User talk:Anthony Bradbury

Archives

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 Archive5 Archive6 Archive7 Archive8 Australian Citizenship Test Hi Tony, I'm tracking the ongoing progress of the Australian citizenship test. I was surprised that there's no reference to the test on Wikipedia so thought I'd submit some of my articles on there. I see that you've removed these based on suspected copyright violation. As I own the copyright, I'm happy for this content to be posted on wikipedia. I'll recreate these pages but feel free to contact me if I've misunderstood. THanks Hgld 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Australian Citizenship Test Hi Tony, I'm tracking the ongoing progress of the Australian citizenship test. I was surprised that there's no reference to the test on Wikipedia so thought I'd submit some of my articles on there. I see that you've removed these based on suspected copyright violation. As I own the copyright, I'm happy for this content to be posted on wikipedia. I'll recreate these pages but feel free to contact me if I've misunderstood. THanks Hgld 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I'd like to add a point to this discussion. This editor has been pushing his own point, and his own links into articles; right above he admits to owning that copyright; which is from website of a publisher of books, demonstrating he is either the owner/writer/significant stake in that company. Thus, he adds his links into articles. I have found 3 examples. Number One Night of the Long Knives Tony--I've worked diligently over the last two or three weeks to improve the quality of the article Night of the Long Knives. Since it was the event that consolidated Hitler's power in Germany, and by some accounts inspired Stalin to being his purges, it is a highly important event in twentieth-century history. I've added about thirty cites, and uploaded four photos. I saw your contributions to the Goebbels article, and I think that the Night of the Long Knives could also benefit from an experienced editor familiar with Germany in the 1930s. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Mcattell 19:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC) I've had it up on WP:PR for a few days, but no one has looked at it. I also placed on WP:GAC. Thanks. --Mcattell 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Enjoy your dinner, and thanks.--Mcattell 19:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your help!--Mcattell 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Excellent comments, much appreciated. I'll get to work on them tomorrow. --Mcattell 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) NotLK continued Thanks for your suggestions. I appended them to the Talk:Night of the Long Knives page and added commentary. I incorporated some of your suggestions directly into the article also. I generally can only edit on weekends, but I'm going to try for FA status perhaps in a month or so—it just got listed today as GA. Feel free to edit the substantive article, add analysis, etc. I'm going to try to add to that pesky list of partial victims also. Thanks, Mcattell 20:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Also, when you get a chance, if you could find sources for these facts: Lippert, one of the executioners of Rohm, was tried for this crime in Munich in 1957. Rohm's last words might add colour to the article. They were "If I am to be killed, let Adolf do it himself". Thanks.--Mcattell 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Okay, I finished incorporating your suggestions into the article; they were all good ones. I also emphasized the retroactive legality of the event, and added a quote in the "Rohm's 'continuing revolution' section. I think this is basically the form the article needs to go to FA status, but it still needs work. You've been a great help so far, feel free to edit, or to give others with a interest in this era a heads up.--Mcattell 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks, but your insights were excellent as well. I'll keep you posted.--Mcattell 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Raein This article, I believe, was just speedied by you. I have a few questions: I may have deprodded this article recently. Is this true? The speedy happened too fast for me to contest it, but it looked like the notice had been placed by User:HDS. If that is so, I have reason to believe that that may have been a bad-faith nom. In any case, I would like to have the last copy userfied so that I may attempt to reestablish notability and recreate that article. Chubbles 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Rob liefeld Quick question: the other day, you posted a notice on User:Rob liefeld's talk page, after I listed him on WP:UAA, banning him indefinitely, and yet he's still editing. The block logs say you've discovered it is his real name, which is fine, but you might want to remove or modify the "blocked indefinitely" thing on his talk page. Is there a template for thiss sort of thing? Just a note Hey there, I noticed you often use {{subst:UsernameBlocked}} for inappropriate usernames then explain below as to why, just to tell you that you can use {{subst:UsernameBlocked|Reason for blocking}}, just so you know. Cheers – Rlest 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) My RfA Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community has in me. And a special thanks for being the first to show support. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I'm sure I'll be asking the longtimers here lots in the coming weeks (months?), but I've already managed to successfully delete my first article (attack pages are a specially irksome thing). Carlossuarez46 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) User:Managergo I removed him from the list in case it turns out to be nothing. You want me to keep an eye on the page? -WarthogDemon 01:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Seems someone just blocked him as not having an english page . . . shall I still watch regardless? -WarthogDemon 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Then consider it watched. Cheers. :) -WarthogDemon 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC) I really should remember to google things . . . look what I found: [1]. -WarthogDemon 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC) RFA Comment You mentioned that a support !vote is per nom, and an oppose generally elicits some type of reasoning. As far as the issue of support without reason, can you cite where this comes from? Is it a guideline or a generally accepted practice? The reason I ask is because over the last year I have seen several example of well-known editors who do, in fact, simply sign their name in the section for support. the_undertow talk 04:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Being inherently lazy, this works for me! the_undertow talk 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) You asked for it You offered to help with some newbie admin advice, now I've got a question for you: if what I'm deleting (usually speedy) has been deleted multiple times in the past - I put 2nd, 6th, whatever deletion in my rationale. Is that good, bad, or neither. Also, what's the rule of thumb on how many deletions does an article get before it should be salted? And should the deleting admin do that or request it so a second pair of admin eyes can review and either do it or not (as a sanity and vanity check). Carlossuarez46 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Cheyenne Hi dear Tony! :) Well, I'm not an expert in Cheyenne history; but as far as I know, yes they did; in fact, I understand they actually established there, and there's a significant number of Cheyenne still living in Montana. I can look deeper into the matter, if you want; just let me know and I'll browse my books a little. Hope you're doing great! :) Love you, Phaedriel - 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Unfortunately, I'm a little busy atm, dear Tony - I have myself a backlog... many messages to reply! I promise I'll take care of CSD myself tonight (well, my tonight ;) So sorry, sweetie, but many people are waiting for an answer from me, and it'd be in very poor form if I don't dedicate them some time... Love you, Phaedriel - 23:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Image Renaming I just noticed that Image:Quilfish.png is misspelled. It should be Image:Qwilfish.png. Anyway to rename it? -WarthogDemon 23:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Okay, sorry for bothering you. Cheers and happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 23:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Adminship Yes, I am going to have you nominate me, but not until perhaps October since I created my account in March. Thanks. NHRHS2010 Talk 00:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) So are you saying that your last successful nominee was a teenager also? I know that User:Magnus animum is an admin and is younger than me as well. NHRHS2010 Talk 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks; I am waiting until October because people say that I have to be here on Wikipedia for at least 6 months in order to be an admin. NHRHS2010 Talk 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Email set. NHRHS2010 Talk 00:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC) NotLK continued2 They're great contributions, thanks. If you get a chance, perhaps you could provide direct page citations for them. I added a few more, including some from Shrier. Re: user:86.112.234.106 I don't like indefblocking IPs without a checkuser to confirm how shared the IP is and how many users might be affected. It brings up the annoying problem that you can either: Hardblock. With obviously problems for non-admin editors who might be using that IP. Softblock. But then any socks the banned user has created can vandalise from the IP without getting caught by autoblocks when we block one of them. So without a checkuser to look at the activity on the IP I tend to stick to shorter blocks. If I've tracked the vandal correctly it looks like they were harassing Jetlover using several IPs in a short space of time so I suspect a fairly dynamic IP. Another factor that makes me prefer a shorter block. I could be wrong, but that explains my reasoning. WjBscribe 00:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC) If he's back from that IP I'm wrong and we go for a longer block - but I suspect we'll be seeing him again from a new address. WjBscribe 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC) RE: Vandal warnings Thanks for the advice, in my haste I mis-read the guideline. I'm kinda new to being an active wikipedian! I'll try and read things slower next time ;) -- --M2Ys4U (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC) For all your hard work.... File:What a great editor!.bmp.jpg Congratulations Anthony.bradbury; you have been awarded the great editor award by the Wikipedian of the day project. Although you have not been made the Wikipedian of the day we would still like to congratulate you on your great edits and hopefully this award has made your day better! Great work. Happy editing; Anthony.bradbury Note: If you know an editor who works hard and you think deserves either this award or the unofficial Wikipedian of the day award, send me an email to Rlest Ashnard smiles at you. Ashnard Talk Contribs 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. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello. Page Deleted Hello Mate, My page titled Avant Garde Pakistan was deleted on tbe 15 June 2007 citing Copyright Infringement as the reason. The article pertaining to Avant Garde Pakistan was written with the permission and knowledge of Avant Garde Pakistan [www.avantgardepk.com] . If you need any proof, I can ask them to email it to you. With Regards, Sas311 About a user you blocked User:Sarah Goldberg appears to be back as User:A. Shakespeare. I can't figure out exactly why you blocked her, so I'm unsure of whether anything needs to be done. Cheers, WilyD 19:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Everyones input is needed regardless of their personal opinions about homeopathy. The more opinions the better. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC) NotLK Barnstar The Editor's Barnstar I award Anthony Bradbury the Editor's Barnstar for his contributions in making Night of the Long Knives a readable and accurate article!--Mcattell 16:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC) userpage vandalism Bad luck, I suppose. I seem to have a knack for attracting people who hold grudges/obsessions and will then vandalise my page dozens of times in one go. I also try to check up on people vandalizing to make sure they aren't continuing their behavior, so I tend to catch the same people multiple times. I suppose that gives them one target for their frustration, as opposed to several, and they are then more likely to harrass me. Whether or not that's an accomplishment, I don't know. Natalie 00:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Can you watch this user please? A user named User:Nate Speed constantly adds false information to articles. Whenever he is warned he usually replies with "You block me, I'll block you back so HA!". He exhibits childish behavior claiming all his information is correct yet he has no proof. So could you please block or watch him? Thank You! Shadow-sama 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Night of the Long Knives FAC Thanks for all your help in providing criticism for Night of the Long Knives. I have nominated it here it for featured article status, and would appreciate your assessment. Thanks, Mcattell 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Templates You are quite right of course. It read like an advertisement for his works, but classing it as a bio would have been more appropriate. Benea 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Though I've reread what you've posted, and you said "An article about an author cannot be an advertisement." I think one could be, if, as you say, it contained a clear invitation to buy/partake/attend/use. Did you mean to say "An article about an author cannot be an advertisement unless it contains a clear invitation to buy/partake/attend/use"? If so, then I am in agreement with you. If not, it seems odd that Author articles recieve special dispensation to include what wouldn't be allowed on other articles. I'm fairly sure that's not what you meant, but perhaps you'd like to clarify this? Kind regards, --Benea 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC) I think the issue was the style of the writing. I've just done a rewrite to clear out some of the more POV and other bits, so it now reads a lot less like an article. In the first instance, I wasn't sure what tag I should of used, after a bit of reading, that's a lot clearer now, so hopefully the same problem won't crop up. --Benea 22:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC) No, I didn't feel criticised, don't worry about that. I was wandering into a new field, and I'm happy to given nudges in the right direction. Just wanted to make sure what I was doing was right. Kind regards, --Benea 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Talk:David Marshall Williams I don't understand why you un-speedied that particular talk page ([2]). David Marshall Williams redirects to David Marshall (Carbine) Williams. Short of moving things around so that the redirect goes the other way, I don't see how the former is the kind "viable" that would warrant a talk page. (I've also commented [[Talk:David Marshall Williams|on the talk page itself).  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 23:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC) burp== exactly, anyone can edit any page. so, that is what I am doing. if you SIMPLY email me from the web site given, I would reply from a diva dome address. and all would be fine. but, no, instead I have all these wiki-trolls swarming because they think they have a growing situation. grow a ball, and simply email me. until then, I am simply clearing two pages with old irrelevant content, and refering people to a link that will make sense to only those who stumble on my page from another page. Why all this obsession (nearly a sickness) with such irrelevant activity is beyond me. But I suppose they have to do something with their lives. I (and the rest of the staff) will continue to clear these pages as I just sent a memo. I feel like a am stuck at a fucking renaissance fair. have a good weekend... tell everyone to get out of the house! FAC It just got promoted to FA a couple of days ago. Thanks for all your help and contributions in making Night of the Long Knives a featured article!--Mcattell 12:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Reply This guy is a serial vandal, that I call the Hidden Message Vandal and he hasn't figured out how to use the history option. Quite often he'll leave messages on his various talk pages asking who is leaving him messages. He has vandalised the page of user:Gran2 several times and quite often leaves messages insulting him, so I figured it was best to try to keep my identity a secret. -- Scorpion0422 17:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Okay thanks. I've been battling this guy for three months, and I had hoped that he would lose interest and leave, but that doesn't seem to be the case. -- Scorpion0422 17:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC) No, not really. Being an administrator seems like more work than I care to do. Besides, I have a long history of getting into verbal sparring matches, so I doubt I would pass. Thanks for asking though. -- Scorpion0422 18:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC) One more thing, user:Cool-dude tim, a sock of the Hidden Message Vandal, has started making edits. I'm leaving in a few minutes, so could you please keep an eye on him or (preferably) ban him before he can do anything? Thanks, Scorpion0422 18:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC) It's a little more than that, about a year ago I called a guy a retard in an edit summary, and I've been reported to the Admin noticeboard 5 times (although 4 of those times were by the same user who simply dislikes me). Anyway, I'm going camping for 8 days, so I'll think about it and get back to you when I get back. -- Scorpion0422 18:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Following up on this, since Scorp's going on vacation, Scorp, User:Gran2 and I have been following this user around since June, reverting his edits. Sometimes they're legit, most times they're garbage. He's vandalized my user page as well, but frankly I consider it a badge of honor that shows I'm doing something right.  :) I filed an abuse report at the end of June, but one admin responded saying there was nothing we could do about it other than to report each offending IP address and have it blocked. I contacted British Telecom about it, but was told they couldn't do anything without server logs (which I don't have access to, and don't know how to acquire). There is an open case file with the BT security team, #12356595. Note that I've also posted this information at User talk:Chaser. We've been after this guy for months, and it would be nice to bring the vandalism to an end. -FeralDruid 19:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC) I third that emotion! The fact that this guy seems to think he's completely innocent and that we're someone how persecuting him, is what I find really irritating. Gran2 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC) User:Psycho Samurai My he's steamed at the moment! No worries, you're not treading on my toes at all! I tend to ignore or revert that venting. For now its better off letting him calm down and just avoid the tantrum he's throwing.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC) That's why I instated a week long block rather than an indef. Seems he's just emotional at the moment. But if he continues the way he's going, then he's going to find himself facing a pretty ice cold indef block.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC) That proposal does not hurt either but the severity of the threats he makes are not to be taken lightly (such as saying you better run). If he repeats a threat like that I usually would indef block. Threats that imply bodily harm are never good.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Re: Advice Hi Tony, I'm not up on the latest policy on how to perform range blocks without gumming up a lot of honest editors. Have you tried asking User:Raul654. He's up on a lot of this stuff, I believe, or should be able to direct you. -- Cecropia 22:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Deletion of BenQ Can you reconsider your deletion of BenQ? It's a fairly large company pretty well known in the computer industry with lots of coverage [3]. It is linked to several articles and the {{hangon}} tags added by 213.178.224.164 (talk · contribs) appear to be more like vandalism due to the sheer number of them added. Thanks. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Re your message: Thanks. =) Those {{hangon}} tags was one of the more unusual forms for vandalism I've seen. Creative to say the least. -- Gogo Dodo 05:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Unlost Interest Anthony, Thank you for the note. I have not lost interest in the FWT article. I have decided that it is adequate for now and am evaluating my other articles for comparison. Also I have been working on articles in the "opera corpus" page and related things which have recently attracted my attention and interest. Are you suggesting anything specific for the FWT article? It does compare favorably with other articles I have written. Also I am preparing a couple of articles by researching and writing initially outside of the wikipedia pages and planning to enter them in a less raw state which will likely make them more acceptable. Meanwhile I hope all is well with you as it is with me. BestCanticle 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC) DrV An editor has asked for a deletion review of Darren Jones. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ArtVandelay13 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Kra to KRA I decided to move Kra to KRA since there is one entry that uses the acronym K.R.A. However, I'd just like to check and see if I was right for making the move. Is it good? -WarthogDemon 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Tapuria You deleted this article, please give me the reason for it, i also need the contents of it, please provide it and paste it into my talk page, thank you --Ali 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC) User:Sir Johnathan Major Please note that two users (at least) at WP:UAA agree that the above user was not a blatant violation, and not obviously bad faith. I have personally, at the same time as you were blocking, posted a polite warning and suggestion to the user that they consider changing their name through WP:CHU. SamBC(talk) 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Speedy deletion Just thought I'd point out that [4] this went through AFD earlier this year and survived as a no consensus. I was considering sending it back to AFD when I saw that you have speedied it. Personally, I'm not bothered either way but I wasn't sure if you had noticed the AFD. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete tag on Harvey Meyerhoff It is correct that User:Cave Bovum was banned after creation of this article. Indeed, he could not have created it if he was banned. However, he was a sockpuppet of a user banned in July 2006, well before creation of the article. See [5]. Cave Bovum is a confirmed sockpuppet of WordBomb.[6] I hope this clarifies matters and I'd ask that you reinstate the tag or perform a speedy delete. Thanks,--Mantanmoreland 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Admin sandbox Thanks for the help! --MatthewUND(talk) 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Re: Wiikipedian Ty for addin' an unsigned signature. :) Wiikipedian Reply:Status Nothing of the sort. I will not be leaving Wikipedia for many a year, I should hope. I merely wanted to clear out several of the unused and forgotten pages of my space. And - as for EFD: completely unrelated. Thanks for deleting the pages. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Barnstar The Special Barnstar Have a barnstar. You do a lot of work deleting articles Pheonix 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 5meodmt 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Speedy Deletion You have a page on Dr Alexander Shulgin, why was his associate Simon Roberts page deleted? Hi there, You've recently deleted an article I was working on for a DJ I currently represent as a gesture of goodwill. The article was entitled Anas Attia. The reason the bio I posted here was also featured on Frisky Radio's webiste (http://www.friskyradio.com/shows/?id=55) is because it was lent to them with our permission when he appeared as a guest Dj. Please let me know if we could clear this misunderstanding. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MasihF (talk • contribs) Deletion review An editor has asked for a deletion review of Susan Chesler. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dsmdgold 14:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Sexual slang Could you point me to where the deletion was decided? I couldn't find anything, so I denied the speedy deletion as a "repost". It is clearly a poor list that should be replaced by an encyclopedic article, but given its large number of incoming links a simple deletion (without replacing it by something else) did not seem the right thing to do to me. Do you have any suggestions what to do? Kusma (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC) There is no urgency :-) If the current list is eventually kept somewhere, we should undelete the history (I didn't want to do that so far as it might contain bad revisions that are supposed to stay deleted, and I was too lazy to check) but perhaps deletion is the right thing to do ... Kusma (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC) I have undeleted the history under a recent encyclopedic version that was found by Will Beback. The list that was recently re-added was apparently the one from BJAODN. I'll try to watch it and make sure it doesn't devolve into an "add your own made-up sex terms" contest again. Kusma (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Reece Vickers Just letting you know that I properly salted Reece Vickers. In the future, you may want to consider following the instructions at the bottom of WP:PT if you are going to protect a deleted page. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Adam Bennett Before speedy deleting a valid article as a nn-bio, please dbl check the page's history for vandalism. Thank you.--Scimitar parley 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but if you look at [7], you'll see that the current article is exactly the same as... the article in December 06. Certainly, the article you deleted was nn-bio, but it was a vandalized version of the present article. Then again, it's possible I'm misreading the history. Thanks for your reply. --Scimitar parley 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC) No worries. Thanks. --Scimitar parley 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC) People Who Want To Be Like Kuru I decided to check for other names similar, other than User:Kuruu and found one more: User:Kurru. -WarthogDemon 23:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Roger that. :) You caught me just before I was going to log off, so over and out. :) -WarthogDemon 07:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Cheesepants150 might be a sockpuppet I have a feeling that User:Cheesepants150 could be a sockpuppet of User:Googler459. The user edited the same talk page (not to mention the same pages and Googler's userpage) as User:SuperstarOU, a blocked sock of Googler. The user placed fake warnings on talk pages similar to this edit. The username is similar to User:Patrickstar489, which is another indef blocked sockpuppet. Pants(T) 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Remember me? I've thought about it quite a bit, and I've decided to decline. Thanks for the offer though. -- Scorpion0422 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Hi Anthony. Could you please speedy delete Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:66.31.84.89? I accidentally pressed a wrong button which caused me to accidentally create the page I noted above. NHRHS2010 Talk 22:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Deleted by User:TKD. NHRHS2010 Talk 22:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Graph font size Thanks for your message. I can't seem to get it to work, it either gives me an error or < big > just appears with the rest of the text. Maybe you could try, the graph is here. Thanks! robertvan1 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Please help me make my article work.....what is it missing???? Can I write about someone as a stub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acot pauln (talk • contribs) The RfA Heh, heh; sorry! :) It wasn't fun though; the last three opposes were "strong opposes", and sadly, more "strong opposes" probably would have come in had I not closed the RfA. Acalamari 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Lake Inari anon I see you gave that editor another warning, I blocked after a final warning because there were no constructive edits from that account. I would have waited for more vandalism if there had been anything resembling a useful edit, but as it's an anon we'll never really know how it would have played out. Just thought I owed you an explanation. Carlossuarez46 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Question about user pages How far do we let users go: advertising of products is a no-no, but a c.v. with contact information? see User:Edwinalbert for an example. What do you think? Carlossuarez46 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the advice. I realize it was a closer call so I sought expert guidance. :-) Carlossuarez46 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks again! Carlossuarez46 23:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC) . yes because Jimbos my m8 --I Own This Land 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I Own This Land Thanks for checking that guy out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vlaze (talk • contribs) 23:21, August 21, 2007 (UTC). Just indefblock I Own This Land, now he's just creating socks like User:Checkland Burger — Moe ε 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 2015 World Championships in Athletics Hi, Anthony.bradbury. I am very new to Afds, so I just wanted to ask if I have done this correctly. At the log, I posted the article. The article has its Afd. Am I missing anything? Thanks. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Re: user:AngelOfSadness/About Me I don't mind. Thanks for finding and removing it. Your edit actually fixed the page back to how it should look :D. AngelOfSadness talk 22:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Ahh OK. Thanks again. :D AngelOfSadness talk 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you for the kind comment. I'm glad you think so as when I first created it I didn't know at all what I was doing. But it does look nice because of other editors like yourself making improvements to it which I may not have thought of. Also since it's a subpage, it's never attacked by vandals. They always vandlise the cover of the book which is extremely easy to spot on the RC. AngelOfSadness talk 22:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Steve Fox (porn star) page Why was the entry on Steve Fox (porn star) deleted? Jim Brams Jim Brams 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 7000 edits I just made my 7000th edit today. NHRHS2010 Talk 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Protection Protect it to allow it to be read? How does that make sense? Also, if you were insinuating about myself "canvassing," that is not appreciated. El_C 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) revert on User:Allycat Hi Anthony, I think you made a mistake in your revert to this page, but it's also quite possible there's something I'm not seeing, so I'll run it by you. I think I reverted all the vandalism, but it seems like you went further, and reverted all the bots that were doing userbox migration? I reverted to a bot edit in June, and the user has been active several times in August. I went ahead and reverted your changes, but if I'm not seeing something, feel free to re-revert, and sorry for the trouble. --barneca (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 3RR for User:Anonimu I warn him not to remove the templates from his talk page. Also, he had edit wars for two articles Soviet occupation of Romania‎ and National Liberal Party (Romania)‎. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.131.239 (talk) 16:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC) Hi YourLord here. I noticed you accused me of being a sockpuppeteer on Ashnard's talk page. Just out of curiosity who was it who labelled me a sockpoppeteer? YourLord - I'm only signing my name like that so you know who I am Sock I did not accuse you of sockpuppetry; I was quoting the admin who identified you. It was User:Edgarde. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you. YourLord DRV notice Just noticed you were the editor who deleted this. It's up for DRV. An editor has asked for a deletion review of Caitlin Upton. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Oakshade 17:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Your note Yeah, I noticed that after saving the page, but didn't figure it was worthwhile to bother removing my notice. Though I must admit, I didn't notice the Hitler's birthplace thing! Good thing you did. See you around. Peace, delldot talk 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the heads-up I got a bit bruised with my article writing (Bell's prime number theorem) so I thought I'd master my AfD skills before I write more articles. But I will, and thanks for the other leads, which I'm exploring.--Bedivere 19:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Warnings Could I please remind you that vandals should, according to wiki policy, be given a cascading series of warnings before being blocked? Granted that vicious, obscene or threatening vandal edits can be immediately blocked, the merely stupid ones should ideally receive four warnings in total before an admin blocks them. I, and I know many others, are unhappy at being asked to block after only a single, or perhaps two warnings. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) So I can't skip steps based on whether they're purposefully vandalizing or not? Ok. Four warnings, in order it is then. Thanks for the heads up. Gscshoyru 22:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC) My friend, I have no wish to criticise, and your identification of vandalism edits leaves nothing to be desired. Nor do I wish to restrict your activity. But essentially, this is so. All vandalisms are intentional - if not, they are just mistakes. But yes, stupid, misguided or ignorant vandalisms really should get the cascaded series. As I say, nasty ones I am happy to block immediately, and for these you skip steps as you think fit. Quite a lot of merely stupid vandals go on to be productive editors after a telling-off. And the ones who don't, get blocked, yes. To be fair, this is not my personal policy, it is official wiki policy. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for explaining. So just to be sure -- misguided, stupid (i.e. non-full page blanking, minor NPOV, unsourced, etc) editors get the full set, seriously offensive ones I can skip steps on, if it's really necessary? Gscshoyru 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Absolutely. But if it is an uncertain or bordcerline case, I personally would tend to err on the side of early deletion rather than of tolerance. It's a judgement thing. If you follow my advice I will back you in case of dispute. Promise. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Gotcha. Thanks for your guidance! I'll keep what you've said in mind. Gscshoyru 22:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 7500 edits I just made my 7500th edit today. NHRHS2010 Talk 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Do I have many mainspace edits other than vandalism reverts? I am part of WikiProject New Jersey. User:JetLover nominated me on RfA a few days ago but I closed it because everyone keeps opposing me just because all I did was vandalism reverts. After I closed my RfA, I did heavy editing on New Jersey related articles, especially articles about towns, mostly adding transportation details. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC) You should look again before you make false assumption Happy to provide more information in private/confidential. But suffice to say that the user is most definitely a sockpuppet the account was created Today and is impersonating a current users name. The content of the users contribution was most certainly designed to vandalize the content of the main article which is verifiable and backed by citations. again if you can provide a more secure confidential contact I am happy to provide more information. it is better to be informed then to make accusations half cocked.UkraineToday 22:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC) You have along with my family (You shoud,lthink twice) . How can I email you and I will advise. in more detail if you have skype I will contact you... UkraineToday 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC) You have not dome your homework. Look again. If you have skype I will expalin esle do not jump to false assumptions.UkraineToday 22:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I have sent you email UkraineToday —Preceding unsigned comment added by UkraineToday (talk • contribs) 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Email I've sent you an email. ~ Wikihermit 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Response to your message about Naphthalocyanine I posted a speedy tag on this article because the user was also posting the same "under construction" on various articles. The user in question should start an article before posting under construction, it had no meaningful content and therefore fell into the criteria for speedy deletion. The user could rewrite the article if it was deleted, but leaving a post "under construction" while starting various articles is not appropriate. If he had at least started the article I would have agreed with you. Also my CSD post was not directed at the user, but whether it was suited for Wikipedia. That user did not WP:OWN that article when he created it, therefore it does not violate WP:BITE. Hello32020 23:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 3RR? this diff. This isn't a content dispute -- the offending user is trying to say that a proof is invalid, though it is not, because he/she believes .999... is not equal to 1, though her or she is incorrect. It is a difficult concept, admittedly, but the user is requesting changes on the article page, not the talk page, and this is a violation of policy. He or she has been warned that these edits are vandalism, continued, and should really be blocked for vandalism past the fourth warning. Giving the user one more edit's grace is ok, I can understand that. But calling it a 3RR violation implies that user:Oli Filth (the other reverting user) would also be at fault, which is untrue. Gscshoyru 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Not so. This article is a featured article. In my view, the repeated attempts to revert part of it are vandalism. Reversion of vandalism edits does not fall within 3RR, and is allowed without limit. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC) I think you're agreeing with me here, though I'm not actually sure. I'm just trying to point out that what the offending user is doing is vandalism, whereas the comment you put on the user's page implies a content dispute, which would imply that Oli Filth would be at fault if he reverted again, which isn't true. I'm basically defending him, since he did what I would have done, but he just had faster clicking skills. Ok? Gscshoyru 22:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC) We are agreeing. User:Oli Filth is not breaking 3RR rules, because he is reverting vandalism. You can revert vandalism ad infinitum and never fall foul of 3RR. The other user is in breach, and I have warned him. I did not block him, after six reversions, only because an initial warning is mandatory. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Ok, I can see how the 3RR can be one sided now. Makes sense. What I don't see is how, if you've labeled the user's edit's vandalism yourself, and he or she has vandalized past a final warning, and was reported to AIV, that only an initial warning is mandatory, rather than a short-term block. Gscshoyru 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC) The reversion itself is not vandalism, except for its recurrent reposting. Like, once or twice might be reverted but would not be vandalism, because the edit in question is pefectly sensible and logical. Just wrong. It only becomes vandalism under 3RR rules, and for a block a 3RR warning must be given first. His last edit timed 09.43, my warning timed 09.47. Therefore, within the 3RR framework, he has not vandalised past his final warning. Yet. Does not qualify as blockable under WP:AIV, for reasons I explain above. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC) So it only counts as vandalism by virtue of the fact that he's violating the 3RR? And because it's completely wrong, Oli Filth can revert as many times as he likes? In other words, the only reason why Oli Filth isn't in violation himself is because he's reverting edits that are well meaning (assuming good faith, here) but wrong, and the user would be in violation under normal 3RR rules? I think I get it, just tell me if I'm right. Gscshoyru 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Now look, this is only my interpretation, OK? My view is that a well-meaning and non-objectionable edit which is to the point of the article will not normally be vandalism. Repeated edits can be vandalism under 3RR, but a block is only permissable after a 3RR warning. When you come to apply for WP:RfA you will find out how tricky this can sometimes be! Yes, user:Oli Filth can revert vandalism edits as much as he likes, given that they can clearly be defined as vandalism. In an edit war, where the edits of both editors can be held to be sound, both can be 3RR blocked.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC) It is a bit tricky... so thanks for the guidance. I pretty much get it now. And my RfA'll be a ways off -- I'll need to make plenty of useful contributions to the encyclopedia first, rather than just doing what I do. Thanks! Gscshoyru 23:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Roger Lextrait You deleted this article, please give me the reason for it. I posted a clear enough "hangon" tag and additional info. Please use my talk page. aphexddb 03:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Special Barnstar The Special Barnstar In recognition of your many contributions, which involve a whole range of different, useful work on Wikipedia, I award you the Special Barnstar, for being a very special Wikipedian indeed. Keep up the good work! :-) Lradrama 09:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic I noticed you speedy-deleted the page as "patent nonsense". What part of this is speedy-deletable nonsense? MessedRocker (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Indeed. I've restored this. It may not be the most useful essay, but it's not patent nonsense or gibberish. CloudNine 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Barnstar The Tireless Contributor Barnstar For over a year of service to Wikipedia, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar.--Sharkface217 02:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Good job, dude. --Sharkface217 02:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC) You are very welcome. --Sharkface217 09:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Octopus Vandalism Thanks for your words of advice, I just wasn't sure if we are suppose to warn IPs as there was mention of a bug where as the IPs wouldn't see the messages. Anyways thanks! --Tm1000 09:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Ah! Well thanks for the information!--Tm1000 09:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC) RE: user:KuruFalcon Hi. Thanks for the note. I do not tend to indef block vandalism only accounts, at least initially, as I personally feel that it will simply incite the individual, who can simply come back as another account once the 24 hour autoblock has expired. I prefer to start with limited blocks to see if the user can be rehabilitated, perhaps into a useful user. The only flaw I see in this logic is that a committed vandal might see the indef block, assume they will never be able to edit, and then never come back - but I feel that this is unlikely. I have not heard much feedback on this, especially from established users, so it would be really good to hear yours. Cheers TigerShark 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC) There is one issue here, which makes a big difference and which I am possibly wrong about. Specifically that when we indef block a user and block the underlying IP, that IP is only blocked for 24 hours via an autoblock. If that is wrong, and the IP is also indefinitely blocked then an indef block will have a significant effect (as you say a vandal would need to go and get another IP address). However, I do currently believe that the IP would only be autoblocked for 24 hours, and that is why I say that a determined vandal will soon come back even if they are autoblocked, and why trying to rehabilitate them (or at least try not to incite them too much) may be a good idea. The other thing that I wanted to say is that in some cases of repeat vandalism there may be a case for actually blocking the underlying IP idefinitely, but I think this could only be done if we could show repeat vandalism from an inidvidual, which could warrant a checkuser on the IP and then a block - but if we indef block the user they will come back under the same IP (but a different account) and we will never get to block the IP. Do you have any thoughts on this, and any further info on whether the underlying IP is also indefinitely blcoked or just autoblocked for 24 hours? Cheer —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerShark (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Category talk:Anti-communists Hi there. Could you take a look at my comments on Category talk:Anti-communists and see if you think it should be a candidate for deletion. Thanks. Davidelit 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the note! I was wondering where I had gone too >_> But now I'm back, so it's all good :) Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC) deleted "Talk:A Little Less Sixteen Candles, a Little More 'Touch Me'" Forgive me for not understanding, but I am curious as to why this page was deleted. The answer listed below does not make any sense to me. Thanks, Stan 18:37, 30 June 2007 Anthony.bradbury (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:A Little Less Sixteen Candles, a Little More 'Touch Me'" (content was: 'Sorry I shifted everything around a bit, I just often forget that Wikipedia observes this capitalisation for albums....') Old SALT vs New SALT This is mostly an FYI to you as an admin who still uses the old, templated method for salting pages. That method of salting pages is depricated, and the template is now up for deletion. While things can still change, the current discussion definitely looks headed towards deletion. Assuming that this happens, you will no longer be able to salt pages with the old method, and will need to begin using the newer salting method that involves cascading protection on the title, and allows recreation to be blocked while still having no article at the name, leaving it as a red link. This new method of salting is centered at WP:PT, and the instructions for how to make it work are there as well. - TexasAndroid 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry Sorry - it is midnight here in the UK and it has been a long day. Apologies for giving you extra work! Batmanand | Talk 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Disappointment Why did you delete disappointment ? Kappa 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Oh there was another AFD. I'm going to take it to VFU. Kappa 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Your closure of an AfD Hello, Anthony, I hope you are doing well. I am writing to you in regards to your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Uhuru with a delete outcome. I do not fault you at all for concluding that should be the result, given that no one had yet spoken up for the article. However, I had just been reading the article and I was a little slow in forming my opinion because I was reading the supporting references. As you know, AfD is not a vote. In this particular case, unfortunately, the people who commented at AfD did not seem to correctly apply policy. I will examine them one by one: Nominator UsaSatsui gave no reason at all for deleting the article. His comment was "Disputed prod, and disputed lot of other things too, it seems. Sending this over to AfD as a procedural thing." We should not be sending anything to AfD as "a procedural thing". Nominations are supposed to point out what policy is violated by the article. This nomination completely failed in that regard. Dlohcierekim said "original research" but offered no evidence to support that. To the contrary, the article is supported by multiple sources. Perhaps they misunderstand what original research means. Evb-wiki just said "per the above comments". Since the above comments are no basis for deletion, then neither is Evb-wiki's comment. This comment is the most insightful: "Delete. This has been a rumor ever since the first glimmerings of freedom were heard in South Africa 25 years ago, the only thing that changes is the alleged trigger. Giving blacks the vote? Combining the segregated parliaments? The first black government? Somehow it's always tomorrow. --Dhartung Dhartung seems to have the idea that we don't write about disproven or fringe theories. This is not the case. Please see 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Nazi UFOs and Cold fusion. And, depending on your believes Intelligent Design and Natural selection, for that matter. We cover things that other sources cover. We aren't supposed to care whether those beliefs are plausible or biases or whatever. We only care that they are notable and verifiable. Hence, Dhartung's statement is actually a reason to support keeping the article. The article certainly claimed notability. There were more than a dozen references. Even if we follow the advice of one of the people at AfD (Wl219) and discount the ones that all come from the same source, there are still 4 sources, which is more than required by WP:V. Because of this, I would like to request that you reverse the closure in favor of keeping the article. This is one of the cases, unusual but not unheard of, where the AfD comment ors missed the boat on correctly applying policy to the question at hand. Thank you, Johntex\talk 01:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Hi Anthony, thanks for your reply. I can't over-emphasize the fact that I don't blame you at all for the closure. I am sure it looked fairly clear-cut on the surface. We are all busy cleaning up way too much vandalism, etc. and as you say it was not an early closure. I can also understand why you might be reluctant to simply change the outcome of the AfD. You mention restarting the AFD or taking it to DRV as possibilities. I think that restarting the AfD would be a good idea. It is probably the likely outcome from DRV. Therefore, if you don't mind. I will re-start this nomination with links to both the old AfD discusssion and to the above analysis. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Johntex\talk 14:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC) RFA Thanks Click there to open your card! → → → Dearest Anthony.bradbury, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day. Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor Credits This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design. Tibet PLease see Jaggang. I will be going through and adding the infoboxes in the next few days and info like this. I work better this way thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC) I know all this. I was working my way though very very slowly and it seemed like an enormous task. This way once the red links are moved psychologically I think ah I can just go through the remainder and add an infobox and detail and soon enough every article will have full details and info. It has a reference to confirm authenticy but please bare with me thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Many admin know about my work anyway but I hope people can see I aim to add full details later. For me this is stage 1. Its taken 6 years to get them onto here some settlements have 6,000 odd people when many American/ European villages with a opulation of 100 odd were on wikipedia in 2001. Soon enough every starter page will be like Jaggang or Deleg which has all the chinse and tibetan transliterations which another WP Tibet member is adding. Then the next step will be to try to expand each article. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Yes of course but I thought I might get a ticking if I used that on all these many new pages ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Ok I've created a special template which may be useful for other editors who are adding landmarks to set them up then return later. The standard template didn't relay any intentions of my work See Quxam ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC) CSD Hello. The reason why the templates are white (not just the speedy deletion templates; all of them) is because of WP:TS. --Agüeybaná 18:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Umm, you left me a message on the talk page of an article :-) My talk is at User talk:Agüeybaná not Talk:Agüeybaná. --Agüeybaná 19:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC) No need to apologize so much, man. I think I better take that link off my sig before people start leaving all my messages there :-) --Agüeybaná 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Darn You User talk:BLACK PEOPLE SUCK‎, you beat me to this one. All is good though, the point is to block the username after all. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for restoring my page temporarily. I've copied what I needed and I know it'll be taken down again. We'll fix up our work and resubmit it. Butterbutterbutter 23:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Undeletion request Hi. Back in July, you closed the AfD for Turtles and tortoises in popular culture as delete. I saved a copy of the deleted article and have since rewritten it to a standard that I think is suitable for Wikipedia. Here is the rewritten article. If you think the new version is acceptable, would it be possible to have the old version undeleted so that the page history is restored? Thanks. Bláthnaid 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Great, thank you. Bláthnaid 22:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC) WP:UAA User:Mocrosoft and User:Mylordjesus were both blocked before I had a chance to reply to your comments. I think the important thing to emphasize for myself is that I did not think they were blatant violations. I'm not sure what is wrong with Mocrosoft, since the user had not edited in a promotional way and there was no promotional capability for the name. Mylordjesus mentions the name of a religious figure, but in an expression of faith, not in a distasteful way. I realize you didn't block these names, and I'm not sure I'll discuss it with those that did, but I wanted to reply to you. Leebo T/C 01:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC) As a note, I brought up my point regarding Mylordjesus to Philippe (the blocking admin) and his response is here. Leebo T/C 01:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Links to the deleted articles Hi! When closing AFDs, what about removing any incoming links to the deleted article? Punkmorten 07:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Your message I think you will find, that basically all of his edits were vandalism, thus my warning is justified. Meateater 10:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Name Change I ahve changed my username but I need you to move user talk from dummmmmmy to Arecus fan.--Arceus fan 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground trivia (4th nomination) Hi, I saw you closed this debate as a "delete", which in principle I would agree with. However, much of the content was used in other articles, and I think GFDL requires that the authors be acknowledged if we use their content. Can you restore the history and make this a redirect to one of the articles where the content was used (either London Underground statistics, London Underground or London Underground history)? Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. It is true that a person who has released a text under GFDL has irrevocably abandoned all rights to deny further distribution of the material, for any purpose, be that charity, commercial, good or evil, but legally the person still holds the copyright, and has the right to be acknowledged when the material is used. Per Wikipedia:Copyright, "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)." (emphasis mine.) On the AFD itself, I think consensus shifted from the "merge" result of the previous two AFDs to the "delete/remove" result this time because the the encyclopedic content had been siphoned off to more appropriate articles. What remained were things like "Oval is the only station with four letters in the name", and other such minuitae which have no bearing at all on the subway system, and that kind of content was quite appropriately not merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Its ok I am sorting the matter out, and please stop bringing me to task on everything that I do... It's quite alarming ;b. Meateater 10:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC) The now-traditional RFA thank-spam Click there to open your card! → → → Dear Anthony Bradbury, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 83 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutrals. No matter if you voted (I mean, "!voted") support or oppose, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm new, remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them, and if I do anything wrong, feel free to add to the permanent chorus of disapproval on my talk page. Special thanks to WaltonOne and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me. iridescent (talk to me!) 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Credits This design was brazenly stolen from inspired by Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor's RFA Thanks, which in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. RFA Thanks! Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Shoot! This is Jonathan, you may not know me, but I need a huge favor. Can you remove the wikibreak script from my monobbok.js? Thanks! 216.106.67.63 01:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC) oops I'd like to add a point to this discussion. This editor has been pushing his own point, and his own links into articles; right above he admits to owning that copyright; which is from website of a publisher of books, demonstrating he is either the owner/writer/significant stake in that company. Thus, he adds his links into articles. I have found 3 examples. Number One [�http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_citizenship_test&diff=159831596&oldid=159338904] That link is to his site promoting a product, which I see in the history of the article another anon removed the link, which he promoted put back. I placed my comments here;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_citizenship_test] And a quote from said website: "Quote: “We must receive payment of the whole of the price for the goods that you order before your order can be accepted. Once payment has been received by us we will confirm that your order has been accepted by sending an email to you at the email address you provide in your order form. Our acceptance of your order brings into existence a legally binding contract between us.”" Number Two [8] Adding his website; blatant abuse of Wikipedia guidelines Number Three [9] Wow, using own website as a reference! That is beyond COI, I need not say more. Quote: “The testable materials within the revised second edition handbook total 21,400 words, which is nearly 10,000 words longer than the original materials. url = http://www.redsquirrelbooks.com/index.php/site/detail/revised_life_in_the_uk_test_materials_released | title = Revised Life in the UK Test materials released | publisher = Red Squirrel Publishing | date = 30 March 2007 }} Please deal with this matter and I appreciate your time. 211.28.81.214 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks Anthony, i just asssumed user:meateater was an admin because he acts like one but i appreciate you taking the time to correct me on that, i will drop you a message if i need any help Mr Creasy 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC) What? Oh, I am sorry, I was under the influence that civility was not tolerated here. So, let me get this straight; It's OK for Mr Creasy a sockpuppet, by the way, unless you never caught on to that , to go around being incivil, without recieving warnings, but when someone gives them a warning, you throw threats at them? Meateater 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC) You kept on making threats but you havent blocked me yet, so I will assume you won't, now I am going to leave this issue alone, and I hope to god I never encounter you on wikipedia again. Meateater 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)