User talk:Anonymous Dissident

Archives

January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December

---

Don't hesitate to trout me if the situation demands it.

To ensure continuity, I will reply here and speak to you there.

$\lnot \mathrm {TB}$Please refrain from using the dreaded Template:Talkback.

Name Change

Hello, I have a question. Is there a reason that my name change request has been ignored by all the bureaucrats? I put it there, and there is no answer, but all the ones before and after have been answered. Dr. Clutch (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can tell. I've filled the request. Regards, and sorry for the delay, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Dr. Clutch (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Meetup Time in Sydney :-)

Hi all,

It's meetup time again in Sydney - hopefully you'll be able to come along for friendly chat and drinks about all things wiki - topics will no doubt include the Chapter - perhaps with planning for the upcoming AGM, the general state of wiki-play, and the traditional candle lighting to encourage the mythical flagged-revisions extension to make its way on to the wiki. At this point, I usually mention that sitting wiki arbitrators are compelled to buy everyone a drink, but one of our number has taken a rather extreme route in avoiding this duty - if you have no idea what I'm talking about then you're probably busy writing and maintaining articles - but come along anyways on the 21st October, from 18.30 til late, to find out :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful

• 03:03, 5 June 2008 Anonymous Dissident protected Beautiful ‎ (whilst it isn't *constantly* bombarded, almost every IP and new user edit is vandalism. It can be uprotected at a later date if deemed necessary. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was sixteen months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I have started at talk:Beautiful. TS 09:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think an unprotection for the article seems reasonable at this time. I would still want to wait for Anonymous Dissident to comment in case I or others may have missed something. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

comment copied to talk:Beautiful. --TS 10:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Worth seeing how it goes, but I fear this is an inevitable target. Done. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 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) 22:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• 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) 04:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit counters on the footer of Special:Contributions

See this thread on the technical village pump. I'd try to deal with it, but I have to be out of here in like fifteen minutes. Graham87 05:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Username changes

Hi there. I see that you're a bureaucrat. Well, you're just the person to help me. My original username was Declan Davis. I desided to sign my posts as Dr Dec. I registered the user name Dr Dec, and then set up redirects from the user page and the user talk page to my user page and user talk page. I've decided that I'd rather edit under the name of Dr Dec from now on. As you've seen, I've been involved in some heated discussions recently, and I'm worried that this might spill out into the real world. For example, I'm apllying for jobs at the moment. If a prospective employer were to Google me and were to read all of the discussions on the RD then I wouldn't be in with much of a chance. I've been signing my posts as Dr Dec for several months now, so there wouldn't be a problem of me being misidentified by the community. Is there a way of you moving all of my edit histories, stats, etc, from my username to Dr Dec? If you're willing to do this then let me know and I'll start moving userpage templates. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your request sounds reasonable. For archival purposes, it's probably best that you file a request at WP:CHU; I (or, depending on timezones, someone else) will be able to fill it out there. The pages in your userspace are automatically renamed when your account is, so there's no need for you to do that. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just filed the request. Thanks for your help. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 09:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. But If I type user:Declan_Davis then I get redirected to user:Dr_Dec. I would like to cut all ties with my real world identity, and remain anonymous whilst editing; for the reasons given above. Could you delete and salt all of the page is the user space Declan Davis? Declan Davis (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to delete these redirects when it's a privacy matter, so yes I can. Salting is usually reserved for cases of serial recreation of undesirable pages. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain. I see that you've deleted user:Declan Davis, and thanks. But could you delete the other eight, or so, pages in the Declan Davis userspace too? Like user talk:Declan Davis, etc? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 09:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

All done. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all your help. I appreciate it. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's no trouble. Everyone has a right to privacy. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for changing my user name. The President of Chicago sounded cool when I created it but now sounds like I'm a psycho or an idiot trying to pretend that I'm great. PresChicago (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Westminster Pit

On October 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Westminster Pit, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Kww 3 - Bureaucrat discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion

I've opened a bureaucrat chat in relation to this RfA as I don't think the outcome is particularly clear cut. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your input. WJBscribe (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just waking up

I just noticed the close and the after-discussion myself. I have no problem with the discussion extending, and would not see undoing the close as "messy". Your choice.—Kww(talk) 12:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate the angst of the situation and I extend my sympathies for the toing-and-froing to which you've been subjected over the past days. However, when I said "messy", I was more referring to procedural mess. I'm of the opinion that when an RfA is closed and archived, and the candidate informed of the outcome, the action should only be undone when there is strong reason to do so. In your circumstance, I don't believe there is the possibility of determining any other outcome than no consensus; the bureaucrat cohort is firmly split over the matter, and I can't see why the present lay of the land would change. Therefore, the only real reason to prolong the discussion would be to allow certain bureaucrats to offer judgement. This would more be for the sake of form than anything else, given that – as aforementioned – further input is unlikely to bear fruit. I hope you understand, and I do encourage you to consider a future request. As a final note, it's entirely possible the discussion will be re-opened; my voice is not the only one, and others have said they think we should wait for commentary from WJBscribe and Rlevse. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• 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) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Super-root

As you have contributed to the article and seem to have enough knowledge on the subject to make a fair judgement on whether it's notable or not, you may have an opinion of its suggested merge with tetration. If you do please discuss it here, as the consensus currently seems to be in deadlock, and this is causing a large edit war across both articles. Robo37 (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-PP

Re on the article of Singapore, it has always baffled me why I have to keep requesting for Semi-PP for this page whenever the time expires and it becomes the subject of vandalism edits by vandals. Is there any way to make it off limit to those IP vandals and newly registered users? Thanks and cheers~! --Dave1185 ^talk 13:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected now, so IP users and newly registered users will not be able to edit it for 2 months. After that, depending on the situation, it may be necessary to semi-protected for longer. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Old name & new name

Hello, I recently requested a name change from User:Ti-30X to User:Steve Quinn. At first it appeared that this was accomplished almost immediately. My User page (and User talk page) have been transferred to tne new name. No problem. Then after a few hours, as I was editing somehow I got switched back to Ti-30X, but I still have my new user name on my User page and user talk page.

Also when editing and adding references, which include DOI links, the Wikipedia software treats me as though I am an anonymous IP asking me to enter a word before I can add my edit. This has happened several times already.

Furthermore, when I started editing under my new name my contributions list disappeared. I understand that this is to be expected sometimes, because it will be restored later. However, now that my current edits are being attributed to Ti-30X - I seem to be in a kind of limbo, and my contributions list still has not been restored. Anyway, maybe you can see if there is something wrong. Please let me know either way on my talk page. In case you are wondering, yes, go ahead and proceed with the name change. Thanks. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• 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) 00:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat question your reasoning for bot flag

I would like to know your reasoning for granting a flag to Cobra Bot.[1] I have posted my question here. Thanks. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)