User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite: Difference between revisions
+ |
→Thank you kindly: new section |
||
Line 358: | Line 358: | ||
|align="right"|[[Image:Admin mop.PNG|75px]] |
|align="right"|[[Image:Admin mop.PNG|75px]] |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== Thank you kindly == |
|||
Thank you for the offer, but I have a mentor. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:56, 4 November 2007
Archive
Dates: |
RFA Thanks
RFA Thanks
HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!!
:) :) :) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wild_Beasts&diff=prev&oldid=84312597 :) :) :) *Cremepuff222* 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yey!!!! thanks! Maybe it's ironic, but I just went to watch Arcade Fire with a member of The Wild Beasts - guest list of course! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Ryan! A year on Wikipedia for you! Acalamari 01:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers acalamari, you're certainly one of the good guys. It's been a pleasure working with you over the past year, and I look forward to further interaction. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Happy First Edit Day! ~Jeeny (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Happy First Edit Day!! It's only been a year? Wow! Now where's my 1 year, 8 months and 5 days Edit Day congrats? :] . --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- The same place where my 1 year, 2 months and 12 days award is. :-P Congrats, Ryan! —Animum (etc.) 02:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's a party on IRC. Come on over! :) *Cremepuff222* 02:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Zomg. I have suspicions that this improptu celebration was canvassed on IRC... WjBscribe 02:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's a party on IRC. Come on over! :) *Cremepuff222* 02:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- The same place where my 1 year, 2 months and 12 days award is. :-P Congrats, Ryan! —Animum (etc.) 02:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Happy First Edit Day!! It's only been a year? Wow! Now where's my 1 year, 8 months and 5 days Edit Day congrats? :] . --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Happy First Edit Day! ~Jeeny (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers acalamari, you're certainly one of the good guys. It's been a pleasure working with you over the past year, and I look forward to further interaction. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Ryan! A year on Wikipedia for you! Acalamari 01:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
(Indent) Hey man, happy first year! I remember my first Wikiversary way back in July. It's a cool thing to have under your belt. Enjoy it! J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks guys! It's been emotional! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Happy first edit day!
It has been one year since you made your first edit! I've seen you several times. I first saw you when you closed my stale RfA after I decided to withdraw, and then I met you again on WP:AN and finally, you blocked User:Madigan = Sotiropoulos, since that username clearly impersonates my driver's education teacher and my band teacher. I'm about to make my 10000th edit soon. Leaving you this message is my 9981th edit, including deleted edits, according to My Preferences. Again, Happy 1st edit day! NHRHS2010 talk 05:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Happy WikiAniversary, Dear Ryan! Ariel♥Gold 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
PatPolitics rule! 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
I've seen you everyday since I joined wikipedia so I, Phoenix-wiki, present you, Ryan Postlethwaite, with this barnstar for being seen!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
Non-Admin Closings
You told Qst that non-admins couldn't close AfDs as "No Consensus". According to the relevant section of the deletion guideline, they are only restricted from closing "Delete" results, as they lack the technical ability to do so. In this case, he obviously shouldn't have closed them, as there were no comments at all. But still, non-admins are permitted to close as "No Consensus". i (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's interesting, it always used to be the case that non admins should only close discussions where everyone has said keep. Anyway, Qst has had problems in the past with his AfD closures, so it may be an idea for him to stay away from them completely. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not neccisarily concerned with Qst here, although the closes were incorrect. I'm just saying that non-admins can close as no consensus. i (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Somebody removed the sentence "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator", which I have now restored. Daniel 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- That sentence has not been there since the new wording in June, so it was not removed. I've reverted and started a section on the talk page. i (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- And I've reverted you, per my comments on talk. Establish a consensus to remove it before doing so, as there was never a consensus to remove it in the first place. Daniel 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Apolgies, it was my understanding that one would relist a debate if the !votes were equal or nearly equal, but a debate could be closed as no consensus, if there are no comments - whether these may have been vote/delete/merge etc. I apologise, I'm sure it used to be like that at Wikipedia:Deletion Process#NAC :) I just assumed it still was. Again, sorry. Qst 12:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the deletion process has said that non-admins could close as no consensus since the first of June. It was only just amended by Daniel. However in this case, yes, it should have been relisted, as there were no comments. i (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm willing to openly admit, that I was in the wrong. I'm not to good with AfD debate closing; but as they say practice makes perfect ... Qst 13:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the deletion process has said that non-admins could close as no consensus since the first of June. It was only just amended by Daniel. However in this case, yes, it should have been relisted, as there were no comments. i (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Apolgies, it was my understanding that one would relist a debate if the !votes were equal or nearly equal, but a debate could be closed as no consensus, if there are no comments - whether these may have been vote/delete/merge etc. I apologise, I'm sure it used to be like that at Wikipedia:Deletion Process#NAC :) I just assumed it still was. Again, sorry. Qst 12:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- And I've reverted you, per my comments on talk. Establish a consensus to remove it before doing so, as there was never a consensus to remove it in the first place. Daniel 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- That sentence has not been there since the new wording in June, so it was not removed. I've reverted and started a section on the talk page. i (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Somebody removed the sentence "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator", which I have now restored. Daniel 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not neccisarily concerned with Qst here, although the closes were incorrect. I'm just saying that non-admins can close as no consensus. i (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
DYK October 29
--Andrew c [talk] 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
My (KWSN's) RFA
Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. I owe you a big thanks since you nominated me as well. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
DYK
Just thought I'd let you know, I got my first DYK! *Cremepuff222* 14:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well done Cremepuff222 - you've done really well with it and congratulations on the DYK. Now, there's just a few more papyri to go! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
A quick note
I'm leaving wikipedia. See my talk page for details. ThebestkianoT|C 22:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've left a comment on his talk page, he told a handfull of random editors about his leaving. Sorry for intruding on your talk page. Best wishes, Qst 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- You never intrude :-) Thanks for leaving the note, I've also gone ahead and left one. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I never left RANDOM messages. They were people involved in my blocking/unblocking. Sorry if I caused you any trouble. ThebestkianoT|C 07:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- You never intrude :-) Thanks for leaving the note, I've also gone ahead and left one. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:
- The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.
- The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.
- Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.
- Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.
- Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.
Dr. Cash 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the kind welcome and advice, whilst it was a rather "cookie cutter" greeting it was good none the less. I hope to help fill the shoes of a Wikipedia Administrator one day so I greatly appreciate the advice. Keep up with the good work Cheers Twilln 00:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Thanks I am finding things alright the system is a little different than I expected and I am a little upset to see that wikipedia uses its own coding instead of html (which would make it easier for me) yet I think things are going well. I have started to edit a few things and look around. It's kind of hard to get your footing in a fast community; but I really want to help and be apart of such a great thing so thats worth the great confusion! Cheers Twilln 00:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA? OMG, my hair's a mess!
Thanks for the nom! I'm delaying saying yes for about 1/2 an hour while I feed our dogs and double check my answers before posting them. Near as I can tell, I just say I accept and post my candidate statement and the three questions, right? Do I have to then list it on the main RfA page? Or perhaps I could just read the d--n instructions, right? Oh, and since it seems to be the often included optional question, I've also answered the "Would you add yourself to [[Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall]]? Why, or why not?" question. I figure I'll just post that as well. Anyway, I'll be ready in about 30 minutes or so. Thanks again. Oh, yeah, and technically I've been editing under this account since June, 2005, not Nov. 2006. But my contribs were pretty limited before late Oct. 2006 so it's not really a big deal. Cheers, Pigmanwhat?/trail 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll reply here, not sure you'll see it though! Basically, just answer the questions (plus your optional one) and say you accept and list it on the main page (You'll see the format that everyone uses when you click edit on WP:RFA). Whatever you do though, sort your hair out - I can't have any of my candidates going into the arena looking like a mess!! I did see that you started editing in June 2005, but I didn't really think those 2 or 3 edits in that period counted!! Best of look sir, really hope it goes well!! Ryan has to stay up now to get the first support in! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry it took me a little while to get my, er, stuff together. So I'm proceeding forward now but it might take a few minutes because WP is really slow right now for me. If you've gone to sleep don't worry about it. Best, Pigmanwhat?/trail 02:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just about still awake - just going through my emails with one eye open. If I don't catch you tonight - I've got 7 days so I won't worry about it too much! Ryan Postlethwaite 02:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- You got in the first support! Although it was simple enough to do, I was hugely paranoid that I was going to malform the listing on the RfA page. That would have been incredibly inauspicious. Nothing says "inattentive editor unsuited for adminship" than big public mistakes like that. At least it doesn't look like I'm going to snowball so I'm cheerful. Pigmanwhat?/trail 04:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just about still awake - just going through my emails with one eye open. If I don't catch you tonight - I've got 7 days so I won't worry about it too much! Ryan Postlethwaite 02:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry it took me a little while to get my, er, stuff together. So I'm proceeding forward now but it might take a few minutes because WP is really slow right now for me. If you've gone to sleep don't worry about it. Best, Pigmanwhat?/trail 02:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom elections
Wow! I didn't know you were running for the arbitration committee. Good luck!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, I've only just decided to run really. Hey, if it's not successful it's no big deal - I'll just stick to what I do now! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the page, Ryan. It's a bit of a mess and I disagree with User:Useruser1x's version, but the level of warring there is silly. Happy 1 year here, and I hope you're here for longer, too! -- Flyguy649 talk 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey there mate, saw you add the request so thought I'd pop over and try and sort it for you. Hopefully 1 week will be long enough for discussion. Take care, --Ryan Postlethwaite 01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've been the one reverting most of Useruser1x's recent edits - which consisted entirely of removing criticism of the United Nation of Islam, as well as any discussion of the organization's religious views. I notice that Useruser1x got to the page again before it was protected. Would you be willing to restore the last-version-but-one, which contains the criticism and religious views sections? I also think Useruser1x has been gaming the system to avoid WP:3RR violations, after I issued a warning. Michaelbusch 02:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but whilst you may think that Useruser1x is acting disruptively, what you are involved in is an edit war. As the protecting administrator, it would be wrong of me to revert to my preferred version of the page. If you get a consensus on the article talk page, then I'll revert it. --Ryan Postlethwaite 02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I had rather thought there was already such a consensus (i.e. every editor involved but Useruser1x has expressed disproval), but I'll ask for opinions. Michaelbusch 02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This whole thing is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I have no dog in this fight. But it strikes me as incredibly arbitrary that the page was protected at a random point in time minutes after one side in an edit war struck. Especially when an editor had previously posted a reasonable piece. And when the vandal in the edit war is so obviously biased in promoting this religious group. I mean, what would have happened if it was protected 5 minutes earlier? The whole thing strikes me as incredibly arbitrary and capricious. That is not the point of Wikipedia at all. Pick a neutral version (Michaelbusch's last, perhaps shortened by 50%) and then you'll need to fully protect it for a long time. But just picking a random point in time in the middle of the edit war, when one side is so obviously biased, is a very bad idea. 195.189.142.138 04:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's what we do in edit wars, we protect the version that it's currently at - see m:Wrong version. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
A quick question
Hey I just created this template {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} and I was first wondering what you thought about it and secondly (if you like it) would it be appropriate to add it to the pertaining articles. On a second thought, I think this would be a great replacement for {{Wikipedia principles}}, {{Policylist}}, and {{Guideline list}} while also having the benefit of showing the reader the common shortcuts, while also being collapsible, but thats just a thought. Thanks for any help!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there Gonzo fan2007, I think this has been looked into before. I like the idea in principle, but the problem with it is that the project is here for our readers, not for our editors. They shouldn't be subjected to policy links, when all they are wanting to do is read up on a subject, they don't want to see policies and guidlines. It all boils down to it been more aesthetically pleasing without the templates. Hope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Um Ryan I think you misunderstood what I was actually trying to do. I don't want to add this template to every single page on Wikipedia, that would just be...crazy. I think this template would work good being placed on Wikipedia policy and guidelines pages. It would help people to easily find different policies and guielines when they are searching for them. It was just a thought to help editors when they need to cite and find different policies. Hope this clears things up.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)- Oh right, why didn't you say so!? :-) I actually think that's a really good idea and would be a real help to both new and old editors. I'm trying to think where might be the best place to propose this....... maybe the village pump? Would you like me to propose it for you? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Haha yeah that made me laugh when you thought I meant ALL of Wikipedia. But yeah if you want to propse it that would be great because this weekend I will be a little busy in rl. Just send me the link when you propose it and I'll give my thoughts. Oh and if you would, could you look over the template and see if I did everything right and placed the most important policies and guidelines on it? Feel free to make any changes you think would be good. Thanks for your help!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Haha yeah that made me laugh when you thought I meant ALL of Wikipedia. But yeah if you want to propse it that would be great because this weekend I will be a little busy in rl. Just send me the link when you propose it and I'll give my thoughts. Oh and if you would, could you look over the template and see if I did everything right and placed the most important policies and guidelines on it? Feel free to make any changes you think would be good. Thanks for your help!
- Oh right, why didn't you say so!? :-) I actually think that's a really good idea and would be a real help to both new and old editors. I'm trying to think where might be the best place to propose this....... maybe the village pump? Would you like me to propose it for you? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Um Ryan I think you misunderstood what I was actually trying to do. I don't want to add this template to every single page on Wikipedia, that would just be...crazy. I think this template would work good being placed on Wikipedia policy and guidelines pages. It would help people to easily find different policies and guielines when they are searching for them. It was just a thought to help editors when they need to cite and find different policies. Hope this clears things up.
Thank you
Thank you for semi protecting the Hungary article, and bringing some stability to this important article. Hobartimus 14:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou!
Once again, thankyou for your support and adminship nomination. Yes, indeed I shall check out the admin school and practice over the next day or so before commencing work again. Thankyou! :-) Lradrama 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Re : DYK/Dave Teo
Hi, is there anything wrong with the abovementioned article/hook? It has adequate sources to cover the entire article properly (15 of them, and no less than the frontpage of the country's only broadsheet). - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 21:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there Mailer diablo, the concern I have with the article is that it is a biographical article about a person famous for one news event, BLP specifically states that we should try not to have articles on people who are famous because of one news story. Whilst I haven't done anything drastic regarding the article (as I do agree it's well sourced), the guy hasn't even appeared in court yet and casts him in a very negative way, so from a BLP perspective, I don't agree it's good to have on the main page. Hope that helps to explain. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just to add to that, I see you're the article creator, and I appologise for not informing you I had taken it off the main page - that would have been the courteous thing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Inversion (music)
There seems little point in not unlocking the previously disputed article, now that everyone seems to be satisfied with the sandbox and it has come down to the odd bit of fine tuning. You'd be an appropriate person to do this. Please see Talk:Inversion_(music)#Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation.2FInversion_.28music.29.2FSandbox. Tony (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, just noticed this guy was blocked! I'm really surprised that this happened, first, because I thought he seemed to be a decent guy, and also that I didn't notice this sooner! Am I allowed to ask what happened? Is there somewhere I can see the CheckUser results, or are they private? I'm really very surprised about this...one of his confirmed sockpuppets did make this edit, which was surprising given what a blatant conservative he was. You think he was just trying to throw people off his trail? GlassCobra 08:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- He opposed Hdt83's RfA at 15.21, 29 October 2007, shortly followed by Hi264 opposing - Hi264 got blocked, and Politics rule got caught in the same autoblock because they were editing from the same IP - i.e. they were the same person. We had a CU run to confirm it, and there were a number of other sock puppets that PR had used. I was a little shocked to be honest, as he was a very caring and constructive user - I guess it shows you can't trust everyone. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm quite shocked too! I didn't really have any direct dealings with him, but I saw him around a lot of Wikipedia areas and he seemed to be competent and trustworthy. Just when you think you know someone, eh? Wow... GlassCobra 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks re: Inversion (music)
Thanks very much for your help in resolving the dispute at Inversion (music). It feels very good to finally be able to make progress with the article again. I appreciate it a lot. - Rainwarrior 19:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I did much to be honest, but it's good it's finally over and let me congratulate you and Tony on how you have acted in the past couple of weeks to resolve the dispute - my hat off to you both. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, if you're still interested in joining the work with Portal:England (which I'd be delighted if you are), I was just dropping by to tell you that I'm going to create Portal:England/Future updates soon, I'm hoping we can build it up into a big directory of future updates for the Portal, in order to save having to look around on a weekly/monthly basis for new images/articles/DYK's etc. So, if you have any ideas for future updates, please drop them there, or better still, just update the Portal, as its still got loads of work to do on it :). Cheers, Qst 20:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ryan, you reverted me on the T:DYK/N.I had a conversation with an administrator on IRC who said that it would be OK, although you are not technically meant to do it. Qst 23:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've just explained my reasons for doing so on your talk - which admin was it? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because I'm speaking on IRC with you now, should we leave this? We'll sort it out on IRC. Qst 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've just explained my reasons for doing so on your talk - which admin was it? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
My RFA | ||
Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:38, 11/4/2007 |
Wikipedia has a new administrator!
Thank you kindly
Thank you for the offer, but I have a mentor. PRtalk 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)