User talk:Anthony Bradbury/Archive11

Could you please come up with some good reason that you deleted an article about one of the most recognized Equine hospitals in the entire world? Your self-serving ego-centric deletion message didn't quite come up with a good enough reason other than you are a complete power-hungry donkey who gets off deleting articles at will that apparantly you know nothing about. This article met all the Wiki criteria, it is referenced in many existing articles and deserves a place on Wiki. Your deletion of this article does not in any way serve the greater good of Wiki and is only a testiment to your overly petted ego! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.128.30 (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing Happyeggplant. Let me know if you have further requests. My page for Unity_University is protected, and I'm not authorized to edit.

My account has been unblocked, as Copyright ownership is confirmed for Unity_University page, however, the page is protected and I'm not authorized to edit.

I wish that someone would create a page that would honor the life and achievements of Kirkpatrick McGuire. He was a great musician, but more importantly, he was a great man.

Anthony, We added the links to our interviews to the Wikipedia project years ago and everything was fine for quite a while. Except at Wikipedia, there now seems to be an oversupply of administrators who don't have enough productive work to do, so they occupy their spare time by erasing the works of others. As I said in my previous post, these interviews are unique, they are not available anywhere else in the world, they include Nobel Laureates in Literature, such as Doris Lessing and they are only included in Wikipedia where appropriate, such as the articles on Doris Lessing or Maya Angelou, for example. I have read your about your skills and you don't appear to have any special education in literature or English. That is why it is so discouraging that you have repeatedly erased the work we have contributed here at Ohio University to the Wikipedia project. You really should resign as an editor of the project since your reckless behavior is damaging the quality of the project. Why don't you spend five minutes and investigate the source interviews at Wired for Books, http://wiredforbooks.org ? From your reply, it appears that you have not made that minimum effort, instead you simply made more threats to erase our work. --David Kurz scribe711 Scribe711 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anthony, you should know that according to WP's Wired for Books article, David Kurz created Wired for Books. Explains a lot, eh? So the guy definitely has an agenda. Thanks for your support for my explanation to him. I tried my hardest to be respectful and not threaten him, in spite of his rudeness and patronizing behavior. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it's me again. Scribe711 did it again! In addition to blanking content, he put the link back on Maya Angelou! I hope the way I handled him was appropriate. I'm serious; I really do intend on listening to the interview. But man! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Figureskatingfan - You said you wanted to listen to the interview, which you should have done in the first place. So, I put the link back in and politely requested that you listen to the interview. Since the interview features audio by Maya Angelou, which is not found anywhere else on the Internet, and was never broadcast in its entirety by CBS Radio, and is really a very nice interview, you should not delete the link to this interview. The interview is a unique, first-person account by Maya Angelou. If I was rude to you, I apologize, but it has been a frustrating experience to see the hard work of many of us here at Ohio University be erased for no good reason. And yes, I am familiar with the rules regarding spam and "link farms" which do not apply to this important archive of author interviews. --David

Scribe711 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Anthony my new friend, I have done it. I have made a report about this whole thing to WP:AN/I. My first time! Let's hope that something comes of it. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there is a ANI .. well, I blocked the socks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask you to reconsider this block - a username block - because I can't see how this username is against policy.  GARDEN  16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's quite alright. Thanks for that - I didn't want to seem impolite or whatever by unblocking myself without asking you first. Thanks,  GARDEN  17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... for the zap. Still no idea how it wound up like that. --KP Botany (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just checked the H S Phoolka article and noticed it was deleted. I think it was a big mistake to delete this. This fellow and Manoj Mitta are like the modern day journalist equivalent of the one's who exposed Watergate. I think here at wiki we should be trying to keep things like this. The artcle as far as I can see was well rsearched and the book "A Tree Shook Delhi" has been a best seller. Can we reinstate this --Sikh-history (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)article?[reply]

sorry I made a mistake. Ignore that. It is here.--Sikh-history (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three factors: (1) the IP had been given an earlier "only warning" [1] in response to reinstating another IP's Stephen-Colbert-related vandalism, but blanked the warning; (2) the "only warning" response seemed plausible to me, if a bit strong, given the general heightened level of Colbert problems at the time; (3) even if you were to give the IP a little more leeway than just a level 4im warning, the user proceeded to vandalize User:Huntthetroll with the same Colbert stuff (I generally look more dimly at user-page vandalism when considering a block). — TKD::Talk 23:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping for a possible resolution of a double banger issue -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Andrew_Picken

Hoping that you might be able to help - as the conversation at my talk page suggests we have a double dose of non notability :(

viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SatuSuro#13 SatuSuro 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have bothered it seems to have been resolved - in the sense of a mess has been uncovered SatuSuro 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having added a reference from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to this article, and then adding it to my watchlist, I find myself astonished at the sheer number of trivial attacks and reverts to it. Any thoughts? Davidelit (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! You are breaking protocol by deleting questionable pages before they expire. Kindly undelete. --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article Van den Swaerdenheem was just re-created by the above belligerent editor. --Boston (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I will work in my end to try and find more information and see if there is something to it! --Meatballs and pancakes (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- MifterBot I ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DefySupply page has been a candidate for Speedy Deletion quite recently. The article itself not only has reliability and sources from Yahoo and other media outlets, but it can also "stand-alone" as there is no original research necessary to extract content.

Since the page was deleted before I could cite any verifiable third party sources, you were unable to see the three references that I was including into the article.

At first glance, the article seems like an advertisement. However, the goal of the article is to illustrate DefySupply's unique objective within the E-commerce world.

What proper steps must I take to get the page re-established?

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed to unblock him yesterday, and I don't see that you did. Could you close out his unblock request, and follow through with this? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please unblock my IP adress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siraj ud daula (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the entry for Kayser9soze if you do a search and go into create this page it states you deleted without giving a reason for it. Can you please let me know what was done wrong in creating this page. References were provided and the page was triple checked.

Vertigovitiligo (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for Coordinator positions in the Military History WikiProject have commenced, and voting will begin on March 14, 2009. Make sure to get involved and ask questions to the candidates. Nominations for Coordinators goes until March 13. Then come out for the voting which begins on March 14. Thanks and Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to tell you that I have put the unblock on hold instead, pending Nishkid's comments. CheckUsers make mistakes too, and it's better to let them know when someone protests their innocence so someone can double check. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I disagreed with the CU results (I saw the unblock request and CUed to see what evidence we had) and asked Nishkid to reconsider his reply (I downgraded the link to  Possible on the case). -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to administrate, you need to recognize GRAWP attacks and simply nuke them permanently. User:89.57.160.49 is GRAWP. As are the other half dozen RED LETTER attacks on The Log from the Sea of Cortez. They are aimed at Nawlinwiki, who didn't sprotect the page long enough. IP attacks continue, but now in covert style. SBHarris 20:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one month block was overkill. You should never block an IP for that long with talk page editing disabled. Especially when a 31/48 hour block is all that is needed, these guys are just 4channers on dynamic IPs; longer blocks won't do anything and may even effect a good user (who has no way of appealing the block, because talkpage editing is disabled (he could use the mailing list I suppose, but we want to encourage users to edit, not make them jump through various hoops)). Also SBHarris that was very poor advice IMO. You should never nuke an IP (I assume by nuke you mean indef block) and the only IPs that should get long blocks (i.e. 5 year) are open proxies. --Chris 09:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; while I was picking off those GAWP vandalisms, I clearly accidentally disallowed talk-page editing on one of the IPs in question, as you tactfully point out. It was a slip of the finger, not a deliberate prohibition, and you are quite right to point it out. As to thr duration of the block, this is perhaps a matter of judgement; but certainly the unasked-for advice from another user to nuke them on sight (or words to that effect) was seriously misguided. You have made a comment on my talk page to the effect that IPs should never be indefblocked, which is both well known and quite true. Perhaps you should have addressed that portion of your comment to the user who gave the advice? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I came off harsh, that was not my intention. I think I should point out that you disabled talkpage access on all of the IPs you blocked not just one, however the others were only week blocks so its not as big of a deal. As for my comment about indefing IPs; that was directed at SBHarris not you. I would have left it on his talkpage however I prefer to keep discussions centralized, I assume (and perhaps wrongly) that as he commented here he would have your talkpage watchlisted. --Chris 08:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this bit of vandalism to your user page. Up to you what to do with the IP. Also, you're a member of WikiProject Medicine but I've never seen you around there. Where'd you usually hang out around here? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough. I'm not sure of your discipline in medicine, but feel free to check out the task forces as we have one for most specialities. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for helping me when that guy attacked my userpageAbce2 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Abce2[reply]

As the blocking admin I concur with the extension. It might be worth keeping an eye on 86.40.196.208 as well - this rather excitable person seems to be IP hopping. I do hope somebody doesn't end up rangeblocking most of Ireland &9786; Tonywalton ^Talk 13:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are meaning when you say that it is a good redirect; however all the pages that link to this page or have in the past linked to this page, are lists; where they list Elephant Bird, Aepyornis, and Aepyornis maximus where 2 of the three link to the same page. These pages all also list the rest of the species of elephant birds and the rest of these are "red links", only maximus is not, leading one to believe that their is an article about this species, when there is not. Please rethink this as the only other possible solution is to write an article on these, and I personally do not have much info on these particular species. speednat (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may speed up the process by which the article is written if it was red-linked since there are those that write such articles. I do feel strongly about it, and if I can get the necessary book(s) I will write it myself, but at this point I can't. speednat (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony: I am unsure as to why you deleted the Speedy tag I placed on the article--it's a word-for word copy of the infinite monkey version. Looks like vandalism. JNW (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I didn't see it :) What was that about? decltype (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and now another admin declined speedy again when it was recreated. Is this some in-joke I am not getting? :) decltype (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after you deleted it, it was recreated, and almost immediately tagged G3 again. But instead of deleting it, another admin created a redir to the monkey article. That was what I was referring to. Of course, since there's no such thing as the "Infinite chicken theorem", it was eventually deleted under R3. decltype (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and unblocked I Am Bob the VI - Assuming Good Faith, I hope I haven't done the wrong thing! I'll be keeping an eye on him, as, I'm sure will you. Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How dose the adoption thing work? what dose it meen? I Am Bob the VI (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the user, as his request does seem to have been made in good faith. I left him a link for WP:CHU as well. Thank you for the heads-up! TNXMan 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can his IP be blocked or something, to put an end to the mockery he's been conducting for the last 2 days? He even added himself to the sockpuppet report this time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so basically we'll just keep going through this cycle until he gets tired of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not intending to be critical of your comments by any means. I've asked a few admins the same question and gotten pretty much the same answer. We either wait him out, or if the open checkuser case reveals an IP pattern, than a range block could be imposed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is intentional. I have a very short list of correspondents from wikipedia who know my e-mail address. If you want to send me a note, I could write to you first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent you an e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent a response to your e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am acsaly just bad at sppeling do to a lering dissabnlity. hay you know wikipedia sould add a spellcahker to the edit pages do you know who I sould tell to git one added.I Am Bob the VI (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try doing that from now on.I Am Bob the VI (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:IU, and note that email addresses are banned as usernames. Please consider choosing an alternative username and moving your work to this. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could request a username change, in which case all of your edits are transferred to a different name. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do this ASAP, as otherwise there is a significant probability that an uninvolved admin may, quite innocently, apply a username block, which we do not want. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response on my talk page. I will seek advice from the previously involved admins, given that the username you are currently using is, in truth, not according to wiki policy. I should perhaps stipulate that I have no problem of any kind with your editing behaviour. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anthony. As to the ado about my username please be advised that I am not authorized to change my username as this is the name that was agreed to on February 5, 2009 when I was unbanned; see "Unban proposal for Rms125a@hotmail.com" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive512#Unban_proposal_for_Rms125a.40hotmail.com_.2F_User:Robert_Sieger.

You can also contact User:Alison, User:Durova or User:Eliz81 for more on that. This username has been grandfathered in, at least according to the colloquy below during the last unbanning discussion during the same proposal at the link I provided.

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a@hotmail is right; when the restriction on the @ symbol went into effect, all existing usernames that contained it were allowed to continue. Rms predates that decision, so he's compliant with policy. Thanks very much for your diligence. After two of three years we don't see many of them anymore. Thank you for asking, and best regards. Durova^Charge! 16:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both 90.218.53.199 and the earlier vandal (90.219.153.34) editing on Middle power are from BSkyB Broadband, in the same CIDR block (90.192.0.0/11). The speed with which the user got a new IP in the first place makes me suspect that they'll be long gone from the second one as well by now (and probably puzzling over why they can't edit Middle power any more anonymously; someone semi-protected it). Thinking abut it, since this is an IP sock a three-hour block would probably have been enough on the second IP address they used; likely as soon as they saw they were blocked they'd have DHCP-ed yet another new IP address. If you feel a longer block is warranted, I've no problem with you changing it, though. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 21:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the deletion log you mentioned that Associate (business rank) was tranwikied. Can you please provide that link? Thanks. ~ Paul^T+/_C 17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Anthony.bradbury, I just saw your name appear on an RfA. It's nice to see you around; I hope everything's been good with you, and that you had a good break. Best wishes. Acalamari 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like fun: I hope you had a good time. Acalamari 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, thanks! Didn't realize he was a sock. Acalamari 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, I don't believe I made a promise to anybody... if I did, please point it out so I can avoid doing so in the future. JulieSpaulding (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Julie just made herself a troll magnet, read her talk page for more details. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and pointing out where I went wrong :) JulieSpaulding (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, no! I was very happy to receive your suggestions and I hope these can make me a better editor. In no way was I offended! Thanks, JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reassurance Anthony. If I'm unsure of anything I'll give you a shout. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] ~~~~~

I think they were once absolutely prohibited, but that rule has since been relaxed so that they can be used to edit as long as there seems to be no conflict of interest (A fair amount of people use their personal sites as usernames, after all). Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this account indefinitely, as s/he kept right on going after you warned them. Best, TNXMan 17:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try using the "E-mail this user" feature, but I don't know if she will respond or not: no one has heard from Phaedriel since she went inactive, and as far as I know, no E-mails have been responded to. Acalamari 19:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sadly, I don't know of any other way to contact her. I only used E-mail and talk pages. Acalamari 20:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article Wallace Fowlie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it does not meet any of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and it asserted significance including significant (and obvious) third-party media coverage of the subject. Please take care only to speedy delete articles that do not even assert the significance of the subject to avoid mistakes like this in the future. Thanks, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough-- disagreement is normal and healthy. But it's a problem when useful articles are deleted without discussion, since deletion is so hard to reverse. If you think it should be deleted, please feel free to nominate it at AfD. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - what GFDL other than the original editor's claims for it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article quotes from a blog, which allows free access Where is this free access stated? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, I found it. That statement wasn't there at the time that I listed it for a copyvio. Sorry about that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir,

One user named AlexCovarrubias is typing untrue statements on the article Newly industrialized country. I corrected the information and put a note in the discussion section but he reverted them for no proper reason. He is a Mexican citizen and puts untrue information about Mexico in the article. I got the following facts from two very credible sources. The information is: 1) Mexico is classified as a developing country by the CIA (of the USA). Here is the source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html 2) The planning commission of Government of India classifies only 27.5% (and NOT 77%) of the population as the people under the national poverty line.

AlexCovarrubias is classifying Mexico as a developed country (which is not the case). He is also talking ill of India by writing an untrue (false) statement which reads "it is the poorest newly industrialized country with 77% of the people living on less than $ 1 a day."

I do not want some body to edit these data and type something amiss (wrong) about any country in particular- India. Please protect the articles- Newly industrialized country, Developing country, Iyengar, and Vadakalai. I will keep you posted of other articles that are subject to mishandling, posting the wrong information, and/or vandalism of any kind. Please prevent this person from making edits on Wikipedia (WP). Please protect the contents of WP.

Awaiting your urgent attention and help in this regard. Thanks for your time. Svr014 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your post. Will do the needful and report the incident to the appropriate authority so that no wrong information is posted by any user on WP. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.[reply]

Dear Dr. Bradbury,

I sincerely request you to help me add references section to the article Newly Industrialized Country (NIC). I have added in-line source while talking about India in the Issues Section. I need to add separate section where I can list the references. Please help me. I am afraid that the Mexican user named Alex may delete my edits which have references. Awaiting your help and guidance in this regard.

Best Regards, Svr014 Svr014 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.[reply]

Thanks for the opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I placed a hang on tag on that page. 10 minutes is not hanging on. I also contested the speedy deletion with a perfectly qualifiable argument. Can the page please be undeleted? - Floydian (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am aware it has few details of any kind right now. I just ask that I have about a week to fill it up at which point a normal deletion debate would be fine. It is an obscure but still notable band. - Floydian (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comment at BenjaminPQ's talk page. I42 (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A differing opinion posted at my talk page: User_talk:I42#speedies. I42 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anthony.bradbury.

I placed the {{db-a7}} tag on that article, but then spotted that speedy deletion under A7 had already been declined. I was going to go back and remove the tag, replacing it with a prod, when I saw that you had already deleted it. The original author was never notified.

What do you suggest?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should've made it clear. The "junk" I was referring to was an addition made by "Happyeggplant". I tried to undo his revisions, but it wouldn't allow me to. Sorry - should've checked to make sure he hadn't overwritten anything else. I don't tend to meddle with others' userpages; I only remove obvious vandalism when I see it. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite alright - no harm done. :-) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Andrea Lind, you recently deleted a posting for Billy lind and I do see the basis for the deletion. Please let me know why my inquiry does not have signifigance ...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.71.125 (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--you blocked a user yesterday, see User talk:Antares137--and they're at it again. Please see the history of Starchild skull. Your action is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, thanks for looking into the matter. I didn't know if you were online or not and I saw that Blueboy was, after Antares did it yet again. Thanks again, and keep fighting the good fight, Drmies (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that it is difficult now to determine if whatever was at Her Day is or was a hoax? The AfD was/is still running. If there was no blatant violation of BLP, might you consider returning it for a brief while? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to consider coaching me toward admin-ship. I've been following your edits, recently, mainly from the deletion log, and I'm impressed by your actions: your willingness to listen to editors' arguments and to undo deletions of other admins, your willingness to correct what may be your own mistakes, etc. I think we share similar philosophies, particularly regarding giving articles a reasonable chance to be further developed prior to being procedurally deleted, and I suspect I could learn a lot from you.

Why I'd like to eventually become an admin: I often find myself patrolling the CSD list looking for improperly-tagged articles (which I guide toward ProD and AfD as necessary) and debating with admins and other editors who perform or accept the mis-tagging. I'd say that I wind up denying a CSD on about 10% of the articles I review. Of that 10%, I estimate that 25% are deleted by CSD (due to my denial being ignored or a CSD being re-applied), 50% are deleted through ProD, 15% are deleted by AfD, and the remaining 10% (or 1 in 100 articles reviewed) get significantly improved to the point that notability can be verified. Being an admin would allow me to delete roughly 50% of the articles I review on the CSD list. Being an admin would also allow me to restore articles that were re-tagged for CSD in the event that the CSD denial was improperly ignored, giving the article a second chance as it is shepherded through ProD or AfD properly. I'm in no rush to become an admin; most of the work I would do is currently being done by others, so by granting me admin-ship, Wikipedia would decrease some backlogs. I've been an editor for over three years, with a little over 4,000 edits mostly in article space. I've had occasional contentious issues with other editors often because (from my perspective) they don't demonstrate common courtesy, and I've never been blocked or received official warning for my behavior.

Would you consider coaching me? —  X  S  G  12:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mostly busy with real life these last few days. I haven't received a response, so I just wanted to make sure that you've received at least one of my two e-mails from late last week. Please let me know. —  X  S  G  00:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got spam filtering, it's a distinct possibility that my messages got caught by it. My most recent message was sent on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:54:56 -0700, the sender was User:XSG/username@User:XSG/domainname. When sending through Wikipedia, my messages will appear to be from User:XSG/username+wikipedia@User:XSG/domainname. As I own and manage miscreants.org, it should be safe to whitelist the entire domain. Please let me know if you can find the message(s) I sent. If not, I'll try to retransmit from each of my alternative e-mail accounts in order to determine which will be the best one for communication with you. Also, please forgive my wikification of the content of my e-mail addresses; this was done for anti-spam purposes. —  X  S  G  22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, I'm really sorry for accidentally blocking your account.[3] It was intended for Zondarp5 (talk · contribs) who is currently posting unblock requests across his past accounts. I've been continually reverting and disabling his talk page today and I unfortunately rushed this one. Spellcast (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a couple strange recent edits to the talk pages of Fjfhgfhdstty, Ffaadstrbdetete, and Bhfkdjktrrerkgf by Suiteman and 76.243.207.157. Both tried to replace the talk pages with 'retired' templates, which is something the sock tried to do earlier. I don't know if there is any reason to suspect that this is an attempt to evade the block. Plastikspork (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above seem to be the same, young editor. User:Fjfhgfhdstty was originally blocked in January for disruptive editing, which seems to have resulted in the creation of User:Fgdsggureugb, User:Bhfkdjktrrerkgf, User:Ffaadstrbdetete and finally User:Suiteman as each editor was blocked after being identified. As I indicated at User talk:Ffaadstrbdetete[4], this editor seems to have learned his lesson after the initial block and his contributions have generally been constructive, youthful inexperience aside. I don't think he understands the consequences of creating user acount after user account after user account, but this just requires some education. He still makes mistakes, as do we all, but he does both seek and heed advice. There are far worse editors freely roaming Wikipedia.

User:Ffaadstrbdetete was the first of the socks that I encountered but I didn't realise that he was a sock until he was blocked as there was certainly nothing in his editing style to indicate any malicious intent and I really think he should be given a second chance. He has never really been given an explanation (that he'd understand) as to why he was blocked in the first place and when he made his last request to be unblocked,[5] the response was quite blunt and quite incorrect.[6] User:Fjfhgfhdstty's initial edits at FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman were reasonably constructive,[7][8] but were reverted without any explanation[9][10] and it appears that he just got frustrated in the end with being reverted without being told why. He was then blocked as a vandalism only account, which wasn't actually the case as his first edits weren't vandalism. As far as I can see, only the edits for which he was blocked were actually disruptive. All other edits, both before and since, seem to constructive or made in good faith so, to bluntly decline him using the argument that he's a disruptive sockpuppet is really inappropriate. Sockpuppet, yes. Disruptive, No! Scratch that. I really don't see him as a sock because he's not being "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive". All he's doing is avoiding the original block so he can constructively edit. His subsequent accounts fit the "alternative account" mould more closely. Of course, as I indicated to the administrator who last declined his unblock request,[11] there may be something I'm missing. That admin hasn't seen fit to reply, which I think is quite ignorant, so I don't know if I have missed anything. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow-up on this, I posted a fairly polite message on User talk:Suiteman but received no response. In fact, he became more and more disruptive, which seemed totally out of character. Unfortunately it got so bad that I had to report him as a sockpuppet and he is now indefinitely blocked and his IP is blocked for a month so it seems this matter is now ended, at least until the IP block is lifted. Thanks for your interest in this. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

This is Svr014. One user named Ravichandar84 is posting threatening messages in WP talk pages. I am a new user at WP. I have been following WP rules in trying to make contributions to WP articles. I am not a sockpuppet. Please protect my interests on WP. Please protect my account Svr014 on WP. This is my sincere and humble request to you. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that I have undeleted this page as it did not qualify for CSD G8 (a criterion under which it had been nominated). If you disagree, please discuss on the talk page or take this straight to the DRV. If you agree, I would appreciate having the CSD tag removed (I can't do it myself as I am the creator of the page). Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:12, July 6, 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Anthony! The tag has actually been already removed by someone else. In response to your question, though: I would never create a page like that if I do not intend to make the links blue later on. Problem is, considering the scope of the project I am working on, "later on" often translates into "much, much later on", but that still doesn't mean that the red (and, I should point out, WP:DABRL-compliant) links have no use to either readers or editors. Anyway, I appreciate you taking a minute to answer this. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:02, July 7, 2009 (UTC)

This editor has initiated discussion on the article talkpage - nobody however has responded to them and are just reverting them. I reviewed the matter and have concurred with the editors position, if not for the same reasons. I have commented at Talk:Northampton. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have blocked - I think our ip friend just got tag-teamed into a sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. While ignorance is no defence, it does seem that there were a pool of editors very keen to keep the material in. I also note that as soon as the ip was blocked the article was reverted noting "vandalism". Well... I've waited a long time to go WP:Rouge. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not unblock, but have given the ip hints on how to target any appeal, since I have acted regarding the dispute, and am therefore too involved to do more. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the intent behind the block, as it is correct per the strict interpretation of 3RR, but I am grateful for your decision to lift it. I shall now lift the protection on the article that I placed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this deletion, I was wondering about your rationale of G10. While I recommended the speedy, and agree wholeheartedly with it, I don't think it was created with the malicious intent that G10 seems to require. Jerzy mentioned that s/he was creating it at the CF talkpage, and was apparently doing so in good faith, without realizing how it could be perceived. That's why I chose a more generic rationale on my request, and I was wondering about your decision to use G10 in the actual deletion. Unitanode 17:43, 11 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) 21:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The predicament is solved. Thanks anyway. Svr014 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. Unfortunately, the requests don't take long enough for {{inuse}} to be of much value. :-( Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know! I've been a victim of the same problem myself many times. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a deletion discussion? Enigma^msg 20:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the article. I just don't think you can use that deletion rationale if there was no deletion discussion, that's all. Enigma^msg 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted previously via AfD. I deleted it as a re-creation of a page deleted after AfD dicussion. What is your problem? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the previous deletion a PROD, not an AfD? DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious to see the deletion discussion, because your deletion rationale said there was one. Again, I haven't even seen the article. I have no idea whether it belongs or not. Enigma^msg 21:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now spent some useful time reviewing the past history here. Yes, it was an expired PROD, and the nominator was wrong. There was no discussion. The creator made no comment. The article should not be here. It is not. OK? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is misleading to say in the deletion log that it was deleted as being recreated following a discussion, when there was no discussion. Is a recreated prod even eligible for speedy under that criterion? DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a recreated prod if unchanged is eligible. I have no wish to appear unreasonable, or in any way to give offence, but have you not now flogged this dead horse enough? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I justed wanted to express my appreciation for your willingness to ask fair questions in the discussion addressing the issues raised against me. Your willingness to demand reasoned and logical arguments and not just settle for loose explanations is welcomed. I know it takes more time to read all posts and realize there may be holes in one's arguments. I also wish to express thanks for the thoughtful consideration of fellow admins Lifebaka, Sandstein, Luna_Santin and jpgordon. Thanks! Highspeed (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that there is some discussion ongoing on WP:ANI regarding Chris G.'s block of Brangifer the other day. Inasmuch as you were the admin who reviewed and declined the unblock request, your input there might be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you deleted the Dasbog wiki rather quickly considering that I too am busy in real life and wasn't able to finnish it in one sitting. please when I rewrite the article to keep in mind that I am not able to maintain the Dasbog wiki and its wikipedia articles.

---

linkid3

(creator of the not yet significant Dasbog) www.Dasbog.wikia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkid3 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I was not entirely certain if you were telling me to write the article as the website comes or to finish making the website before making the article.

Linkid3 (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anthony Bradbury … As the closing admin of a previous deletion of this article, I would like your opinion of the latest incarnation of Donna Loren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) … I tried to put some lipstick on this pig, but I don't believe that the current ELs in the citations constitute "significant coverage" regardless of how WP:RS they may be … Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) _{17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Strange-looking pig.  Chzz  ►  22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in a discussion on the lead image of this article a while ago. There is a proposal for this here Your comments would be appreciated. Swanny18 (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are listed as deleting the P*U*S page, which were a prominent cambridgeshire Punk band. Notability was previously accepted and I wonder what the reasons are for deleting one of the most successful bands out of the area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.10.139 (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The July 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) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I am a very new admin (less than a day), and was going through the CSD candidates and noticed that you deleted the above which had been tagged as an implausible typo redirecting to Mozilla. It would seem like a very likely typo to me, or does the fact that typing "Mozzilla" gives "Did You Mean Mozilla?" enough to render the redirect superfluous? Regards. Fribbler (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this RFCU report, admin User:Thatcher explains that the banned User:Anoshirawan is in the United States. [12] The same banned person created this new name (User:Inuit18) to continue edit-wars and vandalizing articles Anoshirawan was vandalizing. He is also using annon IPs to remove suspected sockpuppet tags. [13], [14], [15], [16] If that's not enough proof then compare the decorations of banned User:Anoshirawan and his new sockpuppet. Anoshirawan in 2008 and Sockpuppet now I doesn't know how to file report can you helps me? I'm very certain about this and RFCU will confirm it.--119.73.3.103 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

many people say Your ID is very similar to NisarKand so should we ban you? I am a new user on wikipedia and none of these can prove that I am a sockpuppet.--Inuit18 (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you'd chime in at thisANI discussion. I wasn't aware of it until late last night. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a review of the semiprotection applied to this article as it's been a couple of years now since you protected it and circumstances may have changed. Please see the talk page. --TS 01:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the speedy delete tag on this article as the article author had requested it be deleted on the articles talk page. noq (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the request on the talk page. The original editor had already re-created the article with the name they meant. The article did not need moving but deleting. noq (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about making mistakes. If you look in the talk page, the original creator has created a new article and copied the contents. This article can just be deleted - or redirected to the authors new page. noq (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thought you'd like my 3000th edit... Davidelit (talk)

The August 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) 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Hobbit Day" page was deleted with the reason "(G3: Blatant hoax)". The notion that this was a hoax is patently false. The article states plainly that it is to celebrate the birth of fictional characters. It is plainly marked as "Tolkien fandom". The article plainly states how it applies to "the real world". It may have few people who celebrate this day, but it's at least as valid as "Talk like a pirate day".

This page also has/had problems in lack of sufficient references, and challenged notability, however these are not the basis for the deletion, and these are not criteria for speedy deletion. Additionally, as various editors added the templates requesting these problems being fixed over a period of two years, no one has mistook this page for a "most obvious case" of vandalism.

While I could understand other arguments against this article, I do not understand how you could conclude this is vandalism.

Further, I am disappointed in how I was contacted, and the true speedy-ness of the the deletion. A message was left in my talk page by Warrior4321 at 14:11 on 6 September 2009, and 28 minutes - not even a half of an hour - later the page was removed. I don't log in even every day, much less every half hour. The "attempt" to get the input from the page creator was pro forma and disingenuous.

Personally, I am insulted by the demeaning allegation that I created a page as a vandalization. This page was created to contribute to Wikipedia's well of knowledge on a subject matter that is real and, I believe, of interest to others.

Dsmouse (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Returned I Am Bob the VI (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per your suggestion and interpretation of copyright laws defintion of speed, acceleration, current, voltage etc. should not be carried on Wikipedia because these are definitions that nobody bothers to rephrase. For e.g. speed can be defined as distance travelled in unit time. This defintion may be seen across various textbooks and if some website or a textbook carries similar definition does not mean that this is a copyright violation. Similarly the definition of Differential protection is a basic definition and various websites and textbooks can carry it, just because some similarity exists between these defintions can not make it a copyright violation. This is for simple reason that nobody holds copyrights to these defintions. But in case I use similar image as used in text book or sketches that it may be termed as a copyright violation.

Thats the reason I said that the so called copyright violations pointed out by some users as frivolous. I agree per se that copyright violations can not be frivolous but the points/topic highlighted by the said user are Sarvagyana guru (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your post on Julian's page. Feel free to help us out at WP:OMT if you would like. :))) —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will follow your advice but I still do recommend loosening up of admin clearance policy. I just wanted clarify that one of the reasons for my little tirade was the fact that many of the voters were coming very close to calling me an outright liar and power-monger and that just flipped a little switch inside me that made me quite irate. Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 20:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether you might have any recommendations for admins willing to do some coaching? There seems to be a pretty serious backlog of people at the request page so I thought I would do some checking around and see if there were any other options available. - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 00:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking him, although he has switched IP and flamed me once again. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the following...

Secondly, as you can see from the policy contained in WP:COI, you would not be allowed to edit aricles about your own company. What else would you like to edit in wikipedia? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annmarieburnett"

So Mr. X, Founder of XYZ Tire Repair Garage, must never edit in the XYZ Tire Repair Garage article? I can see the logic but is that true (must never edit it)? If yes, just say so with no need for a lengthy explanation.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above question:

___ Yes

___ No

Thank you for your answer. You said "yes" but then your answer following suggests a no answer with a high probability of being reverted. That is unclear. However, there is no need to explain further as I will assume that the answer is yes. In any case, it does not matter because I don't do such things.

Why do you think I am involved with user:annemarie-something? How are you involved? You are probably involved because you saw her unblock request. I am involved only because I am discussing things with a blocked user who also had an unblock request on the same category page (I told that other user that he/she should not threaten others because that can result in being blocked). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. You wrote...I remain unclear as to why, if you and user:Annmarieburnett are not connected, the question is relevant to you.

That borders on an allegation that Annmarie and I are family members or are some way connected. This is false. You actually have more connection to Annmarie than I do having written on her talk page. In fact, I support the block.

I did not know of the block until Gaunkers of Goa was blocked. I am discussing things with him. He has a Category:Unblock at the bottom of his user talk page. I also looked at other people's unblock request since they also have the same category link. I did not support unblock of any of them. However, Annmarie's brings up a policy question which I wanted clarified. You kindly clarified it for me.

Would you like to join with me to write a Wikipedia policy manual. Everything would be in one place. When we welcome people, we alert them of the 5 pillars. There could be a tiny footnote with a link to the yet unwritten Wikipedia policy manual. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We were wondering if you could unblock the creation for the Adil Omar wikipedia page. This artist page was blocked in 2007 when it was created without any references... Since then, he has accomplished a lot more in his field and career, is a notable figure, and we would create a page, professionally and from a neutral viewpoint, with references and reliable sources if you please un-protect it... Do let us know, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.32.143 (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your posting , however they were warned. -- Banjeboi 13:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind message. I did a little poking around and saw that the message was written just after you read someone's recruitment idea.

Here's my feeling on the matter. In real life, when I get to know something well, eventually, I do a little more in leadership. When I was 6 years old or so, it was learning maths then helping a boy named Paul learn it faster. This wasn't meant to be power hungry or because I like to boss people around. There were many more examples as the years passed. However, one thing I learned is that one has to know maths very well in order to teach it or he will look like a fool, eventually. Likewise, in Wikipedia, there are so many obscure things that I recently learned or don't know yet. That's why I suggested the policy manual to you before. A better phrased idea would have been "instruction manual" as I didn't mean to change policy. Such manual doesn't have to be official but could be an essay or even just part of the user page.

Such a manual would take a while to write and it is low priority. Higher priority for me is Alamogordo and Cooper Rubber. The Avon Tyre link is very undeveloped but the entire article needs expanding or the Avon section would overwhelm it. Right now, I think that concentrating on an article is better though I could conceivably add assorted facts to many articles. However, sometimes this hit and run approach upsets others, maybe because they own articles or maybe because they disagree as far as undue weight. Maybe another piece of advice for my unwritten "instruction manual"?

I would say Happy Deepavali but that's an odd idea to you, probably. Isn't Guy Fawkes Day coming soon? Ka pow, bang, boom! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about your message and response. I don't want to be an administrator, particularly after seeing all of the conflict at WP:ANI. What I would eventually like to be considered is a senior and experienced editor who is not an administrator. I've seen one or two of them. Some administrators stop editing and participate in ANI fights. I'm not sure why. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend undelete as after signing with Universal Motown this band's single "Rich Girl$" has debuted on Billboard's Canadian Hot 100 at #47 for the week of 24 Oct 2009 and satisfies a number of WP:BAND notability criteria, including "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart".Bdell555 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that you speedily deleted some poorly created WWI veteran articles - said user has created many, many more, including some doubles and most with the names in improper format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tony_winward). Just thought you'd like to know. 209.243.6.249 (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed like he was further revealing himself as a hopeless case without a viable {{unblock}} in sight, so I blocked him outright. Feel free to unblock or tweak the settings if you want. DMacks (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you deleted Adam Andrzejewski as CSD A7. I had the article on my watch list because I had previously declined a speedy deletion tag on the article several months ago. I felt as though being a candidate for governor was an assertion of importance. The article was subsequently deleted at AfD, but it was far from an open-and-shut case. The article was subsequently recreated and tagged for deletion per CSD G4. MuZemike declined this speedy deletion because new sources had been added. The creator of the article then mistakenly added a {{hangon}} tag to the article, thus re-adding it to the speedy deletion candidates. I believe you might want to reconsider the deletion—perhaps nominating it at AfD—based on these facts. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anthony Bradbury. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would want to request a unremove of my contribution with the topic of Treasure hunt evangelism. I was working on it but within a hour it is deleted. Is that the way your protocol is executed. I would like to further work out this topic if possible. You may keep an eye on it if you want or give feedback. --Matglas86 (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hee tony, I have to apologise. I was badly prepared to write the article. Please do remove it. Im working on a concept in my userspace now to sumbit a encyclopedia worthy article. Im glad that wikipedia is modarated and that people watch the quality of the content. I do have to say boldly that i do believe that I have a article that is encyclopedia worthy. The reason I believe that is because I get questions on the meaning of the subject and are for now only able to speak out of exprience. By doing the right amount of research and bring all the related subject together already written about on wikipedia I believe the subject is relevant to the public. I do understand now that the importance of refence material is very high. -- Matglas86 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 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) 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only change the dates from the English American to the International Date Format on non U.S.A pages. Also if the first person who write’s an article gets it wrong, is it not the job of editor to correct mistake’s and what happens when one editor use the International Date Format and a next editor user’s the non International Date Format do you what the page to remain looking like a mess.And finely a blank white page looks cleaner but I will reverse it all if u really think it is necessarySilverhorse (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. In retrospect, I should have checked to see if my memory was right and that disambiguation pages had it in their title. Obviously, I was wrong and made an idiot out of myself. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I received your e-mail. I'm replying to you here because I don't check my email very often (as you can see from the delay). Thanks for suggesting me to become an admin, no one suggested before, I really appreciate your interest in me, but I realise I have some limitations:

• I have done little content building, no FA/GA/DYK.
• Little or no participation at noticeboards, help desk, village pump.
• Never !voted at a RfA, RfB, Checkuser, Oversight, ArbCom elections.
• Never discussed at policy pages or centralized discussions.
• Half of my edits are vandalism fighting, done last month. [17]
• I have little access to English paper sources, which limits me when adding references.

I do not reject the idea of requesting adminship some day, but perhaps I should work more in these weak areas before doing so. Maybe I should go for admin coaching first. Again, thanks a lot and best wishes, Anna Lincoln 12:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I once spotted a userbox that said "This user page has been vandalised [infinity symbol] times." Perhaps you'd like that? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I'll become an admin. I'd like to, but I'm smart enough to know that it's incredibly unlikely to ever happen. However, I have been keeping track of my vandalism count regardless. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you decided to delete the article on BASILICA and its talk page while I was presently working to legitimize it, especially without any communication with me. Please inform me as soon as possible. --Jankmoth (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback. I will work on a more standards-compliant version of this article as a subpage of my user page, however due to obligations this may not be until sometime after the coming week. I'll be sure to let you know when I have something that I think fits the requirements and where to find it (likely User:Jankmoth/BASILICA). --Jankmoth (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I was just waiting for the user to reply; only problem is I didn't notice when he/she did. I've unblocked now, though. Thanks for prodding me! m.o.p 17:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know more than I do. I have not received any contact information for her. All I can say is that she made my Wikipedia experience pleasant.

I'd advise an unblock, but since I probably count as involved, I'll leave this up to you. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, all was asking for was that the Arabic page be moved to the English title. I've seen that many times before with foreign language titles! The page About Sheikh was created from scratch by c&p, so it should be deleted and then the Arabic title can be moved to preserve the other article. De728631 (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a member of WP:PNT I have seen redirects from Cyrillic, Greek, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic and whatnot. And again, my point is to move the original page including its history. You can still kill the redirect after that. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like الشيخ سعيد أبو المكارم to be moved to About Sheikh, not the other way round. That was my request on that tag for deleting About Sheikh, so the name is freed. ;) De728631 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]