This page 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. |
That's just bizarre how things went down with Dlae... I'm used to insults from random vandals, but being told to piss off for a warning is a bit new to me... though I do find this kinda funny. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that Ryan. I missed Wikipedia too. :-) Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to say 'thanks' for taking the time to comment at my Commons RfA, which closed successfully. Please let me know if I can ever be of help, either on that project or this one. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I just templated your mentee PalestineRemembered ( talk · contribs) for a BLP violation on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am fully capable of placing warnings on users talk pages of edits whom I revert. Thank you. -- Charitwo talk 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The project is currently rife with these things, as the section starter of Robert Spencer suggests. But it goes much deeper than articles simply retailing material liable to incite hatred - because many of those so keen on these sources are also keen to give themselves and others ethno-specific labels - and savage anyone who objects. But you're right that it's extremely dangerous to challenge any such behaviour. PR talk 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hard to tell what exactly was speedy deleted here, but do you have the authority to restore the history of
Shawqi Omar to me anywhere? The
deleting admin has retired. I was planning to recreate at least a stub as he now has a case before the U.S. Supreme Court; q.v. Florence, Justin (2007-12-14).
"Whose Prisoners Are They, Anyway? The Americans you've never heard of who are being held in Iraq". Slate. {{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help). --
Kendrick7
talk
23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Check your e-mail, I've sent you a message. — Jonathan 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for the block for our school. If you were one of my students, I'm sure I would be putting stars on your paper... or maybe a barnstar! -- EtonTeacher ( talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome note and compliment. I already am on board. I have another account which I use for making some edits here and there as time permits. It's nothing huge, but at least I can take pride in positively contributing to such a great effort. I chose to make and use this screen name for requesting the block because I didn't feel comfortable mixing my professional life with my private life. Cheers! :-) -- EtonTeacher ( talk) 03:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) PS... Don't worry, this account will not be a sockpuppet. I might use it once in a rare while for work related efforts, such as showing students how to constructively edit Wikipedia! -- EtonTeacher ( talk) 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you put in the block as requested, but user:209.254.252.186 still has the sharedIPEDU template. Should it be the schoolblock template? If so, could you change it, please? Thanks again and again! :-) -- EtonTeacher ( talk) 18:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, sounds good to me. -- EtonTeacher ( talk) 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for stepping in with calm words. I have been frustrated, and would like to just move on. I have already lost 2 hours of valuable editing time dealing with this and would just like to continue writing my article. As a non-involved third party, is it within policy for you to keep an eye on both user talk pages ( 1, 2) to be sure this does not continue? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm disturbed by what's happening in this article. As best I can tell, the cartoon inserted has nothing to do with the content of the article (I'd have thought it pretty obvious that anti-semitic cartoons have no part in Media coverage of Israel, either in the UK or anywhere else in English-speaking world).
Even if that were a "content-dispute" that you've no wish to involve yourself in, it would appear that the cartoon and the caption are an attempt to smear a British artist as anti-semitic. There's nothing whatsoever to indicate that he is anti-semitic, his cartoon bears no obvious relationship to anti-semitism - and complaints to that effect have been examined and rejected by a "neutral body", the PCC (Press Complaints Committee). How, other than engaging in a bitter edit-war (which, as I keep telling people, and despite accusations, I've never had any part in) is it possible to stop encyclopedia articles being abused in this fairly gross fashion? You will have noted that there are editors around who seem to delight in making these accusations on utterly baseless grounds - behavior that damages collegiality, wastes huge amounts of time, and can only be harmful to the project. PR talk 13:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you think Portal:England/Topics is ready for the portal's FPO nom? Qst 13:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 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) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, great shout on protecting David Miliband. Just a courtesy note to say that following a talk page compromise I have lifted the protection. Please feel free to slam it back on again if fresh hostilities break out! TerriersFan ( talk) 00:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Little Cutie is impersonating me Richardson j ( talk) 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to admit I have made two blunders in the past few days which I'd rather forget. The first, over at your suggestion of creating admin-like revert tools for non-admins, I'll admit was entirely my fault. I am now in big support of your suggestion.
But this recent scuffle over at User talk:Jimbo Wales I hope I can be forgiven for. I was simply abiding by the official Wikipedia policy ( Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice). And seen as the link he provided me was in german, I couldn't possible suss it out. If Jimbo wants foreign messages on his page, that's fine by him, and I hope this is not yet another thing that'll go down against me. (Just thought I'd tell you since it was Mr Postlethwaite who saved the day again! ;-) ). Lra drama 13:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made an to Portal:England/Topics, because other subsections of the portal like Portal:England/Categories and Portal:England/WikiProjects don't use the bullet points after the final word. Regards, Rt . 14:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! We all make mistakes. :) Maser ( Talk!) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You got )'s instead of }'s? - Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I appear to be being wiki-stalked by two other editors. One of them may have stopped after I challenged him but this one is positively threatening. My carefully written objection to the proposed re-listing of this as a "Good Article" gets the kind of unpleasant triviality I've had a lot from this editor. I'm sure you'd prefer that you deal with it. PR talk 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually the editor who listed those RFA's opposed mine, so it's not much of a cabal :) -- Melburnian ( talk) 10:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Mhh, I wish I had some of these lovely Jelly Beans. Hope you're feeling better :) Qst 13:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
the protection to
popcorn has expired, is it safe to remove the template. Nevermind. some one took it off. --
Antonio Lopez
(talk)
02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Ryan — I've done some work for the selected biography bit and in the news bit of the Portal, however, I haven't linked all of the news to their story on the BBC, because I cannot find the links anywhere, as it quite old news now, but I'll have another look at that shortly. If to want to discuss it more, I'm on IRC, and will be for best part of the day. Qst 13:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I could not help noticing your lack of interest in this topic as your last evanescent comment was made almost a month ago. If you do not have time, just state it clearly and I will simply quit this useless process which, so far, is a mere remake of the meaningless quarrel I had for three months with user:Azukimonaka. -- Flying tiger ( talk) 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, «Real Life» is sure better than anonymously editing or being involved in edit wars with anonymous teenagers from the other side of the world... OK, I 'll wait for some time. -- Flying tiger ( talk) 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
RoryReloaded (
talk) 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.
-- RoryReloaded ( talk) 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 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) 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks as if I'm being wiki-stalked eg here. Being almost entirely muzzled as regards editing articles, I've brought some historical/factual matters to people's attention in TalkPages, always with fairly considerable care that the points I'm making are defendable. I fail to see the point of following me round and denying the points I'm making. I find it particularily disturbing that "Jewish" is being inserted into my statements in an apparent attempt to make my points appear racist, when it would appear that it is my challenger who wishes to link the Jews to actions of extremely dubious morality and legality. PR talk 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Ryan, I am not a big believer in off-wiki communication. The progression of our debate in the "Giano restricted" thread was entirely predictable, as was the reaction to that thread on Giano's and Bishonen's part, and I might have been motivated to forewarn you had I thought it would be left to the two of us relative lightweights to battle it out. I had genuinely hoped that other editors would appear with alternate perspectives, but that did not happen, nor did any of the arbitrators choose to add their comments. Perhaps I am not the only one who saw the train wreck coming.
There is no use crying over spilled milk. I strongly encourage you to take a step back and start looking at the "big picture" of the project. It does not matter how many sockpuppets edit, as long as they edit well. It does not matter if people are universally polite if they cannot put a grammatically correct sentence together. It really, really doesn't matter if people are friends and live in love and harmony. This project is all about the encyclopedia. Yes, it needs deletion of junk and handholding of newbies and some interpersonal relations stuff. But it does not survive without quality writing. Giano and Bishonen are the most visible of the people who have left over this current round of nonsense. I personally am aware of several others. This isn't strictly your fault, it is even more the fault of those who stood by and let you put forth an argument that was so clearly focused on putting behaviour over productivity. There were a lot of people watching our exchange today. Many of them have had their suspicions confirmed. Risker ( talk) 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ryan Postlethwaite, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey RP, I've made a few changes per the FPOC for the tennis portal. If you disagree with them, no problem. Rt . 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the image problem, but you still need to protect the image with appropriate templates so that the Main Page isn't vandlaized. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, I apologize for my misstep in bringing RFAR issues to your talk page. It appeared to me at the time that that section of the RFAR had become a conversation between the two of us and might best be off the RFAR itself; it's clear that you did not share my thinking there, and I am sorry to have presumed that you might.
As to Mercury, he and I have had an ongoing conversation for some time on and off-wiki that has covered a lot of topics and, I believe, has established a level of mutual respect that may not be immediately transparent on-wiki. I can appreciate that someone unaware of our past discussions (particularly the off-wiki ones) might have found tonight's one a little odd. I shall leave it at that.
I've taken your advice and not bothered reading any further edits to the RFAR since the issue was raised; instead I have returned to my work on a partial rewrite and re-referencing of an existing article. It will (if all goes well) be ready for merging in a day or two. I have never tried to do that, and the only advice I have received is "ask an admin to do it for you." Could you please advise me where I should go when I am ready to insert the upgraded content to the existing article, while incorporating the history from my userpage? Thanks. Risker ( talk) 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I am the person who originally wrote the Wiki entry on Charles E. Spahr. It was my first entry, and I was and still am very green at writing these.
I have physical proof of everything that I wrote about Charlie with the exception of two small items that he told me personally (we are friends). The problem is that the materials are copyrighted, and I cannot post them on a site on the Internet for reference. I stopped working on the entry as his lawyer threatened me. My Constitution guarantees me the right to write, but one must be able to defend oneself if attacked through the legal system. I am a person of limited financial means and would have no way of doing so. Therefore, the entry sits out there unfinished.
I am going to write an entry on "Wild Bill" Potter, a murdered Cleveland, Ohio, USA city councilman in 1931. Having researched his murder extensively, I have all of the associated Plain Dealer newspaper articles as well as his coroner's report. His homicide file is missing. The building that he was murdered in still exists. I would greatly appreciate your coaching as I write this second entry. My user name is dcicchel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcicchel ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what was wrong with the existing dropdown box that is actually provided by the mediawiki software? — Random832 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
On a personal note, thank you for all your help and kindness this year, Ryan. I appreciated it. :) Acalamari 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the best place to report an edit war and ask for assistance? ANI? Or, is there a better place that will get more immediate attention? Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The contentious issues are being worked out now on the talk page, and some other editors have gotten involved with good suggestions, so I think the page protection can be lifted. If you would be so kind. And, thanks again for your assistance. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I wanted to get another evaluation from you, as I've gotten an offer from User:Wizardman to be nominated for RfA. I just wanted to see if you thought I was ready, or what I can do to get ready. If you think I'm ready to be nominated, you could talk with Wizardman about a co-nom. User:Rudget also expressed interest in nominating me a few weeks ago, so he might also be interested. But I leave it up to you: if you feel I'm ready, I'll go up for adminship. If not, I'll keep working at it. Thanks! J-ſtan Contribs User page 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Oh yes, a belated happy holidays to you Ryan. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OK I really screwed the pooch. How long do you think it will take for a devo to unscrew? JERRY talk contribs 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
We have a user CarolSpears ( talk · contribs) who has become unhappy with the way her odd edits are being handled. You can see much of the discussion on her talk page under the heading #Hieracium albertinum. Part of it is simply that she has decided each page on Hieracium should open with a quote (e.g. Hieracium lachenalii). Part of it is that she quotes she is choosing are sometimes unrelated to the article, such as the quote about dead puppies ( [1]).
Now she is adding "not a part of project project" banners to WP:PLANTS ( [2]) and to "her" articles on Hieracium (e.g. [3], [4], etc.), and has added an odd gallery to this talk page ( [5]).
She has deleted comments critical of her work ( [6]) and posted this nomination to DYK ( [7]) which is a link to a discussion on a talk page.
Frankly, I'm at a loss for how to handle this. I did post a vandalism1 warning for the WP:PLANTS edit, but the rest makes no sense to me. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been his admin coach lately -;) — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I noticed these semi-related rollback pages floating around. Maybe a move to a less-similar sounding title if the current proposal go through?
and just some cleanup in the user-space if your interested:
MBisanz talk 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
I noticed you haven't had one for a few months, so here you go! Seriously though, this is for being a great editor, an excellent admin and constantly making me laugh :D Keep up the excellent work, man! Majorly ( talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, as you're listed as an assistant for changing usernames, I wondered if I could ask a question. When I joined, I wanted the username 'Islander', however it was already taken, so I settled for 'TheIslander'. I now notice that User:Islander is dormant: it has no edits to it's name, and no logs. It therefore qualifies for usurption. I considered doing this, but decided against it because of the hassel with my old signature being plastered all over the place, but have since realised that this could be solved by simply reclaiming the 'TheIslander' account, and setting it up as a doppleganger, which just redirects to 'Islander'. Is this a good/bad idea? Also, one further question: would all user pages be ported over to 'Islander', including my sandbox ( User:TheIslander/labs) and talk page archives? Basically, I'd like to usurp an account, but am worried about the implications, and can't find them listed anywhere in an easy to understand format. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated :). TheIslander 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[8] Do tell. -- Charitwo talk 15:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey RP, sorry to bother you again. I've informed Rlevse about my editing patterns over the next week or so, and believe if I could, transclude the RFA tonight? Would you be able to write your co-nom now? I know this is really short notice, but I appreciate your offer the same. Best regards, Rt . 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
All said. Acalamari 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if it was okay if I copied the design of your userpage to use on mine. It's really nice. Thanks. -- ~ Ryan A. Taylor || talk || contribs 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems someone noticed my tennis officials article!
I saw that you have added a link from the portal page, as well as choosing it for January's selected article. I know it isn't the most engaging of topics, or one with the widest appeal, but as an umpire myself, I didn't think the one section in the Tennis article did it justice.
I'm still relatively new to wikipedia, and I have made it one of my goals to take this article on to at least GA status. I added it to the project's request for assessment page, but judging by the queue that might not mean much. I'm looking for a peer review and some advice on improving the article, and it would be nice to have the perspective of someone who isn't as familiar with the subject to give it a look over.
Your help would be greatly appreciated!-- Greenguy1090 ( talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've offered at the proposal to notify all the prior proposal commentors with talk page messages using AWB is someone could write a succint message. But now it looks like this proposal could close and lead to a new one.
Thanks. MBisanz talk 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there's been some discussion about your recent edits to MediaWiki:Sysop.js on its talk page. Could you please have a look there and comment? — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 08:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Ryan, my internet is being a right pain the arse and I can't get on to IRC, and I need to ask you something, so please check your email inbox in a few minutes. Qst 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, -- El on ka 04:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created most of the instructions for salting in User:Acalamari/Test, and it can be moved to Wikipedia:New admin school/Salting whenever necessary. Would you mind reading what I've written to fix some errors I might have made, or add some things I might have missed? Also, I decided to cover transclusion as well as the "protect" button feature. Thanks Ryan! Acalamari 20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, greetings. Just saw your new RFAR. I'm glad to see somebody with your experience trying to quiet the battleground. But I'm wondering whether the RFAR will be perceived as too broad. There are numerous I-P articles at various stages of contention. (For instance, you didn't mention Battle of Jenin or Palestinian people.) An Arb case could then draw in too many parties, etc. Perhaps you have a way to narrow the scope, either with a focus on specific articles or individuals? Or maybe an RfC would help engender a conversation about how to modulate the situation in a broad swath of articles? I'm not objecting to your RFAR per se, just trying to point out objections you are likely to face. Thanks and good luck. HG | Talk 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There could be circumstances under which I wish to state that, as best I'm aware, my mentor has had no reason for concern with my editorial conduct since the start of his mentorship of me. Or, certainly, none have been brought to my attention. Would I be correct in that regard? (You may feel I've been demanding and time-consuming and perhaps even awkward on your TalkPage, of course, but I assume you expected something like that when putting yourself forwards as your mentor). PR talk 11:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ping. :) Rudget . 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please remove me as a party to a dispute that I'm not involved in; Thanks. Itzse ( talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[9]!!! Acalamari 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to you at this TalkPage. I think the nonsense has gone on quite long enough. This is 8 editors now held at bay for 16 months by a single, hugely problematical editor who cannot understand consensus and is totally unable to understand the use of sources (or even electric fence policies such as BLP). PR talk 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I think HG raises some good points about your RFAR below -but I also see yours as well, so let's see what happens. One notable exception to the the list of involved parties is User:Timeshifter -IMO he's caused major disruption on Second Intifada and I think his behaviour needs to be examined as well. <<-armon->> ( talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ryan :). Could you please take a look over at the 3RR noticeboard - a user is trying to get me blocked for removing a picture which doesn't qualify for fair use. Cheers ;). TheIslander 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(reset) Okay, where do we go from here. Shall I repost my 3RR report under LINK rather than Norwich and P/Boro. Three reverts is a clear violation (and you will also note the timestamp on the talk page).
"Logo of the Link Interchange Network Ltd. Arundel House, 1 Liverpool Gardens, Worthing, West Sussex. BN11 1SL
Use in the article Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, which is a member of LINK, is believed to be fair, within the meaning of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.30 (1988 cap.48) in the United Kingdom and the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Pub.L. 94-553) in the United States
The exhibition of low-resolution images of logos, to illustrate the subject in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell product or said image. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The further use of this image on Wikipedia is not believed to disadvantage the copyright holder in any way"
is a rationale. Understand now..? Chrisieboy ( talk) 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
In the edit, I reverted a reference to a current event happaning in Australia where an indian cricket called an aboriginal australian cricket a monkey (a reference to sub human) the photo could be very insulting to some people and is generally not in good taste. I am undoing your revert.-- AresAndEnyo ( talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaait Symonds is aboriginal? Viridae Talk 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This! I've just watchlisted it, so you'll get my help there now! Acalamari 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would have liked to thank the person who granted my request for rollback at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback. However, based on your comment, "Done by someone...." it seems that it wasn't you and I'll never know who actually gave it to me! But thank you anyway for being so kind. -- Mysdaao talk 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I prefer TW over the new rollback feature. Would you mind removing it from my rights? Obviously, if you could note that I requested this, and it wasn't "taken away". - Rjd0060 ( talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You note that the devs are currently considering the consensus on the rollback proposal. How does someone contact the devs with points to consider? Hiding T 22:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, just a quick thank you for granting me rollback: I'll be sure not to let you down in your judgement of me. -- Geoff Riley ( talk) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit faster than TW. Thanks. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this, regardless of how short-lived it was. There really should have been guidelines in place before rollback was implemented though. -- ALLSTAR echo 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Heres to you —Remember, the Edit will be with you, Always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hey Ryan,
Just a short note to offer my congratulations on the way you've handled the rollback debate. Your guidance of the whole thing has been exemplary and is a credit to you and confirms the trust the community has in you as an Admin. You've maintained your cool and handled even the most difficult participants with grace, style and poise.
What could have quite easily turned into the Mother of All Flamewars has remained controlled, constructive and positive largely due to your leadership and example.
Well done! Have you ever consider becoming a 'crat?
Xdenizen ( talk) 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I added Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback to Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Can you help by advertising the practice place in a few more areas? Unless you think the current number (350+) will overwhelm that page? Most of those being granted the tool will know how to use it, but some won't and this should help them. Now - I'm off to start a sweepstake on when the number of rollbackers will overtake the number of admins... Carcharoth ( talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have requested arbitration in the matter of the consensus for rollback. Although it is not an arbitration "against" anyone, I think it fair to inform you as your name has been mentioned.-- Docg 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | 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) 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, Would you mind having a look at the Large Hadron Collider article, User:Homocion is continually adding unproven theories to this article. Most of it is fringe theory and is not verified, if you read here, you will see we have asked for the usual verifiability, and his arguments have been refuted by a number of editors. I left this message on his talk page, explaining the position as a final warning which was ignored. Now I can't use any of my admin tools etc, as it would be a conflict of interest as I work at CERN, but I think if you look through the talk page, at all times I have only asked for what is required by any information added to the encyclopedia. I have gone for third party opinion, and some of the guys from wikiproject physics have come in and have been ignored. Do I go for mediation next, as I've used all the tool I know of for dispute resolution, with the exception of RfC which is why I went to the physicists who would understand it better. Thoughts please? cheers Khu kri 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor you once blocked is being discussed here. Your input might be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_John_Celona David in DC ( talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to make sure you saw my second reply (the first part, not the second part, since the diff includes someone else's edit) on the request for arbcom page. I also want to further extend my apologies to you and others about this. While I think a lot of this happened because of the nature of Wikipedia, I still find myself feeling really bad about it. And Doc, while his frustration is understandable, shouldn't really be saying some of the stuff he's saying about you. I'm also sorry for the things that can't be explained as the "nature of Wikipedia", such as anything I might have said to you that was uncalled for, like my comment on the technical village pump. You've handled yourself better than I did, better than many of us did, in this situation. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The portal you nominated at featured portal candidates on 21 December 2007 has been promoted to featured portal status. Well done. You can view eventual comments at the nomination page. Regards, Chris.B ( talk) 14:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
NHRHS2010 (
talk ·
contribs) 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.
Happy Wikipedia day! NHRHS2010 talk 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the move. :) I was getting ready to do that, but you beat me to it. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to write it too. :) Acalamari 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |
That's just bizarre how things went down with Dlae... I'm used to insults from random vandals, but being told to piss off for a warning is a bit new to me... though I do find this kinda funny. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that Ryan. I missed Wikipedia too. :-) Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to say 'thanks' for taking the time to comment at my Commons RfA, which closed successfully. Please let me know if I can ever be of help, either on that project or this one. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I just templated your mentee PalestineRemembered ( talk · contribs) for a BLP violation on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am fully capable of placing warnings on users talk pages of edits whom I revert. Thank you. -- Charitwo talk 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The project is currently rife with these things, as the section starter of Robert Spencer suggests. But it goes much deeper than articles simply retailing material liable to incite hatred - because many of those so keen on these sources are also keen to give themselves and others ethno-specific labels - and savage anyone who objects. But you're right that it's extremely dangerous to challenge any such behaviour. PR talk 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hard to tell what exactly was speedy deleted here, but do you have the authority to restore the history of
Shawqi Omar to me anywhere? The
deleting admin has retired. I was planning to recreate at least a stub as he now has a case before the U.S. Supreme Court; q.v. Florence, Justin (2007-12-14).
"Whose Prisoners Are They, Anyway? The Americans you've never heard of who are being held in Iraq". Slate. {{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help). --
Kendrick7
talk
23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Check your e-mail, I've sent you a message. — Jonathan 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for the block for our school. If you were one of my students, I'm sure I would be putting stars on your paper... or maybe a barnstar! -- EtonTeacher ( talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome note and compliment. I already am on board. I have another account which I use for making some edits here and there as time permits. It's nothing huge, but at least I can take pride in positively contributing to such a great effort. I chose to make and use this screen name for requesting the block because I didn't feel comfortable mixing my professional life with my private life. Cheers! :-) -- EtonTeacher ( talk) 03:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) PS... Don't worry, this account will not be a sockpuppet. I might use it once in a rare while for work related efforts, such as showing students how to constructively edit Wikipedia! -- EtonTeacher ( talk) 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you put in the block as requested, but user:209.254.252.186 still has the sharedIPEDU template. Should it be the schoolblock template? If so, could you change it, please? Thanks again and again! :-) -- EtonTeacher ( talk) 18:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, sounds good to me. -- EtonTeacher ( talk) 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for stepping in with calm words. I have been frustrated, and would like to just move on. I have already lost 2 hours of valuable editing time dealing with this and would just like to continue writing my article. As a non-involved third party, is it within policy for you to keep an eye on both user talk pages ( 1, 2) to be sure this does not continue? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm disturbed by what's happening in this article. As best I can tell, the cartoon inserted has nothing to do with the content of the article (I'd have thought it pretty obvious that anti-semitic cartoons have no part in Media coverage of Israel, either in the UK or anywhere else in English-speaking world).
Even if that were a "content-dispute" that you've no wish to involve yourself in, it would appear that the cartoon and the caption are an attempt to smear a British artist as anti-semitic. There's nothing whatsoever to indicate that he is anti-semitic, his cartoon bears no obvious relationship to anti-semitism - and complaints to that effect have been examined and rejected by a "neutral body", the PCC (Press Complaints Committee). How, other than engaging in a bitter edit-war (which, as I keep telling people, and despite accusations, I've never had any part in) is it possible to stop encyclopedia articles being abused in this fairly gross fashion? You will have noted that there are editors around who seem to delight in making these accusations on utterly baseless grounds - behavior that damages collegiality, wastes huge amounts of time, and can only be harmful to the project. PR talk 13:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you think Portal:England/Topics is ready for the portal's FPO nom? Qst 13:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 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) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, great shout on protecting David Miliband. Just a courtesy note to say that following a talk page compromise I have lifted the protection. Please feel free to slam it back on again if fresh hostilities break out! TerriersFan ( talk) 00:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Little Cutie is impersonating me Richardson j ( talk) 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to admit I have made two blunders in the past few days which I'd rather forget. The first, over at your suggestion of creating admin-like revert tools for non-admins, I'll admit was entirely my fault. I am now in big support of your suggestion.
But this recent scuffle over at User talk:Jimbo Wales I hope I can be forgiven for. I was simply abiding by the official Wikipedia policy ( Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice). And seen as the link he provided me was in german, I couldn't possible suss it out. If Jimbo wants foreign messages on his page, that's fine by him, and I hope this is not yet another thing that'll go down against me. (Just thought I'd tell you since it was Mr Postlethwaite who saved the day again! ;-) ). Lra drama 13:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made an to Portal:England/Topics, because other subsections of the portal like Portal:England/Categories and Portal:England/WikiProjects don't use the bullet points after the final word. Regards, Rt . 14:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! We all make mistakes. :) Maser ( Talk!) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You got )'s instead of }'s? - Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I appear to be being wiki-stalked by two other editors. One of them may have stopped after I challenged him but this one is positively threatening. My carefully written objection to the proposed re-listing of this as a "Good Article" gets the kind of unpleasant triviality I've had a lot from this editor. I'm sure you'd prefer that you deal with it. PR talk 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually the editor who listed those RFA's opposed mine, so it's not much of a cabal :) -- Melburnian ( talk) 10:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Mhh, I wish I had some of these lovely Jelly Beans. Hope you're feeling better :) Qst 13:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
the protection to
popcorn has expired, is it safe to remove the template. Nevermind. some one took it off. --
Antonio Lopez
(talk)
02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Ryan — I've done some work for the selected biography bit and in the news bit of the Portal, however, I haven't linked all of the news to their story on the BBC, because I cannot find the links anywhere, as it quite old news now, but I'll have another look at that shortly. If to want to discuss it more, I'm on IRC, and will be for best part of the day. Qst 13:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I could not help noticing your lack of interest in this topic as your last evanescent comment was made almost a month ago. If you do not have time, just state it clearly and I will simply quit this useless process which, so far, is a mere remake of the meaningless quarrel I had for three months with user:Azukimonaka. -- Flying tiger ( talk) 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, «Real Life» is sure better than anonymously editing or being involved in edit wars with anonymous teenagers from the other side of the world... OK, I 'll wait for some time. -- Flying tiger ( talk) 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
RoryReloaded (
talk) 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.
-- RoryReloaded ( talk) 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 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) 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks as if I'm being wiki-stalked eg here. Being almost entirely muzzled as regards editing articles, I've brought some historical/factual matters to people's attention in TalkPages, always with fairly considerable care that the points I'm making are defendable. I fail to see the point of following me round and denying the points I'm making. I find it particularily disturbing that "Jewish" is being inserted into my statements in an apparent attempt to make my points appear racist, when it would appear that it is my challenger who wishes to link the Jews to actions of extremely dubious morality and legality. PR talk 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Ryan, I am not a big believer in off-wiki communication. The progression of our debate in the "Giano restricted" thread was entirely predictable, as was the reaction to that thread on Giano's and Bishonen's part, and I might have been motivated to forewarn you had I thought it would be left to the two of us relative lightweights to battle it out. I had genuinely hoped that other editors would appear with alternate perspectives, but that did not happen, nor did any of the arbitrators choose to add their comments. Perhaps I am not the only one who saw the train wreck coming.
There is no use crying over spilled milk. I strongly encourage you to take a step back and start looking at the "big picture" of the project. It does not matter how many sockpuppets edit, as long as they edit well. It does not matter if people are universally polite if they cannot put a grammatically correct sentence together. It really, really doesn't matter if people are friends and live in love and harmony. This project is all about the encyclopedia. Yes, it needs deletion of junk and handholding of newbies and some interpersonal relations stuff. But it does not survive without quality writing. Giano and Bishonen are the most visible of the people who have left over this current round of nonsense. I personally am aware of several others. This isn't strictly your fault, it is even more the fault of those who stood by and let you put forth an argument that was so clearly focused on putting behaviour over productivity. There were a lot of people watching our exchange today. Many of them have had their suspicions confirmed. Risker ( talk) 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ryan Postlethwaite, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey RP, I've made a few changes per the FPOC for the tennis portal. If you disagree with them, no problem. Rt . 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the image problem, but you still need to protect the image with appropriate templates so that the Main Page isn't vandlaized. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, I apologize for my misstep in bringing RFAR issues to your talk page. It appeared to me at the time that that section of the RFAR had become a conversation between the two of us and might best be off the RFAR itself; it's clear that you did not share my thinking there, and I am sorry to have presumed that you might.
As to Mercury, he and I have had an ongoing conversation for some time on and off-wiki that has covered a lot of topics and, I believe, has established a level of mutual respect that may not be immediately transparent on-wiki. I can appreciate that someone unaware of our past discussions (particularly the off-wiki ones) might have found tonight's one a little odd. I shall leave it at that.
I've taken your advice and not bothered reading any further edits to the RFAR since the issue was raised; instead I have returned to my work on a partial rewrite and re-referencing of an existing article. It will (if all goes well) be ready for merging in a day or two. I have never tried to do that, and the only advice I have received is "ask an admin to do it for you." Could you please advise me where I should go when I am ready to insert the upgraded content to the existing article, while incorporating the history from my userpage? Thanks. Risker ( talk) 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I am the person who originally wrote the Wiki entry on Charles E. Spahr. It was my first entry, and I was and still am very green at writing these.
I have physical proof of everything that I wrote about Charlie with the exception of two small items that he told me personally (we are friends). The problem is that the materials are copyrighted, and I cannot post them on a site on the Internet for reference. I stopped working on the entry as his lawyer threatened me. My Constitution guarantees me the right to write, but one must be able to defend oneself if attacked through the legal system. I am a person of limited financial means and would have no way of doing so. Therefore, the entry sits out there unfinished.
I am going to write an entry on "Wild Bill" Potter, a murdered Cleveland, Ohio, USA city councilman in 1931. Having researched his murder extensively, I have all of the associated Plain Dealer newspaper articles as well as his coroner's report. His homicide file is missing. The building that he was murdered in still exists. I would greatly appreciate your coaching as I write this second entry. My user name is dcicchel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcicchel ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what was wrong with the existing dropdown box that is actually provided by the mediawiki software? — Random832 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
On a personal note, thank you for all your help and kindness this year, Ryan. I appreciated it. :) Acalamari 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the best place to report an edit war and ask for assistance? ANI? Or, is there a better place that will get more immediate attention? Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The contentious issues are being worked out now on the talk page, and some other editors have gotten involved with good suggestions, so I think the page protection can be lifted. If you would be so kind. And, thanks again for your assistance. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I wanted to get another evaluation from you, as I've gotten an offer from User:Wizardman to be nominated for RfA. I just wanted to see if you thought I was ready, or what I can do to get ready. If you think I'm ready to be nominated, you could talk with Wizardman about a co-nom. User:Rudget also expressed interest in nominating me a few weeks ago, so he might also be interested. But I leave it up to you: if you feel I'm ready, I'll go up for adminship. If not, I'll keep working at it. Thanks! J-ſtan Contribs User page 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Oh yes, a belated happy holidays to you Ryan. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OK I really screwed the pooch. How long do you think it will take for a devo to unscrew? JERRY talk contribs 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
We have a user CarolSpears ( talk · contribs) who has become unhappy with the way her odd edits are being handled. You can see much of the discussion on her talk page under the heading #Hieracium albertinum. Part of it is simply that she has decided each page on Hieracium should open with a quote (e.g. Hieracium lachenalii). Part of it is that she quotes she is choosing are sometimes unrelated to the article, such as the quote about dead puppies ( [1]).
Now she is adding "not a part of project project" banners to WP:PLANTS ( [2]) and to "her" articles on Hieracium (e.g. [3], [4], etc.), and has added an odd gallery to this talk page ( [5]).
She has deleted comments critical of her work ( [6]) and posted this nomination to DYK ( [7]) which is a link to a discussion on a talk page.
Frankly, I'm at a loss for how to handle this. I did post a vandalism1 warning for the WP:PLANTS edit, but the rest makes no sense to me. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been his admin coach lately -;) — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I noticed these semi-related rollback pages floating around. Maybe a move to a less-similar sounding title if the current proposal go through?
and just some cleanup in the user-space if your interested:
MBisanz talk 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
I noticed you haven't had one for a few months, so here you go! Seriously though, this is for being a great editor, an excellent admin and constantly making me laugh :D Keep up the excellent work, man! Majorly ( talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, as you're listed as an assistant for changing usernames, I wondered if I could ask a question. When I joined, I wanted the username 'Islander', however it was already taken, so I settled for 'TheIslander'. I now notice that User:Islander is dormant: it has no edits to it's name, and no logs. It therefore qualifies for usurption. I considered doing this, but decided against it because of the hassel with my old signature being plastered all over the place, but have since realised that this could be solved by simply reclaiming the 'TheIslander' account, and setting it up as a doppleganger, which just redirects to 'Islander'. Is this a good/bad idea? Also, one further question: would all user pages be ported over to 'Islander', including my sandbox ( User:TheIslander/labs) and talk page archives? Basically, I'd like to usurp an account, but am worried about the implications, and can't find them listed anywhere in an easy to understand format. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated :). TheIslander 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[8] Do tell. -- Charitwo talk 15:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey RP, sorry to bother you again. I've informed Rlevse about my editing patterns over the next week or so, and believe if I could, transclude the RFA tonight? Would you be able to write your co-nom now? I know this is really short notice, but I appreciate your offer the same. Best regards, Rt . 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
All said. Acalamari 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if it was okay if I copied the design of your userpage to use on mine. It's really nice. Thanks. -- ~ Ryan A. Taylor || talk || contribs 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems someone noticed my tennis officials article!
I saw that you have added a link from the portal page, as well as choosing it for January's selected article. I know it isn't the most engaging of topics, or one with the widest appeal, but as an umpire myself, I didn't think the one section in the Tennis article did it justice.
I'm still relatively new to wikipedia, and I have made it one of my goals to take this article on to at least GA status. I added it to the project's request for assessment page, but judging by the queue that might not mean much. I'm looking for a peer review and some advice on improving the article, and it would be nice to have the perspective of someone who isn't as familiar with the subject to give it a look over.
Your help would be greatly appreciated!-- Greenguy1090 ( talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've offered at the proposal to notify all the prior proposal commentors with talk page messages using AWB is someone could write a succint message. But now it looks like this proposal could close and lead to a new one.
Thanks. MBisanz talk 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there's been some discussion about your recent edits to MediaWiki:Sysop.js on its talk page. Could you please have a look there and comment? — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 08:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Ryan, my internet is being a right pain the arse and I can't get on to IRC, and I need to ask you something, so please check your email inbox in a few minutes. Qst 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, -- El on ka 04:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created most of the instructions for salting in User:Acalamari/Test, and it can be moved to Wikipedia:New admin school/Salting whenever necessary. Would you mind reading what I've written to fix some errors I might have made, or add some things I might have missed? Also, I decided to cover transclusion as well as the "protect" button feature. Thanks Ryan! Acalamari 20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, greetings. Just saw your new RFAR. I'm glad to see somebody with your experience trying to quiet the battleground. But I'm wondering whether the RFAR will be perceived as too broad. There are numerous I-P articles at various stages of contention. (For instance, you didn't mention Battle of Jenin or Palestinian people.) An Arb case could then draw in too many parties, etc. Perhaps you have a way to narrow the scope, either with a focus on specific articles or individuals? Or maybe an RfC would help engender a conversation about how to modulate the situation in a broad swath of articles? I'm not objecting to your RFAR per se, just trying to point out objections you are likely to face. Thanks and good luck. HG | Talk 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There could be circumstances under which I wish to state that, as best I'm aware, my mentor has had no reason for concern with my editorial conduct since the start of his mentorship of me. Or, certainly, none have been brought to my attention. Would I be correct in that regard? (You may feel I've been demanding and time-consuming and perhaps even awkward on your TalkPage, of course, but I assume you expected something like that when putting yourself forwards as your mentor). PR talk 11:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ping. :) Rudget . 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please remove me as a party to a dispute that I'm not involved in; Thanks. Itzse ( talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[9]!!! Acalamari 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to you at this TalkPage. I think the nonsense has gone on quite long enough. This is 8 editors now held at bay for 16 months by a single, hugely problematical editor who cannot understand consensus and is totally unable to understand the use of sources (or even electric fence policies such as BLP). PR talk 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I think HG raises some good points about your RFAR below -but I also see yours as well, so let's see what happens. One notable exception to the the list of involved parties is User:Timeshifter -IMO he's caused major disruption on Second Intifada and I think his behaviour needs to be examined as well. <<-armon->> ( talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ryan :). Could you please take a look over at the 3RR noticeboard - a user is trying to get me blocked for removing a picture which doesn't qualify for fair use. Cheers ;). TheIslander 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(reset) Okay, where do we go from here. Shall I repost my 3RR report under LINK rather than Norwich and P/Boro. Three reverts is a clear violation (and you will also note the timestamp on the talk page).
"Logo of the Link Interchange Network Ltd. Arundel House, 1 Liverpool Gardens, Worthing, West Sussex. BN11 1SL
Use in the article Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, which is a member of LINK, is believed to be fair, within the meaning of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.30 (1988 cap.48) in the United Kingdom and the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Pub.L. 94-553) in the United States
The exhibition of low-resolution images of logos, to illustrate the subject in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell product or said image. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The further use of this image on Wikipedia is not believed to disadvantage the copyright holder in any way"
is a rationale. Understand now..? Chrisieboy ( talk) 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
In the edit, I reverted a reference to a current event happaning in Australia where an indian cricket called an aboriginal australian cricket a monkey (a reference to sub human) the photo could be very insulting to some people and is generally not in good taste. I am undoing your revert.-- AresAndEnyo ( talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaait Symonds is aboriginal? Viridae Talk 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This! I've just watchlisted it, so you'll get my help there now! Acalamari 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would have liked to thank the person who granted my request for rollback at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback. However, based on your comment, "Done by someone...." it seems that it wasn't you and I'll never know who actually gave it to me! But thank you anyway for being so kind. -- Mysdaao talk 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I prefer TW over the new rollback feature. Would you mind removing it from my rights? Obviously, if you could note that I requested this, and it wasn't "taken away". - Rjd0060 ( talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You note that the devs are currently considering the consensus on the rollback proposal. How does someone contact the devs with points to consider? Hiding T 22:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, just a quick thank you for granting me rollback: I'll be sure not to let you down in your judgement of me. -- Geoff Riley ( talk) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit faster than TW. Thanks. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this, regardless of how short-lived it was. There really should have been guidelines in place before rollback was implemented though. -- ALLSTAR echo 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Heres to you —Remember, the Edit will be with you, Always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hey Ryan,
Just a short note to offer my congratulations on the way you've handled the rollback debate. Your guidance of the whole thing has been exemplary and is a credit to you and confirms the trust the community has in you as an Admin. You've maintained your cool and handled even the most difficult participants with grace, style and poise.
What could have quite easily turned into the Mother of All Flamewars has remained controlled, constructive and positive largely due to your leadership and example.
Well done! Have you ever consider becoming a 'crat?
Xdenizen ( talk) 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I added Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback to Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Can you help by advertising the practice place in a few more areas? Unless you think the current number (350+) will overwhelm that page? Most of those being granted the tool will know how to use it, but some won't and this should help them. Now - I'm off to start a sweepstake on when the number of rollbackers will overtake the number of admins... Carcharoth ( talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have requested arbitration in the matter of the consensus for rollback. Although it is not an arbitration "against" anyone, I think it fair to inform you as your name has been mentioned.-- Docg 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | 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) 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, Would you mind having a look at the Large Hadron Collider article, User:Homocion is continually adding unproven theories to this article. Most of it is fringe theory and is not verified, if you read here, you will see we have asked for the usual verifiability, and his arguments have been refuted by a number of editors. I left this message on his talk page, explaining the position as a final warning which was ignored. Now I can't use any of my admin tools etc, as it would be a conflict of interest as I work at CERN, but I think if you look through the talk page, at all times I have only asked for what is required by any information added to the encyclopedia. I have gone for third party opinion, and some of the guys from wikiproject physics have come in and have been ignored. Do I go for mediation next, as I've used all the tool I know of for dispute resolution, with the exception of RfC which is why I went to the physicists who would understand it better. Thoughts please? cheers Khu kri 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor you once blocked is being discussed here. Your input might be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_John_Celona David in DC ( talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to make sure you saw my second reply (the first part, not the second part, since the diff includes someone else's edit) on the request for arbcom page. I also want to further extend my apologies to you and others about this. While I think a lot of this happened because of the nature of Wikipedia, I still find myself feeling really bad about it. And Doc, while his frustration is understandable, shouldn't really be saying some of the stuff he's saying about you. I'm also sorry for the things that can't be explained as the "nature of Wikipedia", such as anything I might have said to you that was uncalled for, like my comment on the technical village pump. You've handled yourself better than I did, better than many of us did, in this situation. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The portal you nominated at featured portal candidates on 21 December 2007 has been promoted to featured portal status. Well done. You can view eventual comments at the nomination page. Regards, Chris.B ( talk) 14:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
NHRHS2010 (
talk ·
contribs) 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.
Happy Wikipedia day! NHRHS2010 talk 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the move. :) I was getting ready to do that, but you beat me to it. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to write it too. :) Acalamari 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)