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 25/03/2010-26/04/2012 26/04/2012-present

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

1RR restriction no longer necessary

Hi Ryan,
This is going back some time, but about 3 and a half years ago, you placed a 1RR restriction on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident now titled (Climatic Research Unit email controversy) due to the constant edit-warring over the article. The edit-warring has seemed to have stopped a long time ago. In fact, no one's even edited the article over a month and there have only been 14 edits for the year so far. I don't think the 1RR restriction is necessary anymore. I started a discussion on the article talk page about lifting the 1RR:
Does the article still need 1RR restriction?
Only one editor opposed it but they changed their mind when I explained that the ArbCom descretionary sactions would still apply. Anyway, can you please lift the 1RR restriction? If, for some reason, the edit-warring resumes, we can always add it back. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Hey - Thanks for the message. It's great to see things have improved on the page. I've lifted the sanction and left a note on the talk page. Hopefully things will continue as they have been. Thanks again, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

• Op-ed: Two responses to the 'Tragedy of Wikipedia's Commons'

• Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles of the last week

• In the media: South African learners want Wikipedia; Editing of Israel topics

• WikiProject report: The Volunteer State: WikiProject Tennessee

• News and notes: Swedish Wikipedia's millionth article leads to protests; WMF elections—where are all the voters?

• Featured content: Cheaper by the dozen

• Discussion report: Citations, non-free content, and a MediaWiki meeting

• Technology report: May engineering report published

• Arbitration report: The Farmbrough amendment request—automation and arbitration enforcement

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad close

Bad close on Imagery of nude celebrities. This was just relisted for additional input and you slammed the door shut as "no consensus." There was no cost in letting things play out for another week to see if consensus did emerge. If there's no clear consensus and you're not able to make an obvious policy-based call and things are only minutes hours into the first extension, the sage play is to butt out. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just investigating Deletion Review on this and it said to go to the closing administrator first. Could I con you into taking down the no consensus close and allowing the second listing to play out??? Or should I seek a relisting at DRV? Carrite (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with you Tim. I will admit that I misread the timing of the relisting from Sandstein, but even so it was quite clear that the debate was totally polarised between two connflicting camps (as I noted in my closing rationale). I felt confident in closing the debate without extending it. I believe it would be highly unlikely that this would be overturned at DRV, however you are more than welcome to try. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way - Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, rather than going straight to DRV - It's certainly a courteous thing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)