User talk:Anonymous Dissident/February

= 2007 =

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unterseeboot articles
I've seen you're doing a great job with adding articles about Unterseeboots and similar subjects. To make the articles even better you should consider using an Infobox on the pages and make the article text a bit more fluent and with more links for e.g. u-boat commander, flotillas, other u-boats, locations, dates, and so forth. The infobox should be from the WikiProject Military history, which I can see you are part of. Take a look at the articles Unterseeboot 47 (1938) and Unterseeboot 66 (1941) and Unterseeboot 96 (1940). I hope you can get some new ideas about making the articles even better. Keep up the good work. Keallu 18:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings fellow Military historian! You've learnt a lot even in a month so just keep up the good work. Regarding the infobox I can recommend you to see Template:Infobox_Military_Submarine. Here a explaination of how to use the infobox. The best to do is to take an existing article with a infobox e.g. Unterseeboot 47 (1938),Unterseeboot 66 (1941) and Unterseeboot 96 (1940) and copy the infobox from here and then replace the text after the "=" sign. Thats all you have to do. If you don't have the information just don't enter any text for that field. Then it will automatically be removed. Always remember to use the "Show preview" button when working with articles. I assume you are using uboat.net as primary source of info. Try using ubootwaffe.net as well. Here you will find order date etc. as well as Yard number and Fieldpost number. Simply lots of info from here as well. About the fluent thing just remember to link more words in your article such as dates, locations etc. but only the first time the occur in the article, not multiple times. See Manual_of_Style for more information about this. If you have any questions, just ask! Keallu 23:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. You're welcome :-) Keallu 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've looke through your new article Unterseeboot 777 and do have some comments. First of all you are using the wrong infobox! The red one should not be used any more since it is not covered by MILHIST design and doesn't contain all details. So far you should use Template:Infobox_Military_Submarine but a discussion is currently taking place about the possible merging into the very standardized Ship infobox. Look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships and put your comment if you want to. It would be nice with comments.

So change the infobox first of all. Next remember to link all dates such as March 25. Remember the reverse date order. Alway month first and then day. That has been decided for en.wikipedia.org. Also remember to check the link for the type of u-boat. For this specific u-boat the link should be Type VII. Always use for references and/or other articles. Likewise with the flotillas. See. Also names of important persons, like the commanders should be linked. Remember to write som text to your references/external links. References are for litterature and External links for e.g. uboat.net and ubootwaffe.net. You should deep link for the specific webpage about the u-boat on these sites.

Finally remember the categories in the bottom! You should always include if appropriate:

See other categories on. Of course without the nowiki tag :-)

Categorizing is very important for other people to easy find the u-boat without the proper designation.

My best advice is to use an existing article and copy the text and everything from there and simply reuse it. Then you won't forget important elements of an article. You can use Unterseeboot 20 (1936) and a very good example! Keallu 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note on the date format: day then month is fine, see WP:MOSDATE for the range of correct and incorrect date formats. Yomangani talk 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

it's
Um, it might turn up on your watchlist that I've gone through your contributions looking for misspelled instances of the possessive "its". Just to be clear, I don't mean any offense, and I think you're doing a great job overall! Melchoir 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

= 2008 =

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Random message to get your talk page layout into whack
.

.

.seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kubura
Thanks for responding to Kubura. I thought you might be interested in knowing that I've started an ANI complaint against him. So far he's used the same reasoning on 6 RFA's. If I wasn't the nominator of one of those six, I would scratch his !votes.Balloonman (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. His rationale is ridiculous. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone troll is heavy accusation. Also is calling someone's rationalizing as ridiculous. This is etiquetting. Please, read WP:ETIQUETTE. Remember, I haven't etiquetted anyone. Please, remain WP:CIVIL. Kubura (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposing someone without evaluating their contribs is ridiculous by community standards., There is no two ways. Opposing six candidates without evaluating their contribs becomes trollish. I become a little irrate with that kind of behaviour, as do many others, so please do not lecture me about policies. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "..this is actually an encyclopedia made up of people who have the facility for common sensical behaviour, not comprised of robots whose only programming consists of adhering to vague policy..."+"...That kind of action here is widely frowned upon, based on some of our core policy..." = irremediable inconsistency. Relata refero (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, isn't it, when you deliberately misquote by not continuing the former... -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "..that should be consulted as a ledger of common practice (which, in itself, is often seen to be wrong in certain cases when one does apply the aforementioned common sense)" only makes the inconsistency worse, actually. I was trying to spare you the humiliation. Relata refero (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I ever say policy was "wrong", and did I ever insert the words "core policies"? I also refer to common community practice in the former, which proves the point about common sense, and which is enforced by "widely frowned upon". Plus, I dont believe consistency is required in situations of varying context and differed discussion. No, your mis-interpretation is where it all falls down. Also, please, in future, don't bother to spare me the humiliation, as I won't when I reject your arguments. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Misquoting earlier, misinterpretation now? I'm pleased to see that I improve. Even though you were referring to the same action.
 * You say ledger of common practice=policy. And I'd be absolutely fascinated to know which core policy is not part of common practice; and what policy is not a "core policy" and why it makes a difference; and what policy these robots of yours apparently adhere to programmatically - which is bad - and also use to "frown upon" - which is good; is it vague policy, but not core policy? Either is OK, because its moderated by common sense, or perhaps common community practice, which are apparently the same thing, in spite of the fact that the ledger of common practice is wrong (no, "seen to be" wrong, since you object to "wrong") when common sense is applied....Lovely.
 * Of course, consistency isn't required, but its usually useful within a single discussion.
 * Oh, and believe me, 'rejecting' rather than answering arguments is hardly humiliating. Relata refero (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people do have some odd hobbies, but I have never heard of anyone who enjoys spending a Thurday evening correcting semantics and playing word games. That's waht we're doing right now. Let me instead rephrase what I have said, to make it more clear, so that I won't have to drag myself out of bed again to respond to your pointless posts. Opposing a candidate without even glancing at user contribs is widely frowned upon in the community, as we have seen. The policies that bind this community, while often helpful, should not turn people into process-wonked robots. Lastly, and this may serve to conjoin the two apparently paradoxical phrases, I use the term "core-policy" very loosely to refer to the core community spirit. This was a mistake on my part, as these things are very different. Get over it. I believe that brings it full circle. Good night, sir. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you'd said precisely that, in precisely that measured tone, we wouldn't be having this discussion and that unfortunate boy's RfA wouldn't be suddenly under scrutiny from thrice as many people as normal.
 * Don't get out of bed. I hope to run into you in better circumstances at some point in the future. Good night. Relata refero (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ocasaide
I reverted your reversion of that user's edit of the off-roading article. I cleaned up the tone of the edit but felt the most of the content of the edit was reasonable. If you know the topic real well, feel free to revert my edit if it introduced errors. I also commented on the user's talk page that I felt you low level warning was misplaced. Royal broil 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The revert was reasonable, considering the content of the last few sentences. My warning was also reasonable. Your reversion was probably not the best move, also, as you should have instead taken the useful content and inserted it. Cheers. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the input/advice. Royal broil  13:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK
AD, are you active ATM? DYK is late and we have something of a backlog right now. I'd let to get this one out so I can start on the new one. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalie Gauci
I don't know if you care, but you edited the Natalie Gauci article so maybe you do. There is right now quite a lot of inaccurate information being added to the article (things like "Everyone loves Natalie" and "She is so perfect there is no fault - the whole of Malta loves her") and on top of that there is extreme levels of bias to the point where regardless of how well sourced something negative is, they refuse to allow it to be included. For example, the various news reports about Mark Holden's favouring of Natalie, and of his bullying of eventual runner up Matt Corby, and as a second example the fact that the debut single is the worst selling debut single by an Australian Idol singer in history - as is the album. They refuse to mention it, or hint of it, yet these are well documented facts that are very important and well discussed. I understand WP:BLP means that we have to be careful about saying negative things, but these are well sourced, relevant and important. There seems to be a lot of violations of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV going on, not to mention WP:VANDAL. I don't know if you care, but I am quitting the article now. Its just not worth it to go up against a group of who are controlling the article through an external web forum. Natalie Gauci fan forum I believe. I am sure you can find a link if you need to. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
 .: RFA thanks :.

Speedy deletion of Template:Monthyeardate
A tag has been placed on Template:Monthyeardate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted, thanks for that. You need not have templated me, by the way, you could have just posted a friendly message. And the speedy tag was just not required. Thanks anyway. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IP User 202.0.58.194.
You had another visit from his user. i wasn't quuick enough to revert but poste an AIV report. You are safe for the next six months now! :-)) Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

RfAr statement
Thank you very much for that statement in the RfAr review. Everyking (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just felt the need to voice my stance. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RFA
 .: Thank you! :.

Speedy deletion of Template:User History of Science
A tag has been placed on Template:User History of Science requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Various additions
I've made various additions to the List of Maltese People and edited the Jason Bateman/Justine Bateman articles to reflect their Maltese heritage (ommom maltija). I've also added a picture to the Dun Karm article and inserted a reference to the 'ajn' on the ayin page. These are the first contributions I've made to wikiproject Malta and feedback would be appreciated.
 * Update: I just created an article for Francesco Maltese but couldn't find much about him.

Kalindoscopy (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalising
I am not vandalising the pages am I editing, I am avoiding the redirect by changing the link to read "Shit on the Radio (Remember the Days)" instead of "...On the Radio (Remember the Days)". 210.50.189.12 (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
As you are a recent editor of the articles in question, please see my merge proposal of Hugh Nibley and Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon - thanks. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After discussion and a second look, I am changing my proposal to merge with Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. That is a much more natural fit for the content of Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon.  See the new discussion here.  --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature
Oh, I love the font on your sig! Am I able to put any font type I want on my sig? C t j f 8 3 talk 06:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, Anonymous Dissident, for your support in my RfB. I appreciate your trust. Acalamari 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

= 2009 =

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wikispecies
Hi, I'm leaving this message on the talkpage of several of the Wikispecies admins. User:Cheesecracker has spent an hour and a half running riot through Wikispecies. I couldn't find an admin urgently so requested help from the Stewards. A two hour block has been placed while cleanup occurs. Can an indefinite block please be used? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Pathoschild has attended to the matter. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing critical information
Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spamming me with the message. Let's keep this civil and continue the discussion on your talk, shall we? I'm not trying to censor anything, I'm trying to maintain some phrasing that has some NPOV, and that is grammatically correct. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maintaining NPOV simply for the sake of NPOV without addressing information is censorship. I've seen it dozens of times in controversial articles such as this.  I'm going to assume its in good faith, but please stop. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, your failure to appreciate neutrality, especially in the lead, is becoming a detriment to this article. The evidence against Haamas is present in the main body of content, but in the lead a summation is needed, not detailed accusations. We know Hamas is suspected; my phrasing makes a point of articulating that in the initial paragraph. Discussing Hamas' actions and motives is not what the lead should be about. If you read the article, you'll see that plenty of information about Hamas' suspected involvement is given. My phrasing isn't much different to yours; it just uses proper syntax and gives a better overview of the situation. Your claims of "censorship" are quite bogus as I, the creator of the article, was the one to author the information about Hamas' actions. I have no investment and not interest in censoring material because I have no ties with anything but the good writing standard of the text. Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to clear up your grammar and make the text make more sense. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 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) 03:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds February newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the Bird 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. MeegsC | Talk 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Navbox courtesy notice
Hi!

I recently made a significant change to the content and organization of User:Black Falcon/Navigation. Since you currently transclude the navbox on a subpage of your user page, I thought I should inform you of the change so that you could use the previous version if you so desire. In any case, I hope that you found/find it useful.

Best, –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Backstage Pass: Powerhouse Museum
-You are recieving this message because you are listed as interested in wiki-meetups in Sydney-

The Powerhouse Museum will be giving Wikimedia Australia members (and friends) a personal tour through their collections - much of it not on public display. They'll take photos for us and give us access to their curators. Afterwards, they give us a meeting room and we help improve articles about their items. 20people Max.

Would you like to come along?

Signup and learn more here: www.Wikimedia.org.au/wiki/backstage pass

Date & Time: Friday the 13th of March @ 10am. BYO laptop. Where: Powerhouse Museum, Ultimo. map

Hope to see you there, Witty Lama 05:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest. I'll sign you up. You say you're pretty sure, so that's good enough for me. If you decide you can't come please tell me so we know not to wait for you at the door. Witty Lama 06:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. Thanks for your help. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Older nominations
I changed it back to "Older nominations" because your edit summary "Why change ..." implies you haven't read the reasons in the previous debate at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. See also my explanation in my proposed rules reorganization (which I'm still working on) at User:Art LaPella/Proposed rules rewrite for Did You Know/Nomination, and imagine how the word "expiring" would confuse such an explanation, which is needed regularly at present because of the name "Expiring noms". We also have an Additional rule G1 to explain that situation at present. Art LaPella (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I just preferred the older wording. I never knew that a single word was the cause of so much panic. Thanks, &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI
This is an article you contributed to before:


 * Articles_for_deletion/List_of_units_in_the_Age_of_Mythology_series_(2nd_nomination) Ikip (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Easier to read" is not the same as "false"
In this edit you said you were merely making the article "easier to read". But you changed the opening sentence so that it looked as if solving quadratic equations is the ONLY purpose of completing the square. To say that is to lie to the reader. The article clearly said that was NOT the only purpose, right there in the first sentence, until you changed that. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I read it as saying that completing the square solved quadratic equations and that this could be used in analytics and calculus. I'm sorry that I misread. Next time you have a problem with me, however, I'd request that you come to me more calmly; your tone above is not called for. I made the simple change in wording to allow the sentence to flow better, and, semantically, I don't see a real difference in meaning here. At its core, completing the square solves quadratic equations; the applications in analytics and calculus are somewhat derivative of that. Hence my statement was not entirely problematic anyway. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Surtshellir
--Dravecky (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009
<div style="margin-left:30px; margin-right:30px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:135%; line-height:120%;">

<div style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px; text-align:center; color:#333; margin-bottom:-20px; font-size:90%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; padding-bottom:5px; font-style:italic;">You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 05:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

May I please ask for your help?
Hello, Anonymous Dissident. May I please ask for your help? Could you please move DYK Parc naturel régional d'Armorique from queue number 4 to any later queue at your choice and use this image File:Mont Saint-Michel de Brasparts1.jpg that was in my original nomination with it? DYK will win from this image present.Thank you very much for your time and your help.I've already left the same message to other admins. I hope whoever will first read it will help me.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel comfortable doing that, and would prefer to leave DYK selections to the admins who regularly attend to it. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Do you know who does?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why you winked…
…dust in your eye, perhaps? -- Avi (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be. Was weird that. Didn't realise what I was doing. >_< &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The benefits of using SVG emoticons. They're hard to "accidentally" type [[image:face-grin.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, very true. I can't imagine a situation in which I'd compulsively spew out a linked image file with px and pipe. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What's going on here? How come everyone is winking at each other, but no girls are winking at me? Useight (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fail –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Proci/Suitors of Penelope
I assume that "Proci" is a reference to Penelope's suitors in Italian (although I don't know what the term itself means); before I created the page I couldn't find the page via links or a search, but I went and looked at the history of the proci page now - at the moment I'm sending this another use redirected proci to suitors of Penelope (not me) but I'm fine with merging mine into your original one. I think what the url-page should be would depend on what "Proci" itself means though, and at the moment I'm not sure myself, so (assuming you do) I'll default on that. JW (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Turns out that the redirect happened the other way around. What do you know. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 01:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

= 2010 =

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

B/Star to Raul
Maybe a probably pointless commentary AD, but as you are one of the editors I most respect on this site I was suprised by the barnstar comments to Raul. He recently had several advanced permissions (CU/OS) removed by ARBCOM due to abuse. He has ignored repeated requests on his page over various items, and removed a PROD on an unreferenced negative BLP - pretty much a G10 and subsequently deleted at AFD - with an edit summary that had a reference but he couldn't be bothered to add it to the article. Just my opinion, but handing out barnstars to un-cooperative beligernet editors who have been stripped of special access tools, and who go against core policy, is - well - not perhaps what barnstars are for. Cheers. Pedro : Chat  23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy links;


 * Raul's advance permissions removed per request
 * Unreferenced negative BLP (diffs in the AFD discussion.) Pedro : Chat  23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew in the back of my mind that he'd recently been caught up in an abuse case, but I guess I had a momentary lapse. As you may or may not be aware, I don't comment on ArbCom cases, and I barely ever pause to apprise myself of the committee's activities. Either way, I think the barnstar still stands. He has had a seven-year history with the site, and he's done good work in that time. The longevity of his participation can't be denied, regardless of recent misdemeanours – and that is, after all, what the barnstar was for. Thanks for the note. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can all make mistakes. Raul has done alot of work over a long time. The Featured Article process is a testament to that. I think the barnstar was a good call. If one has been around for a while it is not hard to get enmeshed in some drama or other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no big deal, and I agree Cas that Raul's historical heroic efforts for WP are exceptional. Regretfully he seems, IMHO, to have slightly lost the way at present however. No matter. Pedro : Chat  15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was very surprised by that barnstar too, particularly now  considering all the problems. Well, whatever. Awards don't mean much anyway.  — mattisse  (Talk) 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
It is unfortunate that this article wasn't promoted to FA, but I think it is fairly close and so worth another attempt. I hope you will consider taking it back through PR and FAC in the future. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If and only if
Hi Anonymous Dissident, what do you mean by this comment? It's a little cryptic for me. Melchoir (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I was curt because I had planned to bring it up on the talk page for discussion (something I forgot to do, it seems). Which parts do you think need expert attention? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 03:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... what's the relationship between the two articles If and only if and Logical biconditional? Is the topic of If and only if a certain logical connective, or not? As a reader with no real training in logic, I find these articles frustrating and confusing, so hopefully someone who gets the big picture can sort them out. Melchoir (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the topic seems disordered; it may be the case that a merge is in order. Airing your concerns about the articles' relationship on the talk page may be a better move than placing expert. That way people know that the problem concerns both articles. One man's opinion. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I commented at Talk:If and only if; it won't hurt to drop a note at the other as well... Melchoir (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Request For Unprotection of Article
BertramIT (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

((Hello I would like to request for you to unprotect- Runescape Lords Conquest- Article as I have sufficient information to perswade you to see the importance of it: If you look at this site link and see what i would like to put on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BertramIT/Runescape_lords_conquest - FOR THIS TO THEN GO ONTO : en.wikipedia.org/Runescape_Lords_Conquest  ))  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertramIT (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Runescape_Lords_Conquest
I hope now that i have reviewed the following guidelines about notability that you would now freely consider my origional request and tell me if it would be good enough to be put up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BertramIT/Runescape_lords_conquest —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertramIT (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sydney meetup
It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)