User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VOTE FOR RYAN POSTLETHWAITE

But I want to Vote for Pedro. giggy _(:O) 11:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

[edit] Hello!

[edit] Ziggy Stardust

If you unblock him would you consider letting me mentor the user? I could put him to work doing research for and copyediting on my Supreme Court articles. JeanLatore (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not ready to mentor anyone until you demonstrate a more solid understanding of Wikipedia policies/guidelines yourself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Hi, Ryan - maybe I'm missing some background, but why did you remove this? Kelly ^hi! 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help me, French presidential election, 2007

Hello, You blocked me following Guillom's request because I had in French presidential election, 2007 an external link related to Vote Results for this election by commune. Guillom deleted my external link because it is not a reference or official. Now when I go to the same page, there are some weird external links such as:

1. Polarisation and crisis - the French elections and the radical Left (blog !!)
2. AngusReid (French election polls in English)(??)
3. Funny elections Database at RangeVoting.org (??)
4. (English) Sarkozy speech after being elected (youtube !!)

These sites are nonely a reference or official such as the external link I proposed. So I removed them but the user Rama has reverted my modification. Well, I feel very disappointed because I don't want a revert war. I feel that there is a double standard policy. When I propose an external link, it is not a reference, but when others propose blogs or personnal sites, it is ok. I read carefully Wikipedia policy regarding external links, if a rule applies, it applies for everybody ? Thank you to reply me --Blanchisserie 11:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, your block of this user appears to have been inappropriate. The user was not warned, it seems, nor was the user informed as to how to appeal a block. As to the block reason itself, the link the user posted doesn't clearly meet WP:LINKSPAM. Maybe you know something I don't. Definitely, the user should have been warned, because of the edit warring. I can also understand the user's frustration; it should be explained that guidelines are just that: not binding rules, and what decides the application in each case is editorial consensus; if consensus cannot be found, edit warring, as the user did, is not acceptable; rather, dispute resolution should be followed to involve more editors in the decision. Perhaps an apology would be in order? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this user has continued, apparently, to edit war (though probably not after having seen the above.) I have warned the user, I hope that proves to be useful. --Abd (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Here is the story:

1) I edit French presidential election, 2007, with an External Link, and the user Guillom deleted it, I try to communicate with him (see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillom#French_Presidential_Election

]]), no response, I redid my edit, he deleted one more time (see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillom#French_Presidential_Election ]]), so he is responsible to the edit warring as no response from him when trying to communicate !

2) I was blocked by this admin. I sent an email to him, no response.

3) When I was blocked, Guillom sent me a message (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blanchisserie, if you cannnot read French, to sum up, he wrote: "fuck off from Wikipedia, you do not understand anything"

4) As far as I understood, my External link was not a reference. But when I delete the other ones that are not a reference too, now the user Abd deletes my edits

5) The admin still does not reply. Abd: instead of warning me with spam or edit warring (whereas edit warring came from Guillom, I didn't start, still the "double standard policy"...), why do not explain me why you deleted my edit ? I deleted External Links that does not match Wikipedia policy as they are not a reference.

--Blanchisserie 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete any edits of Blanchisserie. This editor appears massively confused. He is making edits to the article that are being reverted by many different editors; apparently he thinks that I made the edit actually made by User:Med. [1] Look, if you want help, Blanchisserie, you will find help if you start listening and understanding basic policies, starting with assume good faith. Ask for help, listen to the response, and you may learn to participate in the editorial process in a constructive way. As to the alleged incivility above, what user Guillom has done or not done is not relevant to the behavior of Blanchisserie. That claim, however, should be investigated. But, Blanchisserie, you are being warned, and no matter how bad Guillom is -- or isn't -- has little or no relevance to your own behavior. If you are patient, and faced with uncivil editors, you will see them disappear. But it can take a lot of time. --Abd (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

These are the two edits by Guillom to Blanchisserie Talk: [2], [3]. I don't see any incivility there resembling Blanchisserie's alleged summation. My French is weak, so I can't guarantee that there wasn't subtle insult, but ... Blanchisserie, if you don't prove that the editor actually personally attacked you or was clearly uncivil, your claim that he did itself constitutes incivility. There is a disagreement here about the suitability of a link. I have no opinion as to the correctness of either side. But I do have an opinion about edit warring and incivility.--Abd (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not you Abd who deleted my edit, it is Mel. Sorry. I am going to redo my edit. Could you please you, or an admin, block Mel (and not me!) if a edit warring appear ?--Blanchisserie 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Abd, sorry but your French may not be very good. When you ask somebody why he deleted your edit and he replies "You external link has nothing to do here. Fuck off if you are not happy" with no explanation on why my external link has nothing to do. Maybe it is not insult but incivility.--Blanchisserie 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I see now the problem. I've explained on Bl.'s Talk. He's a COI editor, It's his web page he is putting in (He wrote "mon" with it.) Now, as to "fuck off," what exactly were the French words that said that? They did not teach me "fuck off" in high school. By the way, sign your post, not with your name, time, and date, but with ~~~~ (four tildes), which will automatically insert your user name, link to your Talk page, and the time and date. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Abd - the user was blocked on the french Wikipedia for the same thing, before moving to the english Wikipedia to insert the links. That's why I blocked him for linkspamming. He had had a warning on the French Wikipedia, got blocked, yet did exactly the same thing here. That's why I blocked him for 24 hours. Obviously, if this had been isolated to this project, I'd have warned first, then blocked - but it wasn't and he knew he was in the wrong. I'm not sure if you've ever been blocked Abd, but when you get blocked and try to edit, you get a screen explaining why you were blocked (the block log reason), information about what a block it and the way you can appeal it, so it's not necessary for admins to actually explain how to appeal the block. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ryan, I eventually came up with about all of it. I'd forgotten about the block message. You were, and are, absolutely correct, yet I don't regret my intervention here. One thing I'm trying to do is to impress upon this user and anyone else watching that, with patience, Wikipedia process works. It can be frustratingly difficult to learn how it works, and some of the errors that this user is making -- if he's not just pretending, and we should assume that he's not pretending -- are quite easy to make. The prior history with the french project was one of the latest things I found. The user also posted to my talk page, giving the exact French behind his charge that he'd been told to "fuck off!" It was "Point. Va voir ailleurs." Which is dismissive, but not nearly as uncivil as "fuck off!" is in English. I now, clumsily and without certainty, translate it as "No. Go look elsewhere!" (i.e, for promotion for your site.) A bit rude, but not grossly uncivil. --Abd (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, if you can read French you would have understood something. Indeed I was blocked because I made mistakes I was not aware in the French Wiki. After explanations into the French Administrator Bulletin, I understood my mistakes. So when I have edited the english Wikipedia, I did so according to French administrators' advise (i.e. External Links must be well described and point straight to the info, do not write description with no customization for each page, etc.) Thanks for me, I learn from my mistake. But you did not care, Guillom told you "this guy made trouble with French Wiki" and you took it for granted whereas I was editing English Wiki according to the French admin advises. So you block me with no explanation and when I appeal from this decision (I email you to explain what I am curretly writing), you did not reply to me. So do not judge if you do not take the time to analyse fairly the story. "No. Go look elsewhere!" Blanchisserie 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Blanchisserie, consider it from the other side. Ryan's action was reasonable, administrators aren't expected to be perfect and to investigate everything in detail. Look, the *big* problem here was that you edit warred, even though you were not blocked for that, ostensibly -- but it was mentioned (3RR). And I'm pretty sure the French admins did not advise you to do that! I've come to the conclusion, myself, that your link is a good one, but since it was previously removed, I'm not going to edit war it back in! Rather, I've asked for reasons to exclude it. I don't see any, but that's why we ask. Maybe someone has one, maybe there is something on or about the site I haven't noticed, etc. If no decent reasons appear, then I'll put it in myself. And if it is reverted without good cause, then I get to explore WP:DR a bit, always something to learn. --Abd (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed reference to a killed UN worker?

Dear Ryan - see what you think of this edit. A number of foreigners were killed in a short period (at least one declared murdered and another "unlawfully killed"), I've linked them together. Another of these people (Iain Hook, UN head of reconstruction, and I think he was inside the UN compound) doesn't yet have an article about him (his story is quite well known and a further 13 UN workers were killed around then, so I'm not sure why there's as yet no article). Can that really be any reason for removing a reference to him? PR^talk 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:See also: "The optional See also section provides a bulleted list of blue internal links to related Wikipedia articles" - if it doesn't have a related article, it does not belong in "see also". "See also" is not a place for you to create an original research synthesis of unrelated events, in order to push the thesis that the events are all "part of a series" of planned actions. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I trust you don't make a habit of wiki-stalking other editors, particularly not to semi-personal discussions like this one. Your understanding of "unrelated events" is quite remarkable, it is pretty rare for individuals travelling abroad to be killed (accidentally or deliberately) by state forces, and this looks like an extraordinary cluster that few would think were a coincidence. A cluster of such deaths in Darfur or Tibet would most certainly invite some cross-referencing.

Meanwhile, I trust you will not approve of the further edit that's now been made, which looks a lot like WP:POINT. However, I'm sure we could cooperate on introducing the fact that Israeli MKs have expressed very serious objection to these foreign observers, I believe that these particular volunteers are now banned, and other observers are (were?) forced to sign indemnities before going into Gaza. PR^talk 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are complaining about an edit of mine to a 3rd party, without having the courtesy to even let me know about it, let alone discussing it with me on my Talk page or on the article's talk page, and you have the audacity to complain about me responding to this? I've explained why your edit was improper, based on Wikipedia policy. Further discussions about this edit, other edits, or your original research, needs to take place on the article's Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of serious interference with my personal dealings with other experienced editors, up to and including harassment of a mentor in public and private. You're under threat of a topic ban for your conduct on another article in the same topic, and now you come trolling to this TalkPage to tell me where discussions can take place. PR^talk 07:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm under no threat of ban (unlike you, seeing as you already been sanctioned under that Arbitration ruling) , and responding to your compaliant about my edits is not trolling. Please take any further discussions to the article's Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for this because of this. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notifying others of mediation request

You have left me a notification that I should notify all people involved in mediation when applying for mediation. 1) I did not know and still do not know whether the application has been accepted. 2) I thought this was done when the application was accepted. Why do editors need to have this information ahead of time? 3) The last mediation I was involved in, the mediation committee notified editors. Student7 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We only accept cases after all editors have agreed to the mediation, so they must be notified in order to be aware of the mediation so they can decide whether or not to agree or disagree to it. It's always been the case that the onus is on the user filing the case to notify the users. I've notified all the parties this time, but please remember to do this for yourself if you should file another RfM in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

You haz email! :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy Notification regarding my recall criteria

Hiya. Just a courtesy note to say I've named you as one of the editors that I would accept a request for recall from. There's nothing onerous about it, and you don't have to do anything. It's simply to let you know that as I have added myself to CAT:AOR I needed some unfussed criteria for recall, and I believe your judgement fits that criteria neatly. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)