User talk:Anthony Bradbury: Difference between revisions

Anthony, We added the links to our interviews to the Wikipedia project years ago and everything was fine for quite a while. Except at Wikipedia, there now seems to be an oversupply of administrators who don't have enough productive work to do, so they occupy their spare time by erasing the works of others. As I said in my previous post, these interviews are unique, they are not available anywhere else in the world, they include Nobel Laureates in Literature, such as Doris Lessing and they are only included in Wikipedia where appropriate, such as the articles on Doris Lessing or Maya Angelou, for example. I have read your about your skills and you don't appear to have any special education in literature or English. That is why it is so discouraging that you have repeatedly erased the work we have contributed here at Ohio University to the Wikipedia project. You really should resign as an editor of the project since your reckless behavior is damaging the quality of the project. Why don't you spend five minutes and investigate the source interviews at Wired for Books, http://wiredforbooks.org ? From your reply, it appears that you have not made that minimum effort, instead you simply made more threats to erase our work. --David Kurz scribe711 Scribe711 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anthony, you should know that according to WP's Wired for Books article, David Kurz created Wired for Books. Explains a lot, eh? So the guy definitely has an agenda. Thanks for your support for my explanation to him. I tried my hardest to be respectful and not threaten him, in spite of his rudeness and patronizing behavior. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it's me again. Scribe711 did it again! In addition to blanking content, he put the link back on Maya Angelou! I hope the way I handled him was appropriate. I'm serious; I really do intend on listening to the interview. But man! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Figureskatingfan - You said you wanted to listen to the interview, which you should have done in the first place. So, I put the link back in and politely requested that you listen to the interview. Since the interview features audio by Maya Angelou, which is not found anywhere else on the Internet, and was never broadcast in its entirety by CBS Radio, and is really a very nice interview, you should not delete the link to this interview. The interview is a unique, first-person account by Maya Angelou. If I was rude to you, I apologize, but it has been a frustrating experience to see the hard work of many of us here at Ohio University be erased for no good reason. And yes, I am familiar with the rules regarding spam and "link farms" which do not apply to this important archive of author interviews. --David

Scribe711 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anthony Bradbury. You have new messages at Figureskatingfan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well, Anthony my new friend, I have done it. I have made a report about this whole thing to WP:AN/I. My first time! Let's hope that something comes of it. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there is a ANI .. well, I blocked the socks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Pbenedict

Might I ask you to reconsider this block - a username block - because I can't see how this username is against policy. GARDEN 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's quite alright. Thanks for that - I didn't want to seem impolite or whatever by unblocking myself without asking you first. Thanks, GARDEN 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx

... for the zap. Still no idea how it wound up like that. --KP Botany (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion of HS Phoolka Article

Hi, I just checked the H S Phoolka article and noticed it was deleted. I think it was a big mistake to delete this. This fellow and Manoj Mitta are like the modern day journalist equivalent of the one's who exposed Watergate. I think here at wiki we should be trying to keep things like this. The artcle as far as I can see was well rsearched and the book "A Tree Shook Delhi" has been a best seller. Can we reinstate this --Sikh-history (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)article?[reply]

sorry I made a mistake. Ignore that. It is here.--Sikh-history (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.74.153.18

Three factors: (1) the IP had been given an earlier "only warning" [1] in response to reinstating another IP's Stephen-Colbert-related vandalism, but blanked the warning; (2) the "only warning" response seemed plausible to me, if a bit strong, given the general heightened level of Colbert problems at the time; (3) even if you were to give the IP a little more leeway than just a level 4im warning, the user proceeded to vandalize User:Huntthetroll with the same Colbert stuff (I generally look more dimly at user-page vandalism when considering a block). — TKD::Talk 23:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

I am hoping for a possible resolution of a double banger issue -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Andrew_Picken

Hoping that you might be able to help - as the conversation at my talk page suggests we have a double dose of non notability :(

viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SatuSuro#13 Satu Suro 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have bothered it seems to have been resolved - in the sense of a mess has been uncovered Satu Suro 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reichstag fire‎

Having added a reference from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to this article, and then adding it to my watchlist, I find myself astonished at the sheer number of trivial attacks and reverts to it. Any thoughts? Davidelit (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Van den Swaerdenheem

Hello there! You are breaking protocol by deleting questionable pages before they expire. Kindly undelete. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Van den Swaerdenheem was just re-created by the above belligerent editor. --Boston (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will work in my end to try and find more information and see if there is something to it! --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DefySupply Deletion

The DefySupply page has been a candidate for Speedy Deletion quite recently. The article itself not only has reliability and sources from Yahoo and other media outlets, but it can also "stand-alone" as there is no original research necessary to extract content.

Since the page was deleted before I could cite any verifiable third party sources, you were unable to see the three references that I was including into the article.

At first glance, the article seems like an advertisement. However, the goal of the article is to illustrate DefySupply's unique objective within the E-commerce world.

What proper steps must I take to get the page re-established?

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)[reply]

User talk:Siraj ud daula

You agreed to unblock him yesterday, and I don't see that you did. Could you close out his unblock request, and follow through with this? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

please unblock my IP adress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siraj ud daula (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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} 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Abbatai

Just a note to tell you that I have put the unblock on hold instead, pending Nishkid's comments. CheckUsers make mistakes too, and it's better to let them know when someone protests their innocence so someone can double check. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I disagreed with the CU results (I saw the unblock request and CUed to see what evidence we had) and asked Nishkid to reconsider his reply (I downgraded the link to

Possible on the case). -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing GRAWP

If you're going to administrate, you need to recognize GRAWP attacks and simply nuke them permanently. User:89.57.160.49 is GRAWP. As are the other half dozen RED LETTER attacks on The Log from the Sea of Cortez. They are aimed at Nawlinwiki, who didn't sprotect the page long enough. IP attacks continue, but now in covert style. S B H arris 20:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one month block was overkill. You should never block an IP for that long with talk page editing disabled. Especially when a 31/48 hour block is all that is needed, these guys are just 4channers on dynamic IPs; longer blocks won't do anything and may even effect a good user (who has no way of appealing the block, because talkpage editing is disabled (he could use the mailing list I suppose, but we want to encourage users to edit, not make them jump through various hoops)). Also SBHarris that was very poor advice IMO. You should never nuke an IP (I assume by nuke you mean indef block) and the only IPs that should get long blocks (i.e. 5 year) are open proxies. --Chris 09:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; while I was picking off those GAWP vandalisms, I clearly accidentally disallowed talk-page editing on one of the IPs in question, as you tactfully point out. It was a slip of the finger, not a deliberate prohibition, and you are quite right to point it out. As to thr duration of the block, this is perhaps a matter of judgement; but certainly the unasked-for advice from another user to nuke them on sight (or words to that effect) was seriously misguided. You have made a comment on my talk page to the effect that IPs should never be indefblocked, which is both well known and quite true. Perhaps you should have addressed that portion of your comment to the user who gave the advice? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I came off harsh, that was not my intention. I think I should point out that you disabled talkpage access on all of the IPs you blocked not just one, however the others were only week blocks so its not as big of a deal. As for my comment about indefing IPs; that was directed at SBHarris not you. I would have left it on his talkpage however I prefer to keep discussions centralized, I assume (and perhaps wrongly) that as he commented here he would have your talkpage watchlisted. --Chris 08:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know

I've reverted this bit of vandalism to your user page. Up to you what to do with the IP. Also, you're a member of WikiProject Medicine but I've never seen you around there. Where'd you usually hang out around here? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough. I'm not sure of your discipline in medicine, but feel free to check out the task forces as we have one for most specialities. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for helping me when that guy attacked my userpageAbce2 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Abce2[reply]

86.40.100.39 extended block

As the blocking admin I concur with the extension. It might be worth keeping an eye on 86.40.196.208 as well - this rather excitable person seems to be IP hopping. I do hope somebody doesn't end up rangeblocking most of Ireland &9786; Tonywalton ^Talk 13:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aepyornis maximus

I understand what you are meaning when you say that it is a good redirect; however all the pages that link to this page or have in the past linked to this page, are lists; where they list Elephant Bird, Aepyornis, and Aepyornis maximus where 2 of the three link to the same page. These pages all also list the rest of the species of elephant birds and the rest of these are "red links", only maximus is not, leading one to believe that their is an article about this species, when there is not. Please rethink this as the only other possible solution is to write an article on these, and I personally do not have much info on these particular species. speednat (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may speed up the process by which the article is written if it was red-linked since there are those that write such articles. I do feel strongly about it, and if I can get the necessary book(s) I will write it myself, but at this point I can't. speednat (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite chicken theory

Hi Anthony: I am unsure as to why you deleted the Speedy tag I placed on the article--it's a word-for word copy of the infinite monkey version. Looks like vandalism. JNW (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About that comment on the chicken talk page

Don't think I didn't see it :) What was that about? decltype (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and now another admin declined speedy again when it was recreated. Is this some in-joke I am not getting? :) decltype (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after you deleted it, it was recreated, and almost immediately tagged G3 again. But instead of deleting it, another admin created a redir to the monkey article. That was what I was referring to. Of course, since there's no such thing as the "Infinite chicken theorem", it was eventually deleted under R3. decltype (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Bob the VI unblocked

I've gone ahead and unblocked I Am Bob the VI - Assuming Good Faith, I hope I haven't done the wrong thing! I'll be keeping an eye on him, as, I'm sure will you. Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Bob the VI

How dose the adoption thing work? what dose it meen? I Am Bob the VI (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pisspromise

I have unblocked the user, as his request does seem to have been made in good faith. I left him a link for WP:CHU as well. Thank you for the heads-up! TNXMan 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axmann8 and his drawer of socks

Can his IP be blocked or something, to put an end to the mockery he's been conducting for the last 2 days? He even added himself to the sockpuppet report this time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so basically we'll just keep going through this cycle until he gets tired of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not intending to be critical of your comments by any means. I've asked a few admins the same question and gotten pretty much the same answer. We either wait him out, or if the open checkuser case reveals an IP pattern, than a range block could be imposed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Yes, it is intentional. I have a very short list of correspondents from wikipedia who know my e-mail address. If you want to send me a note, I could write to you first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent you an e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent a response to your e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anser to last massage on my tlak page

I am acsaly just bad at sppeling do to a lering dissabnlity. hay you know wikipedia sould add a spellcahker to the edit pages do you know who I sould tell to git one added.I Am Bob the VI (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think of that

I'll try doing that from now on.I Am Bob the VI (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 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) 01:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Inappropriate Username"

Please read WP:IU, and note that email addresses are banned as usernames. Please consider choosing an alternative username and moving your work to this. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could request a username change, in which case all of your edits are transferred to a different name. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do this ASAP, as otherwise there is a significant probability that an uninvolved admin may, quite innocently, apply a username block, which we do not want. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response on my talk page. I will seek advice from the previously involved admins, given that the username you are currently using is, in truth, not according to wiki policy. I should perhaps stipulate that I have no problem of any kind with your editing behaviour. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anthony. As to the ado about my username please be advised that I am not authorized to change my username as this is the name that was agreed to on February 5, 2009 when I was unbanned; see "Unban proposal for Rms125a@hotmail.com" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive512#Unban_proposal_for_Rms125a.40hotmail.com_.2F_User:Robert_Sieger.

You can also contact User:Alison, User:Durova or User:Eliz81 for more on that. This username has been grandfathered in, at least according to the colloquy below during the last unbanning discussion during the same proposal at the link I provided.

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a@hotmail is right; when the restriction on the @ symbol went into effect, all existing usernames that contained it were allowed to continue. Rms predates that decision, so he's compliant with policy. Thanks very much for your diligence. After two of three years we don't see many of them anymore. Thank you for asking, and best regards. Durova^Charge! 16:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block-evading sock from BSkyB Broadband (90.218.53.199)

Both 90.218.53.199 and the earlier vandal (90.219.153.34) editing on Middle power are from BSkyB Broadband, in the same CIDR block (90.192.0.0/11). The speed with which the user got a new IP in the first place makes me suspect that they'll be long gone from the second one as well by now (and probably puzzling over why they can't edit Middle power any more anonymously; someone semi-protected it). Thinking abut it, since this is an IP sock a three-hour block would probably have been enough on the second IP address they used; likely as soon as they saw they were blocked they'd have DHCP-ed yet another new IP address. If you feel a longer block is warranted, I've no problem with you changing it, though. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anthony Bradbury. You have new messages at ESanchez013's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 21:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associate (business rank) transwiki?

In the deletion log you mentioned that Associate (business rank) was tranwikied. Can you please provide that link? Thanks. ~ Paul^T+/_C 17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style=float":right;text-align:center;border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5"
 | align=center|'''Archives'''<br>[[Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png|60px]]
+|-you are an asswipe, you asswipe.
-|-
 |
 [[User Talk:Anthony.bradbury/Archive1|Archive1]]