User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite

Archive

Dates:

30/10/2006-07/12/2007 07/10/2006-24/12/2007 24/01/2007-18/02/2007 18/02/2007-02/03/2007 02/03/2007-28/03/2007 28/03/2007-09/05/2007 09/05/2007-31/05/2007 31/05/2007-20/06/2007 31/06/2007-14/07/2007 14/07/2007-13/09/2007 13/09/2007-20/10/2007 20/10/2007-18/11/2007 18/11/2007-20/12/2007 20/12/2007-25/01/2008

Rollback

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Justin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saeb Erekat

Hi Ryan. I think we'll need your attention at Saeb Erekat again. You'll not be required to consider "content disputes" (except perhaps regarding UNDUE and BLP), but the article needs someone capable of reading the sources and accurately repeating what they said. Up until now that's not been happening. Tell me if you want to recuse yourself, and/or get User:Durova and User:Kendrick7 involved. PR^talk 11:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I'll have to defer to the Israel-Palestine collaboration project regarding the content side. Durova^Charge! 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On top of the problems there, I'm seeing another appparent case of ownership here. Canadian Monkey seems determined to use a peripheral and un-notable source which doesn't cover important material necessary to the article. Can you make sense of it, just from that one TalkPage section? PR^talk 15:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat II

I've replied to your revert and BLP issues here [1].

I would appreciate it if you decide whether you're a neutral editor on the article working to improve it or a pro-active mentor for PalestineRemembered. I honestly can't see you acting neutrally if you do neither and refuse to recognize CNN, BBC and other high quality references. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with those sources, I just think you should provide sources that say he was telling the truth as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi! I just saw your comment on my not understanding the difference between vandalism and bad faith edits. However, I ‘’do’’ know the difference. Only recently has the problem been content issues, but quite honestly, there have always been vandalism problems on these pages. Now my request has been removed because of your point, which I don’t really feel is fair. You can ask anyone at the Pirates pages, which I know is a bit of tedious work ☺ but I really feel I should be given a chance on this. Please let me know what you and the others think. Thanks, BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've granted you rollback - please only use it on obvious vandalism - if there's a content dispute, or you're not sure whether or not it is vandalism, do it manually. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :D I promise to do as you say :)BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing tedious about it! When you click on any diff, it should be directly under the date of the latter revision. The rollback link is only there if it's the latest revision you're rolling back. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback help

Hi Ryan. My request for rollback was just denied, but I'm glad because it put me in touch with a more senior Wiki editor. I need help on David Gest's article. It has a history of NPOV problems, and extravagant, (self?) promotional claims with no research. I rewrote a bunch of it and painstakingly added many footnotes (it had none before). As soon as the semi-page protection came off, an unregistered user wiped everything out with about a million edits. Can you help me revert this back to a decent page with footnotes? Something weird is happening with an onslaught of massive deletions, but I can't figure out how to stop it and deliver a decent article for the wiki community. Thanks, Swilli88

Wow, it's a bit of a mess - can you leave me with it until tomorrow and I'll take a proper look at it? Ryan Postlethwaite 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. Someone keeps injecting a lot of self-promotional, unsourced garbage in the article. I'm just happy to be discussing this now with a sane person. No one is responding to the talk page. I'm still learning about Wiki, so I don't know how to rewrite and "defend" this article from vandals. I wish they hadn't deleted my research and footnotes.

ANI

Thread regarding you . [2] - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the notification - I've responded there. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this edit strike you? ^Avruchtalk 16:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avruch, which one was that? You linked to a revision not a diff. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, whoops. ^Avruchtalk 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting diff, and I'm watching the situation closely. I believe that he's walking on a very thin tight rope and it may be good to advise him that it would be in his best interests to drop the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See my last edit to this page. I'm conflicted about it, as you can probably guess, but better to stave off the drama I suppose. ^Avruchtalk 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mercury/Recall

Hi! Why was this page deleted? I'm not sure it's purely a user page, it's a part of the historical record of how recalls go, referenced from Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests... No other admin that was subject to recall has had their recall related pages deleted and had it stick. I'd ask that you reconsider the deletion. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lar, he tagged it for deletion, and as it's in his user space, I granted that request. As he's no longer an admin, I feel the page has served its purpose and little need to keep it. It was actually speedily deleted previously due to an OTRS request. If you give me time though, I'll happily discuss it with Mercury and see if he'll reconsider. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi... On reflection, it's not really far to put you in the middle, I guess... it probably makes sense for me to take it to him myself (along with the other part of the recall that was deleted)... if he won't reconsider then I'll have to decide if it's worth a DRV over. The reason I ask is that itn's not really "his" page since multiple people participated in it, and not having it around means it is harder for others to draw needful conclusions about the overall process and what they should or should not do. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He tagged it U1, because it's in his user space he technically can have it deleted. But I fully understand your concerns here, it's now linked to from project pages and is an important part of recall archives. I'm trying to catch him on IRC so we can have a little chat about it and hopefully we can come to an agreement without needing to put it through DRV. Cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

?

I'm guessing this [3] was a mistake. Didn't really make a difference to anything, just thought you'd like to know. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I do appologise - I wasn't meant to do that at all. Sorry about that, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, no harm done. Guest9999 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Finished

I am finished with User:Earthbendingmaster/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Thank you for your help. Earthbendingmaster 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you very much for your kind words! Kirill 03:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem Kirill - I was honoured, hopefully I can be a better Wikipedian by looking at the example you set. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV Rationale

Keilana's rationale is posted on the talk page of the DRV, I included a link in an edit summary posting it to the top of the debate page. ^Avruchtalk 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Avruch, I'll certainly take a look. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh please

Don't you have anything better to do than criticizing me for calling someone a troll because they want to insert allegations that Bill Clinton supports scientology into his article? He is a troll. A trolling troll of a troll. Troll troll troll. Maybe he contributes usefully on other subjects, but he's trolling there. I suppose I will leave open the possibility that he is a crank, rather than a troll, if you'd like. john k (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. I presumed a fellow administrator would know a better way to solve a content dispute, but obviously not. discuss edits in an amicable manner, the way you have done it it not how we go about these things. I'm shocked that you continue the attacks here. Please be aware that I will block you should you continue this behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no content dispute at Talk:Bill Clinton. There's one lone user who is promoting a fringe POV at great length. He should be ignored. I'm sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities by calling a spade a spade. I won't pursue this any further, block me if you want - it'll help me get stuff done if I can't edit here for a day, I imagine. I'd prefer not to be, though. john k (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to block you for no reason, but please remain civil in discussion - I said it to you previously; discuss content, not contributors - we're here to create an encyclopedia, if you feel there's issues with a users conduct, turn to dispute resolution, not attacks. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, making threats to people for disagreeing with you is unproductive. John did the right thing, per the essay you linked to. When someone is trolling, the best advice you can give is "don't feed the troll". Of course, I think calling Farenheit451 a troll is overly generous - he's engaging in personal attacks and editing in a disruptive manner. He deserves a block. If anything, your threat of a block is the problem behaviour here - it's not at all civil, and it's a threat to abuse the privileges that the community has extended to you. Threats and bullying are never acceptable. Please refrain from doing so in the future. You should know better. Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to link to trolling/disruptive behaviour from Farenheit451 and I'll gladly deal with it? Honestly I will. But my concern here is John calling users trolls that he's in dispute with, then when cautioned about it, taking it one step further. I'm neutral in all this, and very much willing to take action on other sides of the dispute, but please could you point to it? I must admit, I'm slightly disapointed to hear that you think this was abuse of the communities trust, it wasn't meant to be in any shape or form. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Article

Could I just blank the page and move it for something else or should it be deleted and I create a different page to use? Thanks for your help. Earthbendingmaster 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I hope I was not to persistent. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick question. In titles that have campaign in their name, should campaign be capitalized? Earthbendingmaster 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no, if there's a major issue someone will fix it, but it's certainly not *that* important. You were no problem by the way! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason I ask is because of this and this. One lower; one upper case. Earthbendingmaster 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat III

Still waiting on your reply here - [4]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually looking for some sources for the article, so I'll respond when I've finished looking - shouldn't be much longer. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll try to remain patient :) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

@Ryan - there is no objection to using this hate-source for this particular purpose, since there's nothing "surprising" that the perpetrators deny what's alleged and malign their accusers. (They have a very long and largely consistent history of lying denial). The problem is that the incident itself is trivial, it doesn't appear atall in most of the biographies of Erekat. The use of it is UNDUE, as 8 editors (by my count) have already stated. 4 editors have further stated that it unacceptable by BLP. I would argue that it's FRINGE, almost no other RSes accuse EREKAT of lieing - whereas most sources make his claims look mainstream. Not one editor supports Jaakobou in this respect.

And, of course, if we accept "Take-a-pen" as acceptable then we'll accept the sources that re-publish Ha'aretz's story of 9th April 2002 quoting Shimon Peres, then Israeli Foreign Minister, stating "In private, Peres is referring to the battle as a "massacre."". This story appears to pre-date any use by Erekat of the same word. (Actually, the usually short-lived Ha'aretz web-site has just re-published the story, it's currently here). It is FRINGE indeed to attack Erekat for using the word "massacre", when Israeli ministers and Israeli newspapers are already that word. It is FRINGE indeed to state that "500 dead in Jenin" is some kind of serious distortion, when the UN figure for all the dead due to the operation (admittedly over a bigger area and longer time-scale) is 497. PR^talk 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Ryan, I'd like to apologise for my recent editing patterns here on en.wp. The rare, and tremendous effort a relative put into degrading my wiki-credentials, have destoyed any respect I may have had. I understand those who agree that this may be a little over-reactive, but preventative measures need to be taken in order to protect en.wp from accounts that will easily disrupt Wikipedia, as proven in the case in point. You provided me with a great deal of support and empathy during my time here, and your great co-nomination in my recent RFA, did me a great deal of flattery. I enjoyed my time here, and I've probably forgot you and Ioeth in all this mess, but I feel now was the right time to contact you about this. I hope RJD0060 follows the same path as you, but not as me. I leave Wikipedia with a great sense of community spirit, and a great deal more knowledge. I'm only fifteen though, I really should be doing more for my education. Ironic that, considering I'm attempting to build an encyclopedia, but there you go. :) This'll be my last edit, under this name at least. Good luck with the editing, and lets hope the rain doesn't come down too much in the Manchester Meetup. Regards, Rudget. 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfArb

I'm curious why you did not include Jeffrey's behavior at Rodhullandemu's RFA? That seems like a fairly crucial aspect of this case. Ronnotel (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that's the less important part of the case if I'm being honest - editing with socks to win content disputes is worse IMHO. By all means make a statement yourself to explain it. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because you express just one person commenting using an alternate account as an opinion. I am curious, are you trying to say that the timing for your requeust and the RfA is purely coincidental? It seems clearly a direct result of unethical behavior. the_undertow ^talk 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just that's when the behavior became apparent. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an honest response. Thanks. the_undertow ^talk 02:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I don't think the RfA oppose was ideal, far from it, and I believe it was an abuse of an alternate account, making it a violation of WP:SOCK, I was just more concenred about the article editing. That vote was extremely misleading and appeared as if it was from a neutral party. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that Socks on articles, while damaging, don't produce lasting results, as things can be reverted. That being said, Socks at RfAs can result in long-lasting damages to reputations of editors. That's why I find the RfA incident more 'jarring' than the article misuse, of which I was not aware. Either way, bringing it to Arbcom seems to be the best forum. the_undertow ^talk 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Ryan Postlethwaite, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC collab

I did some work on the Wikiproject; made some shortcuts (WP:IRCC and WP:IRCCOL), made a note on WP:IRC and added a template to the WP itself. Just running this by you so that I can keep you up to date on happenings. Sound good? Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent MoP - you've done a fine job. I'll try and spam a few places with it later. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you. We shall spread our message and soon shall rule the world! Wait, did I say that out loud? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden 2 RfC

I'd like to correct any defects in the certification that you have noted. I should be able to provide the needed diffs to support the fact that Abridged sought resolution on Adam's talk page and Adam not only declined to apologize meaningfully but made a false statement about Abridged. My certification and participation in this RfC is less about the personal attack that Abridged perceived, and which may have been minor, but more about the pattern of behavior. I have withheld from introducing more examples, but can do so if this is appropriate. As I understood the RfC to be opened regarding a single dispute, I have kept closely to that one that Abridged raised for now. Please let me know what you need me to do to prevent the RfC from being deleted as uncertified. —Whig (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to show evidence that you have attempted to solve the dispute over adams behaviour previously (and as the particular RfC is about civility, you need to show you've made a real effort to discuss his incivility with him). Asking for an appology and not getting one is far from adequate. You need to have engaged in real discussion with Adam, to try to curb seriously problematic behaviour (but looking at the diffs of the dispute, this is far from the sort of behaviour where an RfC is required). Ryan Postlethwaite 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How much past history should I go into? I have documented some of this on his first RfC, where he was incivil and unfactual with me. I will be happy to show the steps that we took in this particular instance in detail, Abridged wrote up the RfC and I haven't put evidence into it yet other than agreeing that it is accurate. In this particular case it's a short recitation of facts that I can give and add later. —Whig (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The steps you took in this latest incident are not going to get this RfC certified - asking for an appology (which is basically all that was done) is not going to get it certified. If you look further afield, you need to show where you've actually made efforts to bring his behaviour to his attention and attempt to get him to stop. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The steps I took were manifold over the past few months but most recently in the first RfC[5] I brought his civility and misrepresentations of fact to his attention and he did not correct his behavior. Should I incorporate this statement or link it? —Whig (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you've mentioned it there, then there's no reason to bring it up in a second RfC, so close to his first. I'll be honest - this RfC isn't going to go anyway, what needs to be brought up has been in the first, what's new doesn't need mentioning. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the first RfC was regarding admin abuses, not user conduct. It may be that a second RfC is not preferred right now in light of the ArbCom case underway but it isn't clear how or whether they intend to resolve matters subsequent to the Matthew Hoffman block and Adam's user conduct apart from admin abuses has not been placed at issue there either. —Whig (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read what other users have been putting in the second RfC? It's clear that people do not agree with you both that there should be an RfC here. I think the general thoughts are that his admin actions were bad, but generally speaking, people don't find him to be incivil here, so the committee don't have any reason to penalise him for that, unless you have some serious evidence to the contrary. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a popularity contest or do policies matter? —Whig (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort, you just have slight bias against the user in question, so are bound to feel hard done by. You should listen to the wider community and accept that whilst you do, the consensus is that Adam is not incivil. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think you appreciate the situation here and perhaps I should provide more evidence to make it clear, but I am trying not to catalogue all of Adam's history with me in the past few months since he has received a good bit of feedback on his behavior and should have an opportunity to change it without being forever criticized for what he did before. I do not have bias against Adam personally, but he abused his admin privileges against me personally, and when that happened I was much more in an adverse proceeding than now. I have been in the minority in many conversations about Adam's misbehavior before the ArbCom took an interest in his abuses, and before the community came to agree that he had abused his admin tools. If this goes back to ArbCom (as it may) it will not matter how many users agreed or disagreed at this stage. If you are saying that I should drop it because it is unnecessary and there is a more appropriate forum for user conduct complaints, such as directing them to the ArbCom evidence in the ongoing Matthew Hoffman case, we can move it there. I have no desire to disrupt, but want to help the committee gather information to make an appropriate decision on how to deal with this user. —Whig (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WTF

Don't you ever watch South Park, dawg? Asta Lavista, Baby! 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dayuum, bitch. Asta Lavista, Baby! 05:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, thanks for reverting that for me. I do appreciate it. WODUP 05:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, now are mans serving a 72 hour time out. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a strange week for wiki or is it just me? Don't answer that last part. the_undertow ^talk 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Blocked indef as a sock. Nice. WODUP 05:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lmao. I guess you answered my question. the_undertow ^talk 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Krispy Kicks

Why did you revert bearcats new information? I was over at his house and he was just showing me that I could actually edit anything in this amazing website. We are friends me and bearcat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrispyKicks (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Ryan, I just wanted to say thank you for your support at my RFA. I was surprised by the amount of support I received and will work hard to live up to the community's expectations. I look forward to working with you, so feel free to drop in if you ever need any help. Thanks again!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

LOL! Dream team....hmm...it actually would be Ryan :D. Thanks for you comments, and now I know that Newyorkbrad isn't the only person watching my contribs and pages. O.o. -- R ^TalkContribs_@ 01:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Document

Hello Ryan:

I'm posting this question here. I asked Jehochman and he referred me to you.

It is about:

My question, may I see the deleted document or is it gone, fini, caput, etc?

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wanderer, can I just ask - why do you want the contents of the deleted RfC? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan: Maybe you saw in the deleted rfc my opinion that it should be dropped. I gave the same opinion about the new rfc Whig 3.

I want to compare the contents of the two to look for parallels in support for my point about rfc Whig 3. Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Rfc on Adam Cuerden

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2 was deleted by you as "insufficiently certified RfC and strong consensus that there is no disruptive behaviour". I never saw it. However, it is being referenced at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3]. I would like to take a look at it. Could you restore it and its history, perhaps to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3/ForReferenceRequests for comment_Adam Cuerden_2, along with templates that say it is an archive not to be edited. Thanks. TableManners^C·U·T 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2. Protecting was a good idea. TableManners^C·U·T 23:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, two quick questions:

1. Now that you have restored the AC2 RfC (temporarily), I was wondering whether Adam should be notified? BTW, thanks for making it available for everyone - it'll be useful for preparing a comment on the Whig RfC.
2. Whig has commented on his talk page that he doesn't plan to take part. Would it be appropriate for someone to note in his response section either that he is definitely aware of the RfC and choosing not to comment, or to include a link to (or a copy of) the talk page discussion so others are aware of his choice and reasoning? If this isn't appropriate, I am happy to include a comment in the section I will be adding, but I thought I'd ask first.

Thanks, EdChem (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll let adam know about the RfC - it's only fair but I'm sure he won't mind. With respect to Whig, I don't think there's any need to note it on the RfC - many users decide not to participate in their RfC's at first, but offer a response later on. By all means note it in your comment though, or you could post a note to the talk page - either would certainly be acceptable measures of notifying participating members of the RfC that Whig isn't taking part. I hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that Adam is unlikely to mind, but I did think a notification was desirable. Following your advice, I have linked to Whig's talk page at the talk page for the RfC - I think to anyone outside evaluating the evidence presented, knowing the reason for the empty response is important. EdChem (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.87.173.219.

I think he was right: he wasn't vandalizing. It's just that the diffs make it look like he deleted vast swaths of the article; I'm going to apologize (and notify the other people who warned him). WP:AGF. · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've AGF'd also and unblocked, I just hope he can be slightly more constructive in the future. Cheers for bringing it to my attention. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope the same; and also that he isn't disappointed with wikipedia... · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Help answer

Ryan, can you help answer this question: "User_talk:Rlevse#MfD_question". — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that Rlevse, I've answered on your talk :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (7th nomination)

In fact, that discussion has not been open for the requisite 5 days. The edit history shows that the discussion was opened at 17:32 on 19 Jan and prematurely closed at 19:50 the same day despite not meeting the requirements for a speedy keep. Total time open, less than 2.5 hours. The error was found and corrected at 00:14 on 25 Jan. It could have been summarily relisted with a new nomination but that is not the norm for adminstrative mistakes like this. The normal course is to reopen the discussion, list it to the new day and "reset the clock". It is now approximately 11:00 on 28 Jan. That means we're up to barely 3.5 days of discussion time.

Yes, I'm going to be a stickler about process. This discussion does not and never has met the criteria for speedy-keep. Let it run it's course.

I am rapidly losing my ability to assume good faith here. If the fate of the discussion is as clear cut as the closers all seem to think it is, why are you in such a hurry to shut down the discussion? Why is everyone in a rush to close the discussion when substantive questions remain unanswered and so many of the "keep" opinions seem to be of the ILIKEIT variety? Rossami (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're reversing three other admins and that's not good. If you don't agree with it, take it to WP:AN/I to discuss it with a wider audience, but just reverting by yourself is going to get you a block off someone, and that really really isn't an ideal situation at all, and shouldn't be needed. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI - There is a thread regarding this at WP:AN/I. ^Avruchtalk 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So there is, thanks. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hohum

[6]. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[7]. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

and what response did you expect to this? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is he trolling, in your considered opinion? If the answer is yes, regardless of my calling his obvious and transparent offensive trolling "trolling," why is he still editing? I mean, I know the answer to this rhetorical question, but give it a shot, anyway. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pro-pedophile activism

Hey -- I noticed this article has been protected for a REALLY long time (over 3 months now) and I requested unprotection at WP:RFP. I didn't know at the time about the mediation, which must be progressing pretty slowly; anyway, as the mediator, I thought you should know about the request in case you want to comment on it. Mangojuice^talk 21:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Other account

Could you please give me the name of your old account? Obviously if there's privacy concerns then I understand, it's just abundantly clear from your contributions that this is not your first. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathyn. I lost the password and changed my e-mail address since then (and can no longer access the e-mail account registered with it). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Samuel

I've provided a great deal of information to this article, heavily leaning on direct quotes, because there appears to be a problem of ownership, and I would not be surprised to see the whole lot reverted. Could you please keep an eye on it? Not all my citation is in place, but under the circumstances, I hope you'll understand if I go back later and complete the job once I'm confident I'm not really faced with vandalism. PR^talk 11:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I've watchlisted it now and if there's any problems with reversions I'll step in. I've checked your edits - if you can finish off finding some sources quick, that would be good. I don't think there's anything too contentious in those edits, so hopefully everything will be ok. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. I'd like to wait a bit longer before doing a pile of work finding the full titles, dates of the books etc, if that's OK. All of them need to say where I saw the citation, too, it's a perma-block offense to leave that out. (Bet you didn't know that!).

I was pondering whether to ask you to look at this, where I'm pretty sure I added highly relevant information back in Oct/Nov. The opposition there comes from several sources, I can't be sure whether it's really as unreasonable as I suspect. PR^talk 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Inniscrone/Enniscrone

Hi. As someone who has edited the Inniscrone and/or Enniscrone page recently, you may be interested in this. Regards, --The.Q^(t)(c) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New signature

test sig. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus :P Viridae^Talk 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it passes WP:BOLD. Cremepuff222 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it?! I'm just waiting for my next post on AN/I ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I think you need to get into a massive argument - I dunno, do some rouge action and wait for the complaint and then you can decorate ANI with your sig lots and lots. Viridae^Talk 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<span style="text-decoration:blink; font-size:20pt; font-family:Algerian; color:#008080">Ryan Postlethwaite</span>''']]

Ryan Postlethwaite

Try this. Cremepuff222 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I love this one!