User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite

Archive

Dates:

30/10/2006-07/12/2007 07/10/2006-24/12/2007 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

Edit War II

Hi Ryan, R.K.Z again. Listen, we got a major edit war in the Family Guy "Meet The Quagmires article, an editor is maitaining a vice grip on how the article should be displayed. He is constantly removing the "Cultural Referecnes", yet does'nt seem to bother doing the same with the other FG episodes that list the same things. He's also putting other editors down citing "procedures" and "examples". Lock the article so neither an editor, vet or new, can touch it until we sort out this problem.

Dr. R.KZ. 04:26 267h May 2007

Update: Well, as far as I can tell, our troll of an editor is being blasted pretty much by almost everybody incolved in the article, and a reader has expressed he cannot learn anything from the reverts this editor made. What was his response? "If you don't like it, leave Wikipedia"

Yes, he told a concerned reader who could'nt find any information that HE COULD TAKE A FLYING LEAP, how professional is THAT?

I suggest you tell him to back off and leave the FG articles alone. All of them, and even temp or perma-ban him if he keeps reverting the "Cultural References". He's clearly unprofessional

Dr. R.KZ. 15:31 28th May 2007

Update: Lock all FG episodes to protect the "Cultural References" from being deleted by Homefill

Dr. R.KZ. 21:07 28th May 2007

You sockpuppot!

Looks like this is your sockpuppot Ryan Postlethwaite and I will report you.

I always knew you were a sockpuppot, Ryan! Come on, confess now, don't make things harder on you... Phaedriel - 16:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I got so upset when he thought Ryan was my sockpuppet! He's been here longer than I have, so wouldn't I actually be his... or something?

I forgot about making that account soley to get two admin flags, I haven't got any sockpuppets, I promise!! :-). Anyway, back to the RfA, it just annoys me that we put such ridiculous standards on RfA's when some users have obviously proved themselves capable. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks again for such support, even if your are presumed to be my sockpuppet... hmwithtalk 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, that accusation is one of the worst assumptions I've seen for a while. Sockpuppot indeed... Majorly (talk | meet) 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting Mr William Henry Harrison has been with us a total of 7 days, and he makes the acusation :P Majorly (talk | meet) 16:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that one, I thought I might have pissed off the wrong person until I checked his logs :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say--William Henry Harrison 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That you are a sockpuppet. Or at the very least your opinions should be discounted becaouse you are so very new. "New" users don't vote on an RfA on their 4th edit. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you should look at the controversy that surrounded that vote and why I did that with my fourth edit. I don't appreciate going through here and see this attack page against me. Especially empathsizing a comment that I crossed out.--William Henry Harrison 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a pretty bad thing to accuse an admin of don't you think? Anyway, users don't normally discover RfA until at least a few weeks. You're clearly not new... and you haven't been attacked. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is an attack page and I am notifying the admins. I think you people need to grow up and get some maturity.--William Henry Harrison 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually everyone who's contributed to this thread is an admin except hmwith. WjBscribe 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, noted the suggestion Mr Harrison :) Majorly (talk | meet) 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison has been blocked. He had a few self-admitted socks also (one the made a Holocaust denial statement on a talk page). And WJB, now it's everyone except hmwith and R :) --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan's a sockpuppet??? *gasp* Maybe his sockpuppeteer is this person! Block her!!!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 19:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Could I get an Abbreviation of this? WReform Group 23:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC

I am Ryanpostlethwait on freenode. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You should now be able to get into #wikipedia-en-admins. Message me if you have trouble... WjBscribe 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Drop by IRC if you have a sec. WjBscribe 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in #wikipedia-en Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. Are you possibly on the admin's channel? I got on once before but can't remember how to get back on!! Can you help? - Alison ☺ 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (embarrassed :) )

Thank you

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Cheers, Sean William 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No probs ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:WikiPiss

Might be an idea to give him a talkpage block; it's pretty clear he's only here to piss in our pool anyway. Which is mildly apt, given his name... HalfShadow 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just seen, I've protected the talk page [1] - cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Usernameblocked-vandal}}

I have rewritten this template to make it clearer and have made other changes but I think it should possibly also be renamed to make its use clearer, can you think of any good names? I was thinking Template:Usernameblocked-badfaith or Template:UsernameHardBlocked since it would be used with account creation disabled. If you do rename it can you update this for me too? Thanks a lot, GDonato (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

After much effort, I've finally done it! I've left the redirect in place for the old timers! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating 2 double redirects in the process ;-) (honestly you should read the move sucess page!) Don't worry, I fixed them. Thanks for your help, GDonato (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• It was worth it. GDonato (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta

Cheers fella for the revert, obviously I'm doing summat right. ^Khukri 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it was my pleasure squire ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Really?

Well, I don't know if you came to that belief independently or just found Slim's repeated attacks on me persuasive, but you are entitled to believe I'm some horrid vengeful person if you would like. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly the attempted perma-block has nothing to do with admin abuse, and I don't know who you think is alleging that. I sympathize with PalestineRemembered because if some respected editor came up with some crazy half-truth to try and get me banned tomorrow, I'd want someone sympathizing with me. I'm sorry if you can't ever foresee yourself in similar straits. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan,

Just wondering what the status is on the K2 Network page. I hope your exams went well. :)

Xandamere 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are people too

Yes, this is the reincarnation of Uga Man but I come with a different message. I am sorry to you and to the entire wikipedia community because I now see that what I did was wrong. It was all just immaturity on my part and I have to learn from experiences like this to grow up. I have no plans to destroy wikipedia and I hope that no one else does. I wish everybody here good luck and I hope that the growth of wikipedia continues. Just remember that sockpuppets are people too, they have family, friends, and feelings just like the rest of you. We aren't criminals or thugs but just misguided individuals that want to stir up problems and cause confrontation. I apologize whole heartedly and just wish that I will get forgiveness even though I don't expect it.--209.244.187.183 04:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: nudge

I took care of it. The only reason that I didn't sooner is that I wasn't home. Thanks for reminding me! hmwithtalk 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with exams!

Hi Ryan :) Noticed you were busy studying for exams (the WikiBreak template on your userpage) so I'm just stopping by to say good luck with them, I'm sure you'll do great and dont forget this place when on your break, (by the way incase you forgot its me: Tellyaddict but with my new account). Good luck!! --The Sunshine Man 10:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, can I kindly ask you what you think of my new userpage, is the green to in your face. The Sunshine Man 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:209.11.242.250

Ryan; first of all, my apologies for overlooking your message about this user. I have recently been away for a short time, and I think that your note must have been submerged among others.

As to the actual subject matter of your comment, it is fair to say that this user, while only making a few edits, has shown no urge to edit sensibly. If you would like to go to his block log, you will in fact see that my block has been removed by another admin, and one of five years substituted. --Anthony.bradbury 17:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The admin in question was User:Zzuuzz, who usually knows what he's doing.--Anthony.bradbury 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, the problem is that IP addresses can switch to different people, you talk about one person not editing constructively, but we don't know it's just one person, it could switch to another user tomorrow and they find themselves blocked, we have to be very conservative with our IP blocks - 24 hours wherever possible unless it's in extreme circumstances. In reply to Zzuuzz's block increase - well that wasn't for vandalism, that was because it was an open proxy, and open proxies aren't allowed to edit on wikipedia - that's why it was increased, I'm not sure if you can tell which IP is an open proxy and which one isn't - I know for sure I can't. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, certainly I cannot tell who is an open proxy, but the fact remains that this IP address is blocked for five years. You say that IP users should be blocked only for very short times; but Ryan, if you watch, you see IP addresses being blocked very commonly, by experienced admins, for a week, a month, three months or occasionally six months. I have often picked up a report on WP:AIV, checked on the user, gone to block him/her for a short time and found that User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me or someone has put a long block on ahead of me. And they can always request unblock. So far, none of the users whom I have blocked have done so. And I do mean none. I will take notice of what you say; I am just pointing out that not everyone appears to take the same line. But I thank you for your comments, which I will continue to take notice of.--Anthony.bradbury 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Look

Manchester is a bent deprived place, let them come to Sunderland instead. Manchester is a town full of Man U glory hunters, which is so sad. Please reconsider everything for sunderland. 217.43.213.72 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Manu glory hunters maybe, but that's where it's happening I'm affraid, but feel free to organise your own sunderland meetup. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC

maybe but I would need another wikipedian to organise it, sunderland is free from gun crimes, and I will be sure to look through the Wikipedians in tyne and wear. and the wikipedians in county durham. Just so the city can get some credit. I got an email off Jimbo too. 217.43.213.72 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You got an email off Jimbo? Interesting, what about? I can assure you Manchester is safe enough, but if you really want to organise one, I don't mind helping you - might help if you signed in though. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I never created an account, and I am not really keen on meeting up, I just want to help organise one, and such, if a page could be created called Wikipedia:meetup/Sunderland thanks. 217.43.213.72 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Sunderland now created for you :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, a meetup in Manchester? Why wasn't I told? Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Entrez! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't do bars though. I'm not old enough to drinkez les beers. (Is there an age limit for meetups anyway?) Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Awwww, well the main thing we're doing is going for a chinese, you could come to that? No age limit at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably might be able to come along, but only on the Saturday - I have a GCSE exam on the Friday :( Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this page. I will pull wikipedians in from Category:Wikipedians in County Durham and Category:Wikipedians in Tyne and Wear, cheers anyway. 217.43.213.72 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Posted 17 messages for the meetup. Should get some result. 217.43.213.72 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Ryan, you have e-mail. :) --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Hi, sorry for the slow reply. Haven't been logged in for a while. Thanks for your note. As it happens, I'm more workmanlike than "civil". I think the latter is all too often a cloak for nastiness. Good intent counts for more with me than a silver tongue. Also, some can take rougher handling than others--I don't see anything much wrong with talking to people in the way they feel comfortable with. Having bystanders bitch about your tone is annoying, in itself quite uncivil. The IRC thing? People gossip on IRC; they point fingers and slag others off. There's a tendency when someone is on the outer in IRC for participants to feel it's okay to badmouth them. When someone I don't know makes some comment or other about me, it's often because they read something on IRC. Grace Note 03:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Sorry, I couldn't hold it inside me anymore! NikoSilver 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, my spellings crap :-)! Editing other editors comments though? Should really press the block button! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 11:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a matter of correct spelling principal. NikoSilver 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least my spelling makes it onto your userpage! Ryan Postlethwaite 11:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Warriors for Innocence

Yeah, thank you so much for paying attention to my edit summary. Why delete it off hand? it is noteable, I have already been discussing it with other admins as to how to make that clear, and you go ahead and WP:BOLD while at the same time not checking the facts. Thank you so much for your consideration and thinking. WookMuff 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever, less of the sarcastic attitude though please. In case you didn't realise, I read the talk page of the artice, and in fact - I didn't delete it. If you get some sources for the article, I'll undelete it for you if you ask me nicely, but until then, it stays deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should I be less sarcastic? and If you didn't delete it, how can you undelete it? and If I ask nicely? How about no? Why should I ask nicely? I asked nicely if people would please not delete the article for a second time without first giving me a chance to get my references in order. Look how well that worked out. You don't appreciate my sarcasm, well I don't appreciate your belittling "ask nicely". I shouldn't have to ask someone nicely to revert an unnecessary deletion when I clearly stated that I just needed a little time and indeed, if you looked at MY talk page you would have seen I was already discussing this with an Admin. WookMuff 01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there's no admins on your talk page that your discussing with - you must be mistaken into thinking that they are. If I delete an artice, I can undelete it as well - it comes with the job, it's not lost forever. But unfortunately, since you've persisted to be rude, you've given up that ability to ask me to undelete the page for you. It was certainly not an unnecessary deletion, it meets out speedy deletion criteria of not showing any notability and it doesn't have any reliable sources in. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How have I persisted in being rude? By not dropping to my knees and begging your forgiveness? Sorry, I didn't realise that wikipedia demanded obeisance from its contributers to the almighty admins. And excuse me, I thought the person who previously deleted me was an admin, so there you go. Also, Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines, aren't you supposed to check for sources yourself before summarily deleting? C|Net's News.com.com is a real site, and I believe that they count for notability. I will apologize for my sarcasm, but if you can say with a straight face you weren't being rude then I will be surprised. WookMuff 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, jimfbleak IS an admin, so there you go... I guess YOU must have been mistaken. WookMuff 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have mail

Ryan, I have e-mailed you.--Anthony.bradbury 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And you have mail back :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You have mail again. DevAlt 08:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind responding to my mail please? DevAlt 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Golden Rule, Dev. Golden Rule...Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for that. It seems they vandalized User talk:Darthgriz98 (probably because they saw her message on my talk page) as well. However, this is a great edit summary! :) Acalamari 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, saw the edit summary - blocked for 2 weeks! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks! Acalamari 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete AfD nomination

Hey Ryan, what can be done (if anything) about this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Smart (abductee)? I think it exists solely for trolling and personal attacks on Newyorkbrad Lipsticked Pig 04:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been nominated properly now. Lipsticked Pig 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Ryan, I really am an admin (check my logs). I have some concerns about your comments about WfI deletion. It is for you to decide whether this article is notable, but your criteria should not include whether you have been asked nicely. Nor should you decide on the basis of whether the request is rude or not, it's the article that is the subject of assessment, not the editor. In my view, making decisions based on personal issues rather than content undermines your own position. jimfbleak 05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mi sombrero del idiota!

Yeah, sorry about my sarcasm and that, I just was very annoyed to wake up to having to defend the article for a second time, especially without much sleep. Bygones. WookMuff 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good good, at least we've sorted it out - let's hope we never have anything to disagree about again :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 09:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We've all been there - and your user page picture is a fine example to us all - mine is an insect, how sad is that? jimfbleak 09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Haha...I love the picture Ryan. Work hard, play hard man lol. Jmlk17 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, we've all got to do something fun once in a while - and once my degree finishes on monday, I'll be playing even harder! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hah...awesome! Good luck buddy! Jmlk17 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

email

I have sent you an email.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FPC

Something you might be Interested in.. :)..--Cometstyles 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Very amusing. Acalamari 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Like admin coach, like admin coachee... :) I feel like a movie star now! *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing RFAs

You just beat me to it - I'd just popped out to find the right tags. Oh well, thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No probs, I wasn't sure if you were going to add the tags or not - maybe next time :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Could you be on IRC if you have a sec? WjBscribe 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

John celona

I saw that you blocked this user for 24 hours over his AfDs in response to the Shawn Hornbeck/Ben Ownby deletions. It may be nothing, but he reminds of a now indef banned user I dealt with on those articles (and several others). Tommypowell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in an edit war against consensus over his desire to keep unnecessary personal information into articles of living minors who were victims of sex crimes. The majority of his edits prior to finding the Hornbeck/Ownby articles were to a porn star named Brent Corrigan who apparently appeared in some films before he was 18. He was blocked on February 7, though he stuck around and made some more comments on his now deleted talk page if memory serves. On February 11, John celona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started editing, and by May 1, he managed to find Brent Corrigan's article as well. You've seen his behavior in regards to the Hornbeck/Ownby deletions, and it is reminiscent of Tommypowell's tantrums in regards to the removal of birthdays. I could have an overactive imagination, but I can't help but think this is Tommypowell's reincarnation. I don't know if there's anything to be done at this point, as I'm pretty sure too much time has passed for a checkuser to be run. Still the pattern is odd, and I'm not sure how many editors are interested in both minor sex crime victims and underaged porn stars... actually, I don't want to know how many editors are into the two.

Anyway, I'm throwing this out there. Investigate if you think it warrants it, though I'm pretty sure this is the same guy. AniMate 01:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Mail

Ryan, I have e-mailed you once more.--Anthony.bradbury 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is my new name ok?

The last one was way out of line sorry Mineralwaterisgreat 19:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The edits I have made have been in the 100% interest of NPOV, the only person reverting them is a rabid "anti-fascist" troll who gives crooked sources and uses left wing rhetoric to describe the BNP. For example the term "radical right wing populism" was invented by the left to slur modern popular nationalist parties, and he insists that the BNP are fascist when the internal structure is decided democratically and their stated policy is to actually increase virtues of democracy when in power. His reasoning for his argument is "Nazi's pretended to be democratic too" which goes far enough to allow us to render his viewpoint as obsolete and hateful, along with giving a few sources written by left wingers 8 years ago 9who may have based their research on as little as a hunch). I support the BNP, but I'm not zealous enough to deny that they are politically far right and have a shady past. They deserve criticism somewhere in the article (or in another article dedicated to it) to reflect the heated modern opinions on them, but the relentless adding of a paragraph for any sort of 'scandal' involving the BNP or involving an idiot who associates himself with the BNP highlighted by Searchlight or UAF will end up with an article 10 times as long in a few years. Most of the article also just repeats itself. I am going to hopefully make large, sincere and healthy changes for the article, but I can't with people just reverting them to show their opinion on how bad/who the BNP are. Mineralwaterisgreat 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The above comments referring to me are not acceptable. The user (who I suspect was banned yesterday for vandalism as User:86.146.242.233) has taken up where User:86.146.242.233 left off. He has only edited articles relating to the BNP and related articles on extreme right wing politics, and no others other than posting inappropriate comments on users' talk pages. His comments above about about me being a rabid anti-fascits troll who gives crooked sources are a good indication of where his sympathies lie. In fact, I have added 'fascist' to the info box for the BNP, providing three independent and reliable sources. His response is that he is not going to but no "god dam book", so his opinions of the refernces I have provided are hardly rational. I notice I am also called an idiot - hardly wikipedian diplomacy! None of his edits are substantiated, and indeed, are contrary to a broad consensus that has been painfully and occasionally heatedly reached over the last few months. This person wants the BNP article to be entirely favourable to the BNP, is not prepared to accept the need for citation (there is none), is reverting withour cause and generally vandalising the articll, for which, if it is the same person, he was banned yesterday. This person needs to be banned. Emeraude 21:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed he's already been banned. Emeraude 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I'm thinking a checkuser is in order for that IP that commented on Hwmith's (I know I spelt that wrong) AfD. What do you think? Whsitchy 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Stupid of me to post this on your's and another admin's. Whsitchy 01:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ryan!

Caught ya fixing that nom :-) Does everything look okay to you on it? We're thinking of going live sometime today - Alison ☺ 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Open Proxies?

Hi Ryan, just wondering if you could answer this question?

How do admins find out if an IP address is an open proxy?

I've been looking at some blocked IP's which are proven to be open proxies via Category:Open proxies blocked on Wikipedia and I've looked at the DNS ad WHOIS information and also looked at some IP's which aren't open proxies on WHOIS etc and I cant see any difference in the information, I've looked everywhere and I cant seem to find out how admins know they are, do you know and could you tell me please. Cheers --The Sunshine Man 14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all admins know when an IP is an open proxy and hen one isn't - unfortunatey I don't have a clue! But it's something I'm going to take a look at this week, so if I find out, I'll let you know! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)`

Best of luck!

As you go for that exam, I pray that success would be your second name. You worked so hard for it, so you deserve the greatest... And that's what you'll get! Best of luck, dear Ryan! Love, Phaedriel 15:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Administrator Reedy Boy taking off! Hello Ryan Postlethwaite, Thankyou for voting in my RfA. You will be pleased to know that it has been successful!! Meaning that I, Reedy Boy, am now an English Wikipedia Administrator. It passed with a suprising 47/0/0, and I really am grateful of all your support, and I hope that I live up to your high expectations! If there is anything I can do to help you out, please, do not hesitate to contact me! Yours, Reedy Boy 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose account flooding of AfD discussion for Steve Gilliard

Hi, question: Seems like multiple SPA have been created to flood the discussion (with "Keep") for this AfD. I have no opionion whatsoever on the notablility of the article, but I added my observations as to the SPAs and I think the original nominator added the appropriate template (I think it's the "afdanons" template). Beyond doing that, is such activity considered to be so bad as to require admin intervention, or should I just leave it as is? Lipsticked Pig 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, it's looking fairly messy to be honest with you. I've contacted the nominator of the AfD to ask what he thinks about closing it s no consensus possible and re-running the AfD with semi-protection on so new users and IP's won't be able to comment on it. I'll keep you posted. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still learning here. Lipsticked Pig 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, now I'd ask you to consider closing that AfD as consensus Keep, as leaving it open would only serve editors who wish to insult Naconkantari's judgement and motives. It's plain nasty. Lipsticked Pig 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Trivia

Hi,

(Discussion continued from User talk:Mackensen.)

The reason I'm really opposed to the current wording of Template:Trivia is that it goes way beyond the guideline at WP:TRIVIA. The template mandates integration of the content into the main article or removal; the guideline says that trivia-section content would be better integrated into the main article, but (rightly) doesn't mandate removal of content merely because it's in a trivia section.

So, I think this goes way beyond a content issue, because the template mandates editor behavior, in a very improper way, namely that there's no policy or guideline mandating this behavior; it is a few editors who hate trivia sections, trying to chase them off Wikipedia. And the mass spamming of many thousands of articles with this tag is just defacing articles for no reason.

My analogy in the other thread was: If an editor with a bot spammed thousands of articles with a framed, colored template saying that Wikipedia bio articles should only be about dead people, then someone would take action to stop this, yes? I'm a little floored by the RFA statements that this is just a content issue. The template does not read like advice or like a pretty template to make the Dog articles more organized. It's trying to mandate editor behavior.

Thanks - Tempshill 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving the Esperanza debate

Hi, Ryan. I just wanted to let you know that I'm leaving Wikipedia and, therefore, retiring from the EA debate. It's been a pleasure working with you, and I'd like to apologize for any rudeness I displayed towards you. You have no idea what's been going through my head.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have. Which is why I left him a message in my edit summary. But even in his valedictory address there are snide comments I would rather not keep on my talkpage. DevAlt 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Torture

Way to be WP:BOLD. I think this guy has been dancing around a block for a long time. I strong support it that is for sure. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Chris for giving it the once over. He's just been cruising RFCN looking to get into a fight. I know some people have strong opinions of the username policy - but I doubt very much if this guy has even read it and when he couples the trolling with personal attacks.... Ryan Postlethwaite 18:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You did well with the block. I don't see any reason to unblock, but anyway, we'll see what is said on the administrators' noticeboard. Acalamari 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY - previous editor

• Indef please, Ryan. Self-confessed GNAA troll - Alison ☺ 23:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (busy w/JB socks)

now done, but is there some histroy behind it? (googled is and got some ovey hits) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is. Talk later ... busy here :) - Alison ☺ 23:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (see del history of GNAA and Gay Nigger Association of America)

huyh

Why were you licking a girl? WReform Group 00:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

she tastes nice. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sugar and spice, perhaps? - Alison ☺ 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (licks self :) )

... and because he can, I suspect. Red-blooded male that he is - Alison ☺ 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryan might get to do that, but I, however, am about to be married, which means I have a leap over Ryan when it comes to relationships :) Who's attending the wedding? Acalamari 01:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe

And being the extremely controversial admin that I am! The thought of going through RfA again gives me the jitters though :) Riana ⁂ 12:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Ryan, thanks for speedy deleting my RfA, I'm not trying to sound nasty/uncivil to the nominator but I have a really bad feeling that that account is a sockpuppet of User:Molag Bal, you may want to have a look at The ANI thread I posted and see what you think (I'm trying to AGF but it seems possible). Kindest Regards --The Sunshine Man 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Weelwar!

Grin - I reverted your reversion of your deletion as the previous deletion from the 29th of May did make sense - G1 was wrong this time, as the story seems real but Wikipedia does not seem the place for it. If anybody thinks otherwise I will defer to their jugdgement Agathoclea 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I was just redeleting, but couldn't because you'd already done it! Protected now anyway..... Cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 15:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the reverting vandalism on my user page,Regards-Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 16:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, glad to be of service. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

GodGryffindor.

Bah! The real one would never vandalize! Acalamari 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He he, I'm guessing their not the same person then! Ryan Postlethwaite 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of someone I was keeping an eye on a few month back - but it could be a coincidence Agathoclea 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly someone that new what they were doing by the pages they found. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice Work

That was long overdue, thanks for stepping up and getting it done. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)