Thank-you so much Ryan. I hope it doesn't sound wierd, but being able to do this and reach people he knew kinda makes me feel close to him. And I know he'd want me to try and do this. He lived so far away from us and now he's gone forever. Did I do this right? Jeffssister (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)jeffssister

Archive

Unmerged merge

Back on 5 Sep, you adjudicated an AfD for Ingild, Eoppa, and Eafa, with the outcome of Merge. I just noticed that the Eafa and Eoppa pages are back in all their glory, including the old AfD banner, while the history shows no modification since the 29 Aug initiation of the AfD process. Your implementation of the outcome seems to have had a very short t½. What's up with that? Agricolae (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you merge them over please? I see I forgot to add the merge tag in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how, unless you just mean editing the page to change it to a redirect. The odd thing is that it was done, after the AfD they appropriately redirected (I checked), but then they somehow returned to an earlier version without leaving any record of the changes. Agricolae (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did the redirects, but the 'merge tag' you mentioned I known nothing of. Agricolae (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that for me. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Csangos

I agree with the page protection, but would you please revert to admin Bogdan's or my version? Rez. while trying to remove references from the article (again) left broken links there (see "References" section). Squash Racket (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't take a position on it because I protected it. See m:Wrong version. If you get a consensus on the talk page I'll happily revert to that version then. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogdan is an admin who was not involved in the dispute, his version is acceptable for now? See the red "cite error" tags at "References". If it's no problem, then forget it. Squash Racket (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, but solely because the version I protected it in broke the ref tags. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to extend the page protection as I see no answers for my questions on the talk page? Squash Racket (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but no, that would suggest I favour your version. I'm just going to leave it unprotected and if edit warring sparks up again I'll warn then block users involved in it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

TFA

Hey, Ryan; did you get Raul's clearance to schedule the 30th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but we've only got two hours left and I did ask him about this yesterday. I've posted to AN/I for a review. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, will sit tight, but Raul never misses. Unless he was hit by the proverbial truck, it probably wasn't necessary. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I guess I was just being cautious. Hopefully he won't mind too much, I don't plan on doing it again unless it's really necessary. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, darn; now I'm worried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, awesome choice by the way! -Oreo Priest ^talk 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[1] Amateur. :) RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 04:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Same ole , same ole

Ryan, would you please stop piling in on me every time someone drags me into a "troubles" conflict. You know as well as I do that Western POV is rampant on Wiki which merely gives the impression that people trying to temper it are "pushing" their own POV. (Which is not to say there are no POV-pushers; but they often don't see the beam in their own eye). Read what I say and stop reacting in this knee-jerk manner. Please. I thought you were sensible till your call to "ban me for life" during my "trial" a few months back. But I forgave you (that's the sort of person I am :) and now you are at it again. Sarah777 (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sarah, you can be a fantastic editor at times, but I too often see you running head first into disputes and escalating them with incivility and revert warring. That doesn't mean I still support a ban on you, but it does mean that I think you need to change your ways here somewhat. Why not leave the troubles area completely for a while? It might be refreshing to edit in a less contentious area. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is good advice! I made one single edit to a NI article and got slapped with probation. If anyone else made that edit (bar a banned sockpuppet) it would have passed unremarked.Anyway, it is somewhat reassuring that you ain't out to lynch me any more :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You have threatened to remove me as an editor because of "reverts." Please don't take such action without understanding the massive amount of effort made with regard to keeping a fair and balanced approach to the article on artist Chris Heimeridnger. Study the history of edit warring a little and you may understand the "trigger happy" manner with which some editing has occurred lately. There are specific legal adversaries of Mr. Heimerdinegr who can be identified by the following IPs: 216.49.181.128 and 72.25.162.110 and 67.164.196.10. There may be other IPs since this individual is a computer programmer, but these are the IPs identified specifically to one Michael Collins who also posts an anti-Heimerdinger website on a different URL. I am not a direct associate of the artist, but I know the legal situation though reliable sources, and I have been had identified for me documents provided wherein Mr. Collins names dates and changes made to the Wikipedia page. These are the IP addresses that match those dates and times, but not all. I am happy to lay low and let admins such as yourself take over the situation, but please recognize that the ongoing edit battle has "conflict of interest" editors on both sides, and the vendetta is very real, related to expensive financial matters, and the stakes in legal circles are high. I will respect your wish to avoid reverts so long as the page remains neutral. It neither has to be a fan site or a defamation site. And so long as after a brief period of assessment by admins, such tags as "self publshed" or "unverifiable info" or other things are removed in a timely manner. If I feel a change is in order, I will happily discuss it with you beforehand. This will eliminate any accusations of "conflict of interest." Frankly, ALL editors can be accused of having a conflict of interest if they have a serious interest in a subject under discussion or an opinion regarding any subject. The science of journalism is heavily influenced by personal opinion. But most Wikipedia editors are lazy or unwilling to cite resources beyond what is visible on the internet. Too much legwork. If certain information on this particular article is judged to be unsourced, let me know and I may be able to provide non-internet sources for all information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumper10 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite vs infinite

Hey Ryan, I was on a wikibreak for about a month and some things have changed... one thing I noticed is there is now the "infinite" option for blocking. Do you know of the thread where this was decided on, etc so I can read up on its application? Or if it's easy, can you just let me know... Tan | 39 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tan, the diff where it was changed is here. Basically, I think there were two indefinite options - one at the top and one because it's the most common and one at the bottom because it goes by length of time. I guess it was confusing, so the bottom indefinite was changed to infinite - it looks like it wasn't discussed. Hope that helps! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Space elevator safety

You redirected this back to the main article, but did not remerge the information; were you going to, or are you against it being included at all? --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Golbez, I didn't realise the content was actually merged out. I realised the content came from the main article, but I didn't see it come out. What are your thoughts on it? I see Space elevator article is rather large already, but the Space elevator safety article was in fairly poor shape. I'm thinking possibly keeping the Space elevator safety page but after giving it a complete rewrite. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; I apologize if I came off accusatory, as it is a simple mistake that could be made. --Golbez (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll crack on with it tomorrow after work - I just haven't got the energy right now and I feel that it could take quite a while to get it upto shape! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Troubles

Since you commented: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Modified_remedies_proposal — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines

Hi Ryan, I have withdrawn myself from the above mediation for the reason I provided on the talk page. As the editor who initiated this third attempt at mediation, I don't know if this would be a 'black mark' against me for withdrawing myself from the mediation, and to be brutally honest, I don't care if there is. Thanks for taking this on, but my time and energy is being diverted into more productive areas of the WP project. Cheers --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with AfD-nominated article

An article that I created, storm train, had a deletion request tag placed on it by Bongomatic, and Runningonbrains removed the tag and said that it was not appropriate for that article. But I don't know what to do, because I left a message for Runningonbrains, and I got no reply. Do you think that the article should be deleted, or do you think that the tag should be removed for the second time? -- IRP ☎ 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not really too sure. Maybe a merge would be a good idea - have you thought about putting the information into the Training (meteorology) article? That would probably be the best bet and it will make sure your hard work isn't lost. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Things I would like to address: I have archived the article (just in case), and if it's deleted, it can be revised, reviewed, and restored. Also, if it was deleted, it could be reviewed for restoration by an administrator. And one more thing, I was thinking that there should be a section in Training (meteorology), and a link to the main article. Does that sound like it will work? I would say a paragraph and a link to the main article. But I would like to know what would be best. -- IRP ☎ 21:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Given how short the Training (meteorology) article is, it would be best to put the whole article in there. If the article was ever to get too big, it could be merged out again. At this point, I really think the best bet is to redirect you page to Training (meteorology), and put you content in there. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for being a pleasure to work with during my time on WP, I really appreciate it. You've even got a mention on my userpage. ;) You can still talk to me on Facebook if you want. ;) Lradrama 07:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Potter Fell

On 6 October 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Potter Fell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 08:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I <3 you! --creaɯy!^Talk 12:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

O_o Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I going to need to add a {{User married wiki}} to your userpage Ryan? MBisanz ^talk 12:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My dear, there's no need :) It's just a friendly <3 :) --creaɯy!^Talk 19:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: I'm a PC

Excuse me, but did the definition of WP:LEAD alter drastically within the last week or so? While the Lead is an introduction to the subject matter, it is also an overview/summary of the article itself. The bit you keep removing is well-documented, been rewritten (not reverted, as the successive edits address the concerns brought up in talk - you might want to look at the edits again) and in a summary of the criticism section. I suspect that, were this to occur in any other article, there wouldn't be a lick of conflict.
The "consensus" you speak of is largely in favor of utterly ignoring any mention of the cited criticism, and one of the editors even suggested other ways that Microsoft could improve their ad campaign. If that doesn't represent a pov in favor of MS (and a protection of the article subject from criticism), I guess I am going to need you to redefine it for me.
Since you were kind enough to post the warning in my discussion, let me know if you would prefer to reply there or here. I tend to like keeping conversations in one place - my page will be fine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)