User talk:Anthony Bradbury/Archive7

148:

link does NOT have to be redirected. (I can't stand redirects!) My feeling is ... if you are going to do something, do it right. Well, anyway -- my link to the Tatum O'Neal page came up as a "redirect." The difference was that I entered the apostrophe in her name as a curly apostrophe (on my computer). And Wiki has her page listed ("officially") with a straight apostrophe. Thus, my spelling of Tatum O'Neal with a curly apostrophe was redirected to the page of Tatum O'Neal with a straight apostrophe. I believe that this is what happened. I believe that ALL of the apostrophes that one enters in these Knowledge edit boxes will come out as straight apostrophes (as well as straight quotation marks). This is to have ONE character, as opposed to two different characters for (say) open quote mark and close quote mark. Or, for that matter, open apostrophe and close apostrophe. The curly ones open and close (tilt left or right) -- while the straight one is used for both purposes. I suspect that Wiki uses the straight ones to avoid minor (yet hard-to-detect errors) in using and misusing curly quotes and apostrophes. Furthermore, I believe that my CURLY apostrophe was simply transferred into the Wiki edit box when I cut and pasted a Microsoft WORD document. Whereas Wiki uses STRAIGHT quotes and apostrophes by default, Microsoft Word uses curly quotes and apostrophes by default. So, that was the issue. Furthermore, I do NOT believe that the use of straight versus curly quotes/apostrophes has anything to do with the keyboard. I believe that, somewhere in the Microsoft WORD program, there is a "preference" selection that the user makes -- so that when you hit the keyboard key (quote or apostrophe), it will BY DEFAULT come out as curly. I believe that, in WORD, the user has the option to change the curly default to straight apostrophes/quotation marks. So, to answer your question, I have a Dell Keyboard ... but I think it is the WORD program at work here and not the keyboard. Sorry for the long-winded explanation. But, I figured that any Wiki user in his right mind who is "fascinated" by such minutiae as the use of curly versus straight apostrophes deserves a thorough reply and explanation! :) I can understand that as I, too, am a perfectionist with an eye for details just like that! Thanks again for your help. If you have questions, let me know. Thank you. P.S. I do not specifically know HOW to go into WORD and change the preference settings for straight versus curly quotes and apostrophes. But, with all of the help buttons and help indices on Microsoft WORD, I am sure that it would be easy to find. If you want, I can look it up for you -- or, if you find out, please let me know. THANKS! I hope I have answered your question. Although, I suspect that I gave you too much information! (

937:

contained historical and cultural context for most entries. It was a gem of cultural insight. I think that its deletion is akin to saying that it is possible not to be racist. It's not. When we acknowledge what racist tendencies we have, then we are able to move past them. The article is especially relevant at the moment with the debate going on concerning a certain term used pejoratively to describe illegal mexican immigrants. I believe that your decision to delete the article was wrong. While I am totally on-board with the idea that articles on Knowledge should be held to a minimum standard, I also firmly believe that setting the standard too high is dangerous for the community. Besides, the article "What Knowledge is Not" section 1.10 states that Knowledge is not censored, and may contain content that is offensive to some readers. If Knowledge is not censored, then why have you deleted this article?

2513:

pleasant surprise which bolsters my faith in the sometimes chaotic world of wikpedia. I will go ahead and include a list of the publications I believe to be most significant. However, not being a sociologist, I do worry about making the best choices. I am attempting to solicit CV's from other academics in an attempt to make the most relevant information available. Thus far I have only received one from Prof Twine but I am confident that more will be made available for my/wikipedia use. So thank you most sincerely for your ongoing efforts. You appear to possess the qualities of sensitivity, insight, intelligence, logic and humanism, qualities I greatly value in physicians but encounter all too infrequently. Cheers, Allan

2633:

known about this artist...Since, I was surprised that Knowledge had no mention of him, I finally decided to create his entry. I hope you like it--please feel free to leave me more feedback and suggestions for this page and for my personal crusade of the page, "Richard Cromwell (actor)" (real name Roy Radebaugh--he was my mother's cousin). Please leave your comments here or at my user "talk:keane4" location. Thanks a million. Sincerely, Bill Keane, in the suburbs northwest of Los Angeles, CA. aka Keane4 P.S. your User page is very interesting--Note: I am a Catholic Convert as of three years ago--my wife's influence over the last 15 years was a good thing!--

2905:

logged, and I was interested by the edit summary, as you gave G8 as a reason. I was confused because, AFAIK, G8 doesn't apply to article pages. I saw that the user had in fact requested his/her own talk page deleted, so it was clear that the user didn't want their talk page. However, I think user talk pages are supposed to be left alone, even if a user leaves. I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that replacing the page with a "retired" banner or some such thing is fine, but that the history should be left. I think Metros recreated the page, but I'm not sure why. So I guess everything is fine.

4319:

indirect one, a cause and effect. Now his wikipedia page would link to the topic he himself started. A search through google for example would show its popularity, the desire people want to know what the hell dane cook was talking about. AND you call it nonsensicle? If I were God I would delete you for not bothering to LOOK it up. Of course, thats the problems with humans, they act on feeling not logic. My feeling tell me you should go to hell, my logic says your doing your job. Logic also tells me your doing a shitty ass job. Think on it. Feel humbled.

1792: 891:, with numerous international releases, international tours, and collaborations with internationally regarded musicians. Please restore it immediately (you only gave me 25 seconds); as I was actively editing it. If you'd like, feel free to check my edit history to verify that I am a longtime, productive contributor, and I do not add frivolous pages to Knowledge. I do expect a response, and for the page to be restored--within 5 minutes. My time is being wasted. Thanks. 3812: 504: 43:- where you can click on the "email" icon on our main page and send me a personal message. All the band's email messages come directly to me. In closing, I spent considerable time creating our Wiki entry, editing the bio I originally composed for our official website. Thanks for turning this into a colossal waste of my time. Check before you click, if you know what I mean. 1095:

encyclopedia. I recognise that this is not a view which you, or most of the community who have expressed opinions, share, and I am not in any way arguing the point; just answering your question as to how it seemed to me at the time. I would like to point out that it was not an emotional judgement, but was considered; you may say ill-considered.--

829:, anyone can check through this cat, and if anyone has any concerns they simply remove the template from the candidates userpage - if it's not removed in 7 days, the candidate is sysopped. I've got it on my userpage as I'm using it as an example of how it would work, and to show that the cat works. Hope that explains a few things! 1275:. Normally, these pages are reviewed by at least one person who can read the language or otherwise determine the content. I would like to see whether there was any salvageable information in this page before it was deleted - or maybe you can explain why you acted so quickly on it or what you thought it contained? Thanks. 2138:

images, check that Commons is saying they have them, delete them, check that the original image reappears when the deletion is over. Takes less than a minute per 8 and requires little brain power (I was listening to the results of the French presidential election at the same time in order to avoid slipping into a coma).

2819:) is the last IP I address I was editing from before I took on a username. Finding the random copy-editing I was doing from my dorm computer before that will be rather difficult, if not nigh-unto-impossible. I can't remember where those edits would be, let alone what exact timeframe in which I should look for them. 1268: 395:. What you can sometimes find, is that although you fully protect a page, it only semi protects it - it's most probably due to the system making a very minor mistake (it's happened to me once). What I always do, is check the page history and make sure the protection I wanted, was the protection that was made. 4053:

Thank you as always for your vigilance and support. I admit I was a bit perturbed by the massive cuts and I still disagree about articles providing minimal or less than complete (when available) information. But I do not wish to engage in noxious behavior which will solve nothing. I do think there

3909:

What I'm trying to say is that, firstly, if an article is meant to be protected or semi-protected long-term, a hint in the protection log goes a long way to keeping noses like mine out of it. Secondly, if you ever have a few minutes to spare and feel like removing protection from an article that was

3293:

As always I appreciate your vigilance. My schedule has not allowed me the time I need to do justice to this article. I will give it appropriate attention soon. Is it permissible to do a revert and then edit or would it be more proper to recreate the list? I am not sure on this one and I am trying

2790:

Is it "socially acceptable" for an admin to come in on a one-month-on, one-month-off pattern of participation? I've noticed some concern over absentee administrators and vulnerable, mothballed sysop accounts in the discussion on ANI and elsewhere, and I share those concerns myself. Let me know, and

2782:

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I've actually been somewhat of an IP Wikignome here for quite a while; it 's just that I finally got around to taking the plunge and getting a username and such a couple months back. I would be honored to be considered for adminship, but, as my contributions would

1933:

that correspond to 5 easily checked criteria that an article should meet to be assessed as B-Class. The advantage of this system is that now there is a clear boundary between Start-Class and B-Class articles. Authors of articles that were assessed as Start-Class now get more direct feedback what they

1042:

The number of deletion nominations certainly reflects the subject's controversial nature, but keep in mind that three of the four debates ended with consensus to keep the article (and the one failure to reach consensus was due to correctable problems that subsequently were addressed, thereby enabling

3297:

Also a question: Is it permissible to cite personal communication as a valid reference? Some of the biographical data which was removed was received in a personal communication from professor Twine. I do not know of any other way to verify the data and I thought it was useful in the context of the

1699:

No need to apologise, looking at the article it was a clear speedy. When dealing with wrestling related articles (JB196's targets) you're always better off checking the history to make sure nothing untoward has gone on prior to tagging, as he's a persistent vandal with over 200 tagged sockpuppets to

913:

How nice of you to get back to me. Again, I was actively adding information about the group's many international releases and tours when you deleted the article entirely. Your first message stated "non-notable group." You were clearly quite wrong about that, so now you state that the article did not

178:

Click the Microsoft Office Button , and then click Word Options. Click Proofing, and then click AutoCorrect Options. In the AutoCorrect dialog box, do the following: Click the AutoFormat As You Type tab, and under Replace as you type, select or clear the "Straight quotes" with “smart quotes” check

147:

Hi there (again)! When I write something, I tend to be a perfectionist. Thus, when I was editing my page, I checked to see that each link does, in fact, link to the correct page. Furthermore, I like to make sure that my links are the exact correct wording of the page being linked -- such that the

4318:

Congradulations. You are a nonsensicle nazi and deserve to be removed. I mean, isnt that what you do, remove stuff you "feel" is nonsensicle, not really caring if you cant grasp or understand the significance of what you consider nonsensicle. Famous commedian starts a craze, a direct action from an

4289:

Well even if, that still does not make it innapropriet. You cannot just bend the rules that much. I mean some people have the name Dick and they don't have to be blocked so if this person has a name or something that might cowincidentally read that backwards, they should not be blocked. I think you

3782:

Ok, you told me to ask myself would I be in an Encyclopedia, well I've Served in the Marine Corp for the last 4 years. Been to Iraq, Thailand, Japan, Germany, Philipines, Kuwait and Qatar. I've fought in OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) 2 and 3. I've also crossed two oceans Pacific (air, and ship) and

3402:

I have to say, I'm a little disapointed that you've only reduced this to 6 months, the IP's not a school, it's only got 14 edits in total, it's only had 2 previous blocks, the longest being 48 hours - it seems far more appropriate that the IP should be blocked for a week this time, if it vandalises

2943:

While I appreciate that no-one has been here very long, you have been here a year longer than I have. You will, I am certain, recall our recent interaction in which I asked you to review my admin activities. I was not bullshitting, I really meant it, and I hope that you will be able to find time to

2884:

Hi. You speedily deleted this talk page as G8 - the talk page of a deleted article. Someone then welcomed the user, who has asked for that to be deleted as well, with the reasoning "I had a talk page, it was previously deleted" or something similar. I'm a little perplexed by your original deletion,

2853:

without administrative tools, I've decided that I might as well "take up the mop," as is apparently the popular self-depracating saying on RfA. It might be more accurately called "taking up the squeegie and the spiked bat," but, whatever you choose to term it, I might as well put myself up for the

2632:

Bill Keane responds: Hi Tony, thanks for the feedback earlier, Yes, I'm a little rusty in starting new articles, but I've been working today on this one about Gilbert, who by the way served in WWI. My late grandmother had one of his paintings in her living room when I was growing up, so I've always

2137:

Don't be fooled - these were CSD-I2 images. In other words, they were already correctly uploaded to Commons. Even if I or the tagging editor had made an error, it would be both easily undoable and non-detrimental to the readers. These were done 8 at a time using Firefox and tabbed browsing - open 8

38:

Gee, thanks Anthony. Had you read what I posted, you'd have realized I was the ORIGINAL AUTHOR of that material, which I composed from SCRATCH for our "History Page" at laflavour.com. This is Vince Scarpitti, a member of LaFlavour, as well as the administrator of our website. I personally own every

4299:

um...I think you just did accuse me of being them and I am very confizzled by which editors you are talking about. Theres me, which ofcourse is me, then theres some others and yes I did use the IP adress stated in the autoblock decline but I am not Mrleftyisacunt. And I am not Sinepgib. And I took

3444:

Hi there; you have given this user an indefblock as vandalism only. You have been both an editor and an admin for longer than I have, so I would not attempt to argue with you; but given that Knowledge is not censored, I am am not certain that I can see the vandalism. The user is asking for unblock

2904:

OK. I came across the talk page during speedy deleting; as far as I know the user wanted it deleted. I was a little perplexed by the reason they had given for speedy deletion (that they had previously had a talk page that was now deleted), so I checked the deletion log. Your deletion was obviously

2047:

you will see that once I had seen your decision to restore, I immediately restored it to support your decision. Further, I added a hangon to delay any immediate deletions. After a few hours the article was deleted by another admin. To move things on, I have userfied the text to Cbdorsett to enable

1021:

Thank you for your comments. I will accept that I am still on a learning curve, and will not in any way argue with you. It is, of course, fair to say that the very fact that the article has been through four deletion debates, which is an unusually high number, indicates that views on the topic are

83:

Thank you for your response. My concern (and it is not a great concern, mind you) is that if he intends to file some sort of greivance against me, I'd like to leave the comments as evidence of his hysterics and bad faith. But, they will always be there in the history, even if I delete them. So,

1240:

I would ask that you read the note I wrote in the "talk" section on Dr. Twine. In it I ask about how we decide what subjects merit more detail. Knowledge lists, among other things, many video games and characters therein, many athletes of varying levels of notability and even pages dedicated to

1094:

I am happy to receive constructive criticism, and recognise that I have a lot of education still to undergo. The rationale for my deletion (which I am not attempting further to defend) was that it seemed to me that the article was racially offensive in nature, without enhancing the content of the

936:

Of course the list contained only racist jargon. That was the point. If you feel the need to delete an article because it contains hateful ideas or speech, I'm sure that there are many other articles that fit the bill that would be even more ridiculous to delete. The list was interesting and

2212:

people don't use wikipedia the same way they use encyclopedia britannica so your response is invalid. for most school papers wikipedia is not allowed as a source due to the fact that it is often unreliable, and certainly not as accurate as a real encyclopedia. there is also unlimited cyberspace,

918:

and one of the most prominent and internationally regarded of all music groups from the continent of Africa? Such a view, from someone of your clear intelligence, would seem most unusual, and I hope this would not show that you enjoy exerting your admin powers more than allowing other editors to

3188:

tags on both pages. Since this template links to the Wiktionary definition and explicitly states "please do not merely create a dictionary definition," I felt that it provided the best of both worlds by not having a useless not-dictionary definition on Knowledge, yet still providing a wikilink

3267:

for cleanup a few days ago, and I had thought it looked like a copyvio but I couldn't prove it. That's why I didn't simply revert to a previous, non-copyvio version. I would have if I had known it was going to be out and out deleted. Any chance on a undeletion of an older version? It's an

2512:

You have no idea what a comfort it is to have received your note. I was becoming quite upset by the tone of the admin who had been involved in the changes in the article. I took the wiki advice and relied on my gentle nature by taking a time out. So the appearance of your message is a very

2364:

It's like King Canute, trying to stem the never-ending flood of noobs/vandalism/drivel. I haven't even actually looked at CSD, I just patrol new pages, so many pages are deleted before they are even tagged. Still, its nice to get a message that doesn't begin "why did you delete my page, you

3747:

Thanks for the reply. What I meant is that having two different articles about their bizarre sexual practices gives an air of legitimacy to them, and that the History articles make it look as though there's this majestic legacy. I don't see why the movement needs more than one article.

1402:

Hi, there! I don't mean to intrude, but when you say, "Are you both leaning over my shoulder," are you really saying, "Are you humping me?" If so, that statement might be either quite disturbing or possibly referring to sexual innuendo... If not, then just ignore this message and call me

2180:

If wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I don't see how a brief biography is out of question. There were no untruths in the article, what does it hurt? Don't you think just leaving a harmless article up instead of constantly redeleting it is easier and better for the whole wikipedia community?

3149:

Just a thankyou for the information! Don't worry, the visit I went on was focused on the seriousness of the issue and I appreciate it fully. The pictures I was planning on adding are just a few that show a bit more about Auchwitz, such as the firing wall and the famous 'Halt!' sign.

2141:

CSD-I2 images are rare, but when they happen they happen en masse. I usually clear the CSD-I3 category. Those are done 4 at a time, require the image removing from the article about half the time and generate lots of talk page whining. Four I3 images take about 5 minutes, unless I'm

914:

state that the group is notable. That is because you gave me only 25 seconds to do that, and I was in the process of adding that information. So, as you did not address this, do you wish that Knowledge not have an article on this group, the most notable music group in the nation of

1054:

Incidentally, of course I know that wiki is not censored and that we do not remove content because it might offend people; I have over the last year or so reverted a number of edits made by other people on this irrelevant basis. It was a judgerment call; if it was wrong, I accept

39:

single word I posted, including the image I uploaded. I clearly stated that fact at the top of the page I created for us at wikipedia. I registered with my real name. If that's not enough to verify I am who I say I am, feel free to email me via the LaFlavour website-

1285:

You suggested that I translate the page so you can post it. I'd be happy to give it a try, but I can't access the page's history page to see what the text once was. If you can find the text, please paste it on my talk page and I will deal with it from there. Thanks.

199:

Hi, it's me again. I just found out that turning on/off the straight and the curly quotes in WORD applies to both the double quote marks as well as the single quote marks (i.e., the apostrophe). So, the mystery is solved. Thanks for your help.

2044: 3689:

Hey, I noticed that you did something to one of the articles I speedied, I believe you called it a prod. Is that something only administrators can do? I ask because I speedied four more and I'd like you to have a look at them if you have time:

1124:

in deciding that the article was unencyclopedic (which is a reasonable opinion, regardless of whether it's held by a majority). It was in acting on this determination by speedily deleting the article (instead of following the standard deletion

3859: 3849: 3835: 3823: 3805: 802:

Hi Anthony, could I just ask you to clarify whether you think my block of this user on the grounds of a 3RR violation is appropriate. I've just recently been granted adminship so want to ensure I'm not making mistakes. Thanks for your help.

2733:

My worry is that he'll have access to a non-new account come November, which will be able to vandalize semi-protected pages until someone gets around to stopping it. It's best to break the wine bottle now, before it gets a chance to age.

1072:

Out of curiosity (and in the hope of providing constructive criticism), could you please elaborate on your speedy deletion rationale? Your summary was a bit vague (especially considering the fact that it described the subject's nature).

2020:

as a criterion for speedy deletion. Is this ok in a case such as this? The reason I cited is apparently inappropriate according to ]. I am asking you because you deleted the page and apparently had no problem with my reason. Thanks. :) -

159:

Hi. It got me curious, so I looked this up in the HELP features of WORD. I was able to find curly versus straight quotes (they are called smart quotes) -- but not apostrophes. I am sure that the apostrophe options are there in WORD,

4221: 3704: 2266:

I quite understand things like this sometimes get missed in the shuffle, it's not a big problem. I just wanted to make sure you were informed so that I wasn't overturning your decision without providing an opportunity for discussion.

109:

Hi. I received your comment. Thanks again. My deletion of the comment was intentional and not accidental. I always delete comments, once I have resolved the issue. I like to have a "clear" desk, if you will. Thanks a million!

4257:

Check out the note I left on the talk page, I did not intend to bite, if it came across as biting him, I'll apologize. I'm only trying to remove an orphan MFD page, where I do not believe the editor intended to MFD. Best regards,

2256:. While it might have been understandable to delete a one-sentence article about a person, when the article has a reasonably substantial history, that should be a signal to you that there's more to the situation than it appears. -- 3901:

was one of those articles, because it's not a famous example (like Dubya), nor does it have a note in the protection log saying it had deliberately been left protected (like several that I passed over the other night). There are

3359:

Hi. Just to clarify our conversation, as a non-admin, am I allowed to threaten blocking as in Uw-test4? It hasn't come up yet, but I was just wondering. By the way, for a speedy reverting tool, you might want to take a look at

121:

Personally, I'd leave it CSD if you don't feel confortable deleting it yourself. It gives the editor a bit more time to flesh it out, and it'll eventually come to the attention of another admin who can then see if it's still

3389:. If I understand correctly, IPs shouldn't be blocked indefinitely unless they're open proxies. Since you didn't mention anything about an open proxy, I was wondering if you had a different reason for indefblocking. Thanks, 171:

As you type text, some Microsoft Office programs automatically change straight quotation marks ( ' or " ) to curly quotation marks (also known as "smart quotes" or typographer's quotes). You can turn on or off this feature.

1236:

I am calling upon you in your administrator role to mediate an issue regarding the article on "France Winddance Twine". It seems that someone has again removed the detail which you assisted me in reverting just last year.

4107: 2494:

I noticed you change your userbox yesterday when I found out about the merging of all edit count templates. I meant to congratulate you then, but I never got round to, sadly. So here are the congratulations now! :)

1724:

It's ok, I asked JzG myself. I know that some admins would be wary of blocking an account based on a couple of edits, and JzG is more than aware of JB196's history so he'd have no qualms about doing it. Thanks.

3240:

No need to apologize, as I fully understand how easy it is to miss messages that arrive in rapid succession. Thanks for your prompt response on this issue, and especially for all your hard work as an admin!

3459:

where pubic hair is not the subject of the article) and image-related problems lately (please have a look at the actual and related AN/I threads). We can't tolerate that. There has to be a limit by applying

2843:

I've thought it over (the thinking went quicker than I had expected), and after trying to deal with several SummerThunder attacks in the last day or two and trying to mediate in mediate these two fracases

4219: 2952:

I know that you cannot possibly look at every action. But I would, as I said, appreciate a general overview. I am working hard for the project, and would like to be re-assured that I am doing it right.--

4246:

Notice that the page was moved to the sandbox with a MFD tag attached. There was no MFD yet the MFD page waqs started, I do not believe the editor intended to mfd the page after investigating the mfd.

3709: 1244:

I have had comments from friends on several of my articles to the effect that they have appreciated the details when they are made available. Listing all compositions by a given composer for example.

560:

Below is a smattering of independent, reliable and attributable references for many of the key facts in the article. There are a lot more, some not online, but in print. Still, this seems sufficient.

3504:

No argument. I asked for educational, rather than confrontational reasons. The editor did not appear, to me, to be a vandalism-only editor, which the block log gave as the reason applied to his block.

4039:

Well, I thought it was written as a memorial; rather, it seems to be about some historical persona, so I thought I should leave some tme to the creator to expand te article and provide references. -

3714: 2213:

whereas in an encyclopedia space for personal articles of people who are "unsignificant" is limited. it's only one article and its not offensive or anything, it hurts nothing to let it be recreated.

3804: 2384: 976: 2416:

Also, the brewery it described was older and larger than about half those in the above category, so if it doesn't meet the "noteworthyness" criteria, neither do half those in the above category.

1474:

a weird person. Just remember that one's writing doesn't always form a clear image about himself or herself. However, I do realize that you're a physician, so I might be wrong on my part here.--

1943: 2396:

The reason I edited it was that the list of "Active Beers" was filled with all kinds of garbage: one-off specialty brews that the brewery did years ago that were by no means "active beers".

1947: 4309:

Why woudl this be sockpuppetry. I am just concerned about the block of a username, this has nothing to do with sockpuppetry. Go by the book, not by speculation and yes this is ending here.--

4240: 3872: 2004: 991: 3174:

and saw it had been deleted in April in favour of the Wiktionary definition. Since the term is quasi-common in the information technology and engineering communities, and as it and its

2845: 3222:? I do not want to step on your toes, but it has been more than two days, and your contrib history shows you have made more than 50 edits since I made this query on your talk page. -- 1939: 4406:

Gotcha. I've unspeedied the article and listed it at AFD. I think this is one of those cases where the band itself is clearly nonnotable despite technically meeting one category of

3953:

Thanks so much for your support! Yeah, I've only truly been denied simply for time spent under a username, so it seems that I would surely pass right through in another few months. I

1895: 826: 2815:

It might as well be kept open; no need for e-mail. Let me think on this for a day or two. Tell me what I'd need to do, though, so I can have my ducks in a row, so to speak. This (

311:

I don't think anyone ever confused me with a Knowledge administrator, but given your misgivings I've changed 'sysadm' to 'sysadmin' (which is, admittedly, more common) and linked to

361:, you'll see you only semi-protected it, may have been a small bug in the system when you protected it, feel free to re-add full protection if you feel it's required. All the best, 4262: 4231: 2451: 2440: 919:

enrich our encyclopedia on subjects in their expertise (even African ones). Thanks again for your response, because this business really is taking a lot of my time unnecessarily.

2284:

Shouldn't this article (looks like italian) be in the italian wikipedia? I added the no-sense tag as i read it very quickly but the foreign tag looks like a better move! Regards

1950:

now need to be checked whether they meet any of the B-Class criteria. This is a major effort, and we need your help! If you want to help, but don't know how, please post at the

581: 1782: 2533:), but it's equally likely I just missed it. That user had contributed several articles copied from other websites. Sorry if I was careless and thanks for catching it. -- 1128:

This is the sort of decision that shouldn't be made unilaterally by users not named Jimbo. As such, it can only be reached via a community discussion leading to consensus.

1772: 1740: 1715: 4106: 3886:. I usually don't object reversal of my admin actions, but I appreciate it when people drop me a line to explain why, as you did. I accept your decision to re-protect 3134: 483:

Hi, seems the user re created the content you deleted. I moved it again to his user space. Can you delete it if you're around? Talk about a bad start for a RfA... :) --

4175: 3721: 3455:

Hi Anthony. It has nothing to do w/ censorship or otherwise i'd be blocking everyone editing nudity-related subjects. We've been having a lot of disruption cases (see

419: 2962:

Hello again! I've been very busy, but I do intend to fulfill your request when I'm able to set aside the time. In the interim, you might want to seek feedback via

2010: 1998: 1666:. If you check the recent history of the page you'll see the information has been systematically stripped from the article, probably by sockpuppets of banned editor 1394: 241:, and boasts on both pages of having changed it many times before. I was just passing by about something else when I noticed, & thought you might like to know. 2979:

Please do not misunderstand: I am not paranoid about mythical shortcomings that I mught have engendered; I was merely following up on our previous correspondence.--

2895:

Sorry I didn't get your messages - I logged off and went to the pub shortly after your first reply. Give me a minute to read your replies and I'll get back to you.

2547: 3990: 1606:

I think it's because I'm still a bit behind the times :) (oh, and I don't think you're criticising me - I only used to blank copyvio speedies, no other speedies)

4370: 4323: 4127: 3852:, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at 1594:

Hi. I didn't blank the page because it was speedy deletable - I blanked it as it was a copyvio, and I think at least we used to blank them (or was it just me?).

1180: 3278:

Yeah, it is a pathetic article now, but better to have a stub than nothing at all. Give me a few days and I'll try to expand it. Thanks for undeleting it. --

2849: 204: 114: 88: 3985: 3431: 4381: 4138: 3942: 3764: 3752: 3588: 3171: 3129: 3000: 2983: 2970: 1580: 1139: 1099: 1077: 1059: 1026: 464: 201: 184: 149: 111: 99: 4363: 1855:: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a 4210: 4165:

Thanks for your efforts, though I fear he will be back (especially since he appears to be banned solely because of his choice of a commercial user name.).

4033: 3643: 3495: 3479: 3079: 2909: 2899: 2816: 2481: 2472: 2462: 2271: 1381: 986: 487: 2685: 2167: 4397: 4002: 3657: 3182: 2353: 2120:

I seem to be completely incapable of correctly adding the debate to the AFD log after creating Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Alex Anatole. eeek! Help!

1823:'s newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts. 1012: 944: 23: 4251: 4414: 818: 63: 2052: 1209:

It would get dull if everyone did :-). The Protected titles list is farily new- it only became possible once the Devs enabled Cascading protection...

4322: 4259: 4248: 4228: 3796: 3678: 3282: 3250: 3231: 1312: 1299: 1290: 1222: 1173: 981: 463:

page, citing that it was an advertisment. It was not intended as such, so I shall recreate it soon, unless you can give me further explanation. - -

71: 3741: 3604: 3600: 2837: 2752: 2238: 2221: 2188: 2124: 2111: 2093: 2076: 1272: 1005: 956: 4100: 1279: 3592: 2605: 2575: 1632: 1623: 1612: 1588: 3997: 3783:

Atlantic (air) while on active duty. I actually have a great story to tell. All can be proven and is documented. Is that Encyclopedia material?

2889: 3768: 3386: 2933: 2484: 2475: 2465: 2200: 1470:. When I was at my early days here in WP, I would go on my school IP and make weird messages on various articles. The thing is, I'm definitely 804: 460: 4118: 2885:

as this is a usertalk page and thus doesn't fall under G8. Also, as far as I understand, usertalk pages aren't really supposed to be deleted?

2537: 1863:

and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics:

758:(I think we know of 9 now) who is under a community ban. Can you give Lawman8 an indef block or is there something else I need to do? Thanks 582:

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20351&hed=The+Death+of+a+Virtual+Currency&sector=Industries&subsector=InternetAndServices

4310: 4301: 4291: 4280: 4193: 3919: 3073: 2759: 2085:

You're probably off doing more secret important sysop duties :) but I could really use an admin's judgement on the speedy deletion debate at

471: 59: 2929:

doesn't normally allow for user talk page deletion without good reason. So having a user talk page without an associated user page is fine.

2066: 4313: 4304: 4294: 4283: 1558: 1512: 1484: 1453: 788: 288: 277: 3883: 3396: 3272: 3449: 1991: 266: 3212: 3139: 2029: 1693: 1466:, I would like to remind you that some people tend to disrupt Knowledge by making false statements that do not form an image about them 385: 62:. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 4043: 3893:

I am familiar with the argument that some articles should be permanently semi-protected, seen at work most successfully in the case of

3367: 2956: 1489:

I think the case above speaks volumes about the thought processes of that particular vandal. That kind of weirdness has to come out of

1429: 1257: 557:“Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable.” 3906:

of articles that people protect and then leave, forgetting to unprotect (though fewer now that we can set time limits on protection).

3799: 2926: 446: 224: 4075: 2034: 1135:

should be applied. One needn't always follow them to the letter, but the spirit should be observed. When in doubt, don't delete. —

621: 4114: 2637: 1917: 1650: 1187: 867:

moved it back. When he moved it back, he forgot my talk page. I talked to him and he said to get an admin to move it back. Thanks,

853: 102: 1600: 187: 152: 3978: 3613: 3039: 2727: 2706: 2184: 1675: 1262: 477: 3577: 2517: 2260: 807: 770: 4206:

Thanks for taking the time to reconsider. At least now I know that it is a bad idea to write important stuff late at night. :)

2655: 2499: 2346: 2307: 2278: 1970:

dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities has been started and is looking for help.

1132: 4334:

page as our drummer is their old drummer. Thus, i'm a little confused as to why the page was removed. Thank you for the reply

4182: 4169: 4160: 4054:

may be opportunities to discuss the expansion of data to include more information and hopefully we can achieve that some day.

3767:

from vandelising so i decide to get rid of his offencive edits. I havn't done anything! Why have i been banned. Also it says

3631: 3596: 2772: 3327: 3305: 3097: 1983: 1526: 1158:

I didn't really expect this, but somebody just gave me an award for, apparently, reverting vandalism. How can I deal with it?

928: 703: 4279:

why is this user blocked because of the username? I see nothing innapropriet with it and it should not have been blocked. --

3664: 3349: 2622: 1564:

Thanks for responding so quickly. I would suggest merging the relevant content of your article into the other article since

871: 3684: 3552: 2872: 2809: 2175: 1966: 1757:

article prior to deleting it, I'm sure there are other vandals that operate that way on other topics. Thanks for the help.

923: 895: 66: 3926: 1203: 247: 137: 4377:. The band has two self-released EPs and there are no indep. sources. If I'm missing something, let me know. Thanks, 4274: 4200: 3085: 2314: 1463: 338: 319: 179:

box. Click the AutoFormat tab, and under Replace, select or clear the "Straight quotes" with “smart quotes” check box.

4027: 3977: 2405:

That article had been on Knowledge for years. This was the first time I'd edited it (but the error was getting to me).

908: 3103: 2877: 2241: 2155: 2057: 1162: 952: 736: 725: 489: 3972: 3558:

Hey; looks like I've learned my lesson - I was just about to block 65.188.215.249 for 31 hours, but you beat me to it

2565: 2378: 2102:

It may not support it, but it certainly claims a degree of notability, so it's not an obvious speedy. Take it to AFD?

3546: 3532: 3091: 3067: 2529:

Well that's pretty clear. I'd like to think that it was added in response to my tag, as it wasn't there a year ago (

3377:

Thank you for the advice. I will locate Ms. Twine's CV and get to work on the list as you suggested in a few days.

2651:

in order to move it but did not delete the talk page. Could you please do that so we can complete the move? Thanks.

3639:

Well there is a problem then - there are 100s of people using it - I'd raise your concern with the project team. --

2456: 1845: 1347: 3957:

that it goes through, since I will have an extreme amount of free time during the summer. Anyways, happy Wikying!

1639: 1250:

Please comment when you can and consider reverting the massive changes that have again been made to this article.

218:

Sorry, not yet used to Twinkle... will try to use the reasons from the list instead of typing in new ones... ^_^;

4067: 3763:

It says i have been banned. i havn't done anything wrong! Check my contributions! All i've done is tried to stop

3380: 3258: 2783:

be of the famine-and-flood variety in a mirror image to my other (i.e., paid) projects, I probably wouldn't be a

2661:

Not sure you've gone to bed AB (no edits in half an hour), so I've deleted the talk page - proceed with will :-)

2229: 2196: 2009: 1671: 435: 55: 2530: 4141:

for, amongst other things, vandalism to articles. You may not also be aware of what he did to the home page of

3877: 3726:

It looks like they just copied and pasted stuff from their own wiki and put it here. Would you have a look?

2336: 2297: 2062:

Thanks for the reminder. I just had a hard time deciding which tag to put, as it is both non-notable and spam.

1766: 1734: 1709: 1687: 1413: 1304:

I just got a reply. I read the deleted text and agree completely that it should be deleted. See my comments to

973:

Furthermore, this page has survived four deletion debates, three of which were closed with a result of "keep":

576: 616: 133:

Not like I feel strongly about most CSD I make-- I'm just trying to look out for the s/n of Knowledge. :-)

3153: 3056: 1883: 1800: 1228: 454: 296: 3542:

Please check your the e-mail where your wikipedia mail is sent. I'm not completely sure what this is about.

3189:(which would be especially useful to those like me who followed a link there). I specifically selected the 4227:

Why did you remove the tag? It is pretty obvious to me the editor did not intend to start the MFD debate.

3898: 3887: 3354: 3062: 2431:(I also have no affiliation with Abita Brewing Company, other than living about a half mile from it. ;) ) 1922: 1538: 822: 656: 4153: 3551: 2627: 2522: 1839: 606: 2043:. I appreciate your view not to wheel-war since that is my approach also. If you check the deletion log 1186:

and protected it. If you would rather leave the page deleted and protect against creation, list them at

4057: 4032: 3858:

Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate

3831: 3786: 2878: 2340: 2301: 863:

Hey, Tony! Remember me? I moved my userpage on to the mainpage (I didn't know you couldn't. Sorry) and

741: 17: 3323:

for some of the more amazing examples of this. Your point is valid though, as this is extremely rare.

3193:

template in order to not run afoul of the G4 criteria, so I am quite perplexed that you deleted it as

4148:

I think he is now back, using the name Evianmineralwater, again making POV comments and edits on the

3445:

which, of course, I have not done. But I would be most grateful for an elaboration of your reasons.--

1759: 1727: 1702: 1680: 1586: 1241:

individual Bob Dylan songs. Why then is there such concern about listing lectures and publications.

1001: 443: 392: 4389:

yes I'd be interested to know how an unsigned band who give away their cds qualifies. Which bit of

3869: 3819: 3108:

as he has continued to vandalize after many warns and some blocks. He created many nonsense pages.

2642: 2253: 1354: 1325: 467: 2543:

My friend, I was not criticising. This is why the deletion process normally involves two people.--

622:

http://www.pctoday.com/Editorial/article.asp?article=articles/2006/t0401/03t01/03t01.asp&guid=

3938: 3915: 3865: 3437: 3408: 3317:"do we really believe that anyone can have a conversational level of competence in 22 languages?" 3016: 2963: 2694: 2662: 1358: 1247:

And when I use this or any encyclopedic reference I am looking for details, not just highlights.

830: 794: 636: 396: 362: 213: 4156:. His account has only been active today, since 86.146.242.233 was banned. Can you investigate? 3582: 2534: 2504: 948: 646: 237:

whom you blocked for repeatedly removing speedy delete tags, has just changed his user name to

84:

delete them I shall. Thanks again, as always, for your great work and assistance. Cheers! ---

3341:

which allows you to view any logs, including those of all admin actions. The admin logs on my

2584:

On a level, I think Darnity and Teddyxluv have some kind of Communication together (proven by

4237: 3446: 3159: 2980: 2953: 2938: 2648: 2544: 2390: 2331: 2292: 2164: 1631: 1523: 1493:

and there has to be a deep-seated something which needs to express itself in such a manner -

1391: 1096: 1056: 1023: 591: 554:

It appears that you deleted my bio from Knowledge. I think it meets the notability criteria:

425: 229: 3484:

He sent me an email early today and it was me who told them to request a formal unblock. --

661: 4132: 3929:. Although, like I said, I appreciate a message and explanation on my talkpage, you don't 3910:

protected a long time ago and no longer needs it, that would be a Good Thing ;-). Cheers,

3527: 3515:

Tony, I think I'm now old enough to become independent. I'm grateful. Thank you very much!

3197: 2600: 2489: 2217: 1979: 1569: 1547: 940: 929: 626: 439: 358: 350: 312: 85: 1990:. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the 825:- simply, candidates put that template on their userpage which automatically adds them to 8: 3611: 3393: 3332: 3288: 3246: 3227: 3208: 2769: 2758: 2613: 2585: 2523: 2225: 2192: 2040: 1216: 1197: 821:. The reason that I've got that template on my userpage is because I'm trying to develop 546: 93: 4081:

Let me save you the trouble, Anthony. Block extended to 72 hours for personal attacks -

2922: 1869:

German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians)

1663: 751: 596: 3934: 3911: 3792: 3749: 3738: 3492: 3476: 3456: 2865: 2830: 2802: 2745: 2720: 2702: 2399:

I trimmed the list down to the real active beers (actualy made it MUCH MUCH SHORTER!).

2247: 2107: 1951: 1879: 1655: 1577: 1555: 858: 674: 219: 142: 3218:

Should I interpret your lack of response as an indication that I need to take this to

2846:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged cyberstalking at Suzanne Shell

2791:

if it's acceptable, I'll give it some thought. Again, thanks. I'm quite flattered.

331: 308: 33: 4394: 4335: 4207: 4197: 3848:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting

3734: 3651: 3640: 3628: 3524: 3320: 3310: 2906: 2896: 2886: 2777: 2597: 2268: 2257: 2143: 1678:

to my talk page, which would be a strange course of action for a new editor. Thanks.

1647: 1004:, I've undone your obvious out-of-process deletion. I've also initiated a thread at 4097: 4063: 4040: 4022: 3965: 3618: 2930: 2324: 2285: 2049: 1856: 1509: 1450: 1344: 1305: 876: 538: 431: 269:. I'm not sure why he got confused by the contrib history, but given how hapazard 4373:

again because I didn't see anything in the article that asserted notability under

2419:

Also, the article simply stated where, when, and what, without any "advertizing".

2402:

I come back a few hours later to re-read my edits and THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS GONE!!

1753:

To be honest I'd have thought you'd be better off quickly checking the history of

1120:

Thank you for responding and for being so receptive. Your error in judgement was

4411: 4407: 4390: 4378: 4374: 3537: 3465: 3438: 3324: 2997: 2967: 2695: 1167: 1136: 1074: 1009: 812: 694: 689: 684: 679: 641: 270: 259: 234: 125: 4178:. He has now grossly exceeded the three-revert rule and will no doubt continue. 2918: 601: 4339: 4330:

I thought the reason was that I didn't link to any other page. I had linked to

4071: 3948: 3894: 3694: 3675: 3661: 3390: 3364: 3279: 3269: 3242: 3223: 3204: 3109: 2766: 2496: 2370: 2132: 1643: 1309: 1296: 1287: 1276: 1211: 1192: 1153: 920: 892: 784: 766: 49: 3407:

6 months, I really think that this block as it currently stands is premature.

345: 326: 4268: 4179: 4166: 4157: 4152:

page and talk page, and also making the same edits he had previously made on

3853: 3624: 3485: 3469: 3461: 3302: 3219: 3010: 2949: 2945: 2855: 2820: 2792: 2735: 2710: 2556: 2531:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060523191238/http://www.geocities.com/bojidarak/

2514: 2448: 2437: 2121: 2103: 2090: 2073: 2063: 1987: 1860: 1843:

need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can

1820: 1254: 868: 755: 733: 722: 708: 700: 484: 476: 73: 2461:

Hi there, there was a vandal blanking your page but I got the problem fix .

1791: 577:

http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2006/02/05/catching_up_with_peerflix.html

342: 323: 4011: 3827: 3772: 3699: 3671: 3521: 3510: 3361: 3346: 3342: 2619: 2594: 2572: 2562: 2277: 2207: 2148: 2086: 2022: 1619: 1608: 1596: 1573: 1565: 1551: 1532: 1159: 915: 888: 747: 617:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/08/68405?currentPage=all

351: 3834:

from Knowledge. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because

3737:. I think there's really just too much weight put on this fringe group). 1554:

already existed. Could it be that both articles refer to the same person?

522:

and tirelessly helping to clear that backlog-from-hell. Awesome work :) -

4187: 4142: 4082: 4016: 3960: 3338: 3264: 2917:

Side comment by an uninvolved person: user talk pages do not qualify for

2634: 2359: 1674:. The editor who placed the speedy deletion tag on the article also made 1494: 1435: 1329: 1320: 905: 796: 523: 4236:

An editor can do what he likes in the sandbox. That is what it is for.--

4005:. I'm afraid this is a case of article ownership gone out of control. — 1617:

Forty-eight :) What I mean is, I'm still rather attached to old policy.

3730: 2765:

It's an obscene expression here in the States--short form of "bitch."

2652: 1995: 1667: 1656: 657:

http://www.putneyschool.org/development/annual_report_05/admission.html

335: 316: 274: 238: 134: 3868:

if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --

3733:

was a known pedophile who raped his daughters and granddaughters. He

2561:

How do you review disputes? I want to know how to neutralize disputes.

607:

http://www.woodstockfilmfestival.com/festival2005/details.php?id=14707

4331: 3988:

your struck neutral comment, as it was showing up as a double vote. —

3543: 864: 778: 760: 4048: 3771:

has been banned aswell, all his edits are to do with his user page.

3372: 2237:

i'll just recreate my entry when i'm notable... haha... peace tony!

968:

realize that we don't remove content because it might offend people.

46:

Warm Regards, Vincent Scarpitti www.laflavour.com laflavour@aol.com

3811: 3570: 884: 877: 284: 255: 243: 2072:

Oh no, no apology necessary! You didn't exactly break Wikiquette.

1531: 265:

use a sock to vandalize both my user and talk pages (which I have

3345:

are simply links to pre-filled versions of this page. Good luck,

3203:. Would you reconsider your deletion? Thank you for your time, 2411: 1568:

has seen more editing and then delete the superfluous content of

1477: 1422: 1406: 817:

Hi Anthony, indeed I am an administraotr, my RfA can be found at

519: 282:

for the record, I did type the wrong word, I meant User:DEGRADE,

3838:

fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

2927:

Knowledge:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?

1572:

and just have a redirect statement in this article referring to

3315:

I was over on David Levy's talk page, and I noticed you said:

2408:

It strongly resembles any number of articles in the catigory:

1994:

so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you,

1295:

I've sent the user a message. I'll let you know what happens.

637:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2002/2002-06-05-matrix.htm

391:

I just fully protected, then unprotected your userpage and it

168:

How to change curly quotes to straight quotes and vice versa

2850:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johntex

1464:

While it is possible that this user might actually need help

776:

Thanks - and sorry for leaving off that pesky colon above...

647:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2001-03-06-web-abuzz.htm

3163: 3050: 503: 40: 4222:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Taylorluker/sandbox

3777: 3758: 3705:

Programs, projects, and productions of the Children of God

3403:

again, then it can be increased to a month, then 3 months

494: 334:

Hm. Sorry about making those replies minor by accident.

4300:

that matter up with admin for them to decide thankyou. --

4174:

In fact, he's back already and gloating. Changed name to

4149: 3933:

have to worry about stepping on my toes. Happy editing!

3720:

Everything except the biographical articles, basically.

3362:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups

3178:

abbreviation have around 80 pages linking to them, I put

1878:

Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the

717: 662:

http://www.putneyschool.org/post/pdf/2006_spring_post.pdf

592:

http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie.aspx?m=580681&mp=c

3144: 3015:

Eveing AB, just to let you know, I've just emailed you.

2996:

I understand that, and I applaud your diligence. :-) —

1043:

the following debate to reach another "keep" consensus).

964:

This deletion is quite troubling, Anthony. Surely, you

627:

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/emerging-technology

3860: