Archive

BAHAHAHAHA

You made someone delete the main page? lol --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish issue - a possible Izmir lee sockpuppet

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite. Do you remember all those issues with User:Izmir lee, whom you ended up by blocking indefinitely? I may be wrong but it looks to me that he has created a new account the following day after the block, under the name User:Aegean Boy. They have the same contributions profile, defend the same positions, etc. Could you check it out? Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And he has already done 4 reverts. The Ogre (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's him. He has exactly the same interests and the account was created the day after he was indef blocked. He even argues in the same way. Too many coincidences if you ask me. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a sockpuppetry against him here [1]. Please feel free to weigh in when you're back. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ryan Postlethwaite. Could you please check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Izmir lee? Things are getting out of hand. Could you came by and speak your mind, even if against my views? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this now. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ryan and thank you for taking the time to look into this. I had a feeling it was him, but couldn't be sure without a checkuser. Thank god for administrators like you. I don't know what wikipedia would become without you guys. Regards. --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Working Group Wiki Final Report

Hey, as a reminder, the Working Group is approaching our 6-month deadline for producing our final report. The draft is being built at [2]. Could you please stop in, and see if there is anything you'd like to add? Or if not, just signoff at the talkpage that you are okay on how things are going? Thanks, Nishkid (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Done for now; I need sleep!

There's the template I showed you yesterday. You can start writing some of the entries from the beginning like we talked about. I've been using a fairly straightforward "form letter" approach to the articles, and you can see different versions by going through the years. I have now written the article for 1970, and the articles from 1982 to 1993. WBOSITG wrote the 2003 article. Have fun! Read over my articles and let me know what you think. Mike H. Fierce! 11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Are you accusing me of abusing the tools? Because that would be a very serious accusation if it were, so I want it clearly stated. I didn't block him for just that comment, but for the combined effect of all of the incivility and personal attacks that I listed in my addendum. I recused myself already from any blocks regarding his talk page edits, but mass incivility is unacceptable. Cheers, CP 18:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The other 24 hours was for talk page edits, and did not come from me. How about I reduce the block to 3 days? Cheers, CP 18:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I left a message at User talk:Jauerback that you might be interested in. Cheers, CP 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize, of course, what you were trying to do with this edit, but I don't feel that that outburst should have been hidden. I won't revert it of course, but you do seem intent on giving Bart far more chances than anyone else is. Also, feel free to edit this post to remove the diff link once you've read it. Cheers, CP 22:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the block, I'll be honest with you... but, there's no way I'm letting attacks like that stay here. The usual is revert, block and ignore, well, he's already blocked, so the best way to ignore him is to protect his page. We don't generally extend blocks because people make outbursts when they're blocked. It's all in the edit history, so there's no hiding it away. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert this vandalism?

This revert looks like vandalism to me. The quote may or may not be true, but it's presumably verifiable and attacks on the credibility of the author look as if they fall flat on their face (as well as coming from a racist and dubious source). The revert certainly bears no relation to anything in talk, to which no contribution has been made by the editor in question (I can't see any contribution to Talk from him in the last 6,000 words). Shall I simply go ahead and re-revert for vandalism, over-riding usual I-P restrictions? PR^talk 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ryan, a more pertinent question is why is PR reverting in an obvious hoax quote, inserted by an antisemitic IP editor? (See Talk:Menachem_Begin#Menechem Quotes 2, where this absurd canard is rightly dismissed by editors from all sides). Given this on-going tendentious editing, combined with his continual use of Talk: pages as soapboxes, I'm highly tempted to block him myself, but given that you're his mentor, I thought I should let you take action. Your thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As I made plain, I'm not commenting on the correctness or otherwise of this quote (it seems odd that we have to go to an ancient periodical for a citation to this quote from Menachem Begin). However, it's removal was clearly vandalism, presumably based on IDONTLIKEIT and backed by a fraudulent summary - from a source known to cheat (including an attempt on the administration of WP) and, for instance, ignored by at least one Israeli newspaper (apparently due a long history of making tendentious complaints).

Under such circumstances most editors would not hesitate, and do what I planned to do, over-ride the vandalism and certainly not bother checking for a second opinion.

I would question why Jayjg is so concerned about the reputation of a violent racist who David Ben-Gurion equated to Hitler and about whom Albert Einstein was really quite horrible. It hardly seems like the action of a level-headed administrator facilitating improvements to the project. But I'm used to this targeting of me, Jayjg recently threatened to block me if I ever again named the world's only (?) main-stream convicted denier! I'm still waiting for a consensus on WP:HATE-SOURCES, the concept is well-understood indeed, but applied in a shockingly partisan fashion, with people even being blocked for citing the gentle, careful and (almost certainly) accurate work of the really quite notable "JewsAgainstZionism.com" PR^talk 13:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bert Corona

Your July 21 edit to Bert Corona deleted a reference to his archive of papers at a university library. Why do you think this is inappropriate? Dwalls (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy who added it added similar links to other articles. It was link spamming. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcomopentasks

Hey Ryan. I note that you've opened an arbcom case for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar, and added it to this template. Not sure how to fix it, but I'm getting everything as a redlink - since there's no actual evidence page (everything being private in e-mail to the cmte), should the links go somewhere else? The main case page, perhaps? You also have the date as the 28th, which is 5 days from now, as an FYI. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just fixed it, hopefully you understand where the initial confusion was as this isn't like a normal case. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

and I just EC'd here telling you to ignore that, as you've fixed it. I can totally understand that, though it's good that the case's existance is out in the open, at least - the better to avoid drama, I hope. Thanks again for the quick catch. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So is the date of 28 July an expected decision date, or some sort of submit-your-evidence-by date? Thanks again, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's the wrong date that I entered! :-) It should say 23 Jul 2008 - it's just the date that the case was opened. I'll go and fix it - thanks for keeping tabs on me! Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Medcom nom

I had thought it was acting (and actively listed) members of Medcom. Apologies for that. Rudget 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, don't apologise. Whilst Martin and Ral might be inactive in cases, they certainly do work behind the scenes, so they're still technically active. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

The discussion is concluded, with all the editors agreeing to {{Essay}} as the page header. I've thus unprotected it; now that there's consensus, there shouldn't be any more edit warring. Is this okay with you? If not, feel free to trout me, but it seemed an uncontroversial action in light of the consensus. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Peter, good to hear from you. Thanks for notifying me of this - I have no concerns at all with you unprotecting the page because you've had a neutral look and seen a consensus. If edit warring breaks out again, we might have ti reprotect - hopefully it won't reach that stage however. Thanks again, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Review

My reply here. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK update

Thanks for updating it. However, two problems. First, you did not protect the picture (I did it for you), and you shjould have found one or two more hooks to use. We try to use six at the minimum, and sometimes more to match the length of what's on the right side of the main p0age. Still, every admin has a first time, so now real harm.--Bedford ^Pray 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was considering an extra one, but there difference didn't seem to much so I didn't add it. Feel free to add one though if you think it's appropriate. The picture protection was on my mind the whole time - God knows why I didn't protect it! Thanks for your comments - I like to learn from experience! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would, but 2 of the three oldest valid ones are my own, so I'd hate to do that. Did you archive the old ones?--Bedford ^Pray 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh, archive??? Would you mind doing it, and I'll check your contribs so I know how to format it? Sorry for taking your time up. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just did it.--Bedford ^Pray 03:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Trout

Thanks for the note (and the trout :-P) - I have definitely learned some lessons from this. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

MP redesign proposal coding fixes implemented

I've implemented the coding fixes for you at your request (User talk:ChyranandChloe), though it would have been a lot easier if you told me to do so two weeks ago when I offered it. Nevertheless the major fixes are in place, though I still recommend that you clean up and revise your code (for example: you closed more tables than you opened, wikipedia isn't suppose to allow the h2 tag WP:HTML, you shouldn't need to add a margin each time just to align your boxes, the top three sections doesn't even make sense, and so on). In aestetics Wikipedia doesn't use a white (#FFFFFF) background because it supposedly irritates or provokes people, instead it uses a slight blue-green color (#F8FCFF).

This is your ideas, and your entry, good luck. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Clue request

Hi, Ryan - I don't remember if I've interacted with you before, but quite a few people (either by talk page post or e-mail) drew my attention to this. Not a big deal, but if you'd like to offer any examples or any advice as to where I could find one, I'd love to hear it. Kelly ^hi! 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)