This is an archive of past discussions with User:Anonymous Dissident. 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.
2007
Need help to undo a redirect
Hi! Maybe you remember me: recently you closed a GA Review for an article of mine. Sorry for bothering you, but I need an admin because of the article János Vitéz. It's a very simple thing: I changed János Vitéz into János Vitéz (poem), but then a user in this discussion made me see the error of my ways, so now I need to change it back. But I can't undo the redirect unless an administrator deletes the empty page János Vitéz. I checked WP:AFD but I'm not sure which category it belongs to. Can you delete it? It's really not questionable at all. --Zmaj10:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Silly me. Thanks anyway. I'm sure you'll be an admin pretty soon (if you want the hassle, that is). --Zmaj10:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm sorry, but I had to place back your removal of the July 22 nom. July 22 has expired; it is 8 days old, and five days is the limit. Please pick articles from only the last five days. Please do not add this to the next update. regards, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk15:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, you're right! I had multiple windows open and grabbed from the wrong spot. Thanks for the save! That's too bad though, the article would have been a good one for DYK. --JayHenry15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
When I wrote this, I tried to parallel the writing style of the other links on the page "List of Investment Banks" but please let me know if this is the type of edit you are looking for:
Today, Houlihan Lokey is a middle-market investment banking firm that consistently ranks among the top 10 U.S. M&A advisors as tracked by research firm Thomson Financial. The firm has led Mergers & Acquisitions Journal’s annual M&A fairness opinion advisory rankings for the past seven years. Houlihan Lokey was named IFR European Restructuring House in 2006 and has advised the creditors’ committees in three of the largest U.S. bankruptcies – Enron Corp., WorldCom Inc. and Conseco Inc.1
1 Berry, Kit (November 7, 2005). “Houlihan Officers Sell Shares as Part of Orix Takeover,” Los Angeles Business Journal. Subscript text
I placed the text with citations in the userspace. Let me know if you see anything that needs to be edited. Thank you
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. Ralbot23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
DYK
wow, certianly backlogged. Could you get the suggestions put on the next update for me ?I could tak eit from there. Wizardman23:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, done. I had to leave for about an hour, and was very disappointed to find otu that it STILL hadn't been updated. Needless to say, it's done now, lol. Hey, if you promise to update this every so often, I'll gladly nom you for adminship in a few weeks :P Wizardman01:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Some advice:stop advertising that you are 12 years old
There is some nervousness about children under age 13 revealing their ages (Internet safety and all that).
Also, when you next go for your RFA, don't advertise your age. Let other people assume that you are an adult. If your edits don't give away your age, why should you.
I agree with you, but I also disagree. I am not particularly bothered too heavily with internet safety - I have only revealed my first name, a very ambiguous approximation of where I am usually located, and the fact that I am 12. But, since you have provided some good advice about RFA in the past, I will do as you say and not 'advertise' it any more. Thanks for the insight. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk07:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I wouldnt say that advertising is the best word; perhaps 'mentioning' is better - its not like I'm 'showing off' or anything - I used it to provide an example and some context at WT:RFA. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk07:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Understood. That's why I didn't mention it earlier although I considered doing so. The "Internet safety" thing is probably a non-issue. However, it's obvious that mentioning your age will hurt you more on RFA than help you. Why give people an excuse to be age-ist? --Richard07:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
No reason, I suppose. I guess there are certain unchangeable details that will invariably prove 'hurtful' in certain situations, and where a non-mention will prove the better course of action. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk07:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Anything less than 2 months interval is a recipe for getting a boatload of opposes. 3 months is a better bet. Don't be in a hurry. --Richard22:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with that. I'm always wearing of an RfA that comes hot on the heels of the previous one, as it shows a certain amount of over-eagerness that makes several people wary. Time is needed between RfAs to fully address any issues that may have come up in the previous attempt, and only time will show if those changes actually stick. Also, as an aside, it never occurred to me that you might be 12. I would agree that there's no point in bringing this up; while you don't present yourself as a typical 12 year old, which is good, there's no reason to give people ammunition. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //22:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I was suprised at your age too, but yea, seriously, when you bring out your age in the middle of an argument like you did, it either drops your credibility because people believe you, or drops your credibility because people think you are trolling. That being said, I have seen your work many times before, and I would support your next RfA. aliasd·U·T17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I think I've got the article all ready and sorted now - the lead looks much better to me. If you have the time, have a look and let me know whether you see any other areas requiring improvement, perhaps there is some glaringly obvious flaw that I've overlooked. Otherwise I think I may nominate it for GA. Cheers, Chris.B10:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Nah it's ok, I wouldn't mind if it fails. Nominating it is probably a better way of getting feedback anyway. I normally work with featured pictures candidates so this would be something new for me. Thanks again, Chris.B10:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Bird collaboration of the month
As a member of WP:BIRD you are invited to this month's collaboration
Good morning or evening (depending on your location) Anonymous DissidentTalk. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for your comments on my Rfa application. I believe I now hold the record for the quickest closure! However, that does not negate the input and insight gained. Once again, thank you and have great day. Shoessss | Chat 12:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
–sebi has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! 23:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
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. Ralbot08:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks-Apple River
Thanks for the compliments and it was no problem, it still needs some work before I take it to GA but the basic expansion is done and the article gives a decent overview of the event. As always it needs copy edits and other tweaks but that's nothing too tough. Images might present a slight problem but I am confident that can be overcome with the wealth of resources available in my area, it'll just take a bit of legwork. I can understand being overwhelmed, the topic has a tendency to do that. What got you interested in it or did you just notice the red link? IvoShandor10:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I have found a few discrepancies in some of the sources, I usually like to note those in their own section, so that's one way to expand the article. There are other sources out there, scour Google Books with searches like: Apple River Fort Black Hawk, and you will surely come up with some interesting sources, sometimes I get stuck reading 150 year old books for hours. In addition I have a book on order that is supposed to arrive this week and its a recent publication about the Black Hawk War so I am hoping it will help to clear up a lot of the discrepancies between some of the older histories. Good luck, I am sure you are up to the task. : )IvoShandor10:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have a go, but I thought it preferable here than slicing up your articles with fact tags (and I haven't got time either).
Your recent painting articles are being turned out at fair old rate, but the quality is suffering as a result, which is a real shame as I've seen you turn out good work. The Delaroche article was inaccurate and the Brig "Mercury" and Wanderer Above a Sea of Fog appear to be both largely your own analysis unsupported by the sources you cite. Where are the "rocks" in the Brig "Mercury"? Do you mean the other ships on the horizon? Where is the water in the 'Sea of Fog? The foot note in the Brig "Mercury" is incomplete, the Wanderer has "Brig" in front of the title, and they both need a copy edit. The only "easily perceivable differance" is the colour of the flag? (That's the Turkish flag by the way). Really? Not the number of decks or masts? Link brig and you'll be able to tell which is the Brig "Mercury". You have the whole history of the attack in one of your references, yet hardly mention it (not even to place it in a specific "sea or ocean"). As to the paragraph about the ships being similar or perhaps identical...Yomanganitalk10:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just seen your message, and now I feel really bad, but I hope you take the comments in the spirit they were intended. You aren't doing yourself justice with these articles. Yomanganitalk10:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You could get them up to spec before they are due. The Delaroche one doesn't say much but I gave it a clean up yesterday. With a little work, the Brig could easily be a good article before it hits DYK. Yomanganitalk11:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, a bit more detail. I took out the inaccuracies in the Bonaparte article. Unfortunately I haven't got time to look up references (and they are probably packed away) so you'll have to try and dig these out of Google books or somewhere, but Delaroche was a stickler for historical accuracy, so what Nappy is wearing and the clothes of the guide were probably researched in some depth. Delaroche looked like Napoleon (or believed he did) which is one of the reasons he was sympathetic to him. His painting was produced on the back of a revival in interest in Napoleon after years of his name being a dirty word (that's why David's painting had been taken out of storage and rehung in the Louvre). Interestingly it was David's painting that broke the tradition of representing Napoleon realistically, so the reworking of that painting in a realistic setting brings the story full circle. The Brig would benefit tremendously just from having the info on the attack added. Your source gives enough detail to give some background, identify the ships, and perhaps even identify the point in the battle (if you can't find info on Aivazovsky then don't try padding it). Wanderer needs to be placed on a mountain top above a sea of fog rather than a next to the ocean, and your analysis needs cutting unless you can provided some sources. Yomanganitalk11:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any rocks (and judging from the source on the battle they were in open water). That's not to say that they aren't supposed to be rocks, but unless somebody else says so I wouldn't put it in. I hadn't even noticed the Archers. I'll try and have a look later. Yomanganitalk11:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There are some excellent sources for the seemingly one-sided battle of the 18- or 20-gun Russian brig Mercury against two Turkish ships of the line - the 110-gun Selimie (flagship of the Kapudan Pasha) and
and the 74-gun Real-bey - on 26 May1829.
[3] might be useful for The Archers. I'd never seen that painting before, the composition is wonderful, somebody must have written about that. I can see a potential FA hidden in this article, there's a good bit of background, lots to discuss in the painting and the fight to keep it in the UK will round it off nicely. The DYK hook says that Joshua Reynolds never achieved great success or recognition during his lifetime, which isn't in the article, and isn't really true. He was 1st President of the RA, was knighted and held in high regard by some of his contemporaries. He was vilified by the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood but that was recognition in itself. Yomanganitalk15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I know I haven't got anything on either of those paintings other than perhaps a paragraph in some general art books unless I have something that I've never looked at (which sounds shameful but isn't really). I'd never seen the Archers before. I'm sure there are a lot of sources out there for it though. The link I gave has a bibliography listed, you might try there. It's a lot more interesting than Bonaparte which really only has the comparison with David's version and the back story going for it (there's not a lot to talk about in the painting itself). Yomanganitalk00:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The Archers is good, but the back story to the Brig makes it the star for me. There is a good Russian page on the boat and the historical incident at: ru:Меркурий (бриг). -- !!??09:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree if you can find any commentary on the painting. The Archers has a lot more going for it in the picture itself, but there's probably less of a back story. Yomanganitalk12:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thankee! :)
Thank you so much for the kind words, dear Josh! Like I just told Riana, I can't believe it's been that long already... I swear, I feel old! :) Now, we must plan the appropriate time for you to get your own mop and join us, the past generation of admins at the trenches ;) Thanks again, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 05:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Anonymous Dissident. I am here to inform you that your userpage or talk page has been conquered by the Australian Cabal. Please don’t panic; there is nothing you can do about it. You are hereby invited to join the Cabal, and help conquer other pages for our cause. See User:Giggy/Australian Cabal for more information. Thank you, have a nice day, and welcome to Australia. GiggyTalk02:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your AFD nomination here, the page is not obvious vandalism, but clearly a recently begun page by an editor with no blocks, and minimal edits. I think you would have been better advised to ask them to improve the page rather than jump to AFD. It's not the only solution, and in this case comes across as a bit hasty if not hostile. FrozenPurpleCube19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I did apply forethought, when you consider the content of the first diff. I have now withdrawn the nomination, but I feel, after reading your comment on the AFD, the need to fully explain myself. It meets criteria A1 of the CSD as of the first diff, so it could almost fairly be deleted with the latter reasoning. It provided no context whatsoever, and consisted only of: a rephrasing of the title, and a large amount of wikitables with no explained content. I was not biting the user. He was new, but so are the other new good faith users who create articles that are removed all of the time. I hope you understand.
I also took a look on the essay your recently wrote. I feel that you are strongly correct on many of the bases you covered there, but it was obviously inspired by me, and my noming of the article. I think that perhaps you created it without understanding my reasoning for nominating the article. It was not vandalism. I never even considered that. It was not solely because it was unreferenced, but that further brought to me the suspicion that it may not be good for the project. It was because it provided no context - I could not possibly divine what the article was talking about, what it was describing, as of the first diff. Thats why I nominated it. I did assume good faith, and I fully trust that the editor can become a great Wikipedia user. But, in the end, it all comes down to the article's original lack of context. Finally, I will say that no tag would have been appropriate for that article - cleanup tag would be inappropriate because messiness was not the issue. Wikify - perhaps, but again, not the main problem. There are no tags I know of dealing with absolutely no context, and thats why that particular criteria is part of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.
I have sent a friendly message to the user further explaining the issue. I hope that this is to your liking, and satisfies your concern about my perceived hostility (by the way, the truth is that, while you wanted me to assume good faith, you were not assuming good faith for me, but labeling my nomination as a hostility. I do not edit with hostility, or I try not to. I try to operate with a clear head. I would never nominate an article, or do anything on Wikipedia, if it were fueled by a force of bad will) Thanks -- Anonymous DissidentTalk22:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence of forethought or examination on your part to the extent that would be appropriate. There is absolutely nothing in the article that speaks of vandalism, there's even a reference in the first diff. Those are things that tell me that more consideration needs to be given to the article than just rushing to the delete button. You need to learn to tell the difference between an article that is a problem by its very nature and one that's just developing. Only in the former case would I recommend the precipitous and hasty action you made. And I hope you don't find this offensive, but your protests only serve to convince me that you don't realize your mistake. There is little chance deletion would be appropriate here, let alone CSD. CSD is not to be used for things that are not obviously problems or that might be valid. While I'm glad you do recognize that your nomination was ill-considered, I think you're not truly recognizing your mistake, and are trying to defend yourself. That's not good. So you can't tell what the article is about. Did you try to ask the editor what they were trying to do? No, you didn't. Did you look up the subject at all? I can't see that you did. I don't even know if you performed a google search. I did. I got enough results that I was able to understand that there was something to do with motorcycle racing. Was it really so hard for you to go to news.google.com and search for "Swedish Speedway" ? Knowing that much, I'd have gone to the talk page of the editor and suggested they provide an explanation for this being a sport. You can say it's the burden of an editor to prove things, but I feel it's also the burden of any editors to take reasoned actions instead of automatic responses. (And it doesn't help you that there was a reference in the first edit).
So basically, while I might comprehend your actions, I believe they were highly mistaken. You chose the wrong actions. As for your protests that there was no appropriate template message to use, I'd consider that {{context}} would be appropriate, but um, since when were you limited to template messages anyway? Did you consider a message on the talk page? Or to the user? If you didn't, then that represents a mistake on your part. So next time you see a page like this, try at least one of the steps I suggested. Will they always be required? No, but you'll have to use your judgment. Just try to realize you have more options. I see you consider this a lack of assuming good faith on my part. I am making the good faith assumption that you made a mistake and didn't know there are other things you can do. I consider this to be a problem for you, but this doesn't mean you are a problem. It just means there's something you need to correct in yourself. Countering this concern with a lack of AGF on my part makes me think you're worrying way too much about defending your actions and not enough about correcting them. Trust me, I am not ascribing malice on your part, I am however, not sure there's sufficient awareness of the nature of your actions. FrozenPurpleCube 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And actually, my inspirations predate your nomination by a considerable bit. In fact, you can look at the history and note that it was created BEFORE your nomination, as I first made the page at 02:10, your nomination was not until several hours later. And I can go back to oh say, the 23rd of July to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil marriage in Israel for an earlier example. Not to mention the more recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North China craton and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Block (North China Craton). Sorry if I'm deflating your vanity, but I've seen this problem before, and the only thing you're doing is reinforcing my belief that it is a problem. Which is why I do feel it's important to write the essay. Though it's not like there isn't existing material such as WP:AFD#Before nominating an AfD FrozenPurpleCube 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Josh, I see you're 12 years old and, while your work on wikipedia is admirable, your youth means you have to be careful about nominating things for deletion simply because you haven't heard of them. If you'd Googled terms like 'speedway' or 'craton' you'd have seen they were notable things. Being too trigger happy creates a lot of work for other people and makes them doubt your competence. As Mr Manticore points out there are a lot of things it's suggested you can do about an article you have doubts about written up on the AfD page, before you nominate something for AfD. I'm sure you've got a lot to offer. I removed the AfD tag from the article in question seeing as you'd withdrawn the nomination but 'dearly wanted to see some clean up'. You're allowed to clean up an article yourself you know, even if you had nothing to do with its creation. If you want to be an admin then users will look for little incidents like this and maybe use them in discussions about your suitability so it's in your own best interests to think twice here. These were exactly the same concerns which meant your first RfA failed. For instance
Oppose, user has nominated professional soccer players for speedy deletion as recently as a few hours ago. Wouldn't trust him with the delete button. —freak(talk) 20:32, Jun. 10, 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide an example of this? Anonymous Dissident Utter 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[1]. —freak(talk) 21:23, Jun. 10, 2007 (UTC)
How could I have possibly known he was a professional? there was no indication of it in the article; I simply took that he was a normal person who happened to play football, thus failing WP:NOTABILITY. Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The mistake is easily understood, given the state of the article at its creation (I would have done the same thing). Pot-shot edit summaries like yours [2] are worse, though (addressing freak). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The mistake is not that easily understood in my opinion. Its a stub, quite simply: he is listed as a player on the team Berwick Rangers F.C.. It would have taken less than 5 seconds to look and see if Berwick Rangers F.C. is a professional team or not. —Gaff ταλκ 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Gaff has made a fair point, and I will accept it. I was on a speedy tag run, I saw the article, read it quickly, it looked like WP:NOTABILITY vio, I placed the tag. Now I see that the player is professional, thus passing WP:NOTABILITY. Lesson learnt. Should most definitely read New pages more carefully and analyse more when on patrol. Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
"Should most definitely read New pages more carefully and analyse more when on patrol." You wrote that in June. Lesson learned? Nick mallory 00:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern. I understand the time issue. But please do think about the first diff. It could almost fairly qualify for speedy deletion. Instead I nominated it for deletion, but not because I hadn't heard of it. Because it provided no context. It contained a rephrasing of the title, and a compilation of data that was unexplained. When the necessary improvements were made, I closed the debate. I did not opt to add more information because I myself had no information to give. I understand I can clean it up - i might just do that, when I finish my conversation with FrozenPurpleCube. I hope you understand, I nominated the article because, without context, it was a piece of text that was not understandable, and was not appropriate for Wikipedia as of the first edit. While I may have needed to wait longer before nomination, I don't think that I was unfairly trigger happy considering the content of the first edit. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk00:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it obviously seems to you that no, the lesson hasn't been learnt. I will say that is has, because I understand the CSD now. i more carefully analyse new pages. And I did analyse this new page. I cannot be expected to analyse future edits of articles that quite clearly meet the criteria for deletion, though, and while I may have needed to wait longer, that can be said of any violative article, that could possibly be improved in a period as long as a year or two. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't care about this article in particular, I'm just thinking about your desire for adminship. This is how you closed your first RfA
Ok. I'm now thinking of closing the rfa, per WP:SNOW. All of your advice has been good, and I hope that perhaps my second Rfa will pass. To sum up, what I have gathered from the critisism is that I need to more intensely study New pages before making a judgement on what tag to place, if any at all. Would that adequately sum up most of the opposes? Anonymous Dissident Utter 23:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What's changed? You might not think you were trigger happy, the point is other people, the people who'll be deciding whether you'd make a good admin, did think that and obviously still do. You can keep acting the same way, and trying to defend it, or just slow down a bit and think twice and help people less experienced than you improve their articles rather than slapping them for deletion. You want your second RfA to pass right? It won't if you haven't taken on board what everyone told you. It's up to you isn't it? As for 'clean up' I really meant removing the AfD tag from the article, you nominated it, you withdrew it, you could remove the AfD tag. Nick mallory00:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Adminship is a row of buttons. I do not have an overwhelming wanting of them, I just feel I could use them for the communities benefit. I have only withdrawn an AFD once or twice before. A review of my nominations will show most were deleted. I don't feel I move overly fast, else none of my AFD's would end up with a deletion closure. And I don't know if it is fair to say that this was a blatant mistake on my part - surely the reasoning behind the nomination is fairly easy to perceive. This particular nomination resulted in a keep, after good improvements, by you and another editor, were made while I was asleep. I was happily surprised when i found these great improvements, improvements i did not expect. I then closed the debate, content to do so. I'm not sure a great deal should be made of this - I might have made an error in not waiting for a bit, but, despite my statement on my last RFA, I cannot fairly strive to be perfect - even the most policy-wizened and skillful bureaucrats are not ineffable. I hope you understand. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This editor is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's editor deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the execution at this editors's trial on the Editors for deletion page.
Feel free to talk to the user, but the editor must not be shunned, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.
I thought the word was "Defense" in British spelling, according to Merriam Webster's it is: chiefly British variant of DEFENSE, So that's how I've always thought of the word, for um, well let's just say decades, shall we? Is there a different use for the word, that would change the context? I'm happy for you to tell me, I don't use British English and never have, so I'd have no idea, so no worries that I'd be upset, plus now I'm curious! lol. Ariel♥Gold11:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right, right? lol. rite? write? omg, AG needs sleep, methinks. But yeah, Defense is US, Defence is British... write? Ahh well it is past my bedtime, drop me a line if you're around when a decision is made, makes no real nevermind to me lol. Ariel♥Gold11:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Status
Hi; clearly the entry at WP:EFDP is a light-hearted whimsy, but I was concerned at your request (which I have honoured) for the deletion of a number of your subpages. I really do hope that you are not thinking of leaving wikipedia, are you? --Anthony.bradbury"talk"12:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See my response to your post on my talk. With that and the above, your clearly have the whole "Brad" cabal looking out for you now. Regards, Newyorkbrad15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove the tags on the pages - rather, swap them over so that the merge is proposed from RI (Q) to RI. -Malkinann21:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
RFCUN
Good job on your reports here. However, generally it is expected that you discuss your concern with the user in question before bringing it for comment. Sometimes users are perfectly willing to change their username, and if so there is no need for the RFCUN filing. You can use {{subst:UsernameConcern}} for this purpose, or you can write a personal note outlining your specific concerns. Thanks! isaid15:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Good luck with your nomination for main-page mention of this article. It seems to me that what would be interesting is to compare the weight of the eagle with the weight of its prey. Steve Dufour16:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Tireless contributer barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your endless amounts of edits to a wonderfully wide variety of areas. We started editing this website at about roughly the same time and I've seen your name assigned to various contributions all over the place. Well done and keep up the good work! You'll be a great admin one day. :-) Lradrama18:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
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. Ralbot19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"Thank you for your recent post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Because that noticeboard is meant for issues that require the urgent attention of administrators, your post has been moved to (linked forum name here), which is a more appropriate forum for your issue."
I assume the way you've written it would require substing, then manually changing the required fields. May I suggest using "if" coding, such as in {{uw-vandalism3}} so that piping could be used. Also a third piping could be used for an optional statement, eg. {{uw-ani|WP:AN|Flyguy649|I have already moved your query}}~~~~ to give:
I ham-fistedly added some "if" functionality. I've never tried to make a template before, so it's not too elegant. Revert it if you dislike it or improve it if you can (which I'm sure you can!) Flyguy649talkcontribs20:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad it seems ok! I just asked User:Wikihermit to comment on it since he is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings, the group that developed all the new harmonized warnings, and he seems to be online. As for a template for the ANI itself, I imagine that most users would just add something like "comment moved to WP:whereever, user warned" and either mark it as archived, resolved, or delete the thread entirely. Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you broke part of that fence you've been hanging around on! Ariel♥Gold
Thanks for reverting the vandalisms
on the article for the Great Wall of China. I live in Australia myself and there is a Telstra Bigpond Broadband advertisement on TV showing a dumb father telling his son that the Great Wall is built to "keep the rabbits out". This is very stupid and people always comes on wikipedia to put that into the article. Anyway thanks for reverting the vandalisms! Oidia 06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comment on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Campbells56 is actually wrong I am afraid. There is evidence that this nonsense religion does not exsist, as it has no mention on google, and the only one is a wikipedia talk page with a warning about the page that was cached. Nothing else comes up, and the user in question has violated WP:BLP into the articles of famous people by saying that they followed the religion in particular when they never. The sunder king09:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a small snag in the referencing. The von Albrecht reference had an incorrect ISBN, and since it,s a two-volumes work, you might want to be a bit more specific with it. Circeus19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
DYK
On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Protector lock, 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.
Re the Afd[4] for Knud Olsen. I have reduced the article to a stub to remove the copyvio. The article can now be carefully rebuilt with care, avoiding any copyvio issues. Could I invite to reconsider your nomination and withdraw it please? Thanks. --Malcolmxl508:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but there is no getting around the fact that it was a fair and good nomination to begin with. Wikipedia's copyright policy is very strict, and it is quite severe that this content had been there since 05. Copyright violations cannot be tolerated, but thank you for fixing the content. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk08:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Yes, I understand why you nominated it and you were quite right to do so. Thanks for closing the Afd, hopefully the author will now rebuild the article using his own words. All the best now. --Malcolmxl522:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Admin
I would like to nominate you for admin. What do you say? I have briefly scanned your contribs and I see lots of great work. you are already involved in admin stuff like th enoticeboard, rfcn etc and you arev even a great article writer. You are the perfect candidate and should satisfy everyone. ViridaeTalk01:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Europe Proposal
Hi, I see you're a member of the European Microstates project. I was wondering if you would be interested in participating in a new "WikiProject:Europe"? It would cover non-EU pan European elements and more national elements where there isn't a project to cover it (e.g. there is no project for Slovenia). Microstates might also want to become a taskforce of the project to keep down overheads etc as there are just a few members. I am just trying to get an idea of numbers before I propose it but if you have comments on the idea please see the Discussion on WPEU. Thanks for your time! - J Logant: 08:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
On 19 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black Hawk-Eagle, 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.
It's worked out by a points system, where each review gets between 1 and 3 points depending on its thoroughness. I'm not keen on displaying the points gained by each reviewer as I don't want to keep getting complaints from reviewers who think their reviews should have had more points. Twenty points is usually enough to win the award each week, and eight points is usually enough to get into the top five. Epbr12311:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Random comments:
Why is there a history of his Egyptian campaign in there? I'm all for a little background, but this has nothing to do with the picture at all. You might want to mention Delaroche's earlier portrait of Napoleon at Fontainebleau (3 versions, at least one of which has the hand tucked in the waistcoat in the same iconic pose as in Crossing the Alps) and Napoleon in his Study from 1838 (which makes another interesting contrast with David's 1812 picture of the same name). The analysis of the painting and the comparison to David's work are patchy at the moment (looks like mostly your own opinion rather than reporting what others have to say). Try to find out which version of David's painting Delaroche saw in the Louvre. It must be one of the two Versaille's versions: Image:Napoleon-david.jpg, or Image:Napoleonpic.jpg as these were the only two in the country, but I don't know which (if either) of them were exhibited in the Louvre. The different versions have different colouring, so saying he is on a white horse is possibly incorrect, and a gold cape definitely is. There needs to be some history of the painting's ownership. There are at least two versions extant: Onslow's was bought by the Walker Gallery and there is one in the Louvre. How did it get to the Louvre? Was that Queen Victoria's copy, or is was there a third version (or more versions)? Any differences between the versions? The "hat" is a bicorne. I'd mention the connection between David and Delaroche through Antoine-Jean Gros (Gros was a pupil of David and the teacher of Delaroche). You might also mention that while the was a resurgence of interest in Napoleon a portrait in the mould of David's still probably wouldn't have gone down well (though you'll need to find somebody else saying that). Bonaparte died in 1821, so you might want to put that in as well as the date of his exile (at the moment it doesn't mention it is a posthumous picture). Any modern commentary on the painting? Yomanganitalk12:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I declined speedy on this article that you tagged. It had been deleted as copyvio before and the author claimed to be the author of the source page as well. I've put links on the article's talk page if you would like to review them. In any event, the admin who deleted the article as copyvio restored it and it would be probably better if there are remaining concerns to contact him/her directly. Thanks for helping to keep WP clean. Carlossuarez4621:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
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. Ralbot04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have seen your name on various projects, and making significant contributions to Wikipedia, and the community at large. I would be happy to co-nom you for an RfA with anyone else (any takers?). contact me when you're ready in September.
I would also be pleased to nominate you in September or whenever you're ready. Please email me about a nomination. Is it too tacky to talk about this here?Neranei(talk)01:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as you can see I have withdrawn my rfa as to be honest looking at it now I probably wouldn't have supported it if I was on the judging, first of all i would like to thank you for you comments and although you did not support I was glad to have a sort of "neutralness" from you, as for the future I will try to address any concerns raised. I will continue most of my regular actives but I am also going to try to get many Linux articles up to GA status as well as trying to get some previous Linux FA back up to FA. As for future rfas i am pretty sure I will try again but I am not going to put a date on it. --Chris G 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
DYK (24 August)
On 24 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oswald Tesimond, 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.
Good, I'm glad. Hope to see you around, and please drop me a line if you need anything. I'm always happy to help! Cheers, Neranei(talk)01:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Adminship
Hey, your userpage says you would like to become an administrator sometime around september. I'd be happy to nominate you if you are keen :) You have a much better chance of passing now. Matt/TheFearow(Talk)(Contribs)(Bot)04:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Just let me know when Maxim creates the page, and I'll take care of my part. My break should only be another day of two, it felt refreshing not editing though :) Wizardman03:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read the page and advising on what I should do to improve the article. It's often difficult to see where something is failing when you're so caught up in it! I will act on your suggestions in the coming months. I do still have a couple of problems though:
1) When I initally made the page, I emailed a link to the artists concerned. They emailed me back and corrected one or two points that I'd put in. However I can't direct people to my email inbox for verification - what would you suggest in this situation?
2) Also a user has been putting a link to a commercial website that basically just sells prints of this artist (and a few others). First I undid it with an explanation. Then when it returned I undid it and left an explanation on the users talk page Wikipedia states that links to sites which exist primarily to sell products or sevices should be avoided. Sorry. However they've just reinstated it with the words online gallery next to their link. It is just a commercial website selling prints. Have you any thoughts?
Before taking any kind of action (notice on the talk page), I'd like your opinion on this name. I respect your opinion, and you've been around RFCN longer than I, so you know the history with relation to religious figures in user names. One edit, but I cannot identify if the information is true or not, so I can't tell if it was put there with good faith. I assumed it was. Ariel♥Gold14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, all those things I considered too. But it has been pretty adamantly requested that the user be notified first, and after a time, then take it to RFCN. So I'm not sure how long, exactly, is "enough time" between leaving the user a notice, and asking for comments at RFCN. I guess I'd like your input on how to do that, or if you'd prefer to take care of it, feel free. I'm not sure really what the name is supposed to mean either, unless I take some big "leaps" assuming intention, which I don't do. But up to you. I think that I'd probably do nothing, and just AGF for a while, but if you think discussion is in order (again I defer to you because you have been around RFCN more than I) then I would be happy to see the input there. Ariel♥Gold15:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, completely unrelated
Your talk page uses a font I love, but I looked at the source and can't figure out what you did to override whatever default font WP uses (they're both sans-serif, but I just like the "clean" look of whatever font you're using). So spill your secrets, please! Ariel♥Gold15:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I've been working a nomination out with him since July. And it so happens you ask him about an hour before I post the nomination. Feel free to co-nom, or whatever you wish to do. Maxim(talk)18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been nominated for adminship
Maxim would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Maxim to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous Dissident 2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
DarkWizard has, Melsaran hasn't but it's O.K. to go live early, that the usual way of unorganized co-noms (organized means that the co-noms have discussed best times, etc.) Do you want me to post it or will you do the honors? Maxim(talk)21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No worries. It was a minor thing anyway. I almost beat you to the first support, too, if I hadn't bothered to add it to the main RfA page instead. *shakes fist* :) EVula// talk // ☯ //21:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
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. Ralbot05:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. Didn't notice the notable movies in there - I've added wikilinks to help rectify that. Good luck in RfA! —Giggy07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! Re: this edit. I'd have to disagree. I generally dislike galleries, especially when the images they contain are available on Commons or can be moved to commons (see Second Empire for such a mess). It's also not much of a gallery when there's only one image. I think leaving the image you moved to a gallery in text is more aesthetically pleasing and allows for a much better flow of the text. I'm also actively creating/expanding all of the Stylidiaceae articles and will eventually return to this genus and its two species. Your thoughts? --Rkitko(talk)12:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've taken another look at the beginning of the article and it has improved a little, but I still believe there's a problem. I know it's difficult to write an article essentially based on a single source without there being some resemblances. However, I believe the onus is on the writer to chop things around sufficiently that the resemblance isn't immediately apparent. Regards, Espresso Addict13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Not meaning to be sarcastic or anything, but if you feel ready for adminship, you shouldn't be asking a lowly editor like me something like this ;) Espresso Addict18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've had another very quick look and the article doesn't look very much changed. To be honest, I don't think a succession of cosmetic edits is going to make much of a difference. What's really needed is a major rewriting and reorganisation of the material to make it clearly distinct from the source, or -- preferably -- finding another source to use in addition. Espresso Addict18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
On 28 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Holbeach House, 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.
Guess what, man? Your RfA is goin' really well. It'll soon be in the WP:100 list for sure (six supports away!) and you don't have a lot of opposition. You'll be an admin in no time! Seriously, I thought you were already an admin, and I'm sure lots of others feel that way, too. ARArgon06:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, man! Wikipedia's sweet, and I've been wantin' to join here for a good, long while. But thanks to a certain user, my IP address was blocked {don't read too much into that, my IP's shared}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AR Argon (talk • contribs) 06:45, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I think I wanna be an admin someday, too. Just 'cause workin' the tools sounds like fun. Don't worry, I'd know what to expect, and I wouldn't misuse the mop. And I highly doubt you'll misuse yours. ARArgon06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, DF. The massive piles of support obviously stems from the fact that I was the second person to !vote on it, and everyone realizes that I rarely participate in RfAs. They're obviously thinking that, if I'm willing to step out of the shadows for a candidate, they must definitely be worth it, so everyone supports. EVula// talk // ☯ //14:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
In typical Ariel fashion, I have added my verbose enthusiastic endorsement of your promotion, and I look forward to being able to give you congratulations! Ariel♥Gold15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
On 29 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Luny, 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.
Ya know how everyone does the obligatory thank yous after an RfA? If nothing else, to decrease your workload (how many supports is that now? :) ), I will not require a thank you, it's no big deal anyway. Let me offer my early congrats, unless the anti-dissident crew plans on coming out in droves I think ya got the bits. IvoShandor02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please do! I've actually never played the game for more than half an hour so I hardly know what's going on, in particular, with the unit types, etc, but I know a heap about AOE, and they aren't that different, are they? ;) Oh, and if you want something to do, like, right about now, is try and expand the whole lead section, and include a bit more about the game, then try and cover some units and buildings aspect of the game, etc. –sebi06:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, will do. Being a weekend, I have some social events on, but will be back to editing a bit on sunday, but being fathers day and all, apparently we are meant to 'worship' our father on that day. andrewrox424Bleep11:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I do it on a monthly basis. I know it is annoying, but it helps things to be organised by a set rule, if you will. Dont worry - tomorrow it is all gone :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk11:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You might want to consider using MiszaBot III, which archives each thread after a few days of inactivity, but organizes the archives into labelled monthly pages as you want. User:R was kind enough to set it up on my page as an improvement from my earlier system and it's working very well. Newyorkbrad13:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Adminship
Wow! What an awesome compliment! Thank you very much. I've been considering giving it a try, and I really appreciate your support! I was recently working with Fang Aili, who has been acting as my admin coach...so this is a perfect suggestion from you. Let me check with Fang first, to see if she thinks I'm really ready, and thanks so much for this wonderful offer..! Dreadstar†17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Changing the names of the Maltese village articles
There is currently an ongoing debate about whether the articles on Maltese villages should be given their English names. Kyarichy has already gone and renamed a bunch of articles such as as Kalkara citing these changes from an old obsolete paper and http://www.geody.com, even though these names are no longer in use.
The naming conventions clearly state that foreign location names commonly used in English should be used as the article names.
Thank you both for the kind words. I am delighted to return into the folds of the community and am prepared to take back on regular editorial and administrative duties. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk13:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to welcome you back aswell. CHU is beckoning! (I've also replied to your comments on Meta). Rudget15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on Meta, Rudget, and thank you much for the welcome back. Your excellence and diligence at CHU leaves my presence not a necessity, I'm sure, although I plan to be around. ;) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk00:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Tilt fuse
On 11 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tilt fuse, 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.
Thank you for your warning. I'll keep that in mind when I make a personal attack, which I have not at any forum in my time here, to my best recollection. Please do not template my talk page with any more of these messages, and keep the disucssion (which is currently cordial - I am confused as to why you have left me this note) at the AfD. Best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk07:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sayles, I see no personal attacks within that comment. Sure, Anonymous Dissident could word it more diplomatically, but it was in no ways attacking you. Please familiarize yourself with the policy before trying to enforce it. It is also bad form to template an admin, and it does not help that you are the person supposedly "attacked". If the comment is a personal attack, other people would warn the user responsible for these comments; it leaves no room for oversight otherwise. Please keep this in mind. —Darktalk00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Of course, if you can think of any extra improvements that can be made in regards to the utility of the footer, it'd be much appreciated. :) —Anonymous DissidentTalk10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, AD. I've added my name. It's a fantastic list and some of our best editors are there. I also noticed that you have 95 DYKs. That's an amazing achievement. Thanks for creating the list. :) Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi!! I am currently active on en.wikipedia.org, en.wiktionary.org, meta.wikimedia.org and I want to delete them all permanently, or I want to delete my accounts on these three projects permanently, but since it is not possible to delete accounts as stated on your policy I would like to make my space on these accounts available for other users and have them all renamed for other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollyta (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC) --Rollyta (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
DYK template
Thanks. It's too late at night for me to want to start a new discussion now, but feel free to bump my talkpage again if I don't respond sometime tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was just curious about your edit closing the 2arm discussion. You say the user has formally requested a name change, but I don't see that in his/her contributions. Was it by email or something? -kotra (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see where the issue in understanding has occurred. I'll insert "has been formally requested". I was saying that the user was going to be formally requested by me to change, not that he himself formally requested a change. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —Anonymous DissidentTalk21:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I am a currently anon user who has been responsible for some of the edits to 2ARM. It was the undoing of my edits that has brought 2ARM (user) to the attention of the editors. I wish to re-instate some of the material that was deleted etc from 2ARM (entry) but realise that this is going to cause... conflict? I am after some advice as to how to re-write the article, WITHOUT causing an edit war. Any suggestions much appreciated. 2arm seems to be unable to grasp that wikipedia entries are not owned by the organisations. 150.101.201.72 (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous Dissident, thanks for this edit which marked a great achievement over the weekend. I wrote my thoughts on my user page and thanked you there as well. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Anonymous Dissident
The Reason the user name "2arm" was chosen was because that is the name of the Community Radio station that uses the 2ARM section. <redacted non-relevant contents —Anonymous DissidentTalk>
Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2arm (talk • contribs) 08:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
No, there will be none of that. You are hereby blocked for failure to comply. This username is promotional and your intent to promote the company is clear. —Anonymous DissidentTalk10:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
OK - Well, the main reason I undid your edit is because I don't really think "Administrator reports" makes sense. Of course, before I undid it, I checked for some sort of discussion on the talk page - failing to see that, I changed it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you not think it makes sense? AN is for reporting to administrators. Additionally, it was a rather trivial correction, and I don't think discussion is at all required for this change. —Anonymous DissidentTalk03:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
No, discussion wasn't necessary, but, had there been one, I wouldn't have reverted ( I was just noting that ). I think it was fine the other way, but ... okay. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. :) Just letting you know that Ariel is back on WP and has even logged onto IRC. Come on over to her room! GlassCobra19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Changing username
Changing username Ikathoo → John S FitzGerald Renaming it will cause the local user to be detached from the global one
Thanks for your comment, what does above mean and how do I reunify it--Ikathoo (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Re this. The partial archiving of the page hides the fact that MRIMaven then asked for a changed to User:CinderSue, which went through successfully. Speaking for myself, I'd be disinclined to agree to another change in the future. Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
After you declined I asked for some clarification. I imagine you never saw this on the page requesting protection. For completeness I wonder if you would answer it there, please? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I like your recent copyedits to Augustus ("coffin-bound", why didn't I think of that? lol). It's an article I expanded and brought to Featured status, so anyone who treats it with care is a friend of mine. Keep it on your watchlist; there's plenty of vandals who like to fiddle with the page in naughty ways. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk09:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, Pericles. You are to be royally congratulated for your effort in raising such a magnificent piece of writing. I'm just glad to help out. :-) —Anonymous DissidentTalk11:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Birds August newsletter
The August 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
I have done a GA Reassessment of The Battle of Alexander at Issus as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to nearly meet the current GA Criteria. I did see a couple of issues that cause me to not immediately keep the article at GA. I have placed it on hold for a week pending work. My review can be found here. I am notifying you as a primary editor in the hopes that work can be done. Should you have questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
No; if the requester has claim to the global name, usurpation can be done immediately. Discretion is typically exercised in cases where the requester and the account to be usurped have a similar number of homewiki edits. —Anonymous DissidentTalk00:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Just use the dates - 25 January and 28 January instead of ninth and tenth. I don't trust the edition that you are using (as I've looked at it before and it is wrong - it is the Dublin edition, which could explain why the numbering and dates does not match what critics state). The above dates are directly from Battestin, which is -the- biography on Fielding and by the world leading expert. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Dublin edition - the original was in London. The London edition held the copyright. For it to be given to Dublin, it was either pirated or sold use of. Either way, it would be delayed. You do not date a newspaper or a magazine days before its publication. So, the Dublin edition lags. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Check the page: "Dublin: Printed by James Hoey, at the Sign of Mercury, in Skinner-Row. Where may be had the former Numbers." Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
FAC takes twice as long as GAN and the chance of not getting reviews and having it die there are greater. You can see that Christopher Smart's asylumn conflict died without any supports or opposes. Removing it from the GAN queue was a bad idea - it would have been reviewed by the end of the week. And the easiest way to clear out the backlog there is to review other articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I think saying FAC takes twice as long as GAN is rather a difficult comment to substantiate. There are nominations that have been there since early June and before. How do you know it would have been reviewed by the end of the week? We could be waiting until October. I'd prefer to take my chances at FAC, where there is a steady movement of candidacies down the line, and where the article is open to critique from more than one reviewer at a time. —Anonymous DissidentTalk13:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read. Listed 24 June. Died 25 July. No supports or opposes. You need at least three supports for it to pass. So yes, FAC takes twice as long, because you have to wait a few weeks before relisting. And I know that it would have been reviewed at GAN by the end of the week because I have been cleaning out the backlog at GAN. That is the easiest way to get reviews - especially when a lot of the people with pages up are reviewers and tend to review people they recognize. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That's one candidacy. Almost every other one is reviewed to satisfaction. An outlier is not a reasonable point of argument. On the other hand, almost every GA takes ages to be reviewed – and then you have the review itself, which I've seen take over a week. And even then it's only a GA – one still has to go through the FAC process in the end anyway. This isn't a question of two alternatives to the same end; it's a question of going through a preliminary process. I still don't see the point of it all. If there are concerns (which there inevitably will be), I'd prefer to deal with them all once, rather than twice. I've just not been convinced that going through GA is not needless hoop-jumping. —Anonymous DissidentTalk14:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Watchlist SandyGeorgia's talk page - every other day is another question by a nominator why their FAC died with 0 opposes. It is because of lack of reviews. If you want to think it is an outlier, fine. However, I perform reviews at FAC, GAN, and DYK. And concerns being dealt with at FAC normally result in less reviewers willing to bother with a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so let's assume you're right and FAC is suffering a shortage of reviewers. That's a shame. But there's no way around that. We're going to have to go through FAC eventually, and I've still not heard convincing arguments for bothering with GAN for an article that is ready for FAC. Covent isn't the longest article, but you've not disagreed when I've said that it's comprehensive, well-referenced, reads nicely, is stable, and is neutral. What's stopping it from skipping the middle man? —Anonymous DissidentTalk14:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Normally, when you start a FAC you say what you did to prepare it. Saying that you had a thorough GA review would help make people think that the page is worth reviewing and wont be a waste of time. Regardless, as you can see here, even with two supports the page is dead in the water and might close as not getting enough responses to pass. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think if a person is going to review an article at all, they're unlikely to be swayed by the rating but more by their first impressions of the content. Then, I don't have as much experience in these areas as you do. All I can say is that I never had this problem with Quark, or any of the other FACs I've been involved in over the years. —Anonymous DissidentTalk14:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Quark had a lot of pre-FAC attention on it. Anyway, if you want to list it at FAC, go ahead. I just wanted to warn you about the wait time. FAC is a potluck when it comes to it. You might be able to get some more reviews of the page if you review some other FACs. I don't really know. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'll probably go about listing it tomorrow, or maybe Monday. A final copyedit never hurt anyone. Thanks again for your help – feel free to add your name as a nominator when it comes to the candidacy. —Anonymous DissidentTalk15:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I posted some links to some of the online editions of the works. If you cannot access them (or if the "limited" view cuts you off from seeing specific pages), I can transcribe the pages or send you digital images via email for proofing ("educational use"). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You made some comments at the FAC for Otto Julius Zobel which was not promoted. Although your specific comments were addressed, you did not return to either support or oppose the article. Can I ask what changes would induce you to support this article at a FAC, if indeed you would? SpinningSpark16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - just FYI - the sig on your RFA nocons response is broken (you can see on my talk page). I would have tried the fix myself, but I am staying away from controversial editing for the time being. Based on the way it works in {{welcomemenu}} I think what you want to do is this:
Sorry about this. I hit the edit section tab on 7's user page and thought I was leaving a message there, but it left it on your subpage instead! – B.hotep •talk• 09:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dissident—Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. You asked whether the noun + ing construction is always problematic? For example, is there anything wrong with "There are submarines heading in our direction"? If there are exceptions to the rule, how would you define them?
Well, you've identified the nub of how I've had to broaden my attitude to this problematic structure, mainly prompted by users such as Ricardianahere and elsewhere over the past few months. I started that tutorial page with a premature and unwisely prescriptive view of the poverty of noun plus ing and the need to fix all cases. Users Hoary and [[User:Noetica}Noetica]], both linguists, were never happy with this, but didn't put their finger on why. Yes, your example is fine to me ("There are submarines heading in our direction"), and I'd treat the last four words as an adjectival phrase, qualifying submarines. But other noun plus -ings are clearly awkward or worse, while some are on the edge.
Your query about my working out which ones are OK and which ones are not is right on the mark, and I'll try to think it through over the next month. I'll let you know if I come up with something useful. Tony(talk)13:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Tony. I actually missed it entirely, at first – I must have received another message at around the same time and skipped right past. I look forward to an elaboration on when it's acceptable and when it's not (in your own time, of course). —Anonymous DissidentTalk09:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am listening with keen interest as well, my Latin schooling led me to use loads of present participles. e.g. "With X ---ing the Y, etc." Gerunds are like "The getting of wisdom" or my favourite "Seeing is believing" hehehe. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear, I just would like to know, infact no intentions that much controversial, banned / blocked and one of the edit warrior like me could ever become a sysop / administrator? Regards --LineofWisdom (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, hope you are well... I think moving the list of users to WP space was a good move but maybe you might want to leave a redirect behind? Check out what links here for your deleted page!!!! quite a few folk use it in their DYK lists and etc... Or maybe a quick bot run to fix it up? Just a thought. (mine's fixed already, but I did notice it) ++Lar: t/c13:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The caption you added in this edit would apply that the outer triangle is equilateral, and that would severely weaken the identity. Also, it would make it ridiculous to state the identity in the form in which it was given, since the three sines on either side of the identity would be equal, so the identity would assert equality of two cubes, and thus equality of the things being cubed. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree it was absurd. I neglected to read the material on the left – I just saw an empty caption, and I attempted to fill it based on what I (thought) I saw. Thank you for correcting the error; I'll attempt to be more careful in future. —Anonymous DissidentTalk16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
2010
Inactive bureaucrat removal RFC
Any word on developing that RFC you mentioned here? I know it's only been about 36 hours or so since that comment, but I'm looking forward to reading it and I'm willing to assist in its creation, if you'd like. So, yeah, just offering my assistance drafting, etc, if you'd like it. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not often someone's thanking someone because of a username change, but I'm doing it. Thanks so much for changing my username! I've ever wanted to renew my image in Wikipedia, especially when I am changing to reflect my today's interests, which right now is Japanese pop, besides aviation and computers.
Now, what's next? I need two things to help:
Get my userpages redesigned to fit my username (sky theme? My username was based on Ayaka's (last before hiatus) single/song Minna Sora no Shita (みんな空の下, Everyone Under the Sky), that's why...)
Need some help with Unified login, as the Bigtop name is still used there and I want to change them into "Minna Sora no Shita" (in Japanese Wikimedia projects, and possibly the Wikimedia Commons if they accept it, I am using the Japanese variant, known as 「みんな空の下」(みんなそらのした), with a redirect for non-Japanese speakers)
Please give me any comments and suggestions/tips on how to do these as quickly as possible. I'd like you to comment what you think about my username - I hope you liked it, as it shows a Japanese meaning that suits my J-pop interests! みんな空の下 (トーク) 15:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I began deleting this user's subpages after seeing them on the dashboard. I noticed that you had moved the pages after a name change. Being new to the tools, I wanted to make sure that deleting these subpages was a good idea. I know of no policy that says otherwise but one must be ready to learn. Thanks Tiderolls16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I requested these to be deleted because they were considered useless, as I was cleaning up for my username change. Thanks so much, Tide rolls. みんな空の下 (トーク) 16:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand and I see no problem with your request. It's just that I'm new to the janitor job and don't want to make a mistake. If I don't get a timely response from Anonymous Dissident some other, more knowledgable, admin will address the issue. See ya 'round Tiderolls17:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
See the meetup page for further information - short version is that we're hoping to meet in a fortnight in the city for a beer and a chat. Minors and Miners are welcome, with a responsible adult and a minimum of coal dust ;-) - do try and get out if you can, it's been a little while since wiki folk met in Sydney :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi.Please put my question back?I don't want to be blocked,I just want answers.The question is new because it's about a DEFINITION not a list.I was civil and I'd like my question back.What are it's flaws?I reworded my qeustion.Does this sound better?:
What should be the definition of a math child prodigy?I ask this because WIkipedia says "a child prodigy is someone,typically under 15,who is performing at the level of a highly trained adult professional in a particular field of endeavor".But doesn't this definition rule out every single person on Earth?I mean has anyone heard of someone who researces math below 15?Come on guys.How does the Wikipedia article need to be changed?Or am I just wrong?Please shed light!
Oh,and I'd like many people to respond to this please.I'd appreciate any responses.So please chip in and do your part even if it's jsut 1 or 2 lines.)BTW,for those guys who say why I have a typsetting bug:simply because there's something wrong with my computer.I don't understand it.Sometimes letters get jumbled up iwthout me doing so.Please be kind.(Signed:A DUDE.)
I have atypesetting bug Annonymous,so sometimes letters get jumbled up.Please don't think I'm vandalizing.Thanks.Please don't block me.Thanks.Signed:THE DUDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.23.182 (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Your new question is only slightly different. Therefore, it makes more sense for the discussion to continue under the pre-existing thread. Please do things that way. —Anonymous DissidentTalk09:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Please can I ask it?Thanks for replying.I fear dudes here don't notice old questions.People won't reply unless it's the last question ... I want people to notice my question.If it's earlier,people won't notice.Please can I ask it?I'm afraid people won't reply?Please can I ask it.The old thread isn't anymore new.People will only notice new questions.Thanks anonymous guy.Signed:THE DUDE> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.23.182 (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Why did Tango remove my question?It wasn't "moved" according to your summary.It was "REmoved".Can't you block Tango?Why should I be blocked for asking a question.Why isn't Tango warned?If you block me,I will appeal to the authorities.I want to add back my question.You can't block me unless you tell why my question was wrong.Ok it was in the wrong place.But why should I be blocked for that.Thanks anonymous guy.SIGNED:THE DUDE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.254.51 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I reiterate my previous comment. Re-adding your question will only cause disruption. At any rate, your nonsense (for example, "Can't you block Tango?") is giving me a strong sense that you're trolling. Start being sensible, or risk a temporary block; it's your choice. —Anonymous DissidentTalk00:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
I face difficulties to fulfill registration for the unified/ global account because of one part that does not fit! Could You please help me to solve the problem? My account name is Camdan. Very grateful for Your help!
I'm sorry I didn't put a lot of work into the copyedit – I guess things came up and I didn't have the time. I've put the FAC on my watchlist. If you need any help, just ask. —Anonymous DissidentTalk06:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Not a huge deal to me either way, but this was not necessary. Any recent vandalism (I can see one instance in the last couple of days) is not related to the "speculation" cited. Furthermore that speculation is not speculation by editors but verifiable commentary by reliable sources. Any content disputes (I don't think there has been any vandalism related to the issue) were questions of due weight and have been resolved (in favour of including said speculation), and mainly involved accounts in good standing not anons. I'd be interested to see pertinent diffs and a more detailed rationale. bridies (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it is necessary. Even a cursory inspection of the history reveals that anonymous editors have recently been causing the article significant disruption, whether it be in the form of vandalism or the insertion of illegitimate information. Hence, the article has been semi-protected. What triggered the heightened interest is not of particular importance, and neither is the origin of the speculation – in any case, the fact remains. —Anonymous DissidentTalk06:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That information is verifiable. It's in the lead of the article, sourced to reliable sources. So why is it illegitimate? Furthermore, since it's in the article, why did you protect it? To stop anons adding information which is already there, added by user name accounts? A few instances of bad prose (which is all you have pointed to) is not a reason to protect an article for a month. bridies (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It's illegitimate to assert one view as fact in an article, as these IPs did. This is not "bad prose", and I cannot imagine how you could construe it that way. I pointed only to these diffs because it's what you requested. —Anonymous DissidentTalk22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ariel♥Gold
