User talk:Anthony Bradbury

Archives

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 Archive5 Archive6 Archive7 Archive8 Archive9 Archive10 Wired for Books 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Oh, there is a ANI .. well, I blocked the socks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) 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) 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) Thx ... for the zap. Still no idea how it wound up like that. --KP Botany (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 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? sorry I made a mistake. Ignore that. It is here.--Sikh-history (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 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) 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 SatuSuro 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry to have bothered it seems to have been resolved - in the sense of a mess has been uncovered SatuSuro 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 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) 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) The article Van den Swaerdenheem was just re-created by the above belligerent editor. --Boston (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC) 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) Cardiology task force 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) 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) 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) Unblock please unblock my IP adress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siraj ud daula (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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. SBHarris 20:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Thanks The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Thanks for helping me when that guy attacked my userpageAbce2 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Abce2 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) I just sent you an e-mail. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC) I just sent a response to your e-mail. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) "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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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. DurovaCharge! 16:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 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) 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) Associate (business rank) transwiki? In the deletion log you mentioned that Associate (business rank) was tranwikied. Can you please provide that link? Thanks. ~ PaulT+/C 17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC) The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009) The April 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) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Hello Hi there Anthony.bradbury, I just saw your name appear on an RfA. It's nice to see you around; I hope everything's been good with you, and that you had a good break. Best wishes. Acalamari 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC) That sounds like fun: I hope you had a good time. Acalamari 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Ah, thanks! Didn't realize he was a sock. Acalamari 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Your message Hi Anthony, I don't believe I made a promise to anybody... if I did, please point it out so I can avoid doing so in the future. JulieSpaulding (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Seems like Julie just made herself a troll magnet, read her talk page for more details. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your help and pointing out where I went wrong :) JulieSpaulding (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Hi Anthony, no! I was very happy to receive your suggestions and I hope these can make me a better editor. In no way was I offended! Thanks, JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your reassurance Anthony. If I'm unsure of anything I'll give you a shout. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC) ThankSpam My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~ Well, back to the office it is... Domain-name usernames I think they were once absolutely prohibited, but that rule has since been relaxed so that they can be used to edit as long as there seems to be no conflict of interest (A fair amount of people use their personal sites as usernames, after all). Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Some People Just Don't Listen I've blocked this account indefinitely, as s/he kept right on going after you warned them. Best, TNXMan 17:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Phaedriel You could try using the "E-mail this user" feature, but I don't know if she will respond or not: no one has heard from Phaedriel since she went inactive, and as far as I know, no E-mails have been responded to. Acalamari 19:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Hmm, sadly, I don't know of any other way to contact her. I only used E-mail and talk pages. Acalamari 20:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Wallace Fowlie I've restored the article Wallace Fowlie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it does not meet any of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and it asserted significance including significant (and obvious) third-party media coverage of the subject. Please take care only to speedy delete articles that do not even assert the significance of the subject to avoid mistakes like this in the future. Thanks, --Ryan Delaney talk 20:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Fair enough-- disagreement is normal and healthy. But it's a problem when useful articles are deleted without discussion, since deletion is so hard to reverse. If you think it should be deleted, please feel free to nominate it at AfD. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Roofio [2] - what GFDL other than the original editor's claims for it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Hello? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC) The article quotes from a blog, which allows free access Where is this free access stated? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, never mind, I found it. That statement wasn't there at the time that I listed it for a copyvio. Sorry about that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC) The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009) The May 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) 22:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Problems created by a WP User... Hi Sir, One user named AlexCovarrubias is typing untrue statements on the article Newly industrialized country. I corrected the information and put a note in the discussion section but he reverted them for no proper reason. He is a Mexican citizen and puts untrue information about Mexico in the article. I got the following facts from two very credible sources. The information is: 1) Mexico is classified as a developing country by the CIA (of the USA). Here is the source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html 2) The planning commission of Government of India classifies only 27.5% (and NOT 77%) of the population as the people under the national poverty line. AlexCovarrubias is classifying Mexico as a developed country (which is not the case). He is also talking ill of India by writing an untrue (false) statement which reads "it is the poorest newly industrialized country with 77% of the people living on less than $ 1 a day." I do not want some body to edit these data and type something amiss (wrong) about any country in particular- India. Please protect the articles- Newly industrialized country, Developing country, Iyengar, and Vadakalai. I will keep you posted of other articles that are subject to mishandling, posting the wrong information, and/or vandalism of any kind. Please prevent this person from making edits on Wikipedia (WP). Please protect the contents of WP. Awaiting your urgent attention and help in this regard. Thanks for your time. Svr014 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA. Thanks for your post... Hi, Thanks for your post. Will do the needful and report the incident to the appropriate authority so that no wrong information is posted by any user on WP. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA. Your help needed... Dear Dr. Bradbury, I sincerely request you to help me add references section to the article Newly Industrialized Country (NIC). I have added in-line source while talking about India in the Issues Section. I need to add separate section where I can list the references. Please help me. I am afraid that the Mexican user named Alex may delete my edits which have references. Awaiting your help and guidance in this regard. Best Regards, Svr014 Svr014 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA. User:BarbGFT Thanks for the opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Unblock requests Hello, Anthony Bradbury. You have new messages at 24.99.242.63's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.