![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 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 08:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, I owe you a huge thank you for taking the time to write up a really flattering nomination for my RfA. I won't disappoint! I'm also looking forward to "graduating" from your admin school I've been hearing about :) Spellcast 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply to my questions about civility. Now I'd like to ask you a favor, and this time it's about my own civility. As humans, we are all imperfect and may not see our own imperfections as clearly as other do. For context, please see this comment [1] by one user to another. That uncivil comment prompted this comment [2] by me to the recipient of the first comment. Please give me your honest opinion as to whether my comment was uncivil. After you form your opinion you might read this. [3]
Let me be clear: I ask this only for the purpose of improving my own behavior. I will not quote your opinion to anyone else. I'm NOT looking for "defense witnesses". I'm just looking for an independent 3rd party opinion. I'm also making this same request to a second person.
P.S. Given that everything in Wikipedia is visible to everyone, probably hundreds of people will become aware of something that perhaps I don't really want to publicize. So be it. That might have the side effect of spreading more awareness about civility. Sbowers3 03:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but you make it seem as if I started the thread. That's wrong. Check the page history.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Note that nobody other than the thread-starter suggested or endorsed or consensused with the idea of giving me community sanctions; as my full summary says, I genuinely don't see where I've gone wrong.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
ping me. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
please see: [4] per other mentor having a clear COI on the matter [5]. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I realise it's a pain but, believe me, I have looked high and low for sources to establish the individual episode notability. The cabal at WP:TV-REVIEW began discussions/dogma a few months ago at Talk:List of Friends episodes and I've put forward several reasons why many articles should remain, which they have argued against. Nobody else has bothered to join in the discussion and nobody else has bothered to add any additional sources to the episode articles so I've chosen to redirect most of them myself rather than have them do it. If you think my edits (or "sole-person-trying-to-establish-notability-for-Friends-episode-articles-that-have-reliable-published-sources" as I like to call myself) are disruptive then by all means block me, ban me or start an RFC because now you've stuck me between a rock and a hard place. Brad 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
i happen to know about the character how is that vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 ( talk) 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
will u be REVERTING the pages I edited to the changes I made like mother, father, relationships ( Sean Donely!!!!!? I happen to know A LOT about GH.
been watching GH since almost 30 years, and know of people who have worked and continue to work on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 ( talk) 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My power flickered and my comp restarted. When I got back, everyone was gone, lol. Nice to see you there, don't be a stranger!
Ariel
♥
Gold
23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"14 fortnights" ... Ok I know you were just doubling CSCWEM's time... but it's funny. Say it out loud a few times. Maybe not as funny as "pants" but it's up there. ++ Lar: t/ c 05:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No, thank you, I am withdrawing from the mediation regarding the pro-pedophilia article. I am highly disappointed that the article has been protected for so long. Protected to a version that is highly POV. Wikipedia advertises itself as neutral, but any article concerning pedophilia and you'll clearly see bias. Wikipedia is not neutral and only people who want to put pedophilia in the most negative spotlight possible have a say. Everyone else is blocked or finds themselves in a revert war with SqueakBox. A user that I strongly believe holds a bias against pedophilia and administrators have allowed him to monopolize articles on pedophilia. I'm finished with wikipedia. Fighting for Justice 07:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::I can't seem to enter the email I registered with to get in here. I'm told it doesn't exist. Can you send me an email to a different address? helterskelter20@hotmail.com I think that is the only email I can communicate with you.
Fighting for Justice
19:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you still mentoring user:PalestineRemembered? I am concerned about edits like this, where a well known historian is being described by PR as being "right out there in the lunatic fringe", while in the same breath, an acknowledged hate-site's antisemitic smear of a Canadian Jewish leader is being defended by PR as "carefully fact-based and relatively restrained". This is not a one-off occurence. PR has already been asked by reasonable editors to find more neutral ways to describe Scheteman - see this as one exmaple. Isarig 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ryan; further to my recent e-mail, please accept my most heartfelt congratulations on obtaining your BSc degree. And the very best of luck to you in your further studies. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if undoing you again would constitute a wheel war but before you deleted the article I was reverting it to a stable version from October 1st. The article was vandalised and the history wasn't looked at when it was nominated for speedy deletion, I've been trying to rectify that. –– Lid( Talk) 00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean to engage in a wheel war with you, but I have speedy undeleted an article you have deleted, Nu skool breaks. The version you deleted indeed qualified for A1, but it was the result of vandalism. While you were in the process of deleting the article, another user had restored the pre-vandalism version. A ecis Brievenbus 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As the block was for abusive sockpuppetry, Privatemusings expressed that he no longer wished to edit using his main account; as such, the blocks between the two were swapped. Two other admins have agreed over at AN/I, and another one did the block of the main account... does it really make a difference which account is used? east.718 at 02:20, 11/16/2007
Howdy Ryan, thanks for the nomination and many kind words of support in my request for adminship. I greatly appreciate your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come and your offer of help is greatly appreciated. I may indeed come knocking if I can't figure something out. Thanks again,
-- TeaDrinker 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed he is getting an extra dose of harassment today. I think it might be appropriate. spryde | talk 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think its likely all these peolpe blanking JzG's page are the same person? -- Simply south ( talk) 18:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
... well task (for it!) <G>. Can you please undelete this and Ping me when done. I figured out a good use for the mnemonic, and recreating a recently deleted page could cause comment... so to speak. Thanks, // Fra nkB 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Recently, you deleted a section on activities listed for palo verde high school which had very useful links to their respective pages. I reverted this as I do not understand why you would want to actually delete factual information.
I'm not going around thanking all my RfA participants (although it wouldn't take long!) but I have to make an exception in your case for your speedy, generous and very supportive first comment, which set the ball rolling very well and set the tone for the encouraging and uneventful RfA that followed. I'll take myself through exercises in your new admin school when I get a moment (I've been looking there for reference already). Thanks again. Bencherlite Talk 08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
|
Also, thank you so much for your prompt comment on my talk page shortly after my withdrawal. I'm not discouraged, ahead is the way. :-) Best regards, Hús ö nd 03:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, you may wish to unblock the reblock this IP address, as you blocked it for two yeard as an open prooxy, but becauses 2 years wasn't specified - it may not blocked. — Qst 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You my fine sir are far too kind! :P KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
82.12.8.89 has vandalized Gordon Brown again. Matthardingu ( talk) 15:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 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 ( talk) 10:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It was pointy, petulant and offensive to the community for me to "retire" in a fit of pique over the Lara thing. I'm going to work hard to be co-operative with her, and to ensure I make nothing against her that could be seen as an attack. We're communicating via e-mail. I just want to send you a particular note thanking you for your support Ryan. It really means a lot to me. Cheers matey. Pedro : Chat 12:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
User:PalestineRemembered has opened a thread discussing you at ANI. It doesn't appear that he's notified you, but my apologies for double notification if he did drop you a note elsewhere. Natalie ( talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
For being with us for so long, and for fighting for this cause for years to come. Come, celebrate, raise a blass Marlith T/ C 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
Seconded! Keep up the great work! Btw, you're used as an example here. I'm jealous! *Cremepuff 222* 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan! Ill be grateful if you also recheck if the adding of my name to the limitations was justified as we never describe what means "disruptively edit warring" in my case. Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha ( talk) 12:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to clarify my block history. All are related with my conflicts with Tajik. In addition, all are on Nomadic Empires related articles. The list of the articles are here [6]. As you see, none of them is related with the Az-Ar case. In my edit hsitory, the only exception is Shucha. There i added a new section on "Cultural life", quotations and references. I already stated how i came to that page. It's not fair to punish me with my previous block history (the last one dated 1 April 2007, 8 months ago). Please, review my situation again. I shall provide more detailed explanation if necessary. Regards. E104421 ( talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I'm glad its over. Happy Thanksgiving. VartanM ( talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice that civility had to be taken into account as well. I have removed E104421. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 ( talk) 19:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Good looking out, Mr. Postlethwaite :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 20:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Tariqabjotu, hope you're well. I've just been taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under supervision and see you placed Aynabend under supervised editing. I've added a few users recently for edit warring on pages related to the page, but Kirill clarified that for an editor to be placed under supervision, there must be incivility with the edit warring, but I can't see any incivility coming from Anyabend. Could you look at removing him please? I've just removed quite a few of the users I placed under supervision for the same reason. Cheers and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I just wanted to bring up that I finished my other assignment over a week ago, just in case you missed it. Cheers! J-ſtan Talk Contribs 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you on AN/I mentioning blocking Diaboli So you made admin and I missed your RfA. Bugger. And likewise arse. Very belated and deeply meant congratulations, Ryan!
Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 22:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see that the links to it are increasing! :) Acalamari 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I don’t think User:Andranikpasha should be relived of his parole, as he was actually permanently banned from Wikipedia and allowed to return only subject to parole and mentorship. -- Grandmaster ( talk) 05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to remind you of this discussion at WP:ANI: [8], where the indef blocked was discussed. It was agreed to lift the block subject to parole and mentorship. Thanks. Grandmaster ( talk) 06:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, what you're writing here sorry but not true and you know why. At first, I wasnt banned but blocked (Do you remember how you were trying to prove to the admin who later blocked me that Im a sockpuppet, and I was unblocked after this admin was informed that im not "a sock of... Artaxiad", a story by you, attacking me the newbie). And what's the most important, I was blocked after few hours at the same day you protested that my editions should be entered under Arbcom enforcement and I was entered under 1RR (as we realize now) by a not justified decision. While I was protesting this decision askin I never made any uncivil editwarrings I was blocked for the time wasting, possible sockpuppetry etc.. So whats the reason to wikistalk me everywhere again and again? All editions Im doing is trying to keep the Wiki rules. Im working according to them, isnt it? Andranikpasha ( talk) 15:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The only reason Andranik was placed under indefinite ban was because he was accused by Grandmaster to be a sock of another banned user. One of the admins took the bait, fortunately another didn't. Taking it into consideration would amount to rewarding Grandmaster's harrassment of Andranik.-- TigranTheGreat ( talk) 02:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at this? I'm concerned about WP:BLP issues, but it also doesn't seem to really seem to be organized in any encyclopedic way, but I'm at a loss as to what to do with it. Could you give me input pretty please? Ariel ♥ Gold 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I came across User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Rollback.js. Is this an admin or non-admin user script? What browser does it need? I'm asking about this script because I've been trying to find a good "revert" script for my alternate account, but all the scripts seem to work with Firefox only. Currently, my alternate account uses what appears to be a very simple revert script. Acalamari 22:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, could you restore my user page now? I would appreciate it, that AfD ended awhile ago, just wanted to make sure things were quiet. Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. IvoShandor ( talk) 06:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't wish to rake over too much old history, since real lessons may have been learned and applied from the case that bears my name, PalestineRemembered.
As an aspiring admin, I want to be ready for my RFA (not soon, but eventually), so I'm brushing up on my info. The question I have for you is this: Are admins allowed to instantly delete articles that normal users would place a prod on? Thanks for your time! Icestorm815 ( talk) 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support, as well as nearly a nom :) All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 23:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful
RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
I am honoured to have received your support, Ryan. Thank you for all the good work you're doing for the 'pedia (and soon you will have yet more tools! fear him!).
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
Goodbye, my almost lover Goodbye, my hopeless dream I'm trying not to think about you Can't you just let me be So long, my luckless romance My back is turned on you Shoulda known you'd bring me heartache Almost lovers always do - Gimme More ( talk) 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
-- WjB scribe 03:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you want mentorship-type questions placed on your TalkPage, but you didn't object before and you've not suggested anywhere different to put them. Please tell me if you want this taken somewhere else.
I have a question for you (it's somewhat esoteric, because I won't actually ask it). Can you suggest a way to respond at the Saeb Erekat TalkPage to these comments?
As best I can tell, the sources provided there do not use the word "propaganda", so I can't understand the reference to it. There are three references provided, but only one of them levels an accusation of lying (and it comes from political opponents of the subject, apparently designed to elicit a suite for libel that Erekat hasn't taken up, for reasons I'd have thought very few people had trouble understanding). The two CNN quotes included add nothing atall (we're not being given Erekat's response to the question put to him, but it's in the same CNN transcript, and it's an entirely proper explanation of what he was doing.)
Furthermore, the way we're being asked to present the information appears deliberately deceitful. Even if we were to use the one JP clip (from 11,000 about Erekat, according to the same clip), we'd surely be guilty of serious distortion if we implied there was a real controversy on this topic in his biography. Erekat used the figure of 500 dead, the UN says 497 dead (though over a bigger area and a longer time-span). Erekat used the word "massacre" when Shimon Peres did the same - and we appear to have published evidence of at least one well-attested "up-against-the-wall" type shooting massacre. Meanwhile, named Israeli spokesmen appear to have over-estimated the number of Palestinian dead consistently, and by up to 381%. It would be bizarre indeed to treat Erekat as a falsifier in this context.
As I said, I'm not intending to comment there (despite the new clips apparently being in direct response to the careful investigation I've done on the subject), but I'd appreciate your input on how I'd deal with it if I wasn't muzzled. PR talk 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan. I was wondering if you would do me a favor. Someone complained off-wiki that perhaps a few edits in the history of my user page ought be oversighted, because they are implicit personal attacks against everyone in general (this is not my view). However, I am eager to avoid conflict. Could you have a look at the history and see if there is anything that should be oversighted? IvoShandor ( talk) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Okay, we can try that. I did try to explain to the other editor that I didn't think oversight was applicable, but they were persistent enough that it struck me as a concern. I don't know if you watched my page but when I blank it go ahead and delete it. IvoShandor ( talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I came here to award you the "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar for your work in creating the New admin school. Since you have already been awarded the barnstar, please accept my thanks! I'm over half way through it, and it has been very helpful. I'm glad I didn't have to learn by fumbling around without a set of directions. Royalbroil 17:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 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 ( talk) 08:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You can also fix any entry, including your own, should you find any additional errors. Ral315 » 17:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, I just noticed this image which was uploaded by you a while back. It hasn't got source information or copyright status, but I wasn't going to do that pointless tagging, so I just thought I'd point it out to you, so you may do as you wish with it. Qst 20:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (Please reply on this page. I'll be watching it for a while.)
Hi Ryan - you kindly said you'd protect me from bullying. (Though I'm not entirely sure why, I'd never complained of it, the biggest problem seemed to be I'd stood up to it rather too well in the past).
Well, all of a sudden, I think I am being bullied - at this edit, which looks very much like an attempt to taunt me into a response that would inevitably lead to me getting an indef-block. It's an in-your-face denial of the careful work I've done here and I assume you don't wish me to respond directly to this editor because of [censored].
I shouldn't need to re-hash with you the specifics of the breach of Biographies of Living People policy of Wikipedia that's being attempted in this case (it's all laid out in my table). Note how the challenge to me is with three references that don't actually use the words claimed ("propaganda", "controversy"). The only one claiming that Erekat lied is an op-ed, an unpleasant taunting of him by his political enemies to sue an Israeli newspaper in an Israeli court.
When you've applied your mind to this problem, I do have some good news - it seems that all four of the edits of mine you thought I'd been edit-warring over [10] [11] [12] [13] are now safely in the articles where I was trying to put them. Do I get remission on my sentence for improving articles against the very heavy odds on these occasions? PR talk 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the "Final Warning"... I only created the article Clow Cards (list) only to put the focus on the cards and put images for they, and you removed all of them, except the first one. Because you don't DELETE the article to finish? -- Blean 17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's some fire for you! Fire somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Hús ö nd 00:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
*Cremepuff
222* 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.
*Cremepuff 222* 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, Thank you for initiating to lift my parole. I just left more in the ArbCom page [ [18]]. Do you know why I am the only one being singled out and other admins do not want to lift my parole. Thank you for any hints in advance. Regards, -- Aynabend 07:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. In this edit, you removed my report, but did not state a reason. Might I ask your reason? Thanks! — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
When you reply on a talk page, or anything such as a help desk, how do you make your reply indented?
The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you much, Ryan, for protecting the article. I really appreciate your timely response. TimidGuy ( talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This protection of Transcendental Meditation has worked well. Naturezak, the new editor who made changes against consensus and deleted material sourced to peer-reviewed journals without explanation, has been making an excellent contribution to the discussions. We have quickly arrived at a number of points of consensus, and are making definite progress toward improving the article. Still, there are matters to resolve. Also, a couple editors with strong feelings have been completely absent from the discussion, and it's not clear what their intent is once the protection is lifted. Might be a good idea to extend protection a while so that we can continue this progress. Thanks much. TimidGuy 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just supported you for your candidacy for Arbitration, but I saw some stuff about Durova. I skimmed the ArbCom case, but you didn't come up. What is that whole thing about? I'm confident in my support; just curious. J-ſtan Talk Contribs 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
(indent) Hmm - was Durova even warned about her actions, or did it just jump to ArbCom and RfC? If not, I completely get where you're coming from, though I would probably have also sided with Jossi on this one. Everyone makes mistakes. If this was a repeat offense, then yeah, I could understand ArbComming it. J-ſtan Talk Contribs 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 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 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I know I was rather slow in responding to the last round of comments on the MedCom wiki, but I am getting concerned that the mediation is grinding to a halt. I was hoping you might be able to jolt it in the right direction again, and get us mediating again. I know that formal mediation is a slow process, and that it can take time, we all have to deal with that, but at this rate, we won't finish mediating before users start dieing of old age. I would appreciate it if you could give the mediation a little tug in the right direction again. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see you withdraw from the ArbCom elections. Never mind, don't worry about it :) Qst 12:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am very sad both about the opposition and that you withdrew because of it. I hope this doesn't set an example for people becoming afraid to make well-intended suggestions like yours for fear that they get unreasonably punished for them. — Sebastian 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for your wishing me good luck. I wish you the best future too. Cheers, (^_^) --- D@rk talk 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears that a certain 202.156.66.110 that you may or may not remember as a user who tried to frame you for blocking me for no reason. Now you may also remember that a certain "coalition" of editors have wanted me blocked for some time now and have just now let up on their "assault" which is really the only reason why I have recently begun editing again and I'm truly not in the mood for another editor to be added to that list just when I've begun to actually enjoy editing again. I've come to you mainly because you've dealt with him before to some extent and I also ask you to watch him and deter him from tacking on more offensive to his already extensive warning/block record before I end up getting myself blocked which I may be close to doing. Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you withdrew from the Arbcom election. Please don't be discouraged and remember that your work and presence here is always much appreciated. Maybe better luck next year if you intend to run again. Meanwhile, happy editing! See you around! :-) Best regards, Hús ö nd 06:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
you removed the block, and it seems I can edit, but I have a message saying it should still be there. can you clarify pls. edward (buckner) ( talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi cat. Now that it has been brought to the community attention that there is another user who's name is WhiteCat who predates your name change, I believe that your username is confusingly similar to this one, and may run afoul of WP:U. At very least, please consider implementing the ideas at WP:U#Username_disambiguation. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have protected the regional power article because of an edit war. I would ask you to please review the history of this article, to see how this problem started. Argentina has been listed as a regional power for months. I included it several months ago, after finding reliable and objetive external sources that backed up its inclussion, and after a respectful discussion with other wikipedians. You can check that by checking the history of the article. A couple weeks ago, this fanatic user Kardark started removing Argentina for no apparent reason. He just said that "it was not a regional power", without any sources to back that up. I reverted his changes since they were of a vandalistic nature, and I also looked for two more external sources stating that Argentina is a regional power, bringing the total up to four. But he wouldnt care, he would keep removing Argentina without a valid justification, and I would keep reverting his changes. For this, he started calling me a "fanatic", a "lunatic", and a "troll". The truth is, he is removing sourced information because of his personal opinion. I dont think thats OK. And what he has done now is, removing Argentina once again and then protecting the Article, so it cant be included. Everything I explained to you can be checked by looking at the history of the article. Please assist. Aletano ( talk) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou guys! Unfortunatley last night was a little bit too much for me, and I've spent today in bed feeling sorry for myself! Thank god for paracetemol!
Ryan Postlethwaite
18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you've messed up with your contribution to the TalkPage at this article. I brought it to your attention because you're supposed to be mentoring me, and I thought I was being bullied - you appear to have ignored my complaint completely. I'd done a careful analysis of the facts of the case, and I don't believe our WP article is written on the basis of "the facts as appear in reliable sources". To whit, Erekat may have been guilty of exaggeration (though it's difficult to be sure) but it's neither realistic nor referenced to claim he lied. Meanwhile, many of his political opponents provided versions which are virtually outright lies (at least according to what their own side claimed later). If the purpose of writing articles is to slander people, it's these others we'd be slating.
Seperately, the RS's don't state what is being alleged, that this business is notable (the RS's barely mention it). Nor that it is controversial. Why did you arrive suggesting a compromise but BLP-breaching version by which we say it was controversial and Erekat's words were "widely refuted as being false"?
Even with your support, the consensus as I've tabulated it appears to be 5 editors who don't think we should say that Erekat is a lier, one that says he is a lier and yourself saying that his words were "controversial".
Meanwhile, I see similar reference and consensus-trashing edit-wars going on between some of the same actors in many other places - is it reasonable to look to administrators to stamp out this kind of ownership? Particularily when there are serious BLP issues at stake. Saeb Erekat appears to have been instrumental (if not crucial) to getting agreement at Annapolis only a day or two ago - surely WP should give him a fair crack of the whip - and not treat him as some kind of serial falsifier. PR talk 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) PS - I've contributed a comment here here - do you see any problem with what I've stated? PR talk 22:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The term referred to the entire University of Missouri System officially from 1963 till now and is used for the University of Missouri-Columbia public relations matters but not on official matters. The common usage is not overwhelmingly referring to a single school but there is a push on Wikipedia to enforce the school's Alumni organization politics on Wikipedia namespace. I would like to open up the page naming to a wider view of experienced Wikipedia editors instead of the microcosm the page currently has. Does that mean Mediation committee? Alatari ( talk) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I posted on the talk page that I am unwilling to block at the moment due to some apparently quite credible sockpuppet concerns. However, as I will be busy for the rest of the night, I have left a note asking for other admins to review this on WP:AN/I#Blue5864. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. Max Sem almost beat you to it... (leaving a message on the talk page is sufficient to stop the bot) Rich Farmbrough, 18:40 9 December 2007 (GMT).
Thanks for protecting my userpage, but can you please change it so that I can edit it? Thank you! 'FL a RN' (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I've been trying to catch you on IRC all day today, but that has proved fruitless. I hope you saw the linked discussion; personally, it seems like a much better approach that alleviates some of the concerns about rollback mis-use and responsibility of the user. Honestly, I can't ever see your new proposal at Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators proposal ever being implemented by anyone with scap capabilities. It adds a new user class, more bureaucracy, and the developers have pushed back several times against ideas like this. Not only do those issues exist, you'd have to find someone willing to write the code, which could prove difficult to do, and you may not find a willing volunteer, especially if there's a high likelihood that nothing will come of it. This of course avoids the discussion of creating yet another process on en.wiki, which I don't think would receive support either; we have quite a few already. : - ) I saw your note about the motivation for making this change here. I think rollback could be an excellent tool for non-admins to have and I can see the issues with doing so. Having a user preference puts the responsibility on the user; they would have to enable rollback and then mis-use it, which would, in my mind, alleviate a lot of the concerns that admins have about using blocks for rollback mis-use. Also, as I wrote on the RfC talk page, an edit count attribute could easily be linked to the availability of the feature, if that were so desired. I'm interested in your thoughts about preference proposal; let me know. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I first time nominated the article Kanchan Gupta for AfD using TW, but the link in AfD "this article's entry" appeared red. I clicked the link, saved the page, but next time I again when visited the page, the link showed red. So I removed the AfD tag and renomiated it for AfD. This time the link appeared blue. I don't know why this happened. I have redirected the former AfD page to this new page. Can the former page be deleted? Kindly investigate in the matter. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that you recently deleted the article titled 'Russell Elrod'. I wanted to confirm your reasons for the deletion. Thank you for your time. Benjendav ( talk) 16:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjendav ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Please review edit war at Semper fidelis and User talk:Bond-Peters. Has he reached the blocking point? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, could you have a look at Special:Contributions/Cackalackakilla. I find it unnerving that a brand new user would stumble upon AfD so quickly. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, and would like an other opinion. Thanks in advance. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I'm at school and forgot my password, so I created a new account. I know that AFDs are not a vote. But I figure I would contribute some arguments to video game articles. It is up to the administrator to weigh the arguments and determine the best course of action. Cackalackakilla ( talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see your request on ANI until just now - [19] should give you what you're after. Cheers, Bencherlite Talk 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who watches that page (the intended audience) will see the diffs and be able to enjoy the joke and perhaps the reaction as well. I guess that makes me look like the wet blanket 0_o, but I am fine with that characterization. I think there are more imaginative ways to have fun than a big banner, like maybe a Cabal inspired haiku on his talkpage. Whatever though, I am certainly not going to have an edit war over something so silly, so restore it if you like. — Cronholm 144 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you declined the request to semi-protect TV Links. While the current rash of vandalism has only been ongoing for the past 3 or so days, every edit over that time period (and there are over 20. [ [20]])has been either vandalism or reverting it. In specific there is an anon user, using at least 3 distinct IPs, that insists on adding his own website to the top of the page. His edits simply consist of undoing those of editors who undo his. I'd like to ask you to consider semi-protecting this for at least a few days to see if this will deter him. Thanks. Random89 ( talk) 19:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Ryan, thanks so much for your support,
--
A. B.
(talk)
19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
*Cremepuff
222* 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.
Sorry. *Cremepuff 222* 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. You accidentally added the section on Gp75motorsports' RfA to the talk page twice. I went ahead and removed the second, as it was a clear accident. However, I just thought I would let you know. Cheers. SorryGuy Talk 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 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 ( talk) 07:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I did the editprotected thing on the Template talk:Infobox MLB retired, now what do I do-- Yankees10 ( talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
yeah I just want to do something minor-- Yankees10 ( talk) 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
yeah-- Yankees10 ( talk) 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
yes, thanks-- Yankees10 ( talk) 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm done, I didnt do anthing because I have no clue how to do the thing I want to do, sorry for wasting your time-- Yankees10 ( talk) 02:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you know anybody that can help me with my problem-- Yankees10 ( talk) 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to set the colors to #dcdcdc, like the Template:Infobox NFLretired, so that we dont have to go to every single infobox and change the color, because we want there to be neutral colors now-- Yankees10 ( talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Pedro is the Spanish equivalent of the English for Peter. Just as La_Resaca is The_Undertow. How is that a revelation? Do you wish to punish me for living in Mexico for a year? the_undertow talk 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey dear, Moonriddengirl has asked me about IRC cloaks, and stuff, and I recalled how wonderful you were to help me with mine, so I suggested perhaps you could assist her? You can see the discussion here, if you have some time on your hands today. :o) Ariel ♥ Gold 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 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 08:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, I owe you a huge thank you for taking the time to write up a really flattering nomination for my RfA. I won't disappoint! I'm also looking forward to "graduating" from your admin school I've been hearing about :) Spellcast 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply to my questions about civility. Now I'd like to ask you a favor, and this time it's about my own civility. As humans, we are all imperfect and may not see our own imperfections as clearly as other do. For context, please see this comment [1] by one user to another. That uncivil comment prompted this comment [2] by me to the recipient of the first comment. Please give me your honest opinion as to whether my comment was uncivil. After you form your opinion you might read this. [3]
Let me be clear: I ask this only for the purpose of improving my own behavior. I will not quote your opinion to anyone else. I'm NOT looking for "defense witnesses". I'm just looking for an independent 3rd party opinion. I'm also making this same request to a second person.
P.S. Given that everything in Wikipedia is visible to everyone, probably hundreds of people will become aware of something that perhaps I don't really want to publicize. So be it. That might have the side effect of spreading more awareness about civility. Sbowers3 03:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but you make it seem as if I started the thread. That's wrong. Check the page history.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Note that nobody other than the thread-starter suggested or endorsed or consensused with the idea of giving me community sanctions; as my full summary says, I genuinely don't see where I've gone wrong.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
ping me. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
please see: [4] per other mentor having a clear COI on the matter [5]. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I realise it's a pain but, believe me, I have looked high and low for sources to establish the individual episode notability. The cabal at WP:TV-REVIEW began discussions/dogma a few months ago at Talk:List of Friends episodes and I've put forward several reasons why many articles should remain, which they have argued against. Nobody else has bothered to join in the discussion and nobody else has bothered to add any additional sources to the episode articles so I've chosen to redirect most of them myself rather than have them do it. If you think my edits (or "sole-person-trying-to-establish-notability-for-Friends-episode-articles-that-have-reliable-published-sources" as I like to call myself) are disruptive then by all means block me, ban me or start an RFC because now you've stuck me between a rock and a hard place. Brad 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
i happen to know about the character how is that vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 ( talk) 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
will u be REVERTING the pages I edited to the changes I made like mother, father, relationships ( Sean Donely!!!!!? I happen to know A LOT about GH.
been watching GH since almost 30 years, and know of people who have worked and continue to work on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.240 ( talk) 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My power flickered and my comp restarted. When I got back, everyone was gone, lol. Nice to see you there, don't be a stranger!
Ariel
♥
Gold
23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"14 fortnights" ... Ok I know you were just doubling CSCWEM's time... but it's funny. Say it out loud a few times. Maybe not as funny as "pants" but it's up there. ++ Lar: t/ c 05:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No, thank you, I am withdrawing from the mediation regarding the pro-pedophilia article. I am highly disappointed that the article has been protected for so long. Protected to a version that is highly POV. Wikipedia advertises itself as neutral, but any article concerning pedophilia and you'll clearly see bias. Wikipedia is not neutral and only people who want to put pedophilia in the most negative spotlight possible have a say. Everyone else is blocked or finds themselves in a revert war with SqueakBox. A user that I strongly believe holds a bias against pedophilia and administrators have allowed him to monopolize articles on pedophilia. I'm finished with wikipedia. Fighting for Justice 07:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::I can't seem to enter the email I registered with to get in here. I'm told it doesn't exist. Can you send me an email to a different address? helterskelter20@hotmail.com I think that is the only email I can communicate with you.
Fighting for Justice
19:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you still mentoring user:PalestineRemembered? I am concerned about edits like this, where a well known historian is being described by PR as being "right out there in the lunatic fringe", while in the same breath, an acknowledged hate-site's antisemitic smear of a Canadian Jewish leader is being defended by PR as "carefully fact-based and relatively restrained". This is not a one-off occurence. PR has already been asked by reasonable editors to find more neutral ways to describe Scheteman - see this as one exmaple. Isarig 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ryan; further to my recent e-mail, please accept my most heartfelt congratulations on obtaining your BSc degree. And the very best of luck to you in your further studies. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if undoing you again would constitute a wheel war but before you deleted the article I was reverting it to a stable version from October 1st. The article was vandalised and the history wasn't looked at when it was nominated for speedy deletion, I've been trying to rectify that. –– Lid( Talk) 00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean to engage in a wheel war with you, but I have speedy undeleted an article you have deleted, Nu skool breaks. The version you deleted indeed qualified for A1, but it was the result of vandalism. While you were in the process of deleting the article, another user had restored the pre-vandalism version. A ecis Brievenbus 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As the block was for abusive sockpuppetry, Privatemusings expressed that he no longer wished to edit using his main account; as such, the blocks between the two were swapped. Two other admins have agreed over at AN/I, and another one did the block of the main account... does it really make a difference which account is used? east.718 at 02:20, 11/16/2007
Howdy Ryan, thanks for the nomination and many kind words of support in my request for adminship. I greatly appreciate your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come and your offer of help is greatly appreciated. I may indeed come knocking if I can't figure something out. Thanks again,
-- TeaDrinker 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed he is getting an extra dose of harassment today. I think it might be appropriate. spryde | talk 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think its likely all these peolpe blanking JzG's page are the same person? -- Simply south ( talk) 18:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
... well task (for it!) <G>. Can you please undelete this and Ping me when done. I figured out a good use for the mnemonic, and recreating a recently deleted page could cause comment... so to speak. Thanks, // Fra nkB 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Recently, you deleted a section on activities listed for palo verde high school which had very useful links to their respective pages. I reverted this as I do not understand why you would want to actually delete factual information.
I'm not going around thanking all my RfA participants (although it wouldn't take long!) but I have to make an exception in your case for your speedy, generous and very supportive first comment, which set the ball rolling very well and set the tone for the encouraging and uneventful RfA that followed. I'll take myself through exercises in your new admin school when I get a moment (I've been looking there for reference already). Thanks again. Bencherlite Talk 08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
|
Also, thank you so much for your prompt comment on my talk page shortly after my withdrawal. I'm not discouraged, ahead is the way. :-) Best regards, Hús ö nd 03:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, you may wish to unblock the reblock this IP address, as you blocked it for two yeard as an open prooxy, but becauses 2 years wasn't specified - it may not blocked. — Qst 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You my fine sir are far too kind! :P KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
82.12.8.89 has vandalized Gordon Brown again. Matthardingu ( talk) 15:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 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 ( talk) 10:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It was pointy, petulant and offensive to the community for me to "retire" in a fit of pique over the Lara thing. I'm going to work hard to be co-operative with her, and to ensure I make nothing against her that could be seen as an attack. We're communicating via e-mail. I just want to send you a particular note thanking you for your support Ryan. It really means a lot to me. Cheers matey. Pedro : Chat 12:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
User:PalestineRemembered has opened a thread discussing you at ANI. It doesn't appear that he's notified you, but my apologies for double notification if he did drop you a note elsewhere. Natalie ( talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
For being with us for so long, and for fighting for this cause for years to come. Come, celebrate, raise a blass Marlith T/ C 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
Seconded! Keep up the great work! Btw, you're used as an example here. I'm jealous! *Cremepuff 222* 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan! Ill be grateful if you also recheck if the adding of my name to the limitations was justified as we never describe what means "disruptively edit warring" in my case. Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha ( talk) 12:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to clarify my block history. All are related with my conflicts with Tajik. In addition, all are on Nomadic Empires related articles. The list of the articles are here [6]. As you see, none of them is related with the Az-Ar case. In my edit hsitory, the only exception is Shucha. There i added a new section on "Cultural life", quotations and references. I already stated how i came to that page. It's not fair to punish me with my previous block history (the last one dated 1 April 2007, 8 months ago). Please, review my situation again. I shall provide more detailed explanation if necessary. Regards. E104421 ( talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I'm glad its over. Happy Thanksgiving. VartanM ( talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice that civility had to be taken into account as well. I have removed E104421. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 ( talk) 19:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Good looking out, Mr. Postlethwaite :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 20:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Tariqabjotu, hope you're well. I've just been taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under supervision and see you placed Aynabend under supervised editing. I've added a few users recently for edit warring on pages related to the page, but Kirill clarified that for an editor to be placed under supervision, there must be incivility with the edit warring, but I can't see any incivility coming from Anyabend. Could you look at removing him please? I've just removed quite a few of the users I placed under supervision for the same reason. Cheers and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I just wanted to bring up that I finished my other assignment over a week ago, just in case you missed it. Cheers! J-ſtan Talk Contribs 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you on AN/I mentioning blocking Diaboli So you made admin and I missed your RfA. Bugger. And likewise arse. Very belated and deeply meant congratulations, Ryan!
Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 22:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see that the links to it are increasing! :) Acalamari 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I don’t think User:Andranikpasha should be relived of his parole, as he was actually permanently banned from Wikipedia and allowed to return only subject to parole and mentorship. -- Grandmaster ( talk) 05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to remind you of this discussion at WP:ANI: [8], where the indef blocked was discussed. It was agreed to lift the block subject to parole and mentorship. Thanks. Grandmaster ( talk) 06:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, what you're writing here sorry but not true and you know why. At first, I wasnt banned but blocked (Do you remember how you were trying to prove to the admin who later blocked me that Im a sockpuppet, and I was unblocked after this admin was informed that im not "a sock of... Artaxiad", a story by you, attacking me the newbie). And what's the most important, I was blocked after few hours at the same day you protested that my editions should be entered under Arbcom enforcement and I was entered under 1RR (as we realize now) by a not justified decision. While I was protesting this decision askin I never made any uncivil editwarrings I was blocked for the time wasting, possible sockpuppetry etc.. So whats the reason to wikistalk me everywhere again and again? All editions Im doing is trying to keep the Wiki rules. Im working according to them, isnt it? Andranikpasha ( talk) 15:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The only reason Andranik was placed under indefinite ban was because he was accused by Grandmaster to be a sock of another banned user. One of the admins took the bait, fortunately another didn't. Taking it into consideration would amount to rewarding Grandmaster's harrassment of Andranik.-- TigranTheGreat ( talk) 02:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at this? I'm concerned about WP:BLP issues, but it also doesn't seem to really seem to be organized in any encyclopedic way, but I'm at a loss as to what to do with it. Could you give me input pretty please? Ariel ♥ Gold 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I came across User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Rollback.js. Is this an admin or non-admin user script? What browser does it need? I'm asking about this script because I've been trying to find a good "revert" script for my alternate account, but all the scripts seem to work with Firefox only. Currently, my alternate account uses what appears to be a very simple revert script. Acalamari 22:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, could you restore my user page now? I would appreciate it, that AfD ended awhile ago, just wanted to make sure things were quiet. Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. IvoShandor ( talk) 06:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't wish to rake over too much old history, since real lessons may have been learned and applied from the case that bears my name, PalestineRemembered.
As an aspiring admin, I want to be ready for my RFA (not soon, but eventually), so I'm brushing up on my info. The question I have for you is this: Are admins allowed to instantly delete articles that normal users would place a prod on? Thanks for your time! Icestorm815 ( talk) 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support, as well as nearly a nom :) All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 23:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful
RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
I am honoured to have received your support, Ryan. Thank you for all the good work you're doing for the 'pedia (and soon you will have yet more tools! fear him!).
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
Goodbye, my almost lover Goodbye, my hopeless dream I'm trying not to think about you Can't you just let me be So long, my luckless romance My back is turned on you Shoulda known you'd bring me heartache Almost lovers always do - Gimme More ( talk) 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
-- WjB scribe 03:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you want mentorship-type questions placed on your TalkPage, but you didn't object before and you've not suggested anywhere different to put them. Please tell me if you want this taken somewhere else.
I have a question for you (it's somewhat esoteric, because I won't actually ask it). Can you suggest a way to respond at the Saeb Erekat TalkPage to these comments?
As best I can tell, the sources provided there do not use the word "propaganda", so I can't understand the reference to it. There are three references provided, but only one of them levels an accusation of lying (and it comes from political opponents of the subject, apparently designed to elicit a suite for libel that Erekat hasn't taken up, for reasons I'd have thought very few people had trouble understanding). The two CNN quotes included add nothing atall (we're not being given Erekat's response to the question put to him, but it's in the same CNN transcript, and it's an entirely proper explanation of what he was doing.)
Furthermore, the way we're being asked to present the information appears deliberately deceitful. Even if we were to use the one JP clip (from 11,000 about Erekat, according to the same clip), we'd surely be guilty of serious distortion if we implied there was a real controversy on this topic in his biography. Erekat used the figure of 500 dead, the UN says 497 dead (though over a bigger area and a longer time-span). Erekat used the word "massacre" when Shimon Peres did the same - and we appear to have published evidence of at least one well-attested "up-against-the-wall" type shooting massacre. Meanwhile, named Israeli spokesmen appear to have over-estimated the number of Palestinian dead consistently, and by up to 381%. It would be bizarre indeed to treat Erekat as a falsifier in this context.
As I said, I'm not intending to comment there (despite the new clips apparently being in direct response to the careful investigation I've done on the subject), but I'd appreciate your input on how I'd deal with it if I wasn't muzzled. PR talk 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan. I was wondering if you would do me a favor. Someone complained off-wiki that perhaps a few edits in the history of my user page ought be oversighted, because they are implicit personal attacks against everyone in general (this is not my view). However, I am eager to avoid conflict. Could you have a look at the history and see if there is anything that should be oversighted? IvoShandor ( talk) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Okay, we can try that. I did try to explain to the other editor that I didn't think oversight was applicable, but they were persistent enough that it struck me as a concern. I don't know if you watched my page but when I blank it go ahead and delete it. IvoShandor ( talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I came here to award you the "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar for your work in creating the New admin school. Since you have already been awarded the barnstar, please accept my thanks! I'm over half way through it, and it has been very helpful. I'm glad I didn't have to learn by fumbling around without a set of directions. Royalbroil 17:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 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 ( talk) 08:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You can also fix any entry, including your own, should you find any additional errors. Ral315 » 17:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, I just noticed this image which was uploaded by you a while back. It hasn't got source information or copyright status, but I wasn't going to do that pointless tagging, so I just thought I'd point it out to you, so you may do as you wish with it. Qst 20:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (Please reply on this page. I'll be watching it for a while.)
Hi Ryan - you kindly said you'd protect me from bullying. (Though I'm not entirely sure why, I'd never complained of it, the biggest problem seemed to be I'd stood up to it rather too well in the past).
Well, all of a sudden, I think I am being bullied - at this edit, which looks very much like an attempt to taunt me into a response that would inevitably lead to me getting an indef-block. It's an in-your-face denial of the careful work I've done here and I assume you don't wish me to respond directly to this editor because of [censored].
I shouldn't need to re-hash with you the specifics of the breach of Biographies of Living People policy of Wikipedia that's being attempted in this case (it's all laid out in my table). Note how the challenge to me is with three references that don't actually use the words claimed ("propaganda", "controversy"). The only one claiming that Erekat lied is an op-ed, an unpleasant taunting of him by his political enemies to sue an Israeli newspaper in an Israeli court.
When you've applied your mind to this problem, I do have some good news - it seems that all four of the edits of mine you thought I'd been edit-warring over [10] [11] [12] [13] are now safely in the articles where I was trying to put them. Do I get remission on my sentence for improving articles against the very heavy odds on these occasions? PR talk 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the "Final Warning"... I only created the article Clow Cards (list) only to put the focus on the cards and put images for they, and you removed all of them, except the first one. Because you don't DELETE the article to finish? -- Blean 17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's some fire for you! Fire somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Hús ö nd 00:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
*Cremepuff
222* 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.
*Cremepuff 222* 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, Thank you for initiating to lift my parole. I just left more in the ArbCom page [ [18]]. Do you know why I am the only one being singled out and other admins do not want to lift my parole. Thank you for any hints in advance. Regards, -- Aynabend 07:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. In this edit, you removed my report, but did not state a reason. Might I ask your reason? Thanks! — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
When you reply on a talk page, or anything such as a help desk, how do you make your reply indented?
The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you much, Ryan, for protecting the article. I really appreciate your timely response. TimidGuy ( talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This protection of Transcendental Meditation has worked well. Naturezak, the new editor who made changes against consensus and deleted material sourced to peer-reviewed journals without explanation, has been making an excellent contribution to the discussions. We have quickly arrived at a number of points of consensus, and are making definite progress toward improving the article. Still, there are matters to resolve. Also, a couple editors with strong feelings have been completely absent from the discussion, and it's not clear what their intent is once the protection is lifted. Might be a good idea to extend protection a while so that we can continue this progress. Thanks much. TimidGuy 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just supported you for your candidacy for Arbitration, but I saw some stuff about Durova. I skimmed the ArbCom case, but you didn't come up. What is that whole thing about? I'm confident in my support; just curious. J-ſtan Talk Contribs 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
(indent) Hmm - was Durova even warned about her actions, or did it just jump to ArbCom and RfC? If not, I completely get where you're coming from, though I would probably have also sided with Jossi on this one. Everyone makes mistakes. If this was a repeat offense, then yeah, I could understand ArbComming it. J-ſtan Talk Contribs 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 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 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I know I was rather slow in responding to the last round of comments on the MedCom wiki, but I am getting concerned that the mediation is grinding to a halt. I was hoping you might be able to jolt it in the right direction again, and get us mediating again. I know that formal mediation is a slow process, and that it can take time, we all have to deal with that, but at this rate, we won't finish mediating before users start dieing of old age. I would appreciate it if you could give the mediation a little tug in the right direction again. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see you withdraw from the ArbCom elections. Never mind, don't worry about it :) Qst 12:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am very sad both about the opposition and that you withdrew because of it. I hope this doesn't set an example for people becoming afraid to make well-intended suggestions like yours for fear that they get unreasonably punished for them. — Sebastian 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for your wishing me good luck. I wish you the best future too. Cheers, (^_^) --- D@rk talk 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears that a certain 202.156.66.110 that you may or may not remember as a user who tried to frame you for blocking me for no reason. Now you may also remember that a certain "coalition" of editors have wanted me blocked for some time now and have just now let up on their "assault" which is really the only reason why I have recently begun editing again and I'm truly not in the mood for another editor to be added to that list just when I've begun to actually enjoy editing again. I've come to you mainly because you've dealt with him before to some extent and I also ask you to watch him and deter him from tacking on more offensive to his already extensive warning/block record before I end up getting myself blocked which I may be close to doing. Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you withdrew from the Arbcom election. Please don't be discouraged and remember that your work and presence here is always much appreciated. Maybe better luck next year if you intend to run again. Meanwhile, happy editing! See you around! :-) Best regards, Hús ö nd 06:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
you removed the block, and it seems I can edit, but I have a message saying it should still be there. can you clarify pls. edward (buckner) ( talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi cat. Now that it has been brought to the community attention that there is another user who's name is WhiteCat who predates your name change, I believe that your username is confusingly similar to this one, and may run afoul of WP:U. At very least, please consider implementing the ideas at WP:U#Username_disambiguation. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have protected the regional power article because of an edit war. I would ask you to please review the history of this article, to see how this problem started. Argentina has been listed as a regional power for months. I included it several months ago, after finding reliable and objetive external sources that backed up its inclussion, and after a respectful discussion with other wikipedians. You can check that by checking the history of the article. A couple weeks ago, this fanatic user Kardark started removing Argentina for no apparent reason. He just said that "it was not a regional power", without any sources to back that up. I reverted his changes since they were of a vandalistic nature, and I also looked for two more external sources stating that Argentina is a regional power, bringing the total up to four. But he wouldnt care, he would keep removing Argentina without a valid justification, and I would keep reverting his changes. For this, he started calling me a "fanatic", a "lunatic", and a "troll". The truth is, he is removing sourced information because of his personal opinion. I dont think thats OK. And what he has done now is, removing Argentina once again and then protecting the Article, so it cant be included. Everything I explained to you can be checked by looking at the history of the article. Please assist. Aletano ( talk) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou guys! Unfortunatley last night was a little bit too much for me, and I've spent today in bed feeling sorry for myself! Thank god for paracetemol!
Ryan Postlethwaite
18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you've messed up with your contribution to the TalkPage at this article. I brought it to your attention because you're supposed to be mentoring me, and I thought I was being bullied - you appear to have ignored my complaint completely. I'd done a careful analysis of the facts of the case, and I don't believe our WP article is written on the basis of "the facts as appear in reliable sources". To whit, Erekat may have been guilty of exaggeration (though it's difficult to be sure) but it's neither realistic nor referenced to claim he lied. Meanwhile, many of his political opponents provided versions which are virtually outright lies (at least according to what their own side claimed later). If the purpose of writing articles is to slander people, it's these others we'd be slating.
Seperately, the RS's don't state what is being alleged, that this business is notable (the RS's barely mention it). Nor that it is controversial. Why did you arrive suggesting a compromise but BLP-breaching version by which we say it was controversial and Erekat's words were "widely refuted as being false"?
Even with your support, the consensus as I've tabulated it appears to be 5 editors who don't think we should say that Erekat is a lier, one that says he is a lier and yourself saying that his words were "controversial".
Meanwhile, I see similar reference and consensus-trashing edit-wars going on between some of the same actors in many other places - is it reasonable to look to administrators to stamp out this kind of ownership? Particularily when there are serious BLP issues at stake. Saeb Erekat appears to have been instrumental (if not crucial) to getting agreement at Annapolis only a day or two ago - surely WP should give him a fair crack of the whip - and not treat him as some kind of serial falsifier. PR talk 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) PS - I've contributed a comment here here - do you see any problem with what I've stated? PR talk 22:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The term referred to the entire University of Missouri System officially from 1963 till now and is used for the University of Missouri-Columbia public relations matters but not on official matters. The common usage is not overwhelmingly referring to a single school but there is a push on Wikipedia to enforce the school's Alumni organization politics on Wikipedia namespace. I would like to open up the page naming to a wider view of experienced Wikipedia editors instead of the microcosm the page currently has. Does that mean Mediation committee? Alatari ( talk) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I posted on the talk page that I am unwilling to block at the moment due to some apparently quite credible sockpuppet concerns. However, as I will be busy for the rest of the night, I have left a note asking for other admins to review this on WP:AN/I#Blue5864. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. Max Sem almost beat you to it... (leaving a message on the talk page is sufficient to stop the bot) Rich Farmbrough, 18:40 9 December 2007 (GMT).
Thanks for protecting my userpage, but can you please change it so that I can edit it? Thank you! 'FL a RN' (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I've been trying to catch you on IRC all day today, but that has proved fruitless. I hope you saw the linked discussion; personally, it seems like a much better approach that alleviates some of the concerns about rollback mis-use and responsibility of the user. Honestly, I can't ever see your new proposal at Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators proposal ever being implemented by anyone with scap capabilities. It adds a new user class, more bureaucracy, and the developers have pushed back several times against ideas like this. Not only do those issues exist, you'd have to find someone willing to write the code, which could prove difficult to do, and you may not find a willing volunteer, especially if there's a high likelihood that nothing will come of it. This of course avoids the discussion of creating yet another process on en.wiki, which I don't think would receive support either; we have quite a few already. : - ) I saw your note about the motivation for making this change here. I think rollback could be an excellent tool for non-admins to have and I can see the issues with doing so. Having a user preference puts the responsibility on the user; they would have to enable rollback and then mis-use it, which would, in my mind, alleviate a lot of the concerns that admins have about using blocks for rollback mis-use. Also, as I wrote on the RfC talk page, an edit count attribute could easily be linked to the availability of the feature, if that were so desired. I'm interested in your thoughts about preference proposal; let me know. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I first time nominated the article Kanchan Gupta for AfD using TW, but the link in AfD "this article's entry" appeared red. I clicked the link, saved the page, but next time I again when visited the page, the link showed red. So I removed the AfD tag and renomiated it for AfD. This time the link appeared blue. I don't know why this happened. I have redirected the former AfD page to this new page. Can the former page be deleted? Kindly investigate in the matter. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that you recently deleted the article titled 'Russell Elrod'. I wanted to confirm your reasons for the deletion. Thank you for your time. Benjendav ( talk) 16:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjendav ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Please review edit war at Semper fidelis and User talk:Bond-Peters. Has he reached the blocking point? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, could you have a look at Special:Contributions/Cackalackakilla. I find it unnerving that a brand new user would stumble upon AfD so quickly. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, and would like an other opinion. Thanks in advance. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I'm at school and forgot my password, so I created a new account. I know that AFDs are not a vote. But I figure I would contribute some arguments to video game articles. It is up to the administrator to weigh the arguments and determine the best course of action. Cackalackakilla ( talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see your request on ANI until just now - [19] should give you what you're after. Cheers, Bencherlite Talk 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who watches that page (the intended audience) will see the diffs and be able to enjoy the joke and perhaps the reaction as well. I guess that makes me look like the wet blanket 0_o, but I am fine with that characterization. I think there are more imaginative ways to have fun than a big banner, like maybe a Cabal inspired haiku on his talkpage. Whatever though, I am certainly not going to have an edit war over something so silly, so restore it if you like. — Cronholm 144 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you declined the request to semi-protect TV Links. While the current rash of vandalism has only been ongoing for the past 3 or so days, every edit over that time period (and there are over 20. [ [20]])has been either vandalism or reverting it. In specific there is an anon user, using at least 3 distinct IPs, that insists on adding his own website to the top of the page. His edits simply consist of undoing those of editors who undo his. I'd like to ask you to consider semi-protecting this for at least a few days to see if this will deter him. Thanks. Random89 ( talk) 19:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Ryan, thanks so much for your support,
--
A. B.
(talk)
19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
*Cremepuff
222* 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.
Sorry. *Cremepuff 222* 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. You accidentally added the section on Gp75motorsports' RfA to the talk page twice. I went ahead and removed the second, as it was a clear accident. However, I just thought I would let you know. Cheers. SorryGuy Talk 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 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 ( talk) 07:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I did the editprotected thing on the Template talk:Infobox MLB retired, now what do I do-- Yankees10 ( talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
yeah I just want to do something minor-- Yankees10 ( talk) 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
yeah-- Yankees10 ( talk) 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
yes, thanks-- Yankees10 ( talk) 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm done, I didnt do anthing because I have no clue how to do the thing I want to do, sorry for wasting your time-- Yankees10 ( talk) 02:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you know anybody that can help me with my problem-- Yankees10 ( talk) 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to set the colors to #dcdcdc, like the Template:Infobox NFLretired, so that we dont have to go to every single infobox and change the color, because we want there to be neutral colors now-- Yankees10 ( talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Pedro is the Spanish equivalent of the English for Peter. Just as La_Resaca is The_Undertow. How is that a revelation? Do you wish to punish me for living in Mexico for a year? the_undertow talk 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey dear, Moonriddengirl has asked me about IRC cloaks, and stuff, and I recalled how wonderful you were to help me with mine, so I suggested perhaps you could assist her? You can see the discussion here, if you have some time on your hands today. :o) Ariel ♥ Gold 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)