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.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• 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) 20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 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) 02:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

B/Star to Raul

Maybe a probably pointless commentary AD, but as you are one of the editors I most respect on this site I was suprised by the barnstar comments to Raul. He recently had several advanced permissions (CU/OS) removed by ARBCOM due to abuse. He has ignored repeated requests on his page over various items, and removed a PROD on an unreferenced negative BLP - pretty much a G10 and subsequently deleted at AFD - with an edit summary that had a reference but he couldn't be bothered to add it to the article. Just my opinion, but handing out barnstars to un-cooperative beligernet editors who have been stripped of special access tools, and who go against core policy, is - well - not perhaps what barnstars are for. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Easy links;

• Raul's advance permissions removed per request
• Unreferenced negative BLP (diffs in the AFD discussion.) Pedro :  Chat  23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I knew in the back of my mind that he'd recently been caught up in an abuse case, but I guess I had a momentary lapse. As you may or may not be aware, I don't comment on ArbCom cases, and I barely ever pause to apprise myself of the committee's activities. Either way, I think the barnstar still stands. He has had a seven-year history with the site, and he's done good work in that time. The longevity of his participation can't be denied, regardless of recent misdemeanours – and that is, after all, what the barnstar was for. Thanks for the note. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We can all make mistakes. Raul has done alot of work over a long time. The Featured Article process is a testament to that. I think the barnstar was a good call. If one has been around for a while it is not hard to get enmeshed in some drama or other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's no big deal, and I agree Cas that Raul's historical heroic efforts for WP are exceptional. Regretfully he seems, IMHO, to have slightly lost the way at present however. No matter. Pedro :  Chat  15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was very surprised by that barnstar too, particularly now considering all the problems. Well, whatever. Awards don't mean much anyway. —mattisse (Talk) 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• 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) 12:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

It is unfortunate that this article wasn't promoted to FA, but I think it is fairly close and so worth another attempt. I hope you will consider taking it back through PR and FAC in the future. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If and only if

Hi Anonymous Dissident, what do you mean by this comment? It's a little cryptic for me. Melchoir (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was curt because I had planned to bring it up on the talk page for discussion (something I forgot to do, it seems). Which parts do you think need expert attention? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well... what's the relationship between the two articles If and only if and Logical biconditional? Is the topic of If and only if a certain logical connective, or not? As a reader with no real training in logic, I find these articles frustrating and confusing, so hopefully someone who gets the big picture can sort them out. Melchoir (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the topic seems disordered; it may be the case that a merge is in order. Airing your concerns about the articles' relationship on the talk page may be a better move than placing {{expert}}. That way people know that the problem concerns both articles. One man's opinion. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Request For Unprotection of Article

BertramIT (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

((Hello I would like to request for you to unprotect- Runescape Lords Conquest- Article as I have sufficient information to perswade you to see the importance of it: If you look at this site link and see what i would like to put on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BertramIT/Runescape_lords_conquest - FOR THIS TO THEN GO ONTO : en.wikipedia.org/Runescape_Lords_Conquest )) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertramIT (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)