User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite

Archive

Dates:

30/10/2006-07/12/2006 07/12/2006-24/01/2007 24/01/2007-18/02/2007 18/02/2007-02/03/2007 02/03/2007-28/03/2007 28/03/2007-09/05/2007 09/05/2007-31/05/2007 31/05/2007-20/06/2007 20/06/2007-14/07/2007 14/07/2007-13/09/2007 13/09/2007-20/10/2007 20/10/2007-18/11/2007 18/11/2007-20/12/2007 20/12/2007-25/01/2008 25/01/2008-21/02/2008 21/02/2008-13/04/2008 13/04/2008-24/06/2008 24/06/2008-27/08/2008 27/08/2008-13/01/2009 13/01/2009-21/04/2009 21/04/2009-16/10/2009 16/10/2009-25/03/2010 25/03/2010-present

ED

Go to Encyclopedia Dramatica You're on it.

And before you ask: NO! this doesn't mean I'm returning, I'm mooving on (or up, to me) to Fanfiction

—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) ^{(drop me a line)} 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

As far as I'm aware the evidence I posted was 990 words, the only extension has been responses to comments by others. I was under the impression that responses to comments by others did not come under the 1000 word limit. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. The word limit is for your entire section, so all responses come within the word limit. Ideally, responses shouldn't even be on the main evidence page, they should be on the talk page so they can be discussed. Some users post responses on the main evidence page to highlight their points and give them more attention - the only downside of that is that you have less space for actual evidence. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved to talk page, all OK? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent - very much appreciated Justin. Thanks for acting quickly. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all your efforts to keep the case pages in good order, but could you please let me know what pages I need to consult to make sure I've reviewed all the on-wiki statements and evidence before I post Workshop proposals and a Proposed Decision. Of course, the case page and its talkpage, the evidence page and its talkpage, but has anything been subpaged or moved anywhere else? Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brad. When I refactor the pages, I move the evidence I've removed to a user subpage and link to it from the evidence section I've removed it from. The evidence is still linked to prominently so it's unlikely you'll miss it. For example; I removed evidence here, placed it at User:Ecemaml/Arbitration evidence and then linked it back to the evidence section here. I don't think it's in my remit to just go around arbitrarily removing evidence so I think this is a better solution. Are you okay with me doing it like this? As I said, it's unlikely you'll miss anything as the evidence is there and well linked to. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as I and the other arbitrators can readily find everything, we should be all right. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Full support

While I fully support your block of the editor highking, I am wondering do you mean indef, it says you have done that, he is disruptive but you mentioned 24 hours, I fully understand if you are extending. Block log here Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops - it was only meant to be 24 hours. I'll change it now. Thanks for spotting that! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Theatre Dependere

There were 3 articles listed for deletion. WP:Articles for deletion/Theatre Dependere. I'm wondering why the other two weren't deleted as they are all part of the same AfD. Thanks. Clubmarx (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed them - I've gone ahead and deleted both of the other articles as well now. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Clubmarx (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC) X2 instead of spamming your page with TB's. Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

[1]: Somehow you wiped out my submission. Woogee (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I use a script and obviously something went weird. Sorry about that. Is it all fixed now? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the bot which makes sure that all of the steps are followed, took care of it.  :) Woogee (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

HighKing

Ok he got sucked into a edit war and his block was justified, But he has never socked before and the IP concerned is located in Germany not Ireland. I think thats a bad call --Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering the IP made exactly the same edits HK was making just after he was blocked, it seems clear that the IP was HK. I'll contact a CU though just to double check. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, if he has socked I'll give up on him but it needs to be proved. There are other editors (now blocked) who use IP socks to delete BI so I suspect it was one of them. --Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that, its appreciated --Snowded ^TALK 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Ryan. Would you fix up HighKing's block. It's erroneously set to expire 'tommorow'. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:67.180.84.52

Hi. You declined to block an IP I had reported at AN3, saying that the editor had not continued reverting after the 3RR warning, but it turns out that this is not the case.

My 3RR warning is timestamped at 00:12[2]. The IP reverted at 00:13[3]. Another editor re-instated it at 00:13[4], and the IP reverted the warning for the second time at 00:14[5]. His last (6th) reversion on the article itself was at 00:20[6], 6 minutes after he had reverted the warning for the second time.

You may still feel that a block is not warranted, but I did want to bring this to your attention. Also, this IP has edit warred in this fashion three times in the last couple of days: this current case, the one I reported just beneath it,[7] and here. At the very least, I would think this pattern of editing would merit a warning. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I see - Sorry I missed that. He's been warned sufficiently now - I think it's too stale now to take action. If you see the IP do another revert, ping me again here and I'll take action. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the fifth revert on the article Wang Guowei

I don't quite know what to do about this editor. They do revert a good amount of straright our vandalism, but they also tag a lot of short articles with PRODs, speedy deletes and AfD, without a lot of regard for those articles which have the potential to grow into something reasonable, and those which are obviously not valuable to the project. When reverted, he has a tendency to blind revert make, he doesn't often use edit summaries, and he routinely deletes warnings form his talk page without comment.

I think what bothers me is a serious lack of judgment about the quality of new articles and his knee-jerk response to being disagreed with. Add that to the fact that the IP jumped into life a week or so ago with apparently full knowledge of how to get around Wikipedia, and I get concerned. I can't spend all my time checking his edits and fixing his mistakes, and yet nothing they do is egregiously bad. I hope that perhaps a short block and a comment from an admin might help them stay on track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had an exchange on my talk page, but I don't know if it will help any. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it back to my attention - I've blocked them for 24 hours - hopefully they'll chill a little bit after the block expires. Keep me posted. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

• Wikipedia-Books: Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts

• News and notes: Explicit image featured on Wikipedia's main page

• In the news: Campaign for video, costs of crowdsourcing, iPhone app, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: Percy Jackson Task Force

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare, Trusilver, Hell in a Bucket, and my bleeding eye sockets

What in the world is going on with ArbCom? I can't make heads or tails of it! Any chance you get it? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... where shall I start?!

• Brews ohare was initially topic banned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Remedies.
• Tznkai extended the topic ban (which can be found here) to cover the Wikipedia namespace.
• Brews ohare broke this topic ban and was blocked for a week by Sandstein.
• Trusilver unblocked him early (I think there was only a few hours to go, but he did it because of the principle).
• Trusilver was desysopped for that by ArbCom because last year ArbCom enacted a motion that said administrators were not allowed to reverse aribtration enforcement blocks.
• Hell in a Bucket et al. have been kicking up a fuss left, right and centre about it all. If they'd have been advocating in moderation, it wouldn't have been too bad, but they've taken it to excess. Now ArbCom are voting to ban them for advocating for Brews.

Hope that helps explain things!

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's probably the best summary of an unwieldy situation I've ever seen on Wikipedia. That's exactly what I needed and wanted to see, and it clears things up for me quite nicely. Thank you so much! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

At least fix it

You cut out my first message. It starts with JBsupreme's message now. Phoenix of9 08:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Phoenix of9

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Zazaban (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Xnacional starting it up again

I don't want to let things get out of hand again, but Xnacional immediately started reverting to his preferred (and incorrect) version when he returned from his block. I've restored the consensus version, but I doubt this is the end of it from him. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What you've described is an on-going edit war and one which you're still participating. One revert over the issue is an example of "be bold, revert and then discuss", but given you've made multiple reverts yourself, you're still part of the problem. To be perfectly honest, you're lucky you aren't both blocked again. Consider this a warning. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ani

You are being discussed at ANI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket's reverting and templating

Hi there, is this revert restoring a personal question and this edit involving templating the regulars valid? these three edits seem to imply that my removal of the comment was valid. He also leaves the misleading edit summary, "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments", which is untrue. I noticed that you received similar behaviour from him. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 273° 15' 0" NET 18:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted things out with Hell in a Bucket, but just to confirm, was my removal valid? Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 278° 49' 15" NET 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing what happens when people ask isn't it? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)