User talk:Anonymous Dissident/January

2007

Welcome

Hello, Anonymous Dissident/January, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Deepu Joseph (a.k.a. thunderboltz). Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Provide an Edit summary
• Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
• Create a User page

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask - Just click here to leave me a message; or add {{helpme}} to this page.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was your edits on the DYK suggestion page that drew my attention. Good work! I had a interesting time reading your articles. :-)

You have also submitted them correctly. A little bit of "techinical" work might be required before they get selected, though. The facts in the article (such as Soldier Boy is the shortest film) should be individually cited. A good way of going about with this, is to use footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for help on this. Also, one important criteria for an article to be displayed on the front page DYK section, is that it should not be a stub. Try to make the articles a bit longer. You can take your time, as you have 5 days to do this. Good luck!--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 06:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you seem to be a storehouse of interesting trivia. Nice to see more entries from you on DYK.

Btw, so sorry for the delay. I'm currently taking a break from wikipedia. Hence, I noticed your message only just now. The footnotes issue has been fixed. Good job. Now all you need to do, is to tone up the prose with some minor copy editing and expansion.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Abus gun

It looks better. Some more precision about its origins and period of use would be useful. I removed some of the wikilinks - you don't need to link the same word more than once, and you should check that the links actually go to the correct article. Not quite sure what you are having problems with regarding the referencing (try copying a reference from the Updown Court article and just replace the fields). By the way, please don't add Civilization One back in on the 19th - nominations on DYK go on the day they were created. If you add it back in on the 19th it reduces the chance of it being used, as it will probably have passed the 5 day limit by the time it comes to be selected. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This article might still be challenged, though certainly not by me.I strongly suggest you revise it to emphasize the real world use of it in the Ottoman Empire, and put its role in Civ III into a final separate paragraph. DGG 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 06:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeat Articles

You should know that several articles you started already exist: Martin PBM-1 Mariner, Curtis P-40 Warhawk, & Heavy Tank Charron B1 Bis. Make sure you do a search of Wikipedia before starting an article. All the best. --Bryson 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Welcome, Anonymous Dissident, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
• Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
• We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks you can do. Please remove completed tasks from the list.

• Requests: German Archaeological Institute at Rome, Deutsche Familienversicherung, Dietlof von Arnim-Boitzenburg, Hennes Bender, Georg Bernhard (1875–1944), Eduard Georg von Bethusy-Huc, Rolf Brandt (1886–1953), Jan Philipp Burgard, Georg Arbogast von und zu Franckenstein, Ferdinand Heribert von Galen, Herbert Helmrich, Monty Jacobs (1875–1945), Hans Katzer, Siegfried Kauder, Heide Keller, Matze Knop, Isidor Levy (1852–1929), Markus Löning, Anke Plättner, Hans Heinrich X. Fürst von Pless, Gerd Poppe, Victor-Emanuel Preusker, Hans Sauer (inventor), Franz August Schenk von Stauffenberg, Paul Schlesinger (1878-1928),Oscar Schneider, Hajo Schumacher, Otto Theodor von Seydewitz, Dorothea Siems, Werner Sonne, Anton Stark, Udo zu Stolberg-Wernigerode, Christoph Strässer, Torsten Sträter, Joseph von Utzschneider, Jürgen Wieshoff, Hans Wilhelmi,
• Unreferenced: Unreferenced BLPs, Bundesautobahn 93, Benjamin Trinks, Steeler (German band), Amelie Beese, Zoologisches Museum in Kiel, Emil Krebs, Prussian semaphore system, Partenstein, Peter Krieg, Porsche 597, Christa Bauch, Curt Cress, Stefan Beuse
• Cleanup: 53541 issues in total as of 2024-03-03
• Translate: Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia
• Stubs: Albersdorf, Thuringia, Ingo Friedrich, Berndt Seite, Federal Social Court; 108 articles in Category:German MEP stubs
• Update: Deutsches Wörterbuch
• Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements and the todo list
• Orphans: Orphaned articles in Germany
• Photo: Take/Add requested photographs
• Help assess the quality of 909 unassessed articles

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! -- Kusma (討論) 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Civilization One, 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.

--Yomangani^talk 10:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio and fair use

I've noticed that some of the articles you are are putting up at DYK, are using the referenced works almost verbatim, merely rewording or slightly rearranging the sentences. This does not stop them being a copyright violation - you need to write your own article and use the sources as references.

On another issue, if you upload non-free images for use in an article, they need to have a fair use rationale written for them, otherwise they will be deleted.

Erfurt Cathedral is an example of both these problems. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The obvious pointers for me are that the articles mirror the structure of the sources. The timeline of Erfurt Cathedral could be rewritten as prose rather than a list, as could the U-boat articles. Take a look at Unterseeboot 656 - this uses the same source but written as prose it avoids the copyvio problem: it is using the source as just that, a source, while being an original work. Try to use more than one source and blend facts from the different sources in the flow of the article.

As regards fair use images, the rules are rather strict on this - I see you are are using some on your user page, this is not allowed at all - if a free image could be obtained (as could be with a photo of Erfurt Cathedral), then the fair use image can not be used. If you think that an image qualifies as fair use, then you need to write a rationale for it and give the appropriate licencing information on the image page. Take a look at Image:Laika.jpg to see what I mean. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You can copy the infobox from Unterseeboot 656 and just change the information. I doubt there is an infobox for cathedrals (not every type of article has one). I wouldn't worry about having one on every article you write, if there is an infobox somebody will soon come along and add it. Yomangani^talk 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Updown Court, 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.

--Yomangani^talk 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Why? Where was copyvio?

At first glance, Unterseeboot 14 and Unterseeboot 29 appeared to borrow rather liberally from [1] and [2], respectively. Quick review leads me to believe my judgement is probably correct, but you are free to submit a request at deletion review if you feel I'm being unreasonable. Please see our copyright policy for more information -- if you are the owner of that content, you would need to release it under the GFDL before posting it on Wikipedia; alternatively, you can use the listed pages as sources, and rewrite the articles in your own words. Again, see WP:DRV if you feel I'm being unreasonable. Luna Santin 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dead_planet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dead_planet.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideas

There are still a lot of areas with poor coverage, or areas that are big enough only to have partial coverage. Anything US-centric tends to be a washout, but European history, flora and fauna, and a lot of South American and African topics still have articles waiting to be written (the second two topics are more difficult to find sources for). If you can speak any other languages, then checking the Wikipedias for those languages might give you an idea. Research redlinks from existing articles to branch out. If I can give you some more advice...I'd slow down: researching a topic in depth often leads to discovering other articles that are still waiting to be written, and you'll do yourself and the topic more justice by spending some time on it. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 14:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My articles ideas come from my brain, I just have wide interests. There is a project, WP:MEA, for missing articles - I'm not sure how up-to-date their lists are, but I'm sure you can find some article that need writing from there. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 12:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Supermassive

An editor has nominated the article Supermassive for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermassive. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Supermassive during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, NV Ingenieurskanntor voor Scheepsbouw, was selected for DYK!

On January 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article NV Ingenieurskanntor voor Scheepsbouw, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cod31.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cod31.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Butseriouslyfolks 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spider webs in space, 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.

--Yomangani^talk 10:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

		The Oddball Barnstar
		For creating an excellent article on Spider webs in space I hereby present you this award. :) Rosa 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why yes, I enjoyed it a lot and thought it was quite interesting even if it was on such a whimsical topic...I've never heard about this experiment and I'm glad to have learned something new (and a bit funny). Adiós, Rosa 17:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

2008

On the nature of Wikipedia

I've lately done some hard thinking about what's in the headline - did research, held a school presentation, gave an interview - and on that basis, I beg you not to go through with the AfD spree you suggested. We were started as a co-operative community and cannot survive as anything else. Mass deletion nominations are just about the most combative kind of act readily available. They ignore the quality of our coverage of the topic as a whole; they are inherently divisive; they are a non-trivial drain on the resources that could be spent improving content; they overwhelm the capacity of editors and especially the local experts on the subject, volunteers all, to expend the time and effort to give fair judgment; they disgust away the aforementioned local experts, making any kind of compromise or reasonable discussion less likely. Et cetera.

I am currently talking with people about the basic nature of Wikipedia. If you've seen any significant discussion of this elsewhere, please let me know. I'd like to extend this to you at some point in the future to help get some basic concepts down and clarify our opinions, resources permitting - I'm in #¤%& pieces and didn't really need having to extend myself further right now - not to mention that attempting to have a deletionist vs inclusionist discussion would be interesting in itself. (Those two camps see little discussion. Much head-butting, but little discussion.) --Kizor 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

When *I mentioned that, I was using it to make a point that just because the others havent been nominated, Patronus shouldnt be deleted. I am just tired of seeing fancruft pollute Wikipedia; while Wikipedia may strive to catalogue all that is notable and all that is worthy of discussion, I think basic "hygiene" in this encyclopedia is very necessary to Wikipedia's nurturing of its already damaged and flawed credibility as a useful source of knowledge. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem - one could argue that a Patronus curse may have more written about it than some obscure biological, theological or astronomical article. Also remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. AD, if you haven't done so at some time have a look in a university library catalogue or library. I've been working next to UNSW, but there is a whole annex on popular culture/film etc stuff in Paddington. The potential on WP for the listing of notable critiques and reviews of various popular culture items/issues etc. is huge, matched only by the, erm, rough state of many of the articles. I have started referencing stuff but to do more requires a visit to material offline, like I pointed out with Linkin Park - going to the library and getting a few Rolling Stone mags would do wonders....

One thing that I have found as I have researched more obscure topics is the wealth of material that doesn't exist online, which is one reason I get frustrated when editors claim no sources after a few minutes on Google, or worse, don't look at all. All the Psychology of the Sopranos/Star Trek guides/Dr Who biography/guides etc....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. However, it is an encyclopedia. There must be basic criterias for inclusion, and there are. I feel that it really is doing Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia harm when these articles, which are inside of this encyclopedia, involve subject matters that truly do not warrant the exclusive mention that an article allows. I do feel that these things have a place, are worth a mention, but I feel that this place often comes in the form of a larger body of similar content, such as a list. Maintaining a basic state of "cleanliness", so far as not going overboard in our zest to write articles about every conceivable topic, is, I feel, is important to sustain our credibility as an encyclopedia, and not lower Wikipedia as a collective to something closer to a kind of database, and I think that, as Wikipedia ages and develops, this will become ever more important, as our body of content grows larger, and as our contributors become larger in number.

While your point about referencing and cleaning this material up is very valid, Casliber, and I agree wholeheartedly with your noble and driven effort, I think that, without sounding like a quitter, as it were, it may be time to come back and say to ourselves "the amount of unreferenced, unencyclopedic, sketchily written material is growing faster than we can eliminate the aforementioned problems, and, quite often, these problems are quite impossible to fix. We need to find an alternative." Because, no matter how hard we work, the latter is inevitably true, and the faster we realise this and take radical action on this issue and others, the better the possibility that we can keep Wikipedia and its reliability afloat. This radical action may come in the form of something alone the same vein as what is already being attempted; huge, organised and well-thought out and approved task forces working around the clock solely on the most critical issues. It may come in the line of a mass cleaning; a huge line of task forces on the lookout for, and in the search of, material that needs to be removed. It may come in the form of policy revision. It may come in a combination of all three. Do you see what I am saying? I understand that what I have said regards quite extreme thinking, and a fair bit of speculation on the future of the English Wikipedia, but, I think the time for passiveness and evasiveness should come to an end as soon as possible.

Wikipedia is growing. It is getting larger every second. Every second we have an influx of pages worth of quality material pouring into our servers. However, this represents only a portion of the material that Wikipedia accepts. This other portion is poorly written, non-notable, unreferenced, libelous, misrepresentative, POVish, quietly attacking, blatantly false or otherwise very unsuitable for inclusion in a project that strives for quality, not quantity, and to create a free encyclopedia for everyone. This is indeed a noble cause, but, in my honest opinion, we are going forward with this goal of "the sum of human knowledge" too quickly, and taking the latter much too literally. Without seeming like arguing semantics, the sum of human knowledge includes what I ate for breakfast. While this is obviously an extreme example, there must be a line drawn, obviously. This line has been painted in policies and guidelines, but, unfortunately, policies are not automated to fix these problems, but to rather give the editors out there something to base their decisions.

So, I aim not to nominate as many pages for deletion as I can, I just feel sick being passive while this problem grows larger. I think I may soon propose something at an appropriate forum soon, or at least try and say my bit about the issue. The number of problematic articles has entered the hundreds of thousands, and we may sink soon if we cannot find a way to slow down, re-establish our quality and credibility, and work on culling the content that is festering the issue, in an attempt to keep this chaotic boat we call Wikipedia afloat. Kind regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, that's an interesting way of looking at it. My take on it is, though, some of these things are so esoteric that no-one stumbles over them as such, and as such they don't clutter anything. Also, there is generally precious little libellous or harmful in most if not all the pop culture and RPG and computer gaming material that is being listed. Given that good article writing is at a premium, doesn't it make more sense to improve serious (as it were) information on core/vital articles, the political, environmental, geographical and otherwise newsworthy items as a priority rather than concentrate on highly obscure (for the most part) material that most folks won't find unless they are looking for it? Intially the idea of referencing was for material likely to be challenged. The tragedy is plenty of it can be referenced by all sorts of scholarly and notable works, it's just that people aren't. To me there is little difference between pop culture and folklore through the ages, typified by mythology, religion and now celebrities etc. They are the same and stuff what the common folk believe in and are interested in. Take a look at any newstand or magazine circulation figures. For some editors to arbitarily decide what is notable with some imaginary line drawn somewhere between 1900 and 1950 would be highly amusing if it weren't so annoying. Part of WP's attraction is its universality and once I see parts beginning to be hived off I wonder where it will end. Do we split off biology-wiki, religion-wiki etc after RPG or TV-wiki go, what next? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely a good point, but I think we can agree that, when it comes to certain subject groups, especially works of fiction, for instance, there is a lot of room for people to readily expound from their own experience (OR) on these works of fiction, and we are seeing this in these articles written on subject matters that truly do not warrant articles. We should draw a line on what belongs in a manual of x work of fiction and what belongs in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia aims for universality, true, but it does not aim for the many problems I listed above, and while they all may not apply to these fancrufty articles I speak of, many of them do, and they do form part of the problem; yes, I think we can certainly agree that there is a growing problem? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope y'all will forgive me for joining to say that I strongly agree with Anonymous Dissident's contributions to this thread, in particular that "I understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. However, it is an encyclopedia".

Some editors appear to treat wikipedia as extension of myspace or geocities, a place where any content is welcome, regardless of its significance or even is verifiability (I have even had an ANI complaint made about me for mass-tagging unreferenced articles which showed no evidence of notability!). It's time for wikipedia to get serious, and for editors to be more frequently reminded that WP:V is central to what we do here, central to both the content of an article and to its suitability for wikipedia. If that takes more of what was referred to above "AfD sprees", then bring it on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

- ::::::To a point, question is, where one sticks the goalposts, and I think much of what is being nominated is overkill. I was musing on this this morning as I found some material on folkloric and mythological significance of snails which I added, and had trouble tracking down the page that was deleted some months ago (when I found it it was, in retrospect, pretty shoddy...), and wouldn't have found it had I not been an admin. In any case, I am not sure the problem is growing. Much of what is nominated has been around for a long time, during which time many other projects have seen a huge number of FAs and GAs - even in the 18 months i have been here. Actually, having said that I haven't systematically looked at the ages of more than a few so I'll have to check on that. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, how can you assert that the problem is not growing? The number of problematic articles gros every few minutes, and so, the overall problem is definitely growing. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you as it is easy to copy and paste fancruft into Wikipedia, but it much more difficult to have it deleted by peer review. The admins closing AfD are to blame for this fact; they are not rigorously enforcing notability and verifiablity guidelines, and are afraid to go against majority decisions. As a result, there is now two tier in Wikipedia; the core encyclopedic tier, which is periodically published in CD form for charitable purposes, and the rest, which includes lots of fancruft. I think there needs to be a much broader effort to get rid of non-verifiable and non-notable articles by enforcing existing guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Riana. I hope you have a great 2008 too. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK then...

Would you agree that this was fairly extreme (i.e. obviously notable and likely to have sources) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops - just realisd you voted keep. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know its an old one but some others recently have been nearly as extreme. I'll find it later but must run now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was extreme. It is obviously notable; lions are a figurehead in pop culture. Articles on Harry Potter's wand are not, if you get my point. They may deserve a mention in a larger article about Harry Potter himself, and that all comes back to what I was saying in the AFD. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here is where our goalposts differ, so to speak, the patronus curse was a central subject of one film and book, and the Harry Potter Series has sold a $%#$* load of books and almost single-handedly revived interest in adolescent fantasy literature and reading in the late 19902. Its impact culturally has been massive and detailed analyses are out there. Anyway, part of our wonderful wiki-culture is being able to discuss differing opinions. anyway onto other things...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Our goalposts do differ. It was a part of one book. A fraction of a fraction of the series. It regards a magic spell in Harry Potter. Avada Kedavra, for example, does not have its own article, and it is extremely prevalent in at least three of the books, yet it has conformed and merged with the spells in Harry Potter article. Why should Patronus be any different? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it a factor here that it was found that Avada Kedavra could be well covered as part of a larger whole, while the Patronus Charm works better on its own? --06:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizor (talk • contribs)

Who is drawing these conclusions? You? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks a lot. I should enjoy these :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For Anonymous Dissident

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Anonymous Dissident is awarded The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar by Majorly, for always being there for help and advice, someone to talk to when you're feeling down, and above all, being a fantastic friend. Majorly (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Alex. I really appreciate it. :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Dear Anonymous Dissident, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and more prolific and happy editing! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Awarded to Anonymous Dissident for his contributions to art articles.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blnguyen, and I hope you have a prosperous new year. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You blocked me. Block 684

After I'd spent weeks trying to fathom how to contribute to this baffling place, I finally seemed to have successfully created a new page then written my review of the author James Bailey and his excellent book, then saved my 'work' and added it to the pages of wikipedia.

Today it seems my computer has automatically been blocked (or the IP adress has been) because it is associated with user:only1feathers and because I had already been blocked by another user, which it would appear was you.

The rationale I was given was that I 'focused on James Bailey' and was deemed as being 'unlikely to contribute.' -In your opinion of course. Even though it was my first attempt of what I hoped to be many.

Yes I did focus on James Bailey. I'm not sure what else I could do when my sole intention was to add James Bailey and a review of his book to the pages of wikipedia. Could you please advise how I should go about avoiding focusing on an individual who I actually want to write about?

Can you also please advise what I should do to avoid further blocks as well as causing other users to make the (wrong) assumption that I'm 'unlikely to contribute?'

Thank you, Caroline (only1feathers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.231.58 (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Caroline. Firstly, it was not Wikipedia that you were contributing to. It was another site, called MediaWiki. MediaWiki is not Wikipedia; this is Wikipedia. MediaWiki is solely for the documentation of the software behind Wikipedia.

Secondly, you are perfectly welcome to contribute encyclopedic content here, on Wikipedia. However, by the sound of it, you are biased towards this James Bailey: "...James Bailey and his excellent book..." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and strives to be as neutral as possible. If you do write on this person and/or his book, make sure everything you write is referenced and neutral in quality.

Lastly, please make sure that "James Bailey"/his book are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Relevent policies describing what is and what is not acceptable include WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Please read both and make a decision - the right one. Remember, if you say to yourself "what the hell - this isnt really notable enough, but I'll write it anyway", it will be deleted anyway, so you will have wasted your time.

Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 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) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dewoitine D.33, 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 VERY MUCH for everything that you do for DYK! --Royalbroil 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

Sorry. I have no idea why VP put that on your page. Doczilla (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Late again. I've prepared the update, just needs someone to post it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has attended to it. Sorry - I wasn't around. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

About vandalism on Methuen_High_School

The vandalism is out of control. Please assist if possible
Compwhiz II 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So I can see. It's unbelievable. I am deciding what action should be taken. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Never mind the offenders have been prosecuted. Compwhiz II 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole history of the article reveals vandalism. I have semi-protected it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No need, I have already requested this, Unless your a sysop. Compwhiz II 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops :P Compwhiz II 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, don't worry about it. Thanks again, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oberhof bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track

I tried to fix the references to this article where they could be clumped together, but that did not work out. Could you assist on this? I would appreciate it. Chris (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I see where I screwed up on the multiple footnote listings. Someone needs to update WP:FOOT to ensure that this is done correctly on this for future articles. Thanks for your help. Chris (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article earned DYK late yesterday. Thanks for your help. Chris (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Distrest

Are you planning any more Hogarth articles? I just noticed The Distrest Poet blued itself while I was checking - I'll go off and work on something else. Yomangani^talk 10:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, were you planning on taking it? I am awfully sorry about that, but you often give m inspiration. No, I have no future plans for Hogarth articles, but I am rather spontaneous. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I hadn't got very far into it, but if you do plan any more give me a heads up before I go into an editing trance, so I can avoid the "WTF?!?" moment when I press "Save". Yomangani^talk 10:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you were actually editing it at the time? So sorry, again. Maybe, if its not too late, you could cate the content and make "The Distressed Poet" article..? And I will do just that next time. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did the Musician yesterday and the Poet was going to be today. I've tweaked your stub a little, but let me know when you've finished and I'll add anything I have that you've missed. (not sure what you mean about the "The Distressed Poet" article...if you mean the oil painting, it doesn't merit an article separate from this). Yomangani^talk 10:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Finished the analysis, and yes I was referring to the oil on canvas, but I guess you are right. Any additions or correction would be appreciated; you are the art connoisseur - I'm just interested in art ;) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are still a few more sources to check: Hogarth himself, Ireland, some of the 19th century commentators, and Uglow. I'm a little busy at the moment which is why I haven't got to it yet. Yomangani^talk 10:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:The distrest poet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The distrest poet.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All fixed up. Sorry, forgot. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Script

Hey, I was wondering about the script for updating the articles you created. I currently have it set to run once at day at 0:00 UTC . I didn't know if you wanted it to update immediately after you added the article to your list. Let me know. Mønobi 04:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

DYK is a big problem. Skipping hooks because they are expired is not good. Using expired hooks so that current hooks eventually get skipped is not good. The solution is timely updating the main page with hooks.

I help in non-admin tasks in DYK. If all goes well, I should be able to help update DYK using sysop tools starting tomorrow. I'm writing to you because I saw your comments in the edit summary. Archtransit (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your assistance. However, we cannot ignore the perfectly good hooks in January 3. It is nonsensical. Jan 4 has a whole day, and Jan 3 is expiring. We must use Jan 4 hooks in the update after next, so that Jan 3 can be used. I am going to start campaigning for 7 days, not 5, because this is ridiculous. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Propsal: Prospective DYK hooks must be submitted before the article (or it's greater than 5 fold expansion) is 5 days old. Earlier submission is preferred so that there is an opportunity for evaluation and time for the submitter to improve the hook. Hooks are considered "expired" after 7 days. In unusual situations where the hook is exceptionally well written, an additional days grace period may be given.

DYK updates would still have to be on time or we will have the same problem in about 2-3 weeks when 8 day old hooks start to get passed over. Archtransit (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vorpostenboot, 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.

--The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On 10 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bombardment of Algiers (painting), 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.

You're not going to believe this, but I actually have a Paint by number of Bombardment of Algiers. I'll have to take a picture of it and upload for you. I was so excited to see that someone had finally written an article on it! --JayHenry (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Please, do take a pic and upload it. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Late again. Can you do it? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal Gorge Bridge

Both of the vandals are blocked and the page unprotected. Sorry about that, I apparently didn't pay close enough attention. :(   jj137 ^♠ 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 1	2 January 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter"	News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Scouting
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 2	7 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Stepping in after delay
New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam	WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind"
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reeve Aleutian Airways

Hi, i see that you removed the large picture of the 727 under the airline infobox, claiming that it does nothing for the article. Thr result of this removal is a large area of blank space under the infobox. Would you consider replacing the picture?, IMHO a picture is better than blank space. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the white space does look better, because the imge is not relevent at that point in the text. Plus, the white space is not very big. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 11 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leo Laliman, 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.

--Archtransit (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower

Gah! Protection conflict: [3]. At least we protected for the same amount of time, 3 weeks. Great minds think alike... bibliomaniac15 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I know they do. Idiots minds think alike too, as we have just seen. :P -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You active?

DYK late again. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Anonymous Dissident, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Block

Nah, somehow thought that was an account. Changed to 31 hours. :) Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Distrest Poet, 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 everything that you do! --Royalbroil 02:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi Anonymous Dissident - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. If it all looked good, I'm not sure how closely you could have been looking, but I'll try to prove myself worthy of the confidence you expressed all the same. The RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: A new weekly feature
Special: 2007 in Review	Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added	Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect"	News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK next update

Would you be interested in doing the next update for DYK? It needs a couple more hooks (including the pic one). I added a few but I didn't feel comfortable adding hooks that I verified and I know that something "special" needs to happen to the pic nom. If your busy, I can help by delivering the messages if you like? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, It looks like the Borgqueen is taking care of it. So it's all good. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RFPP

Thank you for informing me of my use of the wrong template; I appreciate it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries; I didn't mean to lecture, which, upon review, it looks like I was doing. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That was stupid, I deserved a short lecture. Enjoy your vacation. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Contacts

Hey, you know where I get most of my contacts from?
Wik
How's your holiday going? andrewrox424 ^Bleep 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too ;) Yeah, the holiday's going great; thanks for asking. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of REVOLUTION!

		The Revolution Barnstar
		For unlocking Criticism of Wikipedia, your contributions to Dystopian, your wonderful essay Wikipedia:A Hybrid of Political Doctrine and Encyclopedic Collaboration, supporting radical, revolutionary change to Wikipedia policy for the better, and demonstrating an appropriate understanding of Ignore All Rules. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I am glad that you like and sympathise with my essay. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

thx

I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?	Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)	An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Anonymous Dissident/January, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (2008)

Is there a way that the article can be protected, once more? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, LAX 03:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Six-Day War

I'm about to unprotect Six-Day War and instead invoke a sanction from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. However, since I see you're online (and you protected the article), I want to know if you have any objections to me doing that. -- tariqabjotu 04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

done -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and question

Aaay! (the Fonz) thanks AD for granting of my protection request. It was getting crazy and very annoying for me (and I'm sure other editors). I guess I made a compelling argument huh. As long as the vandalism stops :)
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, here's a curiosity question for you: I'm guessing that even though now the Jo-Wilfried Tsonga article shows a heading in a box with the words:

Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled until February 29, 2008 (UTC) due to vandalism.

If you cannot edit this article and you wish to make a change, you can discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

and no lock icon (), that in a few hour or day's time the message will disappear and the lock icon will show in the corner as in other articles? (e.g. Will Smith)

Or is that separate process that the admins will be taking care of? I think it's better when the article has the lock icon rather than the message.

(p.s. - sorry I couldn't find an image of the tiny form of this lock :) )

~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

well, making the lock smaller is as easy as inserting |small=yes to the template, which I have done. Apologies for my negligence. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That idea about it disappearing isn't bad actually... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, don't be so hard on yourself lol. This site, and all other sites for that matter, are too difficult for me to understand lol. I learn one item at a time it seems, rather than all this language code. still don't know how to make that giant lock I put on your talk page tiny. oh well. Take care

(p.s.) glad I could make the suggestion. Maybe you could make that disappearance happen in the template programming.

(p.p.s.)Ok I think see what you did to make the lock here smaller now: 15 pixels? thanks ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Adminster.

Done. · AndonicO ^Hail! 09:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

please help

Hi Anonymous Dissident,

You're an admin and I need your help. I've been having a 1-sided conversation with user:Tennis expert for the last hour or so. Every single post I have talked to him about, he has reverted them all and it's not appreciated. He cites to me the Wikipedia policies of HUSH, UP, AGF, and User space comment removal. But no one attacked him or vandalized his pages. Yet he is short and curt with me, and just reverts every thing I do. It started last week when he reverted an entire edit I did because he had a problem with part of it, so in reverting it, he also reverted my corrections to several typos and wrong informations. Now this.

Please review the edit history of his and my talk page. It's very upsetting to have perfectly non-attacking, non-vandalizing edits reverted just because the person doesn't want to listen to them or consider them. Let me know what you think thanks ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look into the matter in a little while, and do the best I can to assist you. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten in contact with him. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Cheers! Weirdy Talk 07:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK Update

If you happen to be on right now, the DYKs have not been updated for 11 hours. Haven't seen a trace of any admins. whose name is on the contact list. Thanks.--Bedford 12:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hate to bother you, but its 3 hours past due again. Do you know someone who can make the change? Thanks.--Bedford 11:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bedford, I really would help out, but I need to go to bed (school tomorrow; same happened last night). I would ask someone else on the list... maybe Majorly? I dont know, he might not be around. Sorry, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. I need to go to sleep myself. :D --Bedford 11:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

2009

Happy New Year!

Dear Anonymous Dissident,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Anonymous Dissident, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And hoping for more offbeat articles to read. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quark. and No CKM

• See my mini-rant, please. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedflying prod deletion

Hi AD, I'm not a regular contributor and am therefore not familiar with the rules and customs of Wikipedia, so forgive me if I haven't gone about this in the right, polite way.

I searched for speedflying today and found that it had been deleted (or proposed for deletion). I'm willing to put some work into making it a Wikipedia worthy article (or stub). Where do we go from here?

Milliondead (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

DYKAdminBot

I have restarted the dykadminbot so it no longer needs a human to manually update. However I need someone familiar with the process to verify the bot's contributions and tell me that they are correct. Further details are at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Bot.

P.S. This post is being cross posted to the 4 "active" users listed on Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Actively_involved. It is fairly critical that one of these four double check the bot before 01:00 UTC. —— nixeagle 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:S43.jpg)

You've uploaded File:S43.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 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) 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Rwc

Template:Rwc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —G716 <^T·_C> 06:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Makelist (repetitive)

Template:Makelist (repetitive) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —G716 <^T·_C> 06:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Makelist

Template:Makelist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —G716 <^T·_C> 06:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by 03:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)

About your flag-take out on AO singles 2009, men's finals section

Please don't take out any well-placed flag like you did on this edit. Thank you.

<Sidenote:I'ts kinda impressive how you cannot tolerate a spanish flag there, but you can do it with france ones.> . Dreamblack (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice the French ones. I still consider it improper form. Jumping ahead of the gun to point out something obvious is not very helpful and could be confusing. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

2010

AFD.

I currently have a article in AFD. I am looking for comments. Can you review Sister Vincenza and comment one way or the other? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll set aside some time to look at it a bit later. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A little more help

Hello AnonDiss,
Wish you a pleasant new decade! Hope you got my email. I have contacted some admins regarding this issue, they have asked me to contact people in the MetaWiki. I have no clue how to do that. Do you think you can help? Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion for Juliancolton RfB

A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. Please come participate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Greek Basketball

While I agree with you 100%, your closure of that RfA overruled a fellow bureaucrat. And you have to admit it would be truly fascinating to let that trainwreck run its entire course. Şłџğģő 07:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Nihonjoe (see edit summary) doesn't seem to have a problem with it. But still. That RfA reaching completion would really be through the looking glass. Şłџğģő 07:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I am aware. I have left Nihonjoe a note explaining my action; I think he'll understand. If he still disagrees, I won't stop him from re-opening the RfA again. Interesting, perhaps, but entirely pointless. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you close my RFA again

This is really very upsetting and frustrating for me. I am just asking for a chance and at least to see it run for the time, which is the week. Why I am not even entitled to this? What is wrong with me? How can I even see the problems when I can't even read it? As soon as I look I get messages that it is closed. This is very frustrating and it really is unfair. I am an excellent editor and a very nice guy. I want to be an admin and I really feel like I deserve it. So can't you at least allow me the chance to see it for the week? Every week people are being voted yes for admin and they are being given a full week. I have also noticed that all of the recent editors that were approved have less time and less contributions to the site than i do. So it seems very much like it is singling me out or some kind of bias or grudge against me to not even allow me the respect of the vote. I at least deserve that. Also please kindly note I am NOT disrupting anything. It is other editors, including some admin that are choosing to make rude and disruptive edits directed towards me, while I have NOT done so and have simply ignored it. So at least have the common decency PLEASE to not say I am being disruptive when I am not. It is very wrong to say that about someone so other editors read it and believe it and give me a bad name. I am asking you sincerely please at least give me the respect of allowing it the week. I am not even being give a chance to answer questions. Other editors are not even being given the chance to talk to me about it or to ask me questions. Considering I have more time and more contributions to the site than all the recent people that were approved then I at least deserve that. I really am not trying to be rude, annoying, or "disruptive" as people accuse me. I am really not trying to bother you or waste your time as you claim. I swear that is not the case. I really would like to be an admin and I believe I can do this and I would be very good. My intentions are strictly honorable, I assure you of that. Please just at least give me a chance to have my RFA for the week and then I can talk to others about this and I can answer questions. This is all i ask.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning to you on your user talk page. A full-length RfA for you at this point in time would be a pointless exercise. What you're not understanding is that you are not remotely qualified for the role you are seeking – not yet. Wikipedians expect almost a year of activity, experience in key admin-related areas, a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, and strong interpersonal skills. Please take my advice and work on improving yourself in these areas. And, make adminship less of a priority. It is not the be all and end all of Wikipedia editing; rather, it can be thankless, stressful, and it confers no special social status. Best wishes, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is not universal and you do not own or run the site. I do not intend to be rude or to cause any problems. But I ask only for the full week. That is all. Just because your own personal opinion is I am not able to get this does not mean it is actually true or correct. Please allow me the full week. And please try to be a little more understanding and a little more open minded. I am a very nice guy and I also do have the qualifications and the ability. Just give me a chance to at least have the week's voting process. What I am asking for is extremely reasonable and very, very, VERY little.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Several users are attempting to get me banned over this

Can you please stop this? This is definitely harassment against me and should not be tolerated Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wiki Greek BasketballWiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 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) 02:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Νovember 27

I have nominated Νovember 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you help in solving this?

Hello AnonDis. Apologies for the repetitive buggings. But can you help solve this issue by providing a third person view? The editor (Johnfos) keeps on reverting constructive edits, breaking the 3RR rule, even after admin User:SoWhy told him not to. Few other users also viewed this but hasnt yet come to a conclusion. He also called me inexperienced by refering to my edit count and registration date, which had nothing to do with the topic. Please do pop in if you get the time. Thanks and regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the problem is solved . Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Peppy (polar bear)

On January 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peppy (polar bear), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading …

both the article The Battle of Alexander at Issus and your essay on why Wikipedia is not a sinking ship. Nice to see such thoughtful writing — writing that is actual prose composition. Thanks, and best wishes. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words. It's nice to know that others are reading – and enjoying – one's writing. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Position derivatives.png

Wouldn't it make more sense to make them r(t), r′(t) and so on? ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 10:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's neither here nor there. Once we have declared it as such, f(x) is just as valid to represent position. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but what's the point of that? You normally only call the time x if you want to confuse people, as mathematicians often like to do. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 09:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Structure under construction

Template:Structure under construction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexander at Issus

Hey Anonymous, Re German translation of sources, can you help to narrow the search, ie which authors to search for etc. Thanks....and congratulations on the prom. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely; will start tomorrow. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mail

Peppy the polar bear, eh? Glad that list is still coming in useful. You have mail in case you haven't already seen it. Yomangani^talk 11:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I'll get onto the matter as soon as I'm next able. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oblivion FAC

Cool. Thanks for the heads-up. G.W. (Talk) 16:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

DoNotTellDoNotAsk

Bureaucrat note: Is your recent blanking of your talk page a result of your filing a rename request? You should be aware that your userpages will be moved to the new name, not deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, periodically I do blank it out as I donot find much out of it - That's okay, you can proceed to change the name as requested. Thank you. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)