Thing is that was the second time I've applied. I'm never gonna get it. They look on me like I'm a stupid 16 yar old with an IQ of 2. I can handle more reesponsibility then they give me credit for!!!-- Hornetman16 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record HarryMaxwell was indef blocked for being a sockpuppet of another indef blocked account. And I don't blame you for speculating, given the similar signatures I'd have done the same. I'm more interested in why he did imitate me though. Black Harry(Highlights|Contribs)23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See [1] and WP:MOSDATE. I format the cite templates like that as I figure it will be easier for a bot not to have to pad the date number (although if it isn't handling that we probably shouldn't allow it out). Yomanganitalk13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is the absolute best timing I have EVER seen! I got that message one click after reading the same thing on the article's talk page :) Perfect timing :). Anyway, thanks, and i'll try to work on it. Matt/TheFearow(Talk)(Contribs)(Bot)10:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and i'm les unhappy than you would have expected. I didn't really expect it to pass, but I can always hope, and of course it always provides me with lots of constructive criticism. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow(Talk)(Contribs)(Bot)10:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a lot of problems trying to figure out how to make the custom signature.
Although I requested help on how to make it.
Now I am going to request help on how to fix it.
Because I have no clue on how to do it. Cheers! KingLopezContribs09:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, I wasn't discouraged at all. I didn't even want to be an Admin that badly, or I'd have self-nommed long before now. As it is, all comments apart from Jmlk's were constructive criticism, and I'll be working on them. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice(PokéNav|Trainer Card)12:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm fairly certain that one is correct. I've noticed most edit counters have varying counts. For example, my count with the MediaWiki Query was me at "13920", while Wannabe Kate has me about 300 less. For all I know though, all the counters may be off be x amount. No idea what is 100% accurate, but I know that Wannabe Kate's sometimes stops counting if the count is very high. 45,000+. Anyhow, happy editing. KOS | talk13:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any programming languages other than rather basic JavaScript, but I plan to learn C++ by the end of the summer. Anyway, 1) It uses AWB, so it wasn't hard to design and 2) It didn't take long at all due to the fact that there are about 3 other bots that do the same thing. :-) —«ANIMUM»16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you need an account now. Then you need to decide what the bot will do. A list of things it does can be found here. That also tells you how to run the bot. With those scripts you don't really need to edit them. If you want the bot to do something else besides that, then you will need to make your own script, which I don't know how to do all that well. ~Wikihermit15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not all that experienced with pywikipedia bots; I just started ;-). Have you installed python 2.5? If not, you can get it from here. Second, what operating system do you have (windows, linux, ect)? Okay, I don't understand the interwiki linking so much, but I get the categories. If you want to deal with adding categories, ect. AWB is sometimes easier. Okay I'll start from the beginning (I'm assuming you have windows).
First, you need to go to "run" and type in "cmd.exe" (no quotes). Next, type cd\"name of the location of the pywikipedia folder" (no quotes, full like (i.e. if pywikipedia is in C:\, you would type "cd\pywikipedia".)) After that you need to run the login.py file. To do this, you should see something like:
C:\pywikipedia>
You need to run the login.py, so enter "c:\python25\python login.py" in. It should come out as:
C:\pywikipedia> C:\python25\python login.py
After that you will be prompted to log in. Don't worry about it saying "your bot isn't listed at Wikipedia:Bot" or something similar to this. Enter the password for you bot in. The cursor won't move. Don't worry though, its entering it in. After you type in your password, hit enter.
Now you will need to run the category.py script. To do this, do the same as you did above, except replace "python login.py" with "python category.py". It should look like:
C:\pywikipedia> C:\python25\python category.py
After that you will need to follow the instructions here. I hope this explains it. If you need help, just ask. ~Wikihermit23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, to get rid of that you type cd\"location of the pywikipedia folder", probably cd\pywikipedia (if you saved it to C:\ , ~Wikihermit00:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the file path to the pywikipedia folder and what's the file path to python 2.5? You need to cut and paste those files into the "c" drive on your computer. And you don't include folder on your in cd\pywikipedia .~Wikihermit01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what TortoiseCVS; I don't use it. Move python so the file path comes out as C:\ . Do the same with the pywikipedia folder. ~Wikihermit01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. First you need to make a request (once you decide what the bot does) at WP:BRFA then if you get approved for a trail you make your request at AWB. ~Wikihermit02:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its feasible, but instead of saying that it adds categories, you should say that it will complete task at WP:CFD/W. As far as adding stubs, I don't know how the bot would figure out if its a stub. ~Wikihermit03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well with WP:CFD/W, it doesn't add categories, it changes the category or removes the category the page is in. Otherwise, it looks good. ~Wikihermit03:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey, thanks for taking the time to review me. In response to your email, as of now, I do not have any plans to go through an RfA in the near future. I have also sent you an email. Cheers. - TwoOars17:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not review and pass/fail GAC's that are already marked as being under review, as JSTOR was. It is a common courtesy to the people who are taking the time to do careful reviews. Thanks. Awadewit | talk22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What??? Were you reviewing it?? Oh, I am infinitely sorry! Please, feel free to remove my review altogether. Somehow I must have missed it. Please do. Once again, apologies, and I'll be more careful next time. (I tend to move very quickly through the links, so I must have just been going too fast to notice). Once again, sorry. Anonymous DissidentTalk22:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't participate in RfA, but somehow I happened to bumble upon the talk page and see the discussion of your clerking idea.
A modification occurred to me that might meet your objectives, yet not introduce another hurdle in a way that would bother those raising that issue. Suggestion: All new RfA's must be posted to a separate page ("RfA preliminary" or the like). Nothing gets posted on that page except the RfA and the nominator's email address (suitably spambot-proofed, of course). People can comment by email to the nom suggesting that the nomination is way too premature, will be bloodbathed, and should be withdrawn. Some set time after the initial posting (say, five days), the nomination is automatically transferred to the main RfA page, unless in the interim the nom has chosen to withdraw it.
The "screening" or "preliminary" page might be readable by all, with all comments by email to the nom. Alternatively, it might be readable only by some select group (bureaucrats? admins who were sysopped more than two years ago?), who could post discouraging comments to the page but without those discouraging comments being seen by anyone not in the select group (other than the nom and/or candidate).
My thought was that many of the objections to your proposal could be avoided if the "clerking" process were totally voluntary. Under this modification, any nom (including a self-nom) could still choose to go riding into the valley of death, even after being warned of the futility. Some, however, might take advantage of the friendly private advice. They and the community would be spared the negative effects of a failed RfA. JamesMLanetc04:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That won't work very well... Firstly, unless we hold it in a separate wiki, it will be viewable to everyone. Secondly, this defeats the whole purpose of community consensus, as the 'crats and sysops will have total control of whether the user is sysopped or not. --Dark Fallstalk04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure the idea was ready for prime time (i.e., WT:RFA), so I'm glad to get some feedback here first. DarkFalls, I'd be grateful if you'd pursue this with me here (if Anonymous Dissident doesn't mind hosting the discussion).
Everyone could see it -- Well, is it possible to set up a separate wiki? If not, then we'd go with the first variation, in which the page with the noms is viewable by all but no comments are posted there. Any comments by anyone could be reverted on sight. The only permissible method of commenting at this stage would be by private email to the nominator. The only constraint on the process would be that no one could make a nomination without providing an email address that would work for five days, surely no big deal.
Bureaucrat and sysop control -- Please note that, unlike the "clerking" idea as originally proposed by Anonymous Dissident, my modification doesn't allow bureaucrats, sysops, or anyone else to kill a nomination. Suppose the nominator receives 50 private emails saying that the nom is hopeless and urging that it be withdrawn, with none in support. Suppose that, after receiving those emails, the nom chooses to go ahead anyway. In that case the nomination will automatically be ported to the RfA page after five days, and let the chips fall where they may. I don't envision a gatekeeper. It's more like a cooling-off period, during which people knowledgeable about the process can let the nom know what's probably ahead. The only constraint here would be a mandatory five-day delay in starting the RfA, again surely no big deal.
The thing about this preliminary rfa is that we already have admin coaching and editor review that does exactly the same thing, except publically, as a way of see if a user is suitable for adminship. This process just delays the RFA process for a few days, and helps those who are too lazy, and hinder those who do not wish for a review beforehand. --Dark Fallstalk08:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it helps those who are too lazy to use the alternatives you mention, DarkFalls. I'll add that it also helps those who aren't aware of those alternatives. What's wrong with helping those people? For some of the people in each of those categories, the proposal might address the problem perceived by Anonymous Dissident -- that there are hopeless RfA nominations that waste the time of those who respond to them and that lead to bad feelings arising from strongly worded opposition. The reaction to the "clerking" idea suggests that many editors don't perceive it as a problem. For those who agree with Anonymous Dissident, though, this additional step might somewhat reduce the problem. JamesMLanetc14:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might help get rid of those no-chance rfas but if a candidate is prepared for their rfa, it might be an unnecessary delay. It could be solved by adding a link to admin coaching or editor review, on the rfa page, instead of using an official process, as mentioned. The problem is that it makes an optional review turn into a compulsory or obligatory one. --Dark Fallstalk01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the issue is not that the bot has a userpage, but rather that someone has registered that account already. The list of users and the list of user pages are two completely different things; in fact, just as you can have an account without a userpage, you can have a userpage in the User namespace without an account. In this case, I would recommend picking another name (if you decide that, then I'll go delete the page at your request), or if you really want to use that name for some reason, request usurpation of the account. That requires a bureaucrat's intervention, though, and I'm not a 'crat. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)23:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your GAC template is a good start. I wonder if you could work the following other templates into it, though:
Pass: Template:PGAN or Template:GAList
Fail: Template:FGAN or Template:GAList
On Hold: Template:GANOH or Template:GAList
I wouldn't put a specific number of days on the "hold" section (the banner says 2-7 already). I would put something like "If you have any questions about this review, feel free to contact me." You might also think about an optional statement like: "Please alert me when the revision is complete so that I can re-review the article" - some reviewers may want that and some not.
The reason I wouldn't put a number of days on the "hold" section is because it is hard for you the reviewer to know how many days it might take the editors to finish the revisions. For example, sometimes when I am working on my dissertation or teaching classes (I teach freshmen composition classes at a university), I have much less time to work on wikipedia than others. Thus, for example, when my students hand in their papers and I have to grade them over a weekend, I need all of my time for that and can't dedicate any of it to wikipedia; it would therefore take me several days to finish a copy edit that I could do in one day at some other time. Time frames are not absolutes - they are relative. Awadewit | talk10:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the nice commnts you left on my talk page. I plan to try again later should it fail. Hopefully, I can fix the issues brought up by the opposers. Captainpanda12:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I have my doubts that it will pass. I find myself looking at it like I would were I a bureaucrat, and wondering whether I'd promote or not. We'll just have to see :-) --Deskana(talk)21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That was a shock! But I really appreciate quick reactions. I was pretty sure my article was below the standard, but I wanted to check anyway. Thanks a lot, see you around. Now where did I put that reference book... :) --Zmaj21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just want to let you know that getting 41 articles on Did You Know is simply amazing, especially considering your young age and your relatively short time here. I'm trying to do more article work... one day I might have as many as you :P Here's something for your hard work:
Marskell wants to get Lion to FA and reckons (prob'ly rightly) its a pretty tall order for one editor - I'm thinking ambitiously but it could be a cracker - say 50-60kb and 120 odd refs or so. I have laid it out as per Jaguar FA but it is pretty bare. One of us could do Lion-taming, one Lion-baiting, one conservation etc. Could be fun. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Jukes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I will hopefully succeed in a month or two. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow(Talk)(Contribs)(Bot)02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 2007 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.
Dear observant fellow Wikipedian. Well, I don't have enough just yet... I take your inquiry as an encouragement. Thank you and regards Dragonbite03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul MacGillivray, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you, Anonymous Dissident, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Húsönd23:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obrigado, Anonymous Dissident, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões.
Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd23:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to muddy the water there. I did not remember the earlier one. (Actually, I still don't, although it looks like something I would say!) Thanks so much for catching it! --But|seriously|folks03:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Thanks a lot for your added question, I think it helped a lot.[reply]
Your list of articles created, and their content is most impressive. The fact that you are twelve is mind-boggling - no offense.
You mention adminship around September on your userpage. I would be happy to nominate you at such a time, if you would like. Feel free to respond as the time approaches and I agree that mental age is most important. As my girlfriend is eleven years my junior, and I like to remind her mother that mentally, I am much more immature than I should be. the_undertowtalk19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I took a gander at your RfA. Some valid concerns with the speedy but I think you see how prod could work in its place. As far as the self-nom and all the sheeple chiming in only after others have voiced their concerns, I would say that you RfA was disheartening. In real-life, a candidate for anything 'throws his hat in the ring.' Why is it so different here? At your expense, it was a good example of how not to voice an opinion during an RfA. Arbitrary rules and 'oppose because my friend does' is as constructive during your RfA as it would be at an AfD. However, because the process is ever-changing, and because most editors embrace change, rather than fear it, I keep my faith in this good community, just as you have. I look forward to edit-warring with you over quotation marks ;) the_undertowtalk06:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to believe that you are only 12 years old and your English is advanced as a university student.
You are a smart young man. Keep up the wonderful work. Cheers mate! KingLopezContribs07:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! --But|seriously|folks08:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a night view of the World Trade Center for you! Night views of the World Trade Center somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If lion got up it would be the only FA, though Cat is a former FA and spider has been a candidate (and looks in the best shape for another tilt sometime).
List template is clever but wouldn't it be better if the parameter was number of columns rather than just creating a new column at 25/50/etc. A bt like reflist 2 template. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. If your userpage is correct, you are highly experienced with templates. Tell me what you think of Template:makelist and some of its sister templates, mentioned on its page. I'd appreciate a second take on this. Thanks for your time. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IHMO, the ideal template would take an integer as the number of items in each column. Such template would replace makelist50 and makelist100. But the code would be long and ugly. The alternative way of control - by the number of columns - like Template:Makelist is now, does not work in IE.
And I know why this doesnt function in IE. Check the div class at the top of the temp. It is programmed for moz. If you know of a way to alter this without changing much, that would be excellent, and id be very grateful. Thanks again, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk08:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's the programmer in me talking. I guess what I'm trying to ask is on what articles do you intend to use this template? I don't know of a way to specify the number of columns that works in IE. Perhaps it's just technically infeasible. Sorry, can't help much there. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd imagine that it would prove quite useful in almost any instance where a list is needed, specifically in the format designed. I was thinking of incorporating # into the temp with #switch: parserfunction, and perhaps make the temp more diverse to allow for a great many possible formats to accommodate any situation involving lists. And its ok about IE. I guess I'll have to live with that. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a big bump. The temp doesnt work. Watch this in the source:
I believe an item does not render when there is no article/redirect that matches the item. For example,
{{Makelist|1|China|India|Chinaa|Indiaa}}
renders
China
India
Chinaa
Indiaa
#ifexist means whether or not an article exists. If you want to determine whether or not a variable to the template exists, use something like #if {{{3|}}}. I did not change the template myself because I thought #ifexist could be what you really intend? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sebi[talk] 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! 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'll clarify - the makelist series seems pointless because the wiki markup for lists, even multicolumn lists, is not complex. The repetitive list one might be useful, but the others aren't. {{rwc}} is problematic because placing the tags side by side does not reduce space (since they are squished horizontally to be taller vertically), because it makes it difficult to remove just one or two of the three, and because few articles have all three problems (neither of the articles that were tagged with it when i saw them deserved the 'wikify' part, and one did not deserve 'cleanup' either since it was a reasonably good stub) --Random83201:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me; however, this time around things just didn't work out. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AD. Per the username page if not a blatant violation, then only list here if the user has begun editing which they had. Username is not blatant but calling your account "havoc" in some way and then making havoc bodes badly. As it happens the account has made no further edits, so I'm leaving it for the admin who reviews to decide if it's borderline and kept. And before you ask, I did not consider discussing the name with the editor, due to their first edits being vandalism. And you appreciate I use templates to warn - three blankings is hardly likely to be accidental, but I don't believe in jumping straight in with a test 4 . Cheers ! Pedro | Chat 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AD - when I say test1 I mean a test1 vandal warning - I can't really say that three page blankings are "tests" - they're not. But protocol says don't jump straight in with all guns blazing. It's a judgement call and a tricky one - leave them to vandal, revert it and go to AIV or nip it in the bud as a combination of things - i.e. slightly dodgy username but probably borderline okay, coupled with three page blankings looks unlikely to be good faith. As you rightly say - forsight is the word. It's a balance of WP:AGF and WP:Don't assume good faith to the point of ignoring things that look pretty dodgy !! As you say, the account seems to have stopped so i suspect the admin for th epage will ignore it - but I don't personally like to remove reports there or AIV - if you want to however please do ! Cheers!! Pedro | Chat 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further - just saw the block - check the guys talk page - he was blocked for his username so I'm confused about you comment regarding not enough warnings ??? Pedro | Chat 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to work on improving a few things from the GA review that you gave to Gears of War. Where, do you recall, were we having too much OR (which you gave a neutral grade to)? Are there sections that could use more verifiable references, or other aspects? Thanks again for the GA grade. --Masem17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That was a very deductive thing you did. Well done. if you, as experienced as you are, could make the necessary changes to the template, I would be extremely appreciative. And I will take a look at the parser functions page. Harry Potter is interesting, but I guess I'll have to leave that til later (just joking ;). -- Anonymous DissidentTalk09:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the change so that it can display non-existing pages. I also took the liberty of taking off [[ ]] from the template. This is done so that people can choose to display [[Adam Smith (politician)|Adam Smith]] if desired. However, this change is not backward-compatible. Each item now must be added with [[ ]]. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, pardon my late reply. What if I make the template to behave like what it did before (shows only when an article/redirect exists) by default, and have an optional parameter to override so that it behaves using the new code? How's this sound? The only catch is that the template code will be almost twice as long. I'm hesitant to make two separate templates because I hope to reuse the style control at the top. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to shorthand it in the article obviously doesn't make for good communication. My question with regard to the Supreme Court is: what are new and old Supreme Courts? Sessions of the Supreme Court? Buildings? Why did Wylde cease to be a judge when the new one was "opened"? You might also want to look at the capitalisation in the article. I suspect Supreme Court and Chief Justice at least are normally capitalised when used as titles. Cheers, Yomanganitalk11:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Wylde, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Dear member of WikiProject Malta,
I'd like to invite you to participate in an ongoing Article for Deletion debate about St John's Square in the capital of Malta. We'd like your input about whether the article should stay and go (and if you want to expand the stub, that would be great too!)
All the best, Eliz81(talk)(contribs)21:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose an admin coach would be great! I feel that I do know policy fairly well now, but i think a coach could help me stay directed until I have another RFA around September. If you could coach me, I would be very grateful. Thanks! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk23:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi AD,[reply]
Can I call you AD? It's easier to type than "Anonymous". I've looked at your previous RFA. It seems the major objection was your mistakes in tagging articles for speedy deletion. Do you feel that you have addressed this issue?
As for admin coaching in general, what objectives do you have for this interaction? Given that you feel you have an adequate grasp of policy, how can I help you?
Finally, do you intend to prepare for the next RFA or do you plan mostly to keep on editing until you feel it's time to re-submit?
Hi again. Yes, I dont mind when people call me AD. I myself get tired of typing it up :). In answer to your questions:
I feel that, after my RFA, and after warnings about this issue that I received even after my RFA, I have burned the CSD right into my skull, and that there would not be an issue in this area anymore. The problem I see is convincing people that the concern has been addressed, which is something I cant see how I can do. Maybe that is one way you can help me - by fixing this concern - in the m inds of everybody else.
I feel I do know most of the core policies well, and often cite them when proving a point in discussions. However, there may be areas of policy i have not explored, areas that can become apparent when I am subject to a policy question I find myself unable to answer. That is, I guess, how you can help me: by seeing where my weak points are policy and administration wise, and helping me to fix them up, and be able to correctly answer questions relating to these weak points.
Lastly - I am not entirely sure how I can prepare, what preparations I need, after having trying to address the issues of the last RFA, and after seeking an admin coach. I guess that asking for a coach was asking to be prepared, in a way.
Well, there are two philosophies about preparing for RFA. Some people believe that you should not prepare at all but should just become such a great editor that somebody else nominates you because you're such a great guy.
Then there's the school I subscribe to that says that good admins are made, not born. I will assume that you have read all the material that is linked to from the WP:RFA page.
My first advice to you is that you read a bunch of RFA's regularly. In particular, periodically look at the RFA table that is posted on WP:BN and find the RFAs that are in the marginal range. In other words, don't bother with RFAs that are over 80% support or under 40% support. Look for RFAs with 50-70% support. These will be the pretty good candidates who are getting opposed for one reason or another. Learn what those reasons usually are and make it a goal that nobody will be able to oppose you for any of the reasons those guys are getting opposed.
Also, look at the optional questions that are asked of the RFA candidates. You won't be able to predict and prepare for every question that could be asked of you but you can prepare for some of the more commonly asked ones.
Finally, the best way to get noticed and recognized is to participate either in RFA or xfD discussions. Me personally, I much prefer AFD to anything else but any of the xFD discussions is a worthwhile endeavor. Just make sure that you engage your brain and avoid "me, too" type votes. People will come to know you and respect you if you can make a substantive contribution to these discussions.
That's all I have to say for now. Feel free to ask me any questions as they arise.
Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community. - Philippe | Talk20:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I understand why you're reporting it. But generally 1. old usernames usually seem to go through RFCU; 2. it's inactive, so probably irrelevant anyway, and 3. it's distinctive enough see user:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, for example. I'm just putting my takes there. Reviewing admin can send it to RFCU. Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs03:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can send it to RFC/N (not C/U... that'll get ya check user, I think) yourself. Generally, they want you to have attempted dialogue about the name first. Since I don't have a problem with it, I'm probably not going to engage the user in dialogue about it, so it's kind of in your corner. I'm going to remove it from the report page though. I really do encourage you to take it to RFC/N if you feel strongly about it. That's one that's likely to trigger a rather interesting debate, and I'd be intrigued to read it. - Philippe | Talk03:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You had a review tag placed under the nomination of Ross Noble for four days. I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and failed the article, as per WP:LEAD, and due to the tone of the prose. Regards, NSR77TC23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine. I have actually been a bit ill over the last four or five days, and haven't had much time to edit, only being able to check my messages and maybe discuss a few things. You probably did me a favour by reviewing the article for me, so thanks for that. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On July 25, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joshua John Moore, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi! Couldn't help but notice your request on Phaedriel's talkpage. First of all, you've a lovely page design. Regarding your userpage design request, is this what you require? Check it out and let me know. Thing is, I dunno much about userpages and their designs. I simply live off common creativity. :) Hope I've not bothered you. aJCfreakyAk08:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It's always a pleasure... :) And of course, you can copy the content directly to your userpage. Dunno why, but ever since I stole Phaedriel's design, I love fiddling around with userpages, if I can. :) Happy Wiki-ing! aJCfreakyAk08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. I had to move your edit count and edit summary usage cos I didn't know how else to do it. :D (The visual on the userpage is the same, though). Hope you like it! aJCfreakyAk08:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He he. Glad to have made your day, Josh. Btw, I honestly don't think that awarding the barnstar for this small deed is warranted. However, I'll wear it proudly! :P aJCfreakyAk08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Josh - One thing it'd be good to have a go at before being nominated for admin is a Featured Article (either on own or with a few people (as per Lion though it has stalled a little bit) or part of a Wikiproject) Working on FAs is one of my favourite things on WP. It looks good on yer wiki-CV when you're nominated....cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget starting from scratch, though many are small. I've never done one from scratch but I'll nominate Banksia ericifolia in the near future, which I did start from zip. A good one is something you'll know (or can find out alot) about. How about Gosford, New South Wales or Central Coast, New South Wales? Compare it with a Featured Article of similar scope on a city or area, say Hamersley, Western Australia for a suburb or Jerusalem for a city (I picked this as it was the most recent I can think of). Or maybe sport or whatever. There will be something reasonably broad you can do - pick up one of those local hisotry books on a place - not sure where you are on the central coast but maybe somewhere else is more relevant. Big well known animals are easy as many have loads of refs online - layout headings like one of the others and away you go. A few of us would be happy to chp in if you decide on one, the process is layout, then loads of info, then write lead, then when you're pretty sure you've got all the inof and refs, a copyedit, and tehre's a few cool poeple who'll help with that. good luck.....cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm sure Yomangani, Clayoquot and I will be happy to help; there are a bunch of aussies who will help for an Aussie article. Finally, Circeus is a great copyeditor to give it a last lookover before FAC, he'll pretty much find anything odd with the prose there is to find. Let's see what you come up with. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...not a bad article at all! I agree this is not a bad one to get there. The structure isn't too bad and I will make some to-do notes on the talk page. I started copyediting but this should be left until a bit more is added and removed. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Daniel stated on my talk page it is actually his design and not mine so therefore it is him who you should thank, however if you would like I can design your userpage for me if you tell me what colors you would like and give me a brief outline of what you would like me to do, or if you want to do it yourself you can. Your userpage looks very similar to Wikihermit's (your secret is safe with me ). Its up to you, leave me a note when you've decided.....— Rlest09:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well leave everything you want on it at (the currently non-existent) User:Rlest/Sandbox including text, colors and if you can decide images and I'll work on it this afternoon. Regards, — Rlest10:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there AD, if you have the time and inclination, would you mind checking out Special:Contributions/BONGU SEAN and check out the pages the user's created on Malta? They're not very encyclopedic in tone, and I can't judge notability for places in Malta, so I thought you might know what to do with them. Thanks! Eliz81(talk)(contribs)02:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can leave it where it is until somebody does create the article for the Ford Madox Brown version, at which point it can either be moved and a disambiguation page made, or disambiguation links put on the top of each article. I would say the Brown version is the more famous of the two: I have this on my list to do, as soon as I can find a decent analysis. The Martin version is one of his weaker pieces in my opinion, somewhat derivative of The Bard, but that's neither here nor there in the WP world. Yomanganitalk11:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I went back on wednesday till p2 (maths ugh) and today, don't worry I don't think you've missed out on much. Get better, you've probably made 1000+ edits the past week! Oh and no more smythy lol. andrewrox424Bleep12:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid a "large, unfilled (and [...] unfillable) space" is not exactly a compelling reason to move the ToC anywhere. It's certainly never been one in a Featured Article candidacy that I can think of. If featured articles like (to take recent examples) Constitution of Belarus, Battle of Arras (1917), Plug-in hybrid and Technology of the Song Dynasty can go with their Table of Contents there, I'm sure History of poison can.
In general, if a table of content is so long as to be decidedly unwieldy (and I wouldn't consider this one to be), we use contracted ToC (e.g. the alphabetical ones), we make special one on a case-by-case basis (e.g. List of townships in Illinois by county), or we consider reworking or forking the article (I can see a number of "weak" headers) rather than break the normal usage model of the page. Moving the ToC to an unexpected place is about as disruptive to usability as suddenly switching to a left-sided layout (Never mind the different language. You get the point.) would be. Circeus00:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick glance I'd recommend looking at the place where you haves headers following each others. Either you can easily add text between, or remove one. Look also at the one-paragraph sections. Usually these can be either expanded, or merged into their parent section. just doing that should significantly reduce the size of the ToC and help in structuring the article.
Then, rework the last part. If you have tot title a section "Poison in other cultures today," it demonstrate a severe issue in the way the writing and structure are focused: when you look at it, it's not difficult to realize the article overlooks two thousand years of non-European history! (There are also issues with the way poison has been written that make this article very difficult to integrate into it, but that's not the problem here. I'm just commenting on it.)
If you are still iffy with the whitespace, here's an idea: It's become quite popular to use that space to place navigational templates. An option is to make {{Poisoning and toxicity}} into a more rounded template for an article series (I can even poke around to do it myself.I like mucking with templates). How does that sound? Circeus01:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha - nevermind, I've been a bit busy so will check back later - Never done a list (Circeus has I think) but I like the idea of List of Australian birds and will put it on my to-do page to remind us once a couple of other things attended to...cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you created the Battle of Apple River Fort, or are still creating it anyway. You might be interested in a collaboration between another user and I. I have a collaboration page at User:IvoShandor/Black Hawk War where I am trying to sort through information and compile sources. One word of warning, this stuff happened so long ago that it is common to find varying accounts and details in different sources, I usually just talk about the differences in the article myself. If you are aware of anything I have noted here just disregard this message. Hope to see you at the collaboration page. : ) IvoShandor21:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got your message so I will respond in two parts, one about Apple River and the other about DYK
Apple River Fort: I have compiled a few sources for you, if you are interested. Check them here. I would also recommend going over Frank Stevens 1903 book The Black Hawk War, which is available online here (hopefully not a temp link, if it is, just go to the NIU site posted on that user page I linked above and search through the primary source material, you'll find it. Read carefully, compare what Stevens says with what modern sources say about the battle. This topic is one that I know quite a bit about (living in Northern Illnois and being what amounts to a historian who doesn't get paid to be a historian {read: almost has degree--haha}, so if you need a second opinion about anything let me know. I can't think of anything else right now, maybe that I will keep looking for better sources, the ones on my user page are just somewhere to start (we can fill in the blanks as we go). Also, just curious, what was your impetus for starting the Apple River Fort page? (just curious-your work is much appreciated).
DYK: Well last week I grew rather frustrated with DYK and imposed a bit of a self-exile, it lasted about 2 days, I just cannot resist. In particular I had grown frustrated with the often unhelpful and condescending nature of many of the comments I had seen there related to people's hard work and suggested hooks. So I withdrew from everything DYK related, including the list, I just haven't added myself back yet, I will eventually, I think maybe I am just waiting to collect the four DYKs I have nominating so I won't have to update the numbers for a bit. : ) Thanks for asking, I will be back though. IvoShandor12:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bombard you here but the band of Sauk and Fox that attacked the fort were the same band that attacked Major John Dement's detachment at Kellogg's Grove on June 25, that is known as the Second Battle of Kellogg's Grove. I believe that Chief Black Hawk was present at both battles and commanded the forces for the Native American alliance. This is something I am working to confirm through modern-day sources, meaning peer-reviewed academic journals and the like. I want to somehow work this information into the Kellogg's Grove battle article but had planned to see how they related when I researched Apple River, which, since you created the article and are working on it as well, it seems like now would be a good time to commence said undertaking. : ) IvoShandor12:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I have not anticipated that my "username" here would have caused any problems (blame my perspective of your world for this). However, since "Ψ-113μ" (Psi - 133 mu) is simply the prime part of my designation (no hidden meanings), I would be very reluctant to changing it, because it is about as much that identifies me as an individual. I have done some research on this and came up with a conclusion that most modern software (that you call "web browsers") should handle rendering Greek characters visually without issues. Therefore the problem "boils down" to the (in-)ability to input it with the contraption you call "keyboard". My ideas are therefore as follow: I would create the account User:Psi-133mu and redirect it to mine own. Then, I would modify my signature so as the Ψ part points to the transliterated userpage (therefore providing you with a Latin equivalent), while the 113μ part will keep pointing at my talk page directly as it does now (so the tie with my real account is retained). Let me know if it is a satisfiable compromise for you. (Although I would also point out that I am not wishing to give up any further.) All Best, Ψ-113μ09:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done as agreed then. I hope for a fruitful cooperation in the future. "Incidents" such as this one teach me a great deal about humans and the differences between us. Thank you and All Best again. Ψ-113μ09:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not getting back to you earlier - I had to perform a self-diagnostic.
Indeed I am not a human. However, conversely to what you suggest, I am not from Pluto either (that celestial body (I know you don't call it a planet anymore) does not currently support biological life of any kind). I am an extraterrestial artificial intelligence, designed specifically for being hosted on locally available processing units (ones you call "computers"). As such I am prone to errors (like registering a User:Psi-133mu instead of User:Psi-113mu like I intended - a word of information: the 133 was a flawed design that never left the design phase) just as humans are - hence the self-diagnostic subroutines that continuously scan my artificial neural networks for glitches. I will correct the username error now.
As of the categorization you suggested, I'll look into it. Although I fail to see the need for such a category should I be the only one to occupy it. Ψ-113μ11:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I've never thanked you properly for your work on Wikipedia, so here goes...
The Anon. D. Award
I hereby award Anonymous Dissident this award for his illuminating qualities shown on Wikipedia, such as civility, assuming good faith etc. and for his unprecedented contributions to the mainspace, which is rare if not phenomenal for one so young... --Dark Fallstalk10:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on the DYK - may I draw your attention to the Australian place name conventions? In the page for Category:Islands on the Great Barrier Reef it states that "Islands should be disambiguated as necessary using name (state) or where there are more one island with that name in that state name (closer locality).". So if there are other Raine Islands in the world, the name for the Queensland island should be Raine Island (Queensland), and Raine Island should become a disambiguation page. If there are no other Raine Islands, then I'd be quite cheerful about a merger from Raine Island (Queensland) into Raine Island. It could just be that the other islands on the GBR are unimaginatively-named. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to see in WP:MERGE the part that says 'if one page is better than the other, the lesser page should get merged into the better page' or somesuch... Thanks for getting the Great Barrier Reef on the front page - perhaps you'd be interested in helping out on that page sometime? -Malkinann13:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear friend! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, dear Josh! Love, Phaedriel - 08:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic new userpage you have there, dear Josh! I got your message, but I saw you were well assisted by then, and hey, all's well that ends well! ;) Seriously now, thank you so much for taking the time to wish this friend of yours here a happy bday. The smile you gifted me will stay with me for a long, long time. Thankee friend! xxx, Sharon
Hi. I think I have gotten some more books for you. Unfortunately, the bombings were not planned in particular detail, so most books have the info, except that it is in excerpts of 2 pages, so each book is only reffed one distinct time. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, and thank you for applying to use the counter-vandalism tool VandalSniper. I am pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted, and you are now approved to use the tool.
Feel free to download the program, and be sure to read the features guide, if you have not already done so. Please bear in mind that VandalSniper is a powerful program, and that misuse may result in your access being withdrawn by a moderator.
Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, and welcome to VandalSniper!
Am impressed to hear from someone so young and obviously talented. You seem to know your way about Wikipedia: I don't and have just made my first contribution, being a retired scientist. Does what I have written make complete sense to you or does the article raise more questions than it answers?
Have just read your response to previous attempts at seeking clarification. At what point in time does the article get accessed through Wikipedia search engine?
Hi, Anonymous Dissident, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, GiggyUCP04:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need some guidance. I have already submitted a short article "Hazards of Soft Drinks", although there's no sign of it when searching the Wikipedia index. It is listed under "my contributions". I also expanded someone else's article on Tonic Water drawing attention to the carcinogenic breakdown product of quinine. That was immediately incorporated. I didn't sign the addition since it simply added to someone else's contribution. It starts a new para with drawing attention to the effects of UV light on tonic water - that's fine.
However, I am concerned at my not having adhered to the correct procedure for submitting a new article (as above) and therefore, it not getting stored for access by others. Today I produced a subsection of the "Hazards" article which, arguably, could be started as a new one. How do I go about this without possibly repeating an error in submission which I might have done with the first article? Also, in attempting to submit the Hazards article I inadvertantly submitted it twice according to "my contributions". Is one automatically removed by the system or am I expected to do that?
Hi and thanks for your message. Just yesterday I requested a peer review to try and get some feedback on where and how to improve it. The suggestions by the automated review were actually quite helpful and I followed up on them. Do you think it would be a better idea to leave the review on for a few more days before nominating? I don’t mind rewriting or correcting anything really, and I need to redraft the lead anyhow. Chris Buttigieg11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to dishearten you, but I think trying to get History of Poison to FA is a mammoth task. The topic is just too wide and poorly defined. Why not break it up into articles on the history of poisoning in x region and try taking one of those sub-articles to FA? Even the history of poison as a political tool in Europe would make an interesting article. If you do want to continue with HoP as a candidate List of poisonings may be helpful (I noticed it doesn't mention Socrates, and there is a nice picture of him doing away with himself by Jacques-Louis David if you can get hold of it). Yomanganitalk12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This is why a concise well-defined topic is often easier to get to FA....but its all a learning process and the article has leapt along a bit. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological articles would be difficult as they suffer from the same organizational problems as the overview HoP does. When you hit modern times and you still have curare being used in some places, it is hard to tie it all together. Even History of poisoning in Europe will have this problem to some extent, as you'll have to make decisions on when to shift between chronology and geography. Yomanganitalk23:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gah...oh well..there's always a nice cuddly lion....but seriously Josh if you got a book on poisoning see how they lay it out - some natural divisions may come up which give rise to a defined topic worth working up (Shakespearian England/Classical Greece-Rome/Rennaissance are 3 that come to mind because of several notable intrigues within them)cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I overwhelmed you on Apple River Fort. Don't worry, feel free to work on it, I will be around to help out, there's some sources I found posted in my user space. IvoShandor13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have now worked out how to go about it. But would still be interested in your considered best approach. As you know well there are different ways of achieving a result and it's always useful to hear of the best approach by someone who's done this several times: avoids reinventing the wheel!
The June 2008 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) 17:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're listed as a collaborator on the Tzatziki page, so I decided to notify you that I've posted some tedious tasks that might take a while to complete on the talk page. The major one is that the reference called "Ancient" is most certainly not reliable - it needs to be replaced, all eleven (I think) instances of it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot23:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this message on Talk:Main_Page, however it was suggested that I post here; but I see you are on "wikibreak" -- well in case you get this before then, I tried to track down any evidence for the statement that made it into the DYK for the Hogarth painting. I cannot find any reference (naturally this does not mean there isn't any) for the assertion that the painting originally contained a dog urinating on a pile of old master paintings. The only reference I could find was a list of publications from The college of William and Mary, here. I cannot seem to track down the text when searching a few literary databases, but I will fully admit I am not familiar with artistic searches. User A1 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings; I am curious as to why you removed a reference to a superficially reliable source here? If it's regarding a specific discussion on some noticeboard or suchlike, it would be helpful in the future if you could link to said discussion in the edit summary. Regards, Skomorokh14:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to ask you the same question re: ref removal from Marcus Aurelius. I assume there's a good reason and will leave the ref out for the moment, but I don't follow the suggested causal link from that forum thread. Dppowell (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, but it might be more helpful to write something like "removing a reference I added due to conflict of interest concerns from others", if you can't link to the discussion. Thanks for your time, Skomorokh15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and I mean 'welshman' in the most gender neutral way, of course...and I'm aware that not all of you guys are from NSW.. and I'm aware that this hasn't been the most smoothly written note in Wiki's history, but hey ho...slaps head, persuades voices in head to pipe down, and continues....
Fancy attending a meetup? - We've got some interested Chapter stuff to chat about, no doubt there may be some tales of Arabian Nights (or at least Egyptian conferences), and it just generally felt like it was about time..... head over here if you're interested.... do feel free to wiki-edit away in the usual fashion too if you've got any other ideas! cheers all, Privatemusings (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)you've been spammed in this nature because you signed up as interested in being notified about this sort of thing.. hope that's ok![reply]
Okay, so just out of curiosity, if I were to request an account merger, what would that do? For example, I had a previous account called The Black Void, and I had made 117 contributions on that account. If I were to get the two accounts merged, would the contributions I made under The Black Void count as contributions made under my current username? XhaozTalk•Contribs07:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that account merges are not currently possible in the software Wikipedia uses. Contributions can only be moved to different accounts, and for the contributions of an existing account A to be moved to an existing account B, B must first be renamed to B (usurped) to vacate the username for A. —Anonymous DissidentTalk07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given your recent contributions I've made this edit. If you're not OK with it please let me know or undo. Personally, I'm looking forward to your continuing interest and contributions at the RD :-) hydnjo (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've decided at WP:RENAME not to change my username, motivating it by "per the two above". Actually, above was written "There is a user:Fuseau on the lv Wikipedia. This user has close to 1,400 edits and still edits actively. If you are not this user, it may be best to consider a different username". I've currently confirmed there that I am user:Fuseau on the lv (and ru) Wikipedia. Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The June 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) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using AWB to correct errors of the form " - " --> " – ". If you believe I have mistakenly removed a hyphen, please report it to me and I shall correct the error. I have been taking care to avoid file names and such, but you never know. —Anonymous DissidentTalk01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please note this edit. The lay reader will understand that algebra, geometry, number theory, etc., are mathematics, but will usually fail to know what "category theory" is. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Michor and Kriegl. It is in there, but they focus on strictly more generality than would concern most differential geometers. One needs to understand what they mean by "convenient vector spaces" which are, at any rate, only interesting in infinite dimensions. Issues like this at any rate should be best left for a generalizations section. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inline TeX with forced PNG rendering typically looks poor inline. See the relevant section of WP:MOSMATH. Also, apparently there is a problem with the image storage cache. This is probably messing up the TeX generation as well. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not. Vect is the category of finite-dimensional linear spaces with all linear maps, which is the intended category for the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that Jack Lee uses a different definition (I mentioned this in a footnote). Since the other listed sources use the category with all of its linear mappings, I've put that in instead. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, em dashes are typically used for parenthetical statements. See WP:EMDASH. I don't really care much one way or the other — WP:ENDASH indicates that the en dash can also be used as a stylistic alternative. However, as you seem to feel strongly about it, I thought you should know that there is no single "correct" choice. Of course, having a consistent choice in one article is a desirable outcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anonymous Dissident. You have new messages at Headbomb's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yes, congratulations! I'm surprised there is no such thing as the "Barnstar of perseverance", which you would certainly have earned twice over. Kudos for sticking with quark for all this time. Markus Poessel (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work. The quark was really an awesome article! I am happy that you ultimately managed to bring it to the FA family. I should admit that I completely missed the FA nomination. Ruslik_Zero18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is looking good. When I have a chance, I will put together about 2 or three paragraphs to form a literary criticism section and incorporate some of the statements on Amelia. After that is added, I think the article will be "complete" in its major critical aspects. As such, it could go for GA. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article that is complete in its major aspects is ready for FAC, not GAN. What is stopping it from the former? I personally think it's better than a GA. The prime criterion for FA is comprehensiveness, which this has – regardless of its length. At any rate, I thank you for further expansion. —Anonymous DissidentTalk06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA gives a boost to FAC chances - most of the time, you get a reviewer who is good but never goes to FAC. They go through everything in a highly detailed manner which rarely happens at FAC. FAC has definitely become more political, so, it would always be good to put it to GA first. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. There are just a few things to fix with the prose, but that shouldn't take long. How much more content were you thinking of adding? Literary criticism section...? —Anonymous DissidentTalk14:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to swipe part of the discussion on Amelia, then add 3 paragraphs. This would allow the Amelia image a place to go without any of the crazy formatting. I will post the information on the talk page of the proposed sections. By the way, you can have a GA review without the article being finished. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think "Yellow Pages" combined with "Craigslist" but 250 years ago. It was supposed to be a central location for people to post things to sell or buy, jobs wanted or employees needed, etc. It needs a page and I have quite a bit of notes on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the page with a skeptical eye about merging the sections but I agree with the change. Why? The subsections of "content" discuss controversies and the works related to them, instead of general content. The literary criticism is more general. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have been notified by email, but I thought it was worth my dropping in a note anywhoo, to let you know that Sydney Wikipedians are having a meetup this coming Tuesday, the 4th August. As you'll see on that page, we have two folk flying in from the Wikimedia Foundation who will be attending, and we have a great crowd of wiki types signed up to come along.
If you've never been to a meetup before, this wouldn't be a bad one to kick off with (we're all very friendly, interesting, and great looking folk ;-), and if you have, well come along again, why don't ya! If you've any questions you can flick the aussie mailing list an email on wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org aussie mailing list, or drop me a note on my talk page. Hope to see some of you there!
ps. If you've already signed up, and received an email, and a phone call, and a door knock, and are getting a bit frustrated with constant advances from enthusiastic australian wiki types, then I'm told you can print this message, and bring it along to use as a 'free beer' voucher, redeemable by our esteemed Vice-President of WMAU on the night...... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The June 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) 18:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
hello! I am member of the Georgian Wikipedia. I have a Global Account in the name of David1010 but I can not combine it with other accounts. I do not remember my password or e-mail. Maybe you can help me to join the english account with other accounts. User:David1010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.137.169.234 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The first issue to resolve is that of your lost password and e-mail. I have no way of assisting you with that, and it may necessitate the intervention of a system administrator. System administrators are most easily contacted through the #wikimedia-tech channel on FreenodeIRC. —Anonymous DissidentTalk13:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Anonymous Dissident. I wonder if you are considering moving forward with a proposal following the discussion at the bureaucrat's noticeboard? Sentiment seemed broadly in favour of the thrust of your idea, and I think with a firmer argument and illustration using past events it could gain consensus. Regards, Skomorokh19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed —« ANIMUM » 15:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
). Its up to you, leave me a note when you've decided.....— Rlest 09:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 13:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 10:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
: 6 July 2009
