From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 2007 1.1 License tagging for Image:Spanish.jpg 1.2 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007 1.3 DYK 1.4 DYK 1.5 DYK 1.6 Historical Eastern Germany 1.7 Images in Bombings of Heilbronn in World War II 1.8 Schallodenbach 1.9 Subpage? 1.10 About User Anonymous Dissident/Scrap page 1.11 DYK 1.12 World War II city bombing infobox 1.13 Context 1.14 WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007 2 2008 2.1 AIV 2.2 WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter 2.3 Talk:Sex 2.4 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008) 2.5 Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008. 2.6 American Beryllia Inc. 2.7 Social Whales 2.8 Smile 2.9 Link on your user page is broken 2.10 My RfB 2.11 Your warning of Shannonez 2.12 ????? 2.13 Jimbo1966 Username 2.14 Semi-protection 2.15 DYK 2.16 User:Adrian Fletcher 2.17 Hi There 2.18 DYK 2.19 Blocking with Twinkle 2.20 My request for bureaucratship 2.21 Hello 2.22 Hi There, I was wondering if you could help me out 2.23 New York City 2.24 Next update 2.25 AfD 2.26 Thank-you 2.27 DYK 2.28 A Description of a City Shower DYK

[edit] 2007

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Historical Eastern Germany

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Subpage?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 2008

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

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

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Smile

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit]  ?????

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)

[edit] Jimbo1966 Username

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] My request for bureaucratship

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Thank-you

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)