This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ryan, I have a question. I have been an admin, partly thanks to your support, for just over five years. I am still interested in maintaining the encyclopedia, although I will concede that I do not make as many edits as I used to. But I cannot help observing that a very large number of editors who I regarded as role models are no longer here. How can we stop senior editors, and indeed senior admins, from losing interest? Or is it just a Darwinian evolutionary process? Either way, I am not happy about it.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Anthony - Good to hear from you! As you will probably be aware, I'm not really active anymore. From a personal perspective, it's mainly that I don't have time to edit anymore. At the height of my editing, I found Wikipedia was my life. It wasn't particularly healthy and when I look back, it wasn't particularly enjoyable. Generally speaking, our very active editors tend to be of the younger generation (18-24) - I get the impression that many good editors simply grow out of Wikipedia - They either don't have time when they get a full time job, or no longer enjoy contributing. I've got nothing against people editing the encyclopedia (they do a great service!), but I think there's a lot more to life than just editing. If people are making thousands of edits each month, then it's probably a good thing that they find other outside interests to occupy their time. I've never felt better since I stopped editing - I feel I have a much more fulfilling life (and I've had a lot more opportunities come my way by making myself available!). All in all, people will come and go all the time, much more so than a paid job - That's the nature of a voluntary project. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, as you say. For the record I am 68 years old. Best wishes. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. Good to see you back.

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.— Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryan

How did the law degree exams go? Please feel free to ignore this post if the answer is less than ideal.

Tony--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Tony - How are things? I finished my Law degree in July, I'm now studying the Legal Practice Course which is required to train as a solicitor. I've got some exams on 3 January, then my main exams are in February. This is the first time I've logged into Wikipedia for about 2 months!! I hope you have a fantastic Christmas! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking the bar exam in February! I actually sat down to start my review course this morning... MBisanz ^talk 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I have ultimate respect for you as I know what you're going through. Plus, on top of all that, you have to take exams in a crazy country with crazy laws - I feel for you! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! If you don't mind, could you have another look at the WP:RFPP request for Francesca Hogi when you have a chance? I added a comment based on new developments as the edit warring is ongoing. Thanks for your time! --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. Just letting you know that I have decided to protect the article and the accompanying AfD as they were rapidly descending into total chaos. Not disputing your assessment at all—I would have asked you to reconsider first if the situation hadn't seemed so urgent. Cheers, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi all - I was fast asleep at the time. Thanks for handling it Fvasconcellos :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kendal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lakeland and Heinz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You closed this AfD with a merger decision, although nobody had proposed merger, and there is no substantive content to merge. Your suggestion as to how we should act please. The suggestion of other respondents (redirection) seems odd for an article that is an orphan, linked from no other article. Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Kevin McE - Nice to hear from you. I've redirect the page to 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup right away as you are correct that there is no substantive content to merge. I'd normally leave it a while to give editors to merge content, but it seems silly given the page was basically empty. I hope that's okay for you. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I hit the wrong button when I closed it - I see what I've done, it should have been closed as a redirect - silly me. I'll go and sort it out. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

.....while you were declining, I already protected pd lvl.1. Feel free to undo my protection any time. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no worries - This one was definitely a discretionary call and I'm sure plenty of administrators will have very different views on it. Thanks for popping by though - Much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. You have new messages at Revolution1221's talk page.
Message added 20:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Revolution1221 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on April Wilkner, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryan,
This is going back some time, but about 3 and a half years ago, you placed a 1RR restriction on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident now titled (Climatic Research Unit email controversy) due to the constant edit-warring over the article. The edit-warring has seemed to have stopped a long time ago. In fact, no one's even edited the article over a month and there have only been 14 edits for the year so far. I don't think the 1RR restriction is necessary anymore. I started a discussion on the article talk page about lifting the 1RR:
Does the article still need 1RR restriction?
Only one editor opposed it but they changed their mind when I explained that the ArbCom descretionary sactions would still apply. Anyway, can you please lift the 1RR restriction? If, for some reason, the edit-warring resumes, we can always add it back. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Hey - Thanks for the message. It's great to see things have improved on the page. I've lifted the sanction and left a note on the talk page. Hopefully things will continue as they have been. Thanks again, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Research Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad close on Imagery of nude celebrities. This was just relisted for additional input and you slammed the door shut as "no consensus." There was no cost in letting things play out for another week to see if consensus did emerge. If there's no clear consensus and you're not able to make an obvious policy-based call and things are only minutes hours into the first extension, the sage play is to butt out. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just investigating Deletion Review on this and it said to go to the closing administrator first. Could I con you into taking down the no consensus close and allowing the second listing to play out??? Or should I seek a relisting at DRV? Carrite (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with you Tim. I will admit that I misread the timing of the relisting from Sandstein, but even so it was quite clear that the debate was totally polarised between two connflicting camps (as I noted in my closing rationale). I felt confident in closing the debate without extending it. I believe it would be highly unlikely that this would be overturned at DRV, however you are more than welcome to try. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way - Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, rather than going straight to DRV - It's certainly a courteous thing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Imagery of nude celebrities. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is in response to your close of this AfD. The thing is, if we redirect the article to the List of stars page, we end up with a redirect to a page that does not (and should not) contain any information on the object in question. Therefore, we end up with a misleading redirect that does not help the readers by any means, and instead gives them the idea that WP is disorganized by missing information on a non-notable star. Therefore, I feel the article should have been deleted, especially seeing that the majority of votes were to delete. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - Thanks for stopping by. How about we add an entry for HD 166348 to solve this? I personally think that would be the most sensible option given the AfD. Let me know your thoughts. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

While yeah, I admit that adding an entry would appear to be a good idea on the surface, there's a few reasons why I disagree with this. For one, these lists are only meant to list the notable stars of the constellation, as seen at Lists of stars by constellation#Criteria of inclusion, of which this star does not qualify under any of those. Including this star would give the readers the impression that it is somehow notable, which we see that it is not. What also bugs me is that including this star in the list sets a bad precedent: as this star could be included, why not include other non-notable stars until the list gets impractically long? I do see your point though that summary info may not be bad, but I feel in this case, the harm outweighs the good. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - You make sensible comments. How about we change the redirect to Corona Australis? Then we don't have the issue of linking to a list that the star isn't included in. I respect your comments about the star not being notable enough for inclusion in the list, and I would agree it would set a bad precedent. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

While I still believe the article should be deleted outright, I would be fine with this compromise. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks StringTheory11, I've gone ahead and changed the redirect. Thanks for taking the time to come here with such a collaborative attitude - I'm glad we were able to solve the issue in what I consider to be the best possible way (and hopefully you do as well!). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you misjudged the consensus on [[1]]. Please give it another look. I see only one keep vote. I don't know where you saw another. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise, Binksternet listed some sources, which I thought was also a keep comment, however it was just a comment. That said, we have one delete, one weak delete, one keep and one comment offering suggestions of sources and also what should be done if the article is kept. I'm still of the belief that there is no consensus in the AfD. This is even more so considering the article has survived 4 previous AfDs - I'd want to see a very clear consensus before deleting it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not really say "keep", even though I brought up some sources which describe one single scandal that appeared in many news stories. My thoughts are that an article could be written about the scandal but not the so-called "Varsity Trip". Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, this AfD has closed shortly after an IP editor says I'm attempting to spread misinformation, leaving me no way to respond but the talk page. Djembayz (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Djembayz. If I was you, I would just forget about it. I know it's difficult sometimes when someone says something that is really frustrating and untrue, but in this situation, I think it's probably for the best. You know you're not attempting to spread misinformation, every other editor knows you're not and that's all that matters really. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. To my unpleasant surprise, my article Reliance SCADA has been deleted. Although I am aware of the fact that every single article is unique in its own way and, therefore, can’t be compared with other articles, I find it quite common the authors draw their inspiration from other, already published articles. I did the same. I was interested in articles belonging to the same category, such as WinCC, Ignition SCADA, Iconics, Wonderware, or InduSoft. It is beyond my competence to judge whether these articles meet all the requirements for publication on Wikipedia. The discussion says that, in my article, there are not enough references from independent sources. But, for example, the references for the article WinCC, which is on Wikipedia since 2010, mostly lead to the producer, i.e., Siemens. Compared to this one, my article contains many more independent references. Moreover, the way the article is written does not promote nor praise the product (Reliance SCADA) and, in my opinion, it brings much more valuable information than WinCC does. Yet, the article has been deleted. I find it unfair that not all articles are judged in the same way. I do not wish any of the mentioned articles to be deleted. On the contrary, the more of such articles on Wikipedia, the better. Wikipedia is a huge storehouse of information where fast-growing fields such as control and SCADA systems deserve their place. These systems are taught at schools and that's why I think that, on Wikipedia, students should have the opportunity to find information about various systems that could be utilized in class. Therefore, I’d be very glad if my article could have the same chance as the other ones. I’d like to know whether my article could be republished and what should be done to achieve the republication (e.g., add some more references from independent sources).Jiri Svobi (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Jiri Svobi - Thanks for your message. I'll try and explain a little bit about how deletion discussions work. Any editor may nominate an article for deletion. There are a number of ways, but in the case of your article, it was put through a 7 day community discussion at the articles for deletion process. After 7 days, I closed the discussion and came to the conclusion that the consensus was that the article should be deleted. I respect what you're saying about the other articles, but in deletion discussions, articles are judged on their individual merits, not by reference to other articles. You are of course welcome to nominate the articles you mention if you believe they don't meet our inclusion criteria. The problem with your article was that there were few reliable sources that showed the page meets our notability guideline. You can of course work on the article in your userspage (I'll put the article at User:Jiri Svobi/Reliance_SCADA), but make sure you can show that the subject matter has been discussed by a number of independent sources - In order to do this you should provide the sources as references. When you believe the article is complete, pop back and see me and we can look at instigating a deletion review to overturn the initial deletion discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We just gave another editor shit for removing threads on ANI instead of hatting them ... then you go and do it? You're making Dennis and I look bad. I mean, WP:DENY and all, but hatting is just as effective (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't check the history! You should know me by now - I jump in head first to everything ;-) By all means revert. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll let you fix it ... too many posts between then and now :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I was the nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollow Bodies (2nd nomination). The other editor and I discussed userfying the article instead since it's clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Any chance we could undelete it move it to my user space? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure! I'll pop it at User:Walter Görlitz/Hollow Bodies - Great to see that you want to work on the article! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you userfy this?--Launchballer 06:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure - I'll put the article at User:Launchballer/Natalie Holt. Kind regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ryan Postlethwaite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Suresh 5 (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my email isn't letting me reply. What you're essentially asking me for is Ipblock-exempt to be added to your account. You'll need to contact a checkuser for this as they need to look behind your username at your IP address to determine whether you have a legitimate reason for having Ipblock-exempt added to your account. As I can't look at which IP addresses you've been editing from, I can't confirm this. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, I'm contacting you as the admin who closed the AfD for my page "Concerns for an early Mars sample return"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return

There were many irregularities in the AfD which I mention here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Back-contamination#Previous_AfD

It has also been taken as a reason to remove all the content I wrote about contamination issues throughout project Mars and as a basis to show that I am not competent to write on these issues.

In view of the amount of opposition I have to this content on Project Mars, I am not sure that a deletion review would succeed, one of my friends just commented that Project Mars "Seems to be being used as a pro-colonization advocacy group rather than an information source"

But feel it might be worth a try. Especially if the review involves people from other projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microbiology.

Also wondered about filing an incident report on the admins incident board.

So not asking for a deletion review yet, right now, but welcome suggestions or advice if you have thoughts about it as the closing admin.

Am considering whether to do a deletion review, but at present generally looking into my options and looking for admins and wikipedians with sympathy for my case. Robert Walker (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As the closing admin, my only interest in the article was the consensus of the deletion discussion. There was quite evidently a consensus to merge the artice. In fact, it was one of the clearest consensus' that there could be. As such, I doubt very must that deletion review would overturn it. Deletion review is there to decide whether I closed the deletion discussion correctly - I think it's fairly clear that my close was correct, as such, it won't be overturned. Personally, I don't believe that there has been any behaviour (certainly none that you have highlighted) that has been so egregious as to merit discussion on the incidents noticeboard. You probably don't want to hear this, but I suggest you move on and forget about it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I do realise it is quite possible that there is nothing I can do. Hope you don't mind a few more questions?

What about the irregularities in the AfD - that the first votes and comments were on content written by my opponent WP, who removed just about all the content that made it of interest as a separate article and prevented me from editing it for some time until N2e stepped in?

Also that during the AfD I was working hard to get the article ready for the AfD and only got it ready by about the last day?

Also, that hardly anyone involved in the discussion actually writes on Project Mars or Astronomy or any topics related to the AfD. Only WP and BI both of whom are diametrically opposed to my writing for wikipedia because they are strong space colonization advocates?

The only other author who writes on related topics, N2e, who writes on spaceflight issues voted with a weak keep. Does none of this count? And that the article was heavily cited but the AfD did not discuss the citations or the details of the article?

Does any of that count as reasons for a deletion review or to contest the way all my content was removed from Project Mars as a result of the AfD?

I suspect not from my experience of wikipedia arbitration methods so far during the last month or two, but want confirmation to be sure that I've understood right as it seems rather extraordinary to me that this can happen on wikipedia which I've always had good experiences of before.Robert Walker (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not criticism of your conduct as I'm sure as an admin you acted appropriately. They are things you couldn't know about. Robert Walker (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

subst:DRVNote|Stax Inc.

Hi, Ryan,

I've written you several times over the past three weeks to ask what guideline exactly the page violated, but I have not received a reply. So I opened a Deletion Review. (I see now that I misspelled your name in the review, and for that I sincerely apologize).

jks825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks825 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you please allow Rodney Marks (astrophysicist) to be moved to Rodney Marks. Only one article of this name. I thank yew. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 15:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

All done :-) I'm sure you could have done it yourself though - I don't think you need to be an administrator to move the page to a red link. That said, I've been fairly inactive for a while so I could be wrong! Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I couldn't move it because you had protected it from creation. Cheers. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 21:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you but will you look at the third nomation of the artice titled above you deleted before? The results once again result in favor of deletion and for the page be salted because they aren't really notable, the page is poorly sourced barely sourced as it is. They're are barley a team. Per Generally acceptable standards for pro wrestling, fails WP:ENTERTAINER - recently-established team of "heels" with no history of influence/notability. Also, article's references (all of which emanate from the WWE) fail the reliable source standard of being independent of the subject. We can put the information in the singles articles. -- Miss X-Factor (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ryan, it looks like I've finished the article you put at User:Jiri_Svobi/Reliance_SCADA. Thanks for allowing me to work on it (see your previous reply). I think the article is complete now.

As you will see, I’ve made quite a lot of changes to it. I’ve added or modified some sections, e.g., SCADA software, where several well-known SCADA software products are mentioned, or Reliance for education and research, which includes some reliable references from educational and research sources. The question is whether the length of the article is OK or whether, for example, the section Software modules is not overly detailed.

It would be great if you could give me your opinion on the article. Is there anything else I should change? --Jiri Svobi (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Newbie--please don't bite.

I would like to contribute an article on poet Aaron Belz, but I see that you deleted his article in June of this year. Here's the archived discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Belz I don't know whether it would be better in this instance to make a case to reinstate (with possible major revisions) the old article or to create a new one for review, since I cannot access the old article. I believe that Mr. Belz meets Wikipedia requirements for notability and he has another book of poetry that will come out in February 2014, and his work continues to be published; he is currently active.

Your thoughts on how to proceed (including if I am going about this the completely wrong way) are much appreciated.

Crossing my fingers that I did this correctly. Thank you! Ydogar (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Ryan Postlethwaite/archive24 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Happy adminship anniversary, Ryan! Wow...to think that your RfA took place seven years ago. It seems like yesterday. Acalamari 12:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am original creator of Arnold Motor Supply page which was deleted on 20 Dec 2013. I feel the topic has more than enough external sources and wide enough interest to justify an article. I would like to try to re-write the article but don't want to start over from nothing. Could you restore the article so I can make another attempt at publishing it? Eric J (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, are you still active here? It's been a year since I asked you to have a look at my article... Please see posts 82 and 106.Thank you. Jiri Svobi (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A case (Palestine-Israel articles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Ryan Postlethwaite, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Vatsan34 (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Ryan Postlethwaite. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Vatsan34 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)