Many thanks --Rumping (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you look like you've been doing some great work - Keep it up! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Article List of Dragon Ball special abilities and for my own reference. Thank you. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Thank you very much. The article is good. I have to go for now. Thanks again. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long am I allowed to keep that article? Earthbendingmaster (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weekly Delivery

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) 08:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I argue my case on the page for my case which I linked into the rollback request page. I can copy my arguements over there if you would like? As I said in my comments, if there is any doubt as to my motives then people should at least wait on the sockpuppetry cases outcome before making a decision on Porcupine. While it is true that my concern was triggred by behavior directly relating to me, I still do honestly have a concern about giving rollback priviledges to someone so hasty in his judgement... isn't that the most importnat concern with giving this feature to a user?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it's a simple tool and has nothing to do with your case. Your comments seemed more like you were trying to bring your case to WP:RFR, which really really is not the place for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that wasn't my intent. I realize you don't beleive me but at least I've written it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, perhaps I was reading too much into the guidelines for allowing rollback priviledges. Perhpas I didn't need to comment there.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna nom myself —Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Seth, please reconsider, you really aren't ready for adminship yet. You need to edit more regularly and actually do constructive things on the encyclopedia like write content or do admin tasks such as new page patrolling or looking out for vandalism. I fear that you may be hurt if you entered RfA now. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too late :)—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 17:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan. I hope you feel that the ArbCom proceeding has been constructive. Thanks again for taking the initiative.

As you may have notice, thanks to suggestions at the Workshop, we started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I'm writing to ask if you would join as a member. In effect, by virtue of your mentoring responsibility, you are already making an important contribution within the scope of the Collaboration. So, by joining you wouldn't be commiting more than you are already doing. For our part, it would be beneficial to show who else is already working toward this mission and, in particular, to help build up a critical mass of uninvolved parties who are trying to quiet that battleground. What do you think? You can sign up here?

Thanks very much. Hope this finds you well, HG | Talk 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the arbcom is close to an end so I'm slowly returning to a few of the disputes I set aside.

Since I believe my understanding of the Saeb Erekat article is reliable source based, I am interested in pursuing dispute resolution or perhaps just convince you that you've missed something along the way.

I've continued the discussion here.

-- Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I will be finished with the article on January 21. Thank you for your help. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of current NASCAR races, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current NASCAR races. Thank you. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, portal featured. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a few minutes, please visit MedComWiki and give a glance at the version of the introduction now under consideration. I asked each of the participants, on their user pages, to do the same. Many thanks, Welland R (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out that you blocked the user indefinitely for disruption while I was typing a message to him to try make him see sense. To check, I gather that he did no valid reversions? The computer I'm currently using was too cumbersome to go through his history. --Kizor 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he was randomly warning people, reverting people that were reverting vandalism - I've just had to go through and rollback all his edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured; just curious. Thank you for that. --Kizor 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rescuing my talk page from Henry....I guess I'm special now that I've been vandalized :) Legotech (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan,

I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images.

Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I know you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its meaning. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, let me have a think about it and I'll get back to you. Thanks for the note. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. But his whole userspace has become a bit of a clusterfuck, so sorting it out is a bit of a nightmarre in itself. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell Adam, I reverted myself as it looks like you were right! Although to be honest, I can't make much sense of it! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's an admin so he can sort it out himself ;) (I'm partly jesting; if it's still a mess in the morning I will fix it up, but I'm a bit lead-eyed now, and he should know better than any of us what goes where). Three lessons I guess: 1) don't use silly tricks on your user page, 2) don't revert each other like crazy, 3) and most importantly: kingboyk don't be an eejit. :/ Nite. --kingboyk (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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