if I offended you. Like I explained, I'm not meaning to attack you in any way, and I don't blame you for the situation. But I really think that, under the circumstances, you should withdraw the nom. Walton^One 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But, WP:USER is in favour of deleting the MfD. You mean well by coming here Walton, and I respect you for that, but I nominated that page because I believe it goes against WP:USER and WP:NOT#soapbox. I didn't doit to try and get PR to leave, I hope I have made it clear to him that I respect him a lot. We are here to create an encyclopedia and PR's page does not help that in any way, in my opinion it reduces the credability, so whilst I thank you for coming here, I respectfully decline to withdraw the MfD as I don't believe the page deserves a place here. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you should read the new essay I've written, Wikipedia:Editors matter, and comment on its talk page. It relates directly to this issue, and your input would be valuable there. Walton^One 19:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Ryan, thanks very much for supporting my successful RfA. I'm grateful for your offer of co-nomination and for your statement of support. I'll be looking at your school, and I may come running with questions. Please be sure to let me know if you think I'm doing something wrong. Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's brilliant news Flyguy, I'm really pleased for you. By all means, pop over if you need any help, advice or anything whatsoever. I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

...and an unrelated question

ArielGold found Darkfirehacker (talk · contribs), which appears to be an inactive account. She had concerns on my talk page about the userpage and username, and I'm running to you for advice. To me the name's borderline ("hacker"), but because the userpage doesn't threaten Wikipedia I think it's probably ok. Thoughts? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I {{UsernameHardBlocked}} the account as they did state they were a hacker on their userpage, guess it stops any damage before it even occurs. The name was borderline, but added with the trolling on the userpage it adds up to a violation in my eyes. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool... thanks! Now I just have to figure out which blocks get used for which things... Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh the fun you're going to have ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 14:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac trolling

Fair guess that any IP trolling of Proabivuoac is from a tor node. You can use this web site to check http://www.ippages.com and then hard block with the reason {{tor}}. Thatcher131 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC) `

Cheers for sorting it Thatcher. I'll keep an eye out for any more then. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	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. R Delivery Bot 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

CHQ

Hey thanks for your support and for the links, I'm sure are going to need them and will give it a try when I finish giving my thanks to those that trusted me, cheers! - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation question

I would like to confirm something with you, since you're an admin. Tratare, whom you've blocked for personal attacks and harassment, accused me of breaking WP rules because I delete messages from my talk page after I've seen them. To my knowledge, there is not a rule against this - only against removing warnings, and I've never gotten a warning. Have the rules changed? Kat, Queen of Typos 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, no there's nothing wrong with removing messages from your talk page, that even includes warnings - it shows that you have read them if you remove them. It's best however to archive your talk page rather than remove comments completely, so for instance, you could delete them from User talk:Rainbow7180 and put them in User talk:Rainbow7180/archive1. Hope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFCN

Hi Ryan, I read your comment at WT:RFCN and I really respect you, so I would just like to hear your thoughts, I've replied to your comment, if you have time to take a peek at it. I honestly know that I did my very best to specifically not WP:BITE with this issue, being polite, kind, understanding of the user's frustration, and explaining specifically it was not a violation of WP:U policy, but more an issue of other users being unable to see the username at all, or to type it. If you get a chance, I'd love to hear your additional thoughts. Thanks, ^Ariel♥Gold 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page, as I said there, it was not just you, it was everyone who commented - it just upsets me when we get overly bureacratic and force users to change their name because of a policy that doesn't exist. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. But now I'm questioning myself, and I just was asked about something, if you could review this page: User:Burntech created Burntech solutions which seems to be purely promotional, and his username would be promotional as well, as the only contributions have been to that page, or to upload the image for it. I hesitate to give the person who asked for my advice the wrong advice now, if you have a chance to peek at it and decide, I'd appreciate it. Thank you again for explaining the other issue, I do understand your position. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you stumbled upon my major pet hate on wikipedia - non latin character usernames getting blocked or users forced to change their name. I'm not sure why I feel so strongly about it, but hey, it's over now so let's forget about it - as I said, it wasn't just you, you brought something to the communities attention which is a good thing to do, and discussion probably was a good idea in this case. Consider User:Burntech blocked, because it's clearly a promotional name - that ones an easy one :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 13:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well actually I wasn't the one that saw the name, User:I could not even see it, and asked for my opinion about it, he'd already discussed the name with the user by the time I woke up, lol. I guess I just got the ball rolling faster, which I regret now. And it looks like Mike went ahead and G-11'd that article, as it is gone now, so thanks for taking care of the username, I did leave a username concern note on the user's page, rather than reporting it. Again, I'd just like to say how much I respect your opinion, and I appreciate that you took the time to explain things. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason Updated

Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 17:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 15:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Digimon Images

Yes, and if these were images of similar characters, or the same, I would understand. As it is, they are images of around 500 or so different species. Further than that, many of them are made for promotional use, and not as clips from the actual copyrighted works - they are the character designs. Anything that is not a screenshot or a cardshot is this kind of picture.

Also, from my read through of WP Policy, the example of acceptable fair use is a picture that is low-resolution and unique - almost all of these pictures are low(er) resolution, and they are overwhelmingly unique, since it is quite hard to create pictures of them that are free.

So:

1. No free equivalent. Check
2. Respect for commercial opportunities - these are pictures that only appear on side-along lists of Digimon or on the websites promoting the anime - never in the anime or cards themselves, with the exception of the Tamers Digivice Images, which appear in a largely modified form in the anime. So, check. (I notice that you left some images in that actually violate this)
3. Minimal number of uses. Only one picture per extremely divergent species, so, Check.
4. Previous Publication. On the Toie and Bandai websites, so check.
5. Content. To my understanding, check.
6. Media-specific policy. To my understanding, check.
7. One-article minimum. Each image is used in at least one article, and for the large part, only one article
8. Significance. Ho yeah, check.
9. Restrictions on Location. I'm pretty sure this is a check, though I haven't checked everyone's userpages.
10. Image description page. This is a main task of the Wikiproject, so partial check, since I'm not sure that we're done yet.

So tell me, besides the fact that there are a lot of pictures on that page (which doesn't actually violate the guidelines), what is the problem?KrytenKoro 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please actually explain which policy is being violated, and how, before performing such large deletions.KrytenKoro 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Abuse of admin powers"

“ Declining to do a checkuser because it goes against the privacy policy is not admin abuse. I strongly urge you to drop the matter right away, but if you insist on carrying on, do not call it abuse of power. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) ”

Then what do I call it?Wiki Raja 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Kowa Bunga

Duuuuuddddddeeeeee. Just had to say that. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Soviet occupations

I have moved Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe to Soviet occupations per discussions on the Talk Page. It is my hope that this move will help resolve some of the edit warring that caused you to protect the page. Would you be willing to have the page unprotected on an experimental basis to see if the edit warring stops?

--Richard 00:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I'll unprotect it now if it hasn't been already. I think the best thing to do is make it clear that further edit warring will be met with blocks rather than protection. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I left a comment in response to your appraisal at the noticeboard page. Please read what I've said and linked to and consider revising your decision. Thanks for your time, Dsol 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I left another message at 3RR.

The anon ip was basically reverting

• very well sourced info about one issue (Wines incident)
• questionably sourced and questionably included info about another incident (AK's name), which I already stated I'm not contesting and don't demand its inclusion at present.
• unsourced but noncontentious info about a 3rd source (spy), which was not even noticed because the anon made 0 effort to engage in discussion about it.

The fact that the second 2 might be okay does not excuse the 3RR violation on the first. Sorry to bother you about this further but the anon is not really participating seriously in discussion at WP:BLPN and I don't have another outlet. Dsol 10:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond here as there's no point in filling up the 3RR board. If the IP reverts again, let me know, and I'll take another look at it, but as this was an IP removing what he thought was a BLP violation, then that is exempt from the 3RR rule, whether well founded or not. As I say, letme know if there's another revert. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do, thanks. But isn't there some limit to how far 3RR exception for BLP extends, especially when the sources are given and described in depth on the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard? While I appreciate your future attention in this particular case, what recourse does one have in general when an editor defies consensus to repeatedly blank material, and falsely claiming support from BLP policy? Dsol 11:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The ip is back to edit warring on the article page, and I think another 3RR violation is imminent. While the arguments s/he is offering on WP:BLPN are paper thin and belligerent, I am trying to respond in a measured way and not to revert while discussion is ongoing. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the reversions are not enforcement of BLP but merely editorial, and therefore subject to 3RR. I would like your opinion on this, and if you have time and inclination, on the matter in dispute itself. Thanks Dsol 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar, baby!

		The IRC Buddy Barnstar
		For (my paraphrase) telling me that my outspoken comments are brilliantly hilarious, I award you this barnstar of honesty :P Use it well! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell it like it is, eh? *makes comment about your drunken userpage photo* Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin School

Ryan, I like pages. I've used it more as a how-to than a direct practice per se, but still very useful. I think it'd be helpful to have a school block sample there, too. What to unclick, which templates to use and where to put them, etc. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's a good idea. Can't do it tonight, as I'm about to get hammered, but leave it with me. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, is that hammered with schoolwork... or yummy, fermented beverages? It IS Friday, after all! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your note below. Have fun! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Knowing Ryan, I suspect the latter :) - Alison ^❤ 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see there's a picture of him in about 6 hours on his user page.-- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Small world

Hi there, Ryan. It really is a small world! I'm also from Kendal in the Lakes - did you go to Kirkbie Kendal or Queen Katherine school? I've made contact because I noticed you on the 3RR Administrators' page yesterday. I reported a user almost 24hours ago and there's been no result to my report or any cases reported since. Would I be best off waiting or there something I can do to expedite the process? Thanks in advance, and good luck with the rest of your course; I graduated 2 years ago and work has proved to be quite fun! :-) Docta247 15:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it is a small world :-) I went to Queen Katherine - only the best for me!! How about you? It's Torchlight Procession night tonight, but just managed to fit in sorting out your 3RR report before I hit Kendal and get hammered! :-) Where are you based now? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I went to Kirkbie Kendal, but in the spirit of Wikifriends, I hope you forgive me :-). I had some good nights out at the Torchlight; always ended up right in the middle of town at the New Inn. Many thanks for taking a look at the 3RR for me, it's very much appreciated. After finishing uni I've moved to Worcester/Malvern to work on high-tech defence technology research for QinetiQ. All good fun! Docta247 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The MfD

For your information Ryan, I have closed the MfD regarding Politics rules' user subpage. I neutrally reviewed the arguments, and closed the MfD as no consensus. It neither an obvious keep nor delete, so no consensus was the logical closure. Acalamari 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It would probably have been better to leave it to someone who could have judged the consensus rather than close it as no consensus. I'll probably take it back to MfD tomorow. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it's already been archived too; so it's not easy to revert my closure. Acalamari 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sitdown248

This user is violating WP:UP#NOT - just have a look at their userpage. I tried asking them nicely on their talk page to remove it... that did nothing... so I removed it myself... and they just reverted it. Would you, as An Almighty Admin, be able to do something about his shenanigans? Thanks in advance, Una Laguna^Talk 08:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Una Laguna^Talk 13:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Now they've gone and replaced their talk page with the same content... some people never learn, do they? Una Laguna^Talk 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah, cheers for that. I've warned the user that if they do it again, I'll block them. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The system works! Una Laguna^Talk 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev

I notice that you have just blocked him for breach of the 3RR. Thanks for our vigilance. would wholeheartedly agree with a block, but I had not noticed when I posted a warning, so I'll leave it there. Ohconfucius 13:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP: TW

I may be new at this but I did clean alot of vandalism. everythin in good faith offcourse Nick10000 16:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but you'll have to do it manually for a bit as some of your revisions were very poor. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see. I will do so, but is it any chance for you to get back to me after a while and adress me if I am able to uses twinkle again?. Nick10000 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah of course, consider it a 2 week twinkle break so you can review all your edits. I'll re-add it for you in a couple of weeks. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Great Thanks! Nick10000 16:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD

Ryan, you know everything. Were you aware of a discussion to change the {{speedy}} warning on article pages from pink to white? And if there was no such discussion, do you know how to change it back? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the diff where the tag changed. Basically, all the speedy templates are formed from {{Db-meta}}, so when this was changed to {{Ambox}} form, which all boxes are changing to on wikipedia, the tag went from white to pink. I'm not sure where the discussion is, but I think it's widely accepted. I'll look into it though. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason: WP:TS. --Agüeybaná 18:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile

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

Cheers for the smile, it's brightened up my day. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for a Brilliant Concept

Though you have received countless thank yous by now, I just wanted to officially recognize you with coming up with a very clever idea :):

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award Ryan this barnstar for coming up with the brilliant concept of Wikipedia:New admin school. This school will be a great place for new administrators to test the waters and learn all they need to know about how to use "the tools." Nice work Ryan! ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Though there's really not a mechanism for this, let me "second" this barnstar. It really is a brilliant concept, and one that I wish had been here when I was figuring out the new buttons! - Philippe | Talk 00:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

PhpWebGallery deletion on English part

You said in Deletion log that we did not meet the requirements for "significance". Can you expose your arguments and defend them against these pages: - Zenphoto : Notability is almost equal to us and description is minimalist - Gallery_Project (also better known than us, their page was less iformative than the one we provided. If you thought we put too much information, just let us know. - 4images

Please note also we are referred to in Photo_gallery_comparison

Please be kind enough to give feedback -- 82.226.255.74 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC) [Mathias]

Any suggestions will be really appreciate.

Thxs.

Many thanks for the query. Basically, to have a page here, PhpWebGallery needs to meet WP:WEB which are the guidlines for notability for things concerning the internet. You will need to provide reliable, independant sources that show how they meet those guidlines. Hope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite 15:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall I post references here before creating it again ? Mathiasm94 23:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC) [Mathias]

===============

Hello - My first post here, but I would like to assist the folks at PhpWebGallery as a reference because I have benefited so much from this open source application. I actually learned about PhpWebGallery because it was listed on Wikipedia here: [1] I hope that alone should indicate that it is well known and established.

This link does a fairly good job of comparing all of the gallery software out there on the web. I had tried several other open source apps over time including popular apps such as Coppermine and Gallery as well as MG2. Coppermine and Gallery are best known on the web, but the minute I started reading the information at PhpWebGallery I knew it was something special. Not only is it extremely robust in all of its tools and ability, but the wonderful administration interface is what is key to me as a photographer needing to display images on the www.

PhpWebGallery may not be on the front page of CNET, but it should be, and I predict it will be fairly soon once other photographers catch on. For reference I use it at [2] and [3] (click on "portfolio" to see how I use it)

If you do a basic search on PhpWebGallery in Google, you will find 35 pages of links referencing it and countless photog sites using this app. I hope this will help, and please feel free to edit my writing here in the interest of leaving good, useful info at Wikipedia. - Steve Cherry at DailyFrame.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevecherry (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

===============

First, thanks to Steve for his support.

I think there is a confused debate there. PhpWebGallery is distributed as MediaWiki under a General Public Licence. No doubt for anyone that MediaWiki is referenced by Wikipedia itself. PhpWebGallery is similar to MediaWiki not for building a Global online Encyclopedia but as a open software solution to build a large picture gallery repository. If Ryan you are convinced that our references are to related to the original web site, we had thousand website address available. Nethertheless, I am trying to have press articles from ziffdavis.com and PC Magazine just for you, even we already have some in French obviously.

Keep in touch...

Thanks, Ryan for your understanding.

Vincent, also known as VDigital, and original proposal writer. 195.183.24.148 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Double redirect

Can you please correct your signature so it isn't a double redirect? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What double redirect? Would you mind providing a diff as an example? -- Cat ^chi? 05:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your signature links to User:White_Cat/07 which redirects to User:White_Cat. Please change your signature to link to just User:White_Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, thats a redirect, not a double redirect. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah yeah :-) What I'm trying to say is, could you consider changing your sig to go staight to your userpage, rather than through a redirect? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, I'd rather be indef blocked... At least tolerate the damn signature. Even my signatures bother you people! -- Cat ^chi? 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Puppetry

You responded to an incident earlier involving User:Eurominuteman who was then banned. He seems to be back as a sockpuppet with the name of User:itskoolman. For now, he is only editing the talk page but I am reasonably certain it is him by his writing style. Thanks for your help. Man It's So Loud In Here 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the report, I've blocked itskoolman as a sock. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again

hi Ryan btw take look at [4] I think this article needs to be improved and also need a ethnic infobox template. Is it any chance for you to help out? thanks in advance Nick10000 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I tried to create an infox box using a template from here - but failed as the infobox's here use a lot of different templates to put them all together and I'm not 100% possitive how they work. Sorry. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

84.73.140.109 is using 129.129.128.64 to evade your block, as he said he would. -GnuTurbo 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the IP is constructively trying to work a compromise on the talk page now, so a further block would be punitive now. I will keep an eye on it however. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I probably would not have even noticed, but he threatened it before rather insultingly.[5] -GnuTurbo 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he's entering into discussion now, so I am reluctant to block. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I have grown too used to the U.S. way of punitive punishment. I see your point. Thanks. -GnuTurbo 17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that anyone asked my opinion, but GnuTurbo, that is a truly fascinating statement. I've never thought about it that way. I'm gonna have to sit down and grok that, because I'm curious about the implications of that. - Philippe | Talk 19:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Would punitive consequences be better? -GnuTurbo 19:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not questioning your language, at all. I'm just intrigued by the application of punitive punishment in the States and the implication of that on the mind of your average US Wikipedian. Probably a research project in there somewhere... measuring the effects of the criminal justice mindset in light-justice applications or something. - Philippe | Talk 02:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

Would you mind not just removing closed discussions? They are no longer automatically archived when removed, so they have to be done manually. Usually there is not a clog on the page warranting immediate removal, but for some reason it happened while I was away. It's harder to keep the archives accurate if we need to dig though the history to get the links. You don't need to archive, but would you mind not removing them entirely? Thanks. i ^said 00:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah of course, I did check the archive, but it didn't seem like it was up to date so I didn't add them to it. I'll make sure I archive them next time. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 05:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupid question, but . . .

Okay, so my old friend insomnia and I are sitting here, watching the user creation log for kicks and I note that I see users creating other users. How is that done and why? Figured you'd know, since I saw you on WP:ACC. Into The Fray ^T/C 05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. My oatmeal brain says . . . same email address used to register both accounts...? Into The Fray ^T/C 06:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, it actually means they created the account while logged-in. Try visiting Special:Userlogin while logged in and click "create". This is standard procedure for WP:ACC as it enables easy identification. GDonato (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Learn something new every day, I'spose. Thanks GDonato! Into The Fray ^T/C 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA Spam

Just to let you know I passed my RfA. Thank you very much for the nomination. I'm not going to SPAM everyone, as I have 96-6=90 better things to do with my new (not very shiny after all) buttons. However I am thanking my nominators, because, well you are all fab! Happy Editing! Pedro |  Chat  12:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	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 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OTOH

User talk:Bishonen#Help (2) KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Joopercoopers

I know nothing about these sorts of things, but when you unblocked him and stuck the "unblocked" template on his page for the autoblock, it displays his IP address. Some people might not want their IP address advertised like that. Then again, maybe he doesn't care about his anonymity since he's going to CZ. Just thought I'd bring it up. Tex20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update

Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

• Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.

• Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.

• Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.

• Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

• There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Walk t'plank!

		Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!
		Ahoy, me hearty! How 'bout a good ol' jug o' grog? RegARRds, Húsönd 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello. Since you were the blocking admin, I just thought I would let you know that user Tratare has returned as BirthdayBank. Evidence can be found through their contributions (Tratare, BirthdayBank), but what tipped me was this compared to this. Also, Tratare was a sock account of blocked user EverybodyHatesChris. - Deep Shadow 08:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ryan, can you also check to see if User:ByeNow and User:Lormos are also sockpuppets of Tratare? They have taken a special interest in reverting my edits on the Judge Judy article. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this, this and this. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Say what?

Could you explain for me the reason for the deletion of the account User:Sweet Blue Water? I don't think that it is normal policy to delete sockpuppet accounts. I would have raised this question on the relevant talk page, but it is protected, also for mysterious reasons. --Marvin Diode 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:HARRASS, we don't hold grudges against users that make mistakes a long time ago. As this account is no longer used, I deleted the user page. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hitting on RfA candidates? You sicken me!

"Not bad looking either, but guess that doesn't mean she'll make a good admin....." - *high fives* Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 11:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, had to after seeing her facebook! Ryan Postlethwaite 11:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I 1) Am considering getting FaceBook 2) Am considering getting wimt to ring you (that's screwed up, dude...) 3) Am considering running. Probably best to take this outside. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 11:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the "tell it like it is support" in my RfA :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 11:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Facebook rocks!! Can't take it outside I'm affraid, I'm on a uni computer because I got drunk last week and dropped my laptop so it's getting repaired at the minute, trust me - it made it a very expensive night! Will try and catch up with everyone soon! Ryan Postlethwaite 11:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're my idol sometimes, Ryan. *huggles his Tablet PC, whilst sitting ever some comfortably on his bed.* Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 11:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Misogyny

Thanks for the 3RR warning, but I think you need to examine the history more closely. In the last 24 hours, I have only edited the article 3 times. As for telling me not to revert again, the last edit by anon removed quotations marks from quoted text. It also removed the citation foonote. So now we have an article that has a clear case of copyvio/plagiarism because we have verbatim quoted text that isn't attributed to any source and is presented as our own. I appreciate you taking the time to look into the case and blocking the anon, but I wish you'd looked a little closer and not left the scolding message on my talk page. But I'll live :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand I had been reverting a lot. I'm just not sure of other options. These edits were almost vandalism in my opinion, which is why I was more lenient in the amount of reverts. If this was truly a content dispute, I would hope that I wouldn't had reverted as much. The situation was an anonymous editor (which I know shouldn't bias my opinion, but sometimes it does), who wasn't use the talk page or being communicative, who wasn't using edit summaries, inserting POV personal commentary into a section of quoted text, over and over. In the future, I can try to be more careful, but I'm curious what you would have done in the same situation? You can't force users to go to the talk page? Thanks for your comments.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand your point here, and I don't really know what to suggest. As you say, you cannot force someone to go to the talk page. I disagree that the edits in question were close to vandalism, they were more mis-understood than anything but it was still a content dispute. I guess there is always a third opinion, an RfC would be too minor for somethnig on this scale. What I would have done is probably walk away, and let someone else revert it. I would probably have reverted a couple of times and attempted to enter into discussion with the IP, and if I got no response, taken it to WP:AN to get someone else to try and talk to them. Apart from that, I'm not really sure what else you can do. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Ryan, I believe you are now in the OTRS Team and if not pliz revert this :P ...--Cometstyles 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey CS, yeah I am, I'm so pleased my request got accepted! Hopefully I'll be back on IRC soon, when my laptop comes back from repair. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

unblocking

Yup. I didn't see any incivility, and 3RR was not even broken, so I don't see disruptive editing. I am sure you can all work it out on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Per this thread, your comments would be welcome at this DRV. -- Jreferee T/C 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Jreferee, just popped over to the page and added a few refs and commented on the DRV - hopefully it will certainly be saved now. I agree with the original speedy by JzG. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	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. R Delivery Bot 02:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Rick Mercer

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) clearly states that people are to be described as gay, not as homosexual, in articles. As an administrator I have to treat it as a policy violation, and therefore as vandalism, if somebody ignores that policy by changing the description of Mercer's sexuality to "homosexual". Vandalism is not subject to 3RR. Bearcat 18:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), which is a guideline not a policy states that "gay" is preferred over "homosexual". To use a term advised against by a naming convention is not a policy violation and certainly does not qualify as simple and obvious vandalism. The fact that you are an administrator is irrelevant. Will (aka Wimt) 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank for reverting my userpage

I hesitate to call it vandalism because I briefly worked on Chasnalla Academy. Actually I nominated it for speedy but that was declined unsurprisingly. Maybe the author was just trying to show me he's improved the article significantly. Donno... Thanks though. Pig^man 02:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected user page

User:Pete K has been unprotected again by a bot... Might be wise to seal it back up. Hgilbert 11:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted and reprotected, given the two versions were exactly the same. Daniel 10:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Daniel, as always your always on hand to sort out my queries - much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Large # of fair use images on articles

Hey Ryan, looking back over this discussion over the use of fair use images on List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1), I see that we still don't have any closure on what to do. Since the AFD was interpreted as an optional transwiki, we still a number of pages out there unresolved. What do you think, another discussion on ANI, about the fair number of fair use images and staying away from the notability issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to a version without the fair use images. Unfortunately the AfD close ignored the overall consensus to transwiki (by that I mean it completely ignored the consensus). Might take it to DRV. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article is currently in the process of being transwikied, hopefully this will sort the problems - I'll keep my eyes peeled to make sure it does get transwikied. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Very sorry

My apologies. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I am not very sure he did the right thing. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither am I, there's a little support for it on BN, but I certainly think it's best to let this go quickly. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is he referring to "drama" – by saying, "she knows what's it's all about". This might be a classic case of trolling. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we all know that's what he loves. I've left a ntoe on BN saying that I've relisted it but hopefully it will be closed again soon. There's no need for a revert war over something so silly. Personally I thought Miltopia had gone.... Ryan Postlethwaite 12:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just ask me what I meant by that comment instead of engaging in nasty gossip? A simple question would've cleared up my intentions for any rational person. And you say I'm the one who loves drama... Milto LOL pia 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I reverted your edit by mistake when browsing the history. I've changed it back anyway. Leithp 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem sir, thanks for letting me know. It's an extremely easy mistake to make. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 11:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, archive11! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1)

Readding those images was an accident on my behalf as I was readding information, that looking further back, you removed, while I'm here though explain too me what WikiProject Digimon is doing wrong, we were told we had to merge all the Digimon into one list, which was done, and now we have to transwiki? Why? Also what exactly are we doing wrong with the images, which rule are we breaking? They were added on the grounds of it increases the understanding of the topic. What are we doing wrong? Trainra 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand, and the AfD was finished a little over a week ago. Progress takes time. Also I would like to say Wikiproject Digimon should have been notified of the pending deletion request and when the fair use problem was brought up to us I replyed and the origional message poster didn't return to state a rebuttel,Trainra 12:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting to understand where the problem is now. Instead of a complete Transwiki. Could the pages be modified to look like the List of Pokemon lists? Trainra 12:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We werw currently in the process of adding references to the character lists. Our main view was to get them all merged first. I shall bring the Lists idea up at the Project, but remember that the majority of our editors have left and there is currently only three active ones. So it might take some time. Trainra 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding to Zzuuzz's post on my talk page. :) Acalamari 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem sir, hope you're well. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all fine; hope you're fine too. :) By the way, I know this isn't to do with my original posting, but here's another thank you for the new admin school; it's a handy place to give to new administrators, and they appreciate it! Good work on it. Acalamari 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, well to be honest with you, it bored me to death doing it, but I really thought it would be good for all the new admins, and hopefully it will help them when they first get the tools. Hey, no big deal if it doesn't - they can just ignore it :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've told some new admins I've given the link too: I'd wish it had existed when I first became an administrator. :) What's even better is that some of the bureaucrats are even putting in their notifications of users they've just sysopped. :) Acalamari 16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wotcha

Yeah, looks like I'm back, for a while at least. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving to RFC

Thank you for taking the initiative to move it to RFC. I was considering doing so, but was wondering if it was worth the work. Hopefully we can spark some discussion this time. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I think it's a really good idea and certainly a good place to air views. Still working on the format however. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You know why :) Nice to see you around. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem sir. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Format error

Argh! How did I do that? :) Acalamari 23:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Think someone needs an early night!! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but not just yet; it's 5:00pm where I live! :) Acalamari 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Protect discussion

Just relocated here"

Yes, there really is, if you guys would take a second and just look. There really is. Look back, make the effort. This is the third time it's been requested for protection, and there is too much vandalism going on. Carter | Talk to me 00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not enough for protection, and as I look at it, there isn't all that much compared to other articles. We have to expect some vandalism and thise get's no more than any other page. Just keep on reverting and warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I always do and will continue to. Thanks for your help :) Carter | Talk to me 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, obviously if the level ups at all re-report it. Keep up the good work. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I will, but I already have three times. It just gets frustrating. I'll report it if it happens again though. I always warn the user as well. Anyways, happy editing. Carter | Talk to me 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Block messages

Hi. I was directed to a discussion where I think you were saying that template parser functions don't get used. But I just blocked a sock of mine with

testing block message {{usernameblocked|QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ}}

as the reason. When I tried to edit with the account, I got Image:Blockmsgtemp.jpg as the block message with the "QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ" included. Maybe you were saying something different? Just wanted to make sure I was getting the technical details correct. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A humble request...

Hey Ryan, I know you've been around Wikipedia for a while, and I wanted to ask a favor. I am seriously thinking about going up for RfA, and I'm on WP:ADMINCOACH, but that is largely inactive. I wanted to see if you could help me out by taking me up as a coachee. I understand from your userpage that you might be inactive, so take as much time as you need, or feel I need. Thanks for considering this. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll get right on the BLP essay. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I finished both my tasks, and wanted to know what else I need to do. I haven't been as active lately, because my wifi network is down. I'm editing from my parents' computer. I should be able to get more done soon. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Cumbria

Hi Ryan! I started the above portal as a favour to your fellow Cumbrian admin J Milburn - could you take a look at helping to complete it at some point? Also, how's about a Cumbria WikiProject?--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant!! It looks so good, thanks for your hard work with it. A cumbria wikiproject would be a great idea, as you're good at formatting, how about throwing something together? Ryan Postlethwaite 13:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)