User talk:Anonymous Dissident/March

2007

License tagging for Image:Spanish.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Spanish.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Auk class minesweeper, 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.

--Carabinieri 12:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous Dissident,

Sorry about the confusion. I meant to notify you about the inclusion of Auk class minesweeper, not Leo J. Ryan Federal Building. Thanks for the heads up.--Carabinieri 11:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U-F2, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unterseeboot 777, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 17:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent U-boat and other additions. Could I encourage you to add better references - I tweaked the ones for Unterseeboot 777 and U-F2 - better to link deeper into these websites, to a more specific page on the boat mentioned, than to the main page. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And I see you nominated Spanish dagger, but it is a bit short - are you likely to be able to expand it? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical Eastern Germany

Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 05:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Images in Bombings of Heilbronn in World War II

Why did you upload those four images again to the English wikipedia? There is no need for this, and in fact you should not do it. You can use those images on Commons directly here, just as you would any image from the English wikipedia. Also, you shouldn't just "invent" licenses for pictures like you did for those four. Regards --Rosenzweig 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talk page regarding those pictures. If the pictures you want to use already are on Commons - like these were - you don't need to upload anything, because somebody else already uploaded them to Commons! Just act as if the Commons images were images from the English wikipedia. Use the normal image syntax ([[Image:XYZ.jpg]]), and the desired images will show up in the article. Especially when translating articles, like you did, it comes in handy when the images to that article are already on Commons.
If you want to upload pictures to Commons, you'll have to get a Commons user account. (A single login which would allow you to use one single user account across all Wikimedia projects is in the works for years now, but so far it was not introduced.) For further help, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Commons. For license tags, have a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Regards --Rosenzweig 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Schallodenbach

i don't appreciate your blanking of my omment on the talk page. I started the talk page there before the article to collect some facts, but also made some requests over at hte DE wiki for a translation. Please do not blank article talk pages. Thank you. ThuranX 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Subpage?

It seems that you attempted to create a subpage, but it is an article. --Smokizzy 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

About User Anonymous Dissident/Scrap page

I moved this page from User Anonymous Dissident/Scrap page to User:Anonymous Dissident/Scrap page, because it appears that you accidentally left out the colon, creating this page in the main space. Someone mistakenly marked this page as vandalism. Jesse Viviano 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bombings of Heilbronn in World War II, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

World War II city bombing infobox

I know that this question is probably inappropriate for this articles talk page, but in the World War II city bombing infobox, just before the refs, the article on the Heilbronn bombing is actually the article on Heilbronn itself, and consists of but one paragraph. A better one (well I think so), is probably Bombings of Heilbronn in World War II, and so I think that the infobox needs to be changed. The trouble is that I dont know how I would do such a thing, or what I need to go or do for that to happen. Maybe someone can help me out? ♣ ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 09:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the {{WWII city bombing}} template there is a small edit button top left of the template. But for any template just add "template:" before the name of the template in the search box and click [Go]. See the talk page on template talk:WWII_city_bombing about the bloat that has taken place in this template. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Context

I really don't want to get into a debate about this. The article is only about the bombing of one city. When I first read it a couple of days ago there was no context at all & a person with no knowledge of history would think the Germans were blameless innocents. The context paragraph just puts things into perspective. Why the Far East was dragged in I can't imagine. I suggest leave the article alone, unless you have relevant material pertaining to the city. GrahamBould 12:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. 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 04:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

2008

AIV

Being an administrator, can't you just block Legitintel rather than reporting s/he to AIV? --Kakofonous (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a mistake in Huggle for you. Apologies. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No need for apologies, just curious :). --Kakofonous (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter

The March 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sex

Are you sure you're allowed to just remove someone's comment like that? I mean, I know the IP's statement was worthless, unhelpful and devoid of content, but the talk page rules state that one shouldn't remove others people's commets off the talk page without notifying or asking the poster first. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't mention that it was both rude and extremely offensive, and had no relation to anything. Material such as that should indeed be removed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, does that mean I can do that as well? I've wanted to nuke comments like that so many times, but I never thought I was allowed to! Talk:Runescape here I come! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 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) 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	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) 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

American Beryllia Inc.

Hi, the above article was prod-deleted as unsourced in Dec 2007. Can you userfy it for me somewhere please? - Neparis (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Neparis/American Beryllia Inc.. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - Neparis (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Social Whales

Well, I don't know whether the term whales was simply referring to those species targeted by whalers or all cetaceans, but I assume it only includes the former seeing as how it is an arctile on whaling. With that said, the article should be reverted back to some species of whales are social, as not all species are social. Many baleen whale speices (which make up the vast majority of whale species hunted today) are either solitary and/or form congregations on feeding/breeding grounds. The only real bond formed between individuals would be from mother-and-calf pairs. Jonas Poole (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Here's an Alpine snowbells for you! Alpine snowbells somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 05:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Link on your user page is broken

Just a heads-up: the link to "The Future" is broken. --128.12.103.70 (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Anonymous, for your participation in my recent RfB. I have been remiss about thanking you for your support at my RfA at Commons, I appreciate your trust in that project as well. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your warning of Shannonez

I've removed your warning from Shannonez's talk page, because it was mistaken. Shannonez was reverting vandalism. -- Zsero (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. It's Huggle again. I really am sorry, Huggle can cause one to make mistakes, particularly when one is using the keys. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

?????

I don't understand what i did! I was just changing the my own rating of my edited article back to stub from start, because i thought it might be a little too basic for start, and I get a message from you saying I vandalized the page! Did break a rule or something??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somekofootball (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no, you blanked the page, so I thought you were vandalising a talk page. Instead of blanking, please next time just change "stub" to "start". -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo1966 Username

I have put the issue of [1] in WP:RFCN Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Regarding this, you are wrong. Semi-protection is a perfectly acceptable tool to use in response to edit warring, especially when sockpuppetry is suspected. You seem to have based this decision on the following:

"Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes."

None of these were criteria that I used to decide whether semi-protection should be used. It was not used to settle a content dispute, it was used to prevent edit warring when blocks could not achieve the same end, and certainly I was not involved in the dispute. It was also not used solely to prevent editing by anonymous or new users - of course, that is the effect of any semi-protection, but the goal was not simply to exclude those users. It was also not used in a pre-emptive measure against vandalism, even if edit warring were included in that definition, the edit warring was already taking place.

I would like to suggest that you visit the 3RR noticeboard and review how semi-protection is often used, correctly, in cases where blocks would be ineffective. I would also like to suggest that if you plan to revert another admin's actions, that you consider discussing it with them first. TigerShark (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the user that requested the unprotection you granted, has now been blocked as a sockpuppet following a large amount of disruption [2]. Again, if you had spoken to me first, we could have discussed my concerns of sockpuppetry that formed part of the reason for the protection. TigerShark (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey - I followed policy in that PROT states that sprotection should not be used for the purpose of stopping conflict. The 3RR noticeboard has nothing to do with anything; I filled a request at RFP by policy, without involvement. As far as I'm concerned, you didn't follow policy in your reasoning as was given in the history, so I undid that action. End of story -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it says that it shouldn't be used to "settle a content dispute". Policy was followed as I described above, you have just misinterpreted the policy. I have tried to explain this to you above. Reversing actions without discussion and then just saying "end of story", is not acceptable. If you were prepared to look at the 3RR noticeboard you would note that semi-protection is a valid approach to edit warring.

You do not seem to have responded to any of the issue I laid out above. Again, simply saying "end of story" without addressing real concerns that have been raised with regards to your actions, is not acceptable. TigerShark (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As part of this you need to explain why you undid the action of another admin, without trying to make contact with them first. No "hey" and no "end of story" - please explain yourself or, in future, do not take actions that you are not prepared to explain or discuss. TigerShark (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are merely arguing semantics, and we both know it; "settling a content dispute" and "stopping edit warring" mean exactly the same thing. The way the policy reads is perfectly easy to understand - semiprotection should not be used to disffuse edit warring, or content disputes, however you want to word it. The 3RR noticeboard states that a page may be protected or semiprotected follow a violation of the three revert rule, which, as it happens does not fall inline with the policy specific to protection, which, I do believe, is more likely to be correct than a noticeboard referencing the very same page. You were the one who acted incorrectly by policy, and I have not misinterpreted the aforementioned clause of PROT. I now quote you: "It was not used to settle a content dispute, it was used to prevent edit warring..." - is the contradiction seen here not readily apparent? You sprotected an article out of policy. A request was made to undo this action. I filled it. As to the supposedly related concerns of sockpuppetry and the blocking of the requester for disruption - I was, and remain, uninvolved in the affairs of this article, and I filled a request that was perfectly sound in regards to its application of relating policy. Furthermore, I cannot be held responsible for the edit summary that you gave, which indicated that the matter was no deeper than a common dispute. So there is no need to take an aggressive approach here; if there is anything further I can do for you in regards to this matter, please inform me. Else wise, if you have merely come to tell me of my supposed error, then there is nothing more to say. Good day, sir. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, the cause of the misunderstanding is becoming clearer now. A "content dispute" is certainly not the same thing as "edit warring", edit warring may occur during a content dispute but it is not the same thing. A content dispute is a disagreement between users over content, edit warring is trying to impose the version you believe in by repeatedly reverting to that version without discussing. Content dispute are fine as long as the parties deal with them in a constructive manner, edit warring is not. The situation with the article was that there was a content dispute, and probably still is, but that there was also edit warring with likely sockpuppetry (as evidenced above, with the sockpuppet whose request you fulfilled). Protection should not be used to settle a content dispute by imposing a version, but it most certainly can (and very often is) used to put a stop to edit warring. My protection summary clearly stated that there was "edit warring", and you seem to have confused that to mean exactly the same thing as a "content dispute" - which it does not. You say that there is a mismatch between the 3RR policy and the Protection policy. With all of the admins involved in both processes, could you entertain the idea that it is you who have misunderstood rather than everybody else? Again, if you have discussed this before reverting my protection, I could have clarified this. Can you please tell me why you chose not to discuss this matter before reverting my action? TigerShark (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So essentially they are synonyms. That's what I pointed out in the beginning, and you have now resorted to giving them a pretty much identical and highly related meaning. Regardless, there are two very simple points which make it clear that I am in the right here, and I am going to stress them as plainly as I can so there is no chance of not understanding what I am talking about; we seem to be running around in circles here: 1.The official protection policy states that semiprotection should not be used to stop edit warring. 2.You gave your reason in the summary, for semiprotection, as to stop edit warring. In your words, and by policy, "this is not acceptable", and that is why I filled the request, and undid your action. Looking back, I do indeed regret informing you of my undoing of your action, and I apologise for this err; sometimes my memory fails me, and that's my fault, but I hope you can understand. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also now allow me to anticipate your response: "But the policy says noit to use sprotection for content dispute, not edit warring, as I gave in the summary". If a content dispute is merely an oral disagreement, semi protection would be useless to stop it, and, as you say, there is nothing harmful about it, so why would it be mentioned as a non-viable approach to stop content disputes? Why would anyone wanna stop them - they're fine right? And semiprotection would be useless - they wouldn't be mentioned unless they are used synonymously with edit warring. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me explain. If you are in a "content dispute" with somebody, you can "settle" that dispute by locking the article to your preferred version, or convincing somebody to lock it for you. That is what protection should not be used for, why an involved admin should not use protection and why an uninvolved admin should not revert to a different version. If edit warring is taking place (trying to force a version of the article, rather than attempting dispute resolution) then protection may be an acceptable approach. So, again, a "content dispute" is not the same as "edit warring", but edit warring is sometimes used to "win" a content dispute. In the same way that a "dispute" is not the same as "violence", but some may use violence to try to "win" a dispute. TigerShark (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, I understand that. I merely believe that PROT restricts the use of semiprotection to stop edit warring when anonymous users and established users are involved, as that is taking sides and disadvantaging only one party. This is common sense. You seemingly did not apply this when you sprotected. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And now the damning evidence is here, and I do wish I'd found this earlier as this conversation is getting tiresome. Template:Protection templates. This template, used on the protection policy page, lists viable sprotection templates. Notice how semiprotection for dispute is marked N/A? Of course it is! Semi-protection is not a viable form of protection for a dispute, or an edit war (we can certainly, I hope, discern that once again "dispute" is used synonymously with "war", as "edit war" is not listed here at all.) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • And we can further see this when we read the template documentation for {{pp-dispute}}. I do believe this wraps everything up; I have made it perfectly clear, both by explanation and through ample evidence, of why you were wrong to protect. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I understand what you are saying but what you did not take into account (and I did) is that the edit warring was coming from anons and new accounts only - including new accounts that were suspected, and finally proved to be sockpuppets (including the disruptive sockpuppet whose request you fulfilled). Again, if you had discussed with me, rather than just blindly fulfilling the request of a new SPA (who turned out to be a sockpuppet) - I could have explained this to you. It seems that we are not going to reach agreement on this, but as you have agreed to discuss with the original admin in future, that should avoid any further mistakes (as an aside, it will make sure that you don't make decisions based upon an edit summary, rather than talking to the admin). TigerShark (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha - you still think you are in the right, don't you? Despite the numerous policies I have thrown in your direction, and the ample evidence of why semi protection should not be used to stop edit wars. It doesn't *matter* that only new users were involved! It still leaves the gateway open for established users to come along and pin their own view. Full protection is the *only* viable remedy. I have not made a mistake, you have, and to try and pin responsibility on me for your frankly poor edit summary, considering supposed circumstances, is absolutely ridiculous. Had you attempted to explain what appears to be the complexity of the case in the summary, I would not have believed it a simple mistake on your part, but something which actually did warrant discussion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, try to keep it civil please, you have been aggressive and dismissive from the outset. You simply should not wheel-war without discussion, regardless of whether you think my edit summary was "poor". If you are going to revert decisions, the onus is on you to make sure you know why the original action was carried out- which is why an admin should *always* contact the original admin before reverting a decision. Surely you would accept that. TigerShark (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My aggression is fueled by the aggression you yourself have displayed - from the very beginning: "Regarding this, you are wrong." I have already stated that it was without a doubt an err on my part not to have contacted you following the undoing. And wheel warring is not the right word; we are not warring over this, I merely undid your action. So - in response: the fact is that, as it happens, I really did thought I knew why you'd done it; at the time, I had no quarrel with your summary, and I was in the mind that it was a simple edit war, no strings attached. So, as far as I knew, I was in no lack of knowledge. Just as you encourage me to make contact in future, I do urge you to leave more revealing summaries, in any field, so as to avoid confusion. In this way, I suggest we both were at fault to some degree. Does that sound fair? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. TigerShark (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

You online AD? The DYK update is ready, if you'd like to post it. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Am on it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen got there before me - but I got to teh image first :P -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Adrian Fletcher

You blocked this user for “vandalism and severe personal attacks”. The only edit I see that matches either of those criteria is this one. Are there any others I should be aware of? — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been clearer in my definition of "vandalism" - he created a nonsense article disparaging Jimmy Wales. It seems clear that he is an obvious vandal and disruptor by both his creation of the CSD'd article and the comment he left on the user's page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there’s still hope! He’s expressed some contrition on his talk page, and another administrator has removed the block. Let’s hope! — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi There

Hope you forgive me for vandalising, I guess you could call me a bit of a dissident myself. I just know we can get through this.

Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart): "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

Adrian Fletcher (talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DYK

You were too slow last time, but I'm giving you a second chance :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You *just* caught me while I was heading off - its 11 pm here. I can get to the image, but then I'm off I'm afraid. (school!) Please, dear Gatoclass, ask another admin on the roster... Majorly might be on, actually. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the heads up. Gatoclass (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking with Twinkle

Hi. Can you please harmonize this edit with this block log, and look into why they are not in harmony at present? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I must have accidentally mis-clicked on Twinkle. Much apology. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear AnonDiss, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Please help me to have a Semi-Protection the Angel Locsin, Regine Velasquez and Lobo (TV series) pages because of unstoppable Vandalism.{Jennyandalizapurok4 (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)}

The first has already been protected. The second and third have not been vandalised enough to warrant locking. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi There, I was wondering if you could help me out

you see there is this editor called User talk:TharkunColl who has a racist image on his user page, can you do me a favour and give him a warning about it or delete it.

thanks

Adrian Fletcher (talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User blocked as sockpuppeteer. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New York City

Hi, I was wondering why you protected New York City last September. Could the article now be unprotected? Thanks. 82.20.24.97 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it was semi protected for a reason: because it is a such a popular target for IP vandals. I am very sorry, but if you would like to edit the article, I suggest you either make a request at WP:RFP, or create yourself an account. There are many benefits of thh latter, and absolutely no drawbacks, so I encourage you enthusiastically to join the ranks of the Wikipedians! :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want to edit it. If I did, I would do as you say. I've spent some time as an anonymous editor highlighting unjustified semi-protection, and this is a good example. Familiarise yourself with the relevant policy and you'll see that SP should not be used in a pre-emptive manner, and permanent SP, as is the case here, is effectively just that. While the number of articles SPd is very small as a percentage of the total number of articles, the percentage of the most popular high profile articles is now extremely high, and its getting higher by the day. Admins have taken it upon themselves to adapt Wikipedia policy in a way that was never envisaged. Basically the majority of admins have no time for IP editing and don't like it. Remember Jimbo's words? You can edit this article right now (paraphrased). Well no. Most articles that people want to edit are now SPd, many of them indefinitely. 82.20.24.97 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Next update

Please, take a break from updating, and discuss at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, with that upcoming nom you have waiting it looks like there is an issue with cite number 2 at the moment. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've AfD'd List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" again, so your arguments are welcome. The Dominator (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you

I can has mop?

Hi Anonymous Dissident! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Description of the Morning, 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.

--Wizardman 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A Description of a City Shower DYK

On 15 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Description of a City Shower, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

2009

Thanks

For cleaning up Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MyspaceMan12. Juliancolton (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. You did everything properly; that one line at the top is easy to forget. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

I want to create an article on NGC 6072. I would like to upload an image but I have not been a member for long enough and have made less than 10 edits. I don't want to wait around and look for random edits. Is there anything I can do? Originalwana (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the best way would be to wait until you are autoconfirmed; this does not take long and requires, as you say, only ten edits (which you have now made). Then you may upload your image assuming it complies to the guidelines. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

backstage pass

re. the end time. I'm not sure, really.

The tour itself will be from 10am for several hours I suspect. So I'm guessing their element of the day would go 'till 1pm. Then, we would be editing, hopefully, for a couple of hours afterward. Assuming some form of lunchbreak too I presume it'll wind up about 3-4? Witty Lama 05:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 07:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Cheers for this. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah

Protection isn't worth it. Almost all the "vandalism" comes in the form of the addition/removal of various bits of pop culture. One editor (and his none-too-subtle sock) has currently got it into his head that Underdog must be removed, regardless of the fact that will be reinserted (poorly worded and in the wrong place) by some well-meaning editor in a few weeks. If you can turn on approved revisions or whatever they are called that would help...arf. Yomangani^talk 16:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 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) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March newsletter

The March 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator Elections

Nominations for Coordinator positions in the Military History WikiProject have commenced, and voting will begin on March 14, 2009. Make sure to get involved and ask questions to the candidates. Nominations for Coordinators goes until March 13. Then come out for the voting which begins on March 14. Thanks and Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Brunswicker

Hi, thanks for the message. I am glad that this is resolved. I will add some more material to the article today. Paul B (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Stole your sig font

Hi: I liked the font you use for your sig so much I stole it for my very own. Cheers! Ray^Talk 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

good cleanup

at the afd for The Black Brunswicker DGG (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you mean? I made an error. I just hope I corrected it properly and it wasn't too costly. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

elite force

I have submitted it for Dyk.It has been improved as requested by other editors.Now what should i do.Submitted on march 7.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Make a note of the improvement, and wait for its addition to the queue. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick DYK favor

Could you delete the stray (pictured) in the Charlie Chaplin hook on T:DYK? Shubinator (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Logarithmic differentiation

On March 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Logarithmic differentiation, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ITunes8-0-2.png)

Thanks for uploading File:ITunes8-0-2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted; outdated screenshot of iTunes that holds no further use in educational illustration. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Boulton and Watt steam engine (Powerhouse Museum)

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boulton and Watt steam engine (Powerhouse Museum), 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.

Shubinator (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations and Punctuation

Hi Anonymous Dissident. Sorry if I've been driving you nuts with my punctuation style in the PHM Boulton Watt article , but it's a case of old habits die hard. I've just written 50,000 words of a thesis in which my supervisor meticulously went though and moved all my citation numbers to be within the sentence (before the full stop). I've done a quick search and it seems that other people generally put the references within the sentence too [3], unless the reference refers to a paragraph as a whole. This is what I consider to be the "IEEE" style of referencing, using numbers within the text, which seems to correspond to Wikipedia's "ref" style. I'm curious as to why you think references go outside sentences, as much as anything to be sure that I am not missing something? John Dalton (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your method is really considered the outlier; see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Ref_tags_and_punctuation. It is generally preferred to have the inline citations after the punctuation and without a space, and most featured articles I've seen use this style. In addition, the article was started with one style; best to stay consistent. Cheers, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to stick to what you started, but bear with me if I have a lapse! Coming from a technical background I am completely biased towards the Nature/IEEE style of citing. John Dalton (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

ACID collaboration article from March 21 to...um...sometime in april

well, any input would be good - green is a good comparison. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'm trying (passively) to push quark through right now, but this is an interesting topic too, so I'll give it some time as well. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I figured quark was requiring some high-octane cogitation so something much more mindless and relaxing may be a respite :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

...

I just edit conflicted with you as I was making yet another sub-section for that ridiculous thread at RfA talk about how ironic that thread turned out to be. Just for fun, check out my first and sixth observations located at this page. There are only six observations at the moment, but it'll get bigger over time. ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 05:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Astute remarks you've made indeed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So astute, in fact, that I actually had to go on Wiktionary to define astute. ;) (just kidding, of course) Master&Expert (Talk) 05:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(for clarification, that was a really bad compliment to your vocabulary :) ) Master&Expert (Talk) 03:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland

We are now dividing our members into active, semi-active (have not edited a Poland-related article in more then three months) and inactive (have not edited at all for three months or more). You are active on Wikipedia but I see you've not edited any Poland-related articles in a while; would you mind if we move you to the semi-active category for project members? By all means, feel free to participate in our project activities more active in the future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I don't mind if you move me, I just regret not being more active in the WikiProject. I'll try and remember to get more involved. Thanks, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RfB

Good luck, man. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Not that you'll need it, of course. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• And props to you for making it so that it closes the day before your birthday (or is that a coincidence?). Master&Expert (Talk) 03:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Master: not entirely coincidental; I thought it'd be as good a time as any and I thought it'd be interesting to have it end at that time. ^^ Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

EFD

In light of your current RFB (and the associated crazyness displayed by running for crat), I wonder whether you'd mind if I nominated you for deletion. Regards SoWhy 14:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objection if you want to. :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're nominated. ;-) Good luck with the RfB btw :-) SoWhy 10:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Meetup time again

Hi all, it's Meetup time again :-) - Hopefully you'll be up for meeting on April 22nd at about 6pm at The Paragon, a pub in Circular Quay. It'll be the usual round of drinks and chit chats, with no particular agenda, just some friendly faces, and a shared interest in Wiki stuff. If you've thought about coming along before, but haven't made it - we'd love to see you - it'll be a relaxed, social chin wag about all things wiki - bring anyone along you fancy, and I hope you can make it :-)

Please do sign up on the meetup page, and do also feel free to nominate an alternative time / date / location if for whatever reason the 21st doesn't work for you - we're an accommodating bunch :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

SUL

Hi. User:Einfall (User:Avalokitesvara elsewhere on Wikimedia other than on en:) asked me for help changing their name on en to match. I see no log for User:Avalokitesvara on en, and thought this was okay, and sent them to Wikipedia:Changing_username. I guess I sent them to the wrong place, and they should relist the request at Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL? If there is no objection there, may I take care of the en name change myself? Is there some Meta feedback needed first? I'm asking you as you seem more familiar with the procedure than I, and I didn't want to give Einfall/Avalokitesvara the wrong advice twice in a row. Thank you much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Infrogmation. When a user has an en username that they wish to rename in order to match it with their global account, and that en username is not already taken, a "simple rename" at CHU/SUL is required. The process is no more complicated than is detailed there and you'd be perfectly fine to perform the rename yourself. In essence, the main point of the /SUL subpage's creation was to divert the many SUL requests that were coming into the local rename pages to a separate page where they could be given the attention they need. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for your help. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Eeep, I'm getting an error message about the "name reserved" (no doubt for the person I'm trying to give it to. I posted about it at Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username#Name_reserved. Might you be able to shed light on the problem/solution? Many thanks again. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. If I'm on the same page, you should still be given the option to perform the rename despite the warning. Does the warning read along the lines of "the name is reserved for a global account, are you sure you wish to make the change?" Just to confirm, as that's the way the interface on Meta looks if I am recalling correctly. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried submitting it anyway. It took me to a second warning "The user "Avalokitesvara" already exists". (Although I see no account creation log on en:Wikipedia for that name). And if I click on it again, it takes me back to the first warning. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, I thought you already were a bureaucrat, I just noticed you aren't, but have a request pending. I voted support! Sorry, I'll try to find someone else with experience in that bureaucrat detail. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. If it's telling you that "Avalokitesvara" already exists, we need a "usurpation" at CHU/SUL. All that needs to happen is for you to vacate the current username "Avalokitesvara" on en.wp by renaming it to "Avalokitesvara (usurped)". The "Avalokitesvara" will then be free for "Einfall" to usurp for SUL. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for the support. :-) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, your suggested workaround seems to have worked, at least the user rename on en worked (I hope it'll be okay for SUL). Thanks for the suggestion. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it should. I'm more active at CHU itself and USURP that at /SUL, but renaming to (usurped) is convention and Einfall should be able to re-unify now. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Akhamenehpour

Whoops. :3 — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wondering about question

I am wondering if you are going to answer my question to you at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Anonymous Dissident? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my query. I am not asking about a specific situation, since I have asked that question of candidates long before that RFC was opened. However, I understand that the topic in general is a sensitive, and one that only the newer folk are willing to address. C'est la vie! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your message and willingness to respond. I do not think I can vote for you however, as the issue I raised has caused much bad blood on Wikipedia and has cast such a pall that still lies over all. I think that until the entrenched elements, including Arbcom, firmly deals with this behavior on the part of entitled editors, Wikipedia will remain a frequently ugly experience. There are a group of editors, a less entrenched group, that seem to have a firmer stance on civility and it is there where I believe hope lies. I want to believe that you are a member of this latter, wonderful group, as I have only seen you respond well to others and never witnessed untoward behavior on your part. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eye infection, eh?

Get well soon, AD. →Dyl@n620 21:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're feeling better soon... for April 1 at least :) Majorly talk 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I echo the well wishes. Useight (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, get well soon. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope you get better soon. Best wishes. Acalamari 17:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. It's just a stye and it should clear itself fully in a matter of days. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

here's some tissues for ya, bud. :) Spinach Monster (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

'History of Terrorism' vs 'History of Terrorist Groups'

I think it's self-evident from the talk page that no progress toward compromise has been made (is it perhaps the anonymous 86.5.etc who is the main causer of bad feelings?). Those who want to keep it a history of terrorist non-state groups are strong and can't be talked into compromise. They believe what they believe, and I respect their right to hold strongly to their sincere beliefs. On the other hand, I also think a history of terrorism should be (like all the RS histories) much more 'unsure' about what terrorism means, and therefore receptive to at least the idea of state terrorism and the mention of a few prominent state terrorist incidents.Haberstr (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that it was decided as the result of an AFD that "History of terrorist groups" be merged into history of terrorism. This seems to me to be a sound move. As the protecting admin, I continue to advise that discussion goes forward without edit warring, else protection may be re-applied or blocks issued. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tried in good faith, but discussion is not going forward.Haberstr (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

CHU instructions

Re this, some of your changes are duplications. See WP:CHU in toto. Also, COI and SPAMMER aren't really relevant for username instructions, IMHO, and keeping the instructions as brief as possible will make it more likely they're read. --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. The reason I did it was because the clerks are always noting those pages and asking that requesters read them, and I thought perhaps a more prominent position would be best. But, you're right – it is duplicative. I'll change it back. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 19:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've had a bit of a grumpy day, all in all. That wasn't the most pleasant of messages from me. What I forgot to do was thank you for helping with the task of staying on top of updating the instructions, but I can be a graceless cad from time to time. --Dweller (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, don't worry about it. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Premature 'crat 'grats

What it says on the tin really. Only three or so hours to go... :)  GARDEN  17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Garden. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 19:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And I see that Warofdreams has made you an official bureaucrat. Very well done, AD, and on the night before your birthday, too! →Dyl@n620 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And you are now...

...a 'crat! :D — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi AD - Warofdreams and I have simultaneously promoted you to bureaucrat. Let me know if you have any problems. Raul654 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, to the both of you. And thanks for the speedy congrats, Neuro and Dylan. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. Well deserved. Our little edit-conflict this morning at RFPP just served to remind me how dedicated you are. I am sure you will do a great job with the tools. Regards SoWhy 20:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As Raul says, you are now a bureaucrat, and with overwhelming support - congratulations! I'm sure that you know the processes, but just in case, I'll remind you to watchlist Wikipedia:Bureaucrats (with its useful checklist of instructions near the bottom), and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. You may also like to subscribe to the bureaucrats' mailing list at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/Wikien-bureaucrats. Best wishes, Warofdreams talk 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

welcome to the mix. please consider adding yourself to the bureaucrat emailing list. and ask if you have any questions, cheers. Kingturtle (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be sure to subscribe. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done; congratulations! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, would it be appropriate if you (speaking to AD) tested the 'crat tools on me? You know, like renaming, bot flagging? →Dyl@n620 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dylan wants you to go rogue and sysop him. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dylan - bureaucrats don't usually test the tools, but if anyone wishes to, we have User:ThisIsaTest available. Warofdreams talk 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if a bureaucrat sysopped me by accident, I'd *immediately* request to be desysopped. :) →Dyl@n620 21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know. I might just not tell anyone. D: — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Immediately" is after all a flexible time frame. SoWhy 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AD is already a bureaucrat on other wikis, he's perfectly capable... Majorly talk 21:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations, AD! -- Avi (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, congrats! — Jake Wartenberg 21:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Great job, i know you'll serve the community as well as a crat as you already do as an admin. Best, Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 21:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to 'crat-dom dude. Good luck. Feel free to shout at any of us 'crats if you want anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Congrats. I know you will keep up the good work!!America69 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Shubinator (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And a congratulations from me, too. Useight (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One more! PerfectProposal 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am proud to have edited with an editor, writer, and friend as you. Let us hope we shall continue friendship for a long time to come. bibliomaniac15 01:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes and Congratulations Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

forsooth (ad nauseam) ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to all who came here to express their congratulations. I just hope I'll be able to live up to the expectations of the community and serve well as a bureaucrat. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest as your first action that you change Jimbo's username to HAGGER? )klat( nretsmieH 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed all the fun, what with going AWOL and all... couldn't be happier for your RfB going so well. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats. Sorry mine is late. :) Synergy 23:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A silent ROFLMAO

And you know should know why --- Congrats.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice one

I knew you'd pass, and I'm pleased you passed in a landslide. Now you can rename me to "Acamalari", back to "Acalamari" (may take some time with all my edits!), make me a bureaucrat, and secretly sysop all your socks now, eh? Seriously though, I think you have great judgment, and I'm glad you're now a bureaucrat. Best wishes and good luck. Acalamari 23:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Acalamari, for everything. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

2010

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

• Reference desk: Wikipedia Reference Desk quality analyzed

• News and notes: Usability, 15M articles, Vandalism research award, and more

• In the news: Idealizing the Star Spangled Banner, Curious Announcement, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Severe Weather

• 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) 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ian Meckiff

Hi Anon Diss. I've asked Laser brain to chip in as well, as the article's quite long. At the moment, he's working from the "alterations to the throwing law" downwards YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll deal with the stuff above. I'm very busy with school just now, but I should be able to dedicate a few good hours to it this weekend. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

your edits at Mathematics

Hi, I think you are missing the point that there they are talking about the notion of cardinality. The way you are phrasing it makes the example refer to the notion of set, instead. Referencing two apples together is considering its set. Noticing the common thing between two apples and two oranges... well it is true that still can be many things but comes closer to the idea of cardinality.  franklin  13:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Calling an apple and an apple "two apples" references them together. Do you see what I mean? That's what numbers are for (in the real world at least). They facilitate the convenient referencing and description of multiple objects which share defined similarities. There are similarities between apples and oranges, but there's a reason we don't call a collection of two oranges and two apples four apples. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry but the primary notion coming from referencing two apples at once is that of a set. The paragraph is talking about the notion of numbers, cardinal numbers. You don't get the concept of numbers by referencing collections of things. You get it by abstracting the common feature of several collections of things. That's the way cardinality is defined (classes of sets with bijections between them). What you are putting there is another important notion in mathematics but is not the one the paragraph is talking about.  franklin  21:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• In your edit summary you said that the example can be made with two apples, but that is even philosophically incorrect. To define the notion of two-ness you need to compare it to other collections... Let's say, a collection of one orange. It is inherent of the notion of cardinality the necessity of involving several collections to get its definition. You can not define it having just one collection.  franklin  21:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• These are very basic stuff regarding the notion of cardinality. It seems to be that you are not understanding it well, which is fine, one isn't suppose to know everything. If you want we can talk more about the topic but please do not change the article until you analyze better what is the example about. For example you can start reading the article cardinality. Also it is very illuminating remembering those exercises designed for kids to introduce the notion of number. I remember that in kindergarten they used to show a picture of bees and flowers and we were supposed to pair bees with flowers. In the first time we were able to finish but the second time a bee didn't get a flower (clearly the teachers put one more bee in the picture). You see, to introduce the notion of number you need inherently to compare collections (two collections in this case). Now, if you look at the " definition" of set you see that it is what your variation of the example is defining. given the oranges referencing to them as a whole is the set of the oranges. Notice for example that even grammatically you can see the difference. You can talk about the two oranges as a whole without using the word two. You can refer to them as "that collection of oranges". You can see then that the action doesn't involve how many oranges you have in the collection. On the other hand, what is the common thing between the collection of two oranges and the collection of two apples? (the example is still and none will since you can always find extra common things that you are not excluding: they are fruits for example) but is certainly clear that if you do the same replacing oranges and apples with any other thing imaginable the only notion that remains common is that of two-ness (the property of a set of having two elements).  franklin  21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Don't insult my intelligence. I'm well aware of the meaning of cardinality, and of at least the basics of set theory. To define the notion of twoness, it suffices to observe that one apple shares basic properties with another apple, such that we can call them "two apples". Oranges, or any other fruit, or anything else, are not needed to allow for this notion. I have no interest in arguing further, though, since it's clear your fixation with a set-theoretic interpretation of an intendedly elementary explanation will prevent you from coming to the reasonable conclusion. Thank you. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add my two cents (that's at least two abstractions). The article is not talking (at that place) about modern mathematics, but about the emergence of the notion of abstraction in primitive human (and animal) societies. So talking about sets and cardinality seems rather beside the point. Abstraction is the process of recogising some structural similarity in otherwise different situations. So I'd think this does suppose a multitude of instances; it seems impossible, or at least pointless, to deduce the abstraction of two-ness from a single example of two things. So here I must agree with Franklin. In fact, it seems like there is an abstraction that precedes that of numbers, namely the (initially vague) notion of comparison: being fewer or more ("damn, there are fewer young in the nest than there were last time!"; "there are more than enough apples to give every child one"; "my neighbour has more land than I have"); upon refinement this is bound to lead to the notion of (natural) number (and a notion of measure for things that cannot be counted). Note that this again suggests that the notion of number requires multiple instances of collections, so that there is something to compare. So I think the phrasing of the mentioned paragraph can be improved, but not in the sense of restricting to a single collection of objects. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, a set-theoretic idea may be useful in explaining my argument: There is no need for two collections (apples and oranges) with which to make comparisons, because the one collection of apples is contrasted with the universe itself. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes two apples is less than the universe. There is no doubt that this is how the notion of number came about. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So why are you arguing with me? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please

Would you be so kind to answer my request? Even if my request has been denied. Thank you so much in advance. Regards. --Snakeyes _talk ^{find me @ es:wiki} 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. So sorry for the delay. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Thank you so much!! Regards. --Snakeyes _talk ^{find me @ es:wiki} 18:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeyes (talk • contribs)

User:EyeEightDestroyerBot

Hi Anon. Dis. Thanks for flagging this bot, but it will also need administrator rights. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I read as much, but I don't think I've flagged an adminbot before – I guess the thought didn't translate to action. Sorry about that. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 21:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Poke

In this usurp request you asked for a reply, and you got one. :) Just letting you know.  urban f o x  09:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't really monitoring it, since we bureaucrats feel at liberty to continue each other's conversations. I'll attend to the matter now. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. And here I thought I was the only one monitoring that conversation. Anyway, thanks again.--Tim Thomason 07:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Username change

Hi,

Thanks very much for having changed my username. --Floflo (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Google

--mono (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Old song lyrics? Copyright status?

Hi. :) I'm looking for somebody who can help me determine the copyright status of a couple of old (but, sadly, not pre-1923 old) song lyrics. I saw you on the list of Wikisource Admins and thought perhaps you could help. (These aren't on Wikisource, but here; however, my experience of Wikisource admins has generally suggested to me that you have arcane knowledge and magical resources I lack. :)) One of the songs in question appears to have been written in a Nazi concentration camp and was registered in the US at one point. The other may have been written by a British soldier and was first published in Madrid by the Commissariat of War in 1938. I haven't been able to find any indication that it was ever registered in the US. If you can help with these, I'd be happy to give you more details. If not, could you by any chance recommend somebody who might? I'd hate to lose the lyrics unnecessarily! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you can't help with this, please let me know. I need to track down somebody who can, as the issue needs resolution. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I noticed the message at about 8 am my time, but forgot to get back to it. I'm not an expert with copyright, and I'm no longer a Wikisource admin. You might want to contact someone like s:User:John Vandenberg or s:User:Billinghurst. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem; been there, done that. :) Thanks for the recommendation. I'll head to one of them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

• News and notes: Financial statements, discussions, milestones

• In the news: Pentagon shooter used Wikipedia, soon iPhone OS will too

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Java

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Squote

Template:Squote 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. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

• News and notes: A Wikiversity controversy, Wikimedian-in-Residence, image donation, editing contest, WMF jobs

• In the news: Studies on collaboration and student usage, Main Page drives traffic to Time.com

• Dispatches: GA Sweeps end

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Ireland

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Request II

Hey again Anonymous. Given your work on the Goya article, I'm chancing my luck and asking for help with Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden). I came by a few more sources today, and reckon I have about another 1/4 to add, but could really do with a prose smith. I would like the text to be elegant like the portrait, but at the moment, that ain't so! No worries if you are preoccupied. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ceoil. I'd love to help you, but I'm already engaged by YellowMonkey for Ian Meckiff. I'm already failing to pull my weight there because of school and other things, so it wouldn't be right to jump elsewhere. Hope you understand. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries mate. You can't do everything. Best. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

• Wikipedia-Books: Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts

• News and notes: Explicit image featured on Wikipedia's main page

• In the news: Campaign for video, costs of crowdsourcing, iPhone app, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: Percy Jackson Task Force

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

• News and notes: Usability rollout, downtime, admin phishing, Wikimania scholarships and more

• In the news: Overdue correction, Critical Point of View conference, brief headlines

• Sister projects: A handful of happenings

• WikiProject report: The WikiProject Bulletin: news roundup and WikiProject Chicago feature

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)