User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite

User:Cream/scrolling

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello!

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

At first, I didn't know what you were referring to with the 3RR report, but can see he blew off the warning. Even though i gave him a warning, do you want to offer the user the chance to self-revert? If not, I'll just file the 3RR. The depressing part of this is that the user is likely a regular, and editing anonymously. A block would likely not be reflective of the primary account block history. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report filed here, and notice to the user posted here. Anything I am missing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, all looks good. No point in wasting your breath arguing on the 3RR board - The IP isn't going to stop. It's got to be an established user, but unfortunately the privacy policy wouldn't allow a checkuser to be run on the IP. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. after the anon started in again about my involvment in the discussion yesterday, I figured it was best to simply back off, and let the feller find his feet, so to speak.

As for the IP check, can't it be run against known IPS of banned users? Noobs at least stop to ask for direction when warned they are about to break a rule. This IP didn't even blink, which makes me wonder what else they haven't blinked at. We don't have to reveal the ID, but simply verify that it isn't a previously blocked sockfarmer or banned user. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock message now on the IP's page. As you've been working to get discussion going, I will leave it in your hands to determine if unblock is appropriate. I'm logging off for a few hours now. Best, Risker (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not choosing to use several IP's. And I'm not agreeing with myself or pretending to be more than one person.. I don't control the internet and the Ip's.76.217.93.176 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Ryan Postlethwaite, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer^T♦^C 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested

Hi. Earlier this year, you'd blocked G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is now the subject of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_sanctions_proposals. I'd like to request for your input at that discussion. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan! I'm back!

Hi Ryan. Remember me? Well, I'm finally back, after a bit of deliberation. I was wondering if you could catch me up on anything I may have missed since my retirement.

Hoping to run into you again soon, Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - good to see you back! To be perfectly honest, nothing much has changed - we haven't had much new happen. You might want to check a few of the cases currently at arbcom, we had a wheelwar over protection at Sarah Palin and there's some interesting thoughts come up about it - worth a read. Oh, Chetlong and Peter Symmonds were desysopped for sharing their password with Steve Crossin, and Steve got banned for 6 months - that's the only real big news from the wiki that I can recall. If I think of anything else, I'll let you know! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I guess the Sarah Palin thing would have happened eventually, but Chetblong and Peter Symmonds, wow! Thanks, Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old issues resurface

I'd appreciate your perspective on this issue - User_talk:PalestineRemembered#Soapboxing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jaakobou, I don't wish to get involved with PR again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor amok

Recently you have taken an interest in allowing for a fair representation of an LDS author named Chris Heimerdinger. An editor named Ronz has taken it upon himself to delete a large part of the content of these articles in a manner that seems prejudiced against the faith of the subject represented. Certainly Wikipedia does not wish to have a reputation that is influenced by religious prejudice. Ronz's tirade in requesting sourced material seems innocent on the surface, but has gotten to the point of using this as excuse to potentially delete full articles (like Passage to Zarahemla) as well as trim to the point that the article really offers little interesting information. And it seems this is entirely for fear that parties, including the subject himself, are promoting rather than treating the subject in an encyclopedic manner. He seems to have gone much beyond whatever authority is offered to editors in this matter. This author, a movie associated with him, as well as other featured articles related to his career, are being unduly cut and slashed with apparent prejudice. The discussion page on the subject of Passage to Zarahemla goes over these issues with more detail. I have read many articles on Wikipedia, including an article recently on a British character actor named Kenneth Cope, that offers much interesting information without any references at all. The spirit of Wikipedia, it would seem, is to offer more info than can be found in other resources. Many people have gone out of their way to offer legitimate resource info to justify certain items in the these articles, only to have such postings "undone" by Ronz. From your other edits you appeared to have the ability to take a neutral approach to this matter, disallowing promoters as well as detractors. Please involve yourself again to return such articles back to a balance that is not so unduly weighted toward detractors. Georgia.

Edit summary vandalism

Here, please look for edit summary vandalism by Logsniffer1. -- IRP ☎ 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link directly to the diff. -- IRP ☎ 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IRP, he's already been blocked [1]. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am pretty sure you have the privilege level to edit the page history. The user typed the same obscene statement into the edit summary, and vandalized the page history. That's the reason I contacted you. -- IRP ☎ 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive