User talk:Anonymous Dissident/May

=2007=

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
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 06:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mixtec writing
I'd consider merging that to Mixtec (which is woefully short), as it repeats some of the information and covers the Mixtec history, language and calendar in addition to a few lines about the writing system. (With a bit of work Mixtec could be an FA candidate if you are interested: there is plenty of information on them without it being too sprawling a topic to tackle.) Yomangani talk 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If Mixtec writing was large enough to merit its own article I could see the point of splitting them, but at the moment I see an underdeveloped article at Mixtec while the article on Mixtec writing is padded with information that belongs in the main article. If you compare Maya script to Mixtec writing you can see the former is closely focused on its title while the latter has a little about the writing in the lead and a little about it in the second section. Coupled with the separation of the article on the Codex Zouche-Nuttall it looks like splitting for the sake of splitting. As an example of a good split on the topic, Mixtecan languages is closely focused on the title and would unbalance the Mixtec article if included directly. If there has been sufficient research on the subject to allow you to expand the article on the writing then you should do that rather than merge (I know the main Mixtec article can be expanded but I've never looked at the writing system), but the history and calendar sections shouldn't have the same weighting as the writing system in an article that is supposedly on the writing system.  Yomangani talk 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine if you think there is sufficient material available. Yomangani talk 12:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007
The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Arch dude replies
(Update:OOPS! this was actualy a response to a note from another young editor on my user page, who referred to you. I mistook it to be from you not him. -Arch dude 12:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

Hi there Anonymous Dissident. I expect we do have a bunch of intelligent 12-year-old editors, but you folks are still a small percentage of the editorial population. PrestonH is another, which is why I made my comment.Do you do GA reviews? Incidentally, age is at best a crude estimator of ignorance. I try to judge contributions on content. I actually read and edited Battle of Short Hills (I forget why) and did a copyedit.I liked the article but thought it needed a little help. I had not read your user page until now.My last edit got tangled up with some vandalism from a prior edit, and PrestonH reverted it. You appear to be a very valuable contributor. -Arch dude 11:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, and Anon can guess who it referred to. (Guess Who) 12:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, ok, you've said that you made a mistake. Good, thats cleared up.  &mdash;A • D  Torque 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 05:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, thanks. I just have a bad memory; usually fix myself up bout 3 secs later. :)  &mdash;A • D  Torque 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter
This newsletter was delivered by Kusma using AWB to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, Kusma 11:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
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 05:50, 8 May 2007 (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. -- SuggestBot 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maltese WikiProject
Hey- I saw that you put a WikiProject for Malta up on the Council page. I'm interested in starting a more general WikiProject on European Microstates. (There's a section up on the Council for mine as well). I was wondering if perhaps you would be interested in combining the two into one Project - we'd be able to get the requisite number of people faster, Malta fits the larger criteria, and you editors that are interested in specifically Malta would be perfectly free to focus on Maltese articles. Just let me know what you think; I'd really like to get something focusing on Microstates off the ground since there is significant content missing from the smaller countries. Thanks! matt91486 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I being unreasonable?
I have commented here on Guinea Pig FAC - I am keen for others input, either to support if they think I'm nitpicking or to comment/help out etc. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it's now promoted. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 00:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Poison
Hmm...I expected something like this to happen. I don't expect to be to active this week, but I'll see whether I can scrape up the willpower to continue writing.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to Inform you
...that I answered to your message. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have 23 DYKs (count them) - do I make the list? Biruitorul 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Microstates
I think the ideal way it would work would be to give an organizational banner for people to focus on their specific interests; those interested in Liechtenstein can focus on Liechtenstein, those interested in Malta can focus on Malta, etc. If we succeeded in getting enough interest, we could set up countries as task forces within in the project, which would be my idea for Malta, to become the Maltese Task Force or something under the larger banner. I think there are similarities and overlap, which can be helpful to all of us editors, and there are definitely some common territory between them. As an example of that, I'm currently working on expanding coverage of the Games of the Small States, and I'd probably spend some time working on Sport in the Microstates. My other hope would be to drastically overhaul and improve the parent article European Microstates to focus on some of the commonalities and hopefully build the article status. I'm certainly open to whatever suggestions you or anyone else may have. It sounds like we're getting enough interest, so I will formally open the WikiProject sometime in the next couple of days. matt91486 01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The project is now up here: European Microstates Wiki Project. matt91486 17:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK List
It was great to know that I was on the list. I will keep the list updated periodically. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK list
I think you mean it's "unlikely that this list is 100% accurate", rather than that it's likely to be accurate. Also, my DYK collection and tally includes everything I'm notified about, so there are three or four (at least) which I didn't have a hand in creating from scratch. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The list on my page includes nominations, and you may also like to add User:Spawn Man (25) and User:Wetman (40) into the your list. Yomangani talk 11:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I dealt with a couple of these before reading the above :*) -- ALoan (Talk) 17:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and in GeeJo's list of 171 articles, 12 have creation notifications and 159 are nominations. Whether that is accurate or not I couldn't say. Yomangani talk 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for creating this list, it's a great index to interesting individuals and articles. I added myself (24), and my subpage, User:Smee/DYK, to User:Anonymous Dissident/List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs.  It will be quite fun to read through some of these other hooks and contributions.  Perhaps we should create some sort of category and/or userbox as well...  Smee 07:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi Dissident! I'm well down your list with only 21 so far -- one I've created, the others I've nominated -- with more to come.  (See my user page for details.) If I qualify for your list, I'm happy to be added... MeegsC | Talk 12:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
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 08:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Hook
Hi AD. At your suggestion, I came up with an alternate hook for your Joseph Schröter nomination. See what you think! MeegsC | Talk 08:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated...

 * ... at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know. Smee 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Atar Volant

 * Slow down, Anonymous Dissident! Hehe, just kidding, congrats, you're contributing well and quickly to the project...  Did I mention your username is really great?  If not, then, it is.  Smee 00:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

note
I've been reading over a bunch of the articles that you've written, and I can't believe that they've been written by a twelve year old. Congrats for all your fine work from another underage user (I'm 15).

Cam 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Signature
Hi, I noticed your signature is displayed in large font which is discouraged by WP:SIG. Would you consider resizing your signature? Thanks, Dei z  talk 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that larger fonts disrupt the way surrounding text is displayed. Enlarging fonts and using small, unreadable fonts are both discouraged. If your chosen font cannot fit within these guidelines, and you agree that the appearance of the font in your signature is not essential to your ability to edit Wikipedia, it may be appropriate to choose a new font. Dei z  talk 12:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks - done that! Johnbod 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

GA-class malta articles
Hi there! I noticed you created GA-class malta articles, which I believe you meant as a category, in the article namespace. I've recreated it in the Category namespace as Category:GA-Class Malta articles—please take care in creating the rest of WikiProject Malta's categories as categories! ;) Happy editing, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

History of poison
Well, I've cited a little more, given it a spell-check, and such. Do you think it's ready for GA? If so, then we can nominate it and hope for the best.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
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 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)



Your GA nomination of History of poison
The article History of poison you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:History of poison for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations.


 * -- Smee 07:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC).


 * That quick? I'm surprised!  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

editor review
You're welcome. Your sig is now plain enough, certainly. Do you like it? Rigadoun (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Malta
Grazzi for the warm welcome to the Maltese WikiProject! Saħħa :) Gibmetal 77 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment help
I noticed you have been assessing articles in-scope of WikiProject Malta. This must be a tedious task for you, eh? Might I interest you in using this script to quickly tag and assess the articles under the scope of your Project? Just leave a request to include your Project's banner and I'm sure that will greatly help you efficiently and quickly complete this process. Regards,  An as  talk? 00:00, 24 May 2007 (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. -- SuggestBot 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Userpage award
Thanks! (:  Bl a  st  [ improve me ] 25.05.07 0513 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
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 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply re: editor review
I think the most important thing to do now is just keep contributing, and you'll gain a better understanding of the various policies and conventions. I'm not an admin, btw, I was nominated a few months ago but withdrew my candidacy after it became clear I misunderstood one of the policies and didn't feel comfortable asking people to support a candidate who had said something that violated established policies. So I suppose my advice would be to study the policies better than I had. I suspect one issue will be your age - I know I've seen it come up in RfAs before. I'm not sure there's any response except your work, which is pretty solid. Experience seems to be quite important; there's a tool that will list which pages you have edited by number of edits, and some will look to see that you've worked on a variety of types of pages (i.e. also categories, templates, Wikipedia pages) and perhaps have some understanding of how policy is established and enforced by contributing to Wikipedia-space discussions. I'd also suggest you look at some of the RfA's and see what people seem to think is important and what should be avoided. You can even vote for or against candidates if you look at their records carefully (or have had other dealings with them). Even if you decide not to be an admin, there's sometimes good advice for improving the quality of your work, your temperament, and the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. Rigadoun (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)c =2008=

fr:Bonaparte franchissant les Alpes
Bonjour

I have begin the french version of your article Bonaparte Crossing the Alps, and added somes informations from french references. fr:user:Kirtap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.130.53 (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AK-47 FAR
Hi. You need to contact the main editors of the AK-47 article letting them know about the FAR. From the article stats, User:Asams10, User:Parsecboy, User:DanMP5, and User:LWF appear to be the most likely to be involved. If you could let them know, that would be great. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sure. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit War on American Telephone & Telegraph/Bell System articles
An IP user has started an edit war on two articles: American Telephone & Telegraph and Bell System. This user was known for causing an edit war on the AT&T article last year, and comments regarding his behavior are found on my talk page (here) as well as archives of the AT&T talk page ([]). Anyway, I consulted the WP:Edit War article about what to do, so I thought I would let an administrator know. Since this user has a new IP address every time they edit these pages, it's hard to even try to communicate directly with the user, and they have never adopted a user account. Basically, the user disagrees that AT&T Inc. and AT&T Corporation (no longer independent or publicly traded) are not the same company and thinks they have been the same all along since 1885, something that has been a root of problems with this user since summer 2007 when the hostile anonymous edits regarding the topic on AT&T began. The current problems lie with the Bell System and American Telephone & Telegraph articles, as this user has pretty much left the AT&T article alone since summer 2007. KansasCity (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on the topic. The line comes in on whether he is purely causing disruption, or whether he genuinely disagrees with what the article content is. I will look further into this matter, and will work on making the appropriate action based on what I see. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Myself and two other users do disagree with the information presented in several articles regarding the Bell System. The current debate is over the status of AT&T Corporation, which is a legal subsidiary of AT&T, Inc and sells long distance service (including my own long distance service).  Several months ago another user (unknown to me) reflected this information but user Kansas City changed the info stating (not on the talk page but in the history of edits) that people need to stop rewriting AT&T history.  His argument is that they are indeed a legal subsidiary but realistically they are a "holding shell".  The bottom line is they are a currently functioning legal subsirary and not a defunct company.  What is a legal subsidiary and what is an opinion? The user has not even attepted to start a dialogue on this issue with any of us and simply calls us vandals.  All of these "Baby Bells" were formed & incorporated by AT&T, Corp in 1983 and became independent after the break-up.  They all have a tie to the original companies hitsory!  It appears that user Kansas City has an agenda to keep the SBC name alive when indeed the new AT&T has dropped the name and uses the 1885 Company as THEIR own history on the corporate web site (which I put a link to and was also removed by Kansas City).  Having contacted reps at AT&T, they also concur that they have adopted the company name, stock ticker, and history and consider the company's history starting with Alexander Bell. Would also like to add a reference http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=7958 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.168.46 (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is where this has become technical. The history page this user is referring to, http://www.corp.att.com/history/milestones.html, was the history page of AT&T Corporation and can still be reached today. However, there are no links to guide you there from http://www.att.com, and you have to manually type in /history after att.com to get there. It hasn't been updated since 2005, the last event listed is that SBC announced its acquisition of AT&T Corporation, and it is pretty clear that this page is not meant as the history page of AT&T Inc., otherwise it would probably have dates on its timeline to present day. Why it still exists could be for many reasons, but most likely it is still there because it was transferred to SBC's servers from AT&T's and was just left alone, or may not even be known to still exist. Many acquired companies are listed as defunct on Wikipedia because they no longer exist as active or independently operating companies. Take for example Ameritech - it still legally exists as AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., but there has never been a press release stating it is releasing new products, services, etc as a holding company since its acquisition by SBC. Its Bell Operating Companies, the telephone operating companies, however, are listed as releasing new services, agreements, etc. under their d/b/a names, such as AT&T Illinois for Illinois Bell. The holding company AT&T Teleholdings simply serves as a holding shell and really has no other purpose anymore. The same for AT&T Corporation - the company that provides the IP user's long distance service is AT&T Communications, which was also incorporated in 1983-1984 and was the long distance operating company of AT&T Corporation. The holding company doesn't provide the services, it just serves as a holding company owned by AT&T Inc. for AT&T Communications and AT&T Alascom. Just because someone at AT&T Inc. says that the current AT&T uses the former AT&T history doesn't make it a fact that AT&T Inc. was founded in 1885. The fact is that the current AT&T Inc., formerly named SBC, was incorporated in 1983, and this cannot be disputed as there are Securites & Exchange Commission documents which prove this as correct, something sourced on the AT&T page. SBC wasn't going around using the history of American Telephone & Telegraph just because it was formerly associated with it. Just because they say that their corporate roots can trace to Alexander Graham Bell doesn't mean that it technically was founded back then. My stating that AT&T Inc. was formerly named SBC on the Bell System page isn't because I have some "agenda to keep the SBC name alive", it is because it is a fact that AT&T Inc. was formerly named SBC Communications, just as Verizon was formerly named Bell Atlantic. KansasCity (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What is interesting here is that the whole argument just made by Kansas City is about AT&T, Inc being incorporated in 1983. No one is denying that. Yes, technically AT&T Corp formed seven holding companies in 1983 to prepare for the break-up. In 1984, those companies broke away and became independent. It incredible that Kansas City says you can't find any of the history I refered to, but when I went to their web site and clicked "Corporate Info" and found all sorts of company history including this bit of information: "AT&T is bringing it all together for our customers, from the revolutionary iPhone to next-generation TV services.

For more than a century, we have consistently provided innovative, reliable, high-quality products and services and excellent customer care. Today, our mission is to connect people with their world, everywhere they live and work, and do it better than anyone else." http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=5711

Hmm..that is intersting. Like I said the company itself claims the entire history dating back to Bell. All of these companies share the same history and display it on their corporate web sites. But enough of that, the real issue is the staus of AT&T Corp, which is a subsidiary of AT&T not a defunct company. Their web site also clearly states that as well. It seems that Kansas City wants to deny verifibale facts found at AT&T's own web site and basically thinks his opinions should drive all Bell Syetm articles. For some reason, I guess he feels he "owns" these articles and again he seems to have an agenda to splash the "SBC" name where ever he can. Once again, I stand by the following facts: 1) AT&T, Inc was incorporated in 1983 by AT&T Corp as they were forming holding companies prior to the break-up 2) AT&T, Inc uses the century old history of the company as their own 3) The company called AT&T, Corp is an existing subsidiary that does long distance and international business. 4) There is no need to continually put "formerly SBC Communications" when that info is available in the article and the company itself has abandoned that name.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 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) 23:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP:IU block of User:King of wiki
Hi, It looks very much to me that your block of User:King of wiki involves an overinterpretation of WP:IU, and that the lack of discussion and heavy handed block is a case of biting the newcomer. I have requestested an unblock on his talk page. If he comes back, we should welcome him, not make things difficult. He made a small number of tests, partly self-reverted, appears to have made a number of good-faith attempted contributions, and should be better treated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It is not a misinterpretation. I advise you see a history of the various chanegs to username policy, as well as perhaps a log of RFCN requests. User names like this, which promote authority, are not taken lightly, and a block here was unquestionably warranted. My action was not bitey, nor overenthusiastic. I was neither quick nor slow to block. I blocked. It was not biting the newcomer, because he, firstly, cannot ever change his username, and so would not "mature" out of it, and two, he would have been blocked eventually be someone else, whether next week or next year. Before you make such heavy accusations, I hope you more thoroughly review the current username policy, as well as its history and the currently accepted standards of username. Good day. --  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am well familiar with Username policy. Could you point me to the version you wish me to refer to?  I am not familiar with a “log of RFCN requests”.  Where is it, and what would you have me read there?  I consider that the username in question did not seriously promote an illusion of authority comparable to the potential bite felt by a new user on logging in to find himself block and a bold message on his talk page.  My questioning of your block, per se, proves that the block is questionable.  A better action, in my opinion, would be to leave a non-confrontational message on his talk page and wait for him to return.  I have looked carefully at this situation, and one thing I will point out is that you have a record of being quick with the trigger.  Personally, I believe that Please do not bite the newcomers should be taken much more seriously.  Not all wikipedians hit the ground running as well as you did.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, Joe, I have a record of being quick with the trigger. 11 months back. And its not about being new. Its not about his edits. He could be a fantastic asset to Wikipedia. It's his username thats the problem. So, in accordance with commonly accepted policy (seen here at U, and RFCN), I blocked him. However, he has the option of quite easily creating a new account. The door is wide open. The message I sent him was friendly, plenty of people who use that templated post have made sure of that. I am not biting a newcomer. Because, even if he was an oldcomer, he would have been blocked for his username. End of story. I would also point out that since your questioning is based on a faulty interpretation of policy, the block is not questionable to anyone but you. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the block, and I believe it was appropriate (as has Sam Korn, apparently). · AndonicO  Engage. 15:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * After a review of the contributions, I don't see any reason why the King of wiki, shouldn't have been blocked. I am well acquainted with the username policy, and I third the sanction against the username. Due to the extent of disruption of the user's credentials (which was self-imposed), the account would have become blocked anyway. With username blocks, as AD has pointed out above, the account creation has not been blocked, so (s)he can create an account any time. If that particular user is here to contribute constructively, we may be able to see that in their future contributions. Regards, Rudget   (Help?) 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi AD, I see that I am not agreed with 4-0, but regardless, I am still concerned. Can you be more specific about how the username violates WP:IU? The fact that you regard this action as routine only worries me further. Have you ever been (mis)blocked? It’s a very intimidating experience. Then, being faced with a bureaucratic series of actions laid in front of you, it’s only more intimidating. Was there a discussion about this user at RFCN? I looked. I did see that you close discussions that you participate in. Doesn’t look good. Being quick with the trigger is not necessarily a bad thing, and I am not familiar with any specific incident 11 months ago. I am also concerned that you, AndonicO and Rudget don’t even seem to see any cause for any level of concern. Can you three comment on a the more extreme case of User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12. Was anything done wrong, or is the simple execution of indef blocks based on WP:U nothing to ever worry about? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only concern I see here is that there is one editor who, even when told so by four administrators, does not turn to consider that he may, in fact, be wrong. There is nothing further to say here, and I frankly don't have the time to go running around in circles with you. It's become fairly obvious that even if the entire admin quota of Wikipedia came and old you that you were incorrect, you'd still push your point. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I close RFCN debates because no-one else has come along to do it. Forgive me for wanting to make sure that the process is punctual and efficient. You may also note that I have never been pulled up for any of my RFCN closures. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing so efficient as a dictatorship? I don't see why RFCN closes are matters of urgency, especially in cases where the user has never edited.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, think of it this way. If someone named "King of wiki" told you to stop disrupting because you were wrong and had been told so by reasonable people, would you do so? A new user almost certainly would—his username simply implies too much authority. That's why it (the username, not the person) was blocked. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that would be pretty gullible. You don't have to look around very much to see that people have all sorts of crazy names.  Also note that wiki (lowercase) mean fast, and there is an irony here that AD blocks someone for being "King of fast".  This case was not a blatant violation of WP:IU, and should have been subject to discussion at RFCN.  Secondly, the message given could have been much better.  Looking deeper, I see that this issue is not specific to AD, that implementation of WP:IU and RFCN has a history of documented criticism (eg ), and that reform is overdue.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course. The "everyone else is wrong" approach. I wonder what it would take to make you concede, Joe. Should I call Wales himself to look in? No, actually, that would be silly. Because 4 admins and one highly respected editor have already informed you that you are unquestionably wrong. There is no irony in "King of fast"; if his name was "King of wiki wiki, then it would have been King of fast, but this is "King of wiki". To a minor new to the project, this could be easily misconstrued as a title rather than a username, and that the user had been bestowed the title of "King of Wiki". What's up next? Oh yes, your assertion that all admins now implement the policy incorrectly. Who's next, Joe? The whole of Wikipedia? RFCN was nominated for deletion because a few users had a concern that the process was dysfunctional. It was not a direct concern relating to the misinterpretation of the username policy. The only irony I see here is that you say that the name should obviously have been taken to RFCN, but then you later critique the process further on in the same comment! At the end of the day, SmokeyJoe, every single factor relevant to this discussion points to you being wrong. The main problem, as far as I can see, is that you cannnot accept your error. After 5 editors, 4 of whom are administrators elected for their knowledge of the username policy (among others) say you are wrong, you still persist with this futile debate. When policy says you are wrong, you cry foul and say that policy itself needs reform! I'm sorry, but you are blatantly wasting my time here. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is finished. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Joe, I would invite you to raise the issue at WP:ANI or WP:RFCN for wider discussion of administrators/people knowledgeable re. the username policy. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the appropriate place to continue is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names. This is an issue of policy, practice and principles.  There is no issue of an isolated issue worth space at ANI.  It’s not so much that anyone is doing anything wrong, but that things can be done better.  I regret that in writing bluntly I have caused offense, failed to communicate what I meant to communicate, and that this discussion has gone badly.  I intend to try to state my opinions without reference to individuals or individual actions in the hope of a more hormonious discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you wish to question policy, and attempt to make a reform that is, perhaps, needed, then that is your affair. I am simply no longer interested in being told I am wrong when it has become obvious that, by policy, as it is written now, I am not. I may even participate in your discussions regarding change in the policy; I don't think anyone denies that the policy relevant to this discourse is in need of some touch-ups and updating. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback by me just now
Hi, see this where I rolled you back. I think the situation arrived at after some discussion is probably where things should remain... If you disagree, let's talk further. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no need to talk further, the way it is seems fine to me. I just came across it and noticed that it wasn't formatted as a typical blocked user page is, that's all. And I'm a stickler for conformity. ;) -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries, just wanted to let you know. A stroll through the history of the page is instructive, there was a lot of churn. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks then. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 16:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:The Ohsunnysgod And Hiderek Workers Party
Hi. I am considering unblocking this user on the (quite reasonable) grounds that the above phrase is a nonsense phrase rather than anything promotional. Have you any strong opinions? Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was never about it being promotional. It was about the fact that its 41 characters long. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Do you think you might have mentioned your reasoning to the user, then, considering it appears neither in the message nor the username policy?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is inferred (not good enough reaosning on its own) in the policy, under the disruptive username section; I consider a username of that length disruptive. Also, names with characters of the order of 40+ letters are frequently reported by both humans and bots to UAA. If you cannot block a username fairly for length, someone would likely have complained about the bot's actions by now, no? A customised message would have been a good idea, I just guess my memory is sketchy, I haven't read for months. --  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 16:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the username is long, I noticed it because I had seen the "Hiderek" name before and knew there was a sockpuppeteer (Hiderek1) with that name. I looked at the contributions of Ohsunnysgod and the vandalism was almost identical to that of Hiderek. As The Ohsunnysgod And Hiderek Workers Party contains these two names, I thought the name was disruptive and reported it to UAA. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 19:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed? Well, then, all the more reason, I guess. It's done now though. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad/Decorations
Hello AD. How are you? Will it be appropriate to include User:Newyorkbrad/Decorations in the talk page of NYB? NYB has received many awards from fellow Wikipedians. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ma main man!
Just the guy I'm looking for :D Would you post the DYK update please? It's five hours late. Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, Borgqueen got it. Amazing how people suddenly turn up just when I begin notifying folks :) Thanks anyhow AD. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to shoot down that Blnguyen guy. He always gets there first! -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise book
The book discusses various matters at length and at Cirt's request, I cited them at length. The problem here is that Cirt decided, amidst the press attention the book received before its release, that descriptions of its contents were unverifiable or disputable, and now refuses to change that position when anyone in the US and Canada can get the book at a store or library. This is a position that seems to apply in no other articles about publicly available literary works, including other Scientology-related works. WillOakland (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially, you need to cite all claims likely to do that. If you can't do that, they need to be removed. A fairly simple rule. So if Cirt comes along and challenges a statement, you have two choices: remove the material, or reference it. Simple. The same goes, though. If the material is properly referenced, Cirt has no authority to take it away. With that knowledge, I hope you two can solve the issue. It really is that simple. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Template_talk:See_also
Template_talk:See_also Gary King ( talk ) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Gary, it's not a complete sentence so it doesn't need a full stop/period/whatever you want to call it. Per WP:MOS, "See also: X, Y and Z" is a nominal group and doesn't require the punctuation.  Can you revert your own change, or, at least, discuss it first?  I would imagine that template is used in tens of thousands of articles... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, my eyes missed this section altogether. I'm happy to undo my change, and have done so. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB comments and request for advice
Hi, AD. I'll ask you this here, not on the RfB page, as it includes a request for advice. With the first RfB specifically mentioning a lack of RfA participation as the primary issue, what would your advice be as to how I should have addressed it? Yes, I do truly think I would help the project as a bureaucrat, otherwise, I would not subject myself to the process. It really is not fun; but it is necessary to ensure that bureaucrats remain trusted. If I didn't think I would be an asset to wikipedia as a bureaucrat, I would not want to go through the process of having every facet of my wiki history being analyzed--one oppose did come from 21 months ago :). It's the fact that I think RfA, renames, and bot flags (especially considering the flux in the bot approval process) are in need of more help that convinced me to resubmit a nomination. As for the time interval, I based the time interval on Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3 which had the exact same problem. We have had so few bureaucrats promoted in the past couple of years, that certain processes are often backlogged, and thus I'm truly interested to hear you suggestions and advice, and I appreciate both the kind way in which you phrased your oppose and your interest and concern about the process. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above comment kind of epitomises why I was so reluctant to oppose. Your tactical attitude and skills in discourse are an asset to you and I am sure will be an asset to Wikipedia as a whole should you be promoted. I just think that Ryan P. has brought up some relevant points in his opposition statement. We quite clearly have a surplus of bureaucrats attending to the RFA process, but there is a considerable backlog, at times, in the username area. I appreciate that you wanted to address, specifically, the concerns as identified in your previous RFA. However, Your participation, or lack thereof, in RFA, was never my problem, personally, despite my oppose at the first RfB. To be honest, my views have changed since then. I now feel that participation by bureaucrats at tht forum is sufficient, and more. You would have found my name on the support side had you instead focused on the username "arena", as you so accurately call it :P, which is a place where further bureaucrat attention is needed. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I replied to serisin, I hope I get the opportunity to definitively ease your reluctance :) Personally, I was of the opinion that there was less need for non-crat participation at WP:CHU, where community opinion is much less important, as opposed to RfA, but I have been known to be wrong (at times :) ). Regardless, thank you for the quick response, the advice, and for sharing your opinion as to what is important to the project. Even if my RfB fails, it is comments such as yours that will help the next successful candidate be a better asset to the project. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Further: I suppose that it all comes back to a slightly rebellious attitude, which is what I am, myself looking for in a 'crat. Not the normal, not the stereotyped and designed 'crat-hopeful. Someone who is very rational, and who had clue, and can really inject common sense if needed, even if it means swimming upstream and turning away from popular view. I don't mean to belittle your contribution in the latter sentences, but I feel that you have addressed the concerns from your last RfB to address the concerns from your last RfB, not because it was necessarily the sensible thing to do. To me, we already have enough "RFA" 'crats. More activity by bureaucrats there is not needed, so, in my view, you decided to swim with the other fish and do what was needed to satisfy the opposition when you initiated your spurt of RFA activity. I guess that kind of 'crat is just not what I am looking for. Good luck, nonetheless, Avraham. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK update
...is several hours late again, if you'd like to do it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks dude. Gatoclass (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock please
Could you unprotect this article please? I can't even understand why you protected it 4 months as the explanation is not clear nor why it remains protected now 4 months later. Thanks.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There article has, in the past, been subject to a vast amount of unabated vandalism. The semi-protection will remain for now. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 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) 06:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maltese Articles
Yeah dude i realised that the project wasn't functioning. I really can't manage on my own. I need an administrator to help me with the merging of certain articles. This summer i plan to eliminate all the geography stubs. Those are easy to expand if you have the time ;). After i finish my exams i'll certainly expand them. Regarding biography stub. Some of them are certainly not notable and in my opinion should be deleted (ex. Eileen Micallef) . Of course the fact that i have to ask admin's everytime to do what i need them to do is slowing a lot my work. The fact that there is no maltese administrator is also sad. Unfortunately i don't have enough edits to have the requirements for an administrator, so i have to wait until i get enough experience. Thanks for your reply. Anyway if you really want to help with the project (can you please see Nadur, Attard and see the merging proposals i'm doing. Thanks --Gian (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks
Hello, AD.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'Failsafe - What We Are Today Cover.jpg Image
Hello, just wanted confirmation on the reason for removing Failsafe - What We Are Today Cover.jpg from Failsafe (UK band). I assume you removed it since it was an album cover, not a band photo. Ta. Lastsal (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You assume correctly, then. It was not appropriate to illustrate the band article. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 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) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU/OC
Hello. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. With the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You will also need to add to your userpage in order for SoxBot V to automatically update your online/offline status. If you do not added this text, you will always be listed as "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey Anonymous Dissident. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!
Hi there! I remember you from the Simple English Wikipedia! Well, I am the Razorflame from the Simple English Wikipedia! I would like to ask you a question. How do you think I did on my Copyedit to the article Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador? Cheers, Razorfl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 01:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you know that I actually don't like copyediting long articles, as I believe that it takes too long? That article is probably one of the longest articles that I have copyedited.  Most of the articles that I like to copyedit are only 1,000-3,000 bytes in size, so that one was a stretch for me.  Cheers, <b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b><b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 01:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

<b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b><b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thank you for your kind words on my talk page! <b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b><b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 01:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Crat ship
So I was thinking about dropping an > here since I think you'd make a good crat. Any feelings from you on the matter?  MBisanz  talk 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Need a co-nom? · AndonicO  Engage. 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree! But no co-noms please.  Al Tally  talk  22:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Sorry MBisanz, you heard the man. ;) · AndonicO  Engage. 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you'd want to run or not, but I'd like to say that I think you'd be a great bureaucrat, Anonymous Dissident. Acalamari 22:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your expressions of support, and extra thank you to MBisanz for offering to nominate me. Although your offer is very kind, I think I would prefer to perhaps wait some time until I am sure I am ready and have the necessary experience to take on this hefty mantle, and to be sure that the community would be able to trust me with this access. So, I will decline for now, but, should you remain willing, perhaps review the situation in a few months and take it from there. Thank you once again for this most generous offer. Best, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

AnonDiss, IM me ASAP. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Just remember, there are some wikipedians who worry about people who are "obviously gunning" for 'cratship, even if they have been asked by any number to run. If you do decide, you may want to hang around WP:CHU for a while; I've heard it's a good idea :) -- Avi (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * EVula seems to be doing ok with basically no experience there. I personally think it's a rather unpleasant area and would never edit there even if I wanted bureaucratship desperately. AD will pass based on his good judgement and personality rather than pointless edits made just to make a fussy voter happier.  Al Tally  talk  19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying I have a personality problem? (Just pulling your leg, Al :) ). -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He's done plenty of work at RFPP, UAA, and RFC/NAME, too. · AndonicO  Engage. 19:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
(Cross posted at User talk:Anonymous Dissident, User talk:Daniel, and User talk:Keeper76.)

As it's something you've expressed an interest in, you might want to see my most recent comment here—the "I'm going to go ping a few people now about this" refers to the people this has been cross-posted to (though I am appreciative of everyone else, who knows who they are!).

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

heads up
Three people (myself included) have expressed confusion about your wording here, if you could clarify one way or the other what you meant it would be helpful. --Random832 (contribs) 17:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 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) 07:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

=2009=

Change of Nickname
Hello, could you please change my nickname from Alakbaroff to NovaSkola and is it going to have effect on my login? User:Alakbaroff 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Alakbaroff. I'd be very happy to rename you, but it would be best if you lodged a request at WP:CHU for the sake of process and archival. All that will happen is that you'll have to login as NovaSkola from now on – your password and other details will remain the same. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action!!User:NovaSkola I was wondering, how you can make articles semi protected?

Quick request
From what I've seen (particularly at Lake Manzala), you seem to be rather good at digging up little bits of hidden info; do you think you could take a look at Sprout Creek to see if I'm missing anything? Any help is appreciated. Cheers, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do like to have a forage. I'll have a look around for additional information. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Typo?
"asseverations"? Frank |  talk  15:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No typo. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * asseveration – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyking
I think your statement on Everyking is misleading. In particular: "His actions were issued with an assiduous deference to Wikipedia policy, he demonstrated a marked diligence and care in his administrative duties, and he was, in general, an asset to the team. The previous is all but undisputed; even the body that saw fit to strip him of his status conceded as much – unanimously."

If you look at the ArbCom, you will see: "Failure to familiarize himself with the facts before commenting". That happens to suggest that he is not doing his job as an admin. No admin who blocks, deletes, protects, etc, that fails to familiarize himself with the facts of the case is acceptable. The only thing ArbCom said is that he did the -technical- things correct, but not the nuanced things correct. There is a major difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant to refer to those technical aspects – hence the link to that section and not any other section. Take it or leave it, Ottava; you've opposed, and so be it. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn right I opposed. Anyone who trashes Raul in such a disgusting manner has utter contempt for this place. Anyone who trashes Jimbo and makes such rants as this shouldn't be here. Hell, I would link some really nasty stuff, but it is hidden from unregistered view. I am deeply troubled that you would think that Everyking should be a candidate for anything but an immediate ban. He has made it clear that he wont be happy unless Wiki is burning. I would honesty trust Poetlister before I could ever, ever, trust Everyking, and everyone knows my thoughts about Poetlister. But yeah, Everyking thought it was clever and great to claim that Slimvirgin was responsible for Poetlister, even though Poetlister stalked her across many names and gamed the system in the most egregious fashion. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Be as deeply troubled as you like. Your opinion is your opinion; evidently, it's not everyone's opinion. Please try to respect that, rather than haranguing supporters as though you're the only well-informed person participating in the RfA. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If everyone decided to agree with Everyking, then I would support the removal of everyone. We are focused on the encyclopedia, and we must do what is best for the encyclopedia. Consensus does not override this. Jimbo is important. ArbCom is important. To have them constantly attacked in such a vicious manner over something -he- is responsible for is really inappropriate. That isn't opinion. That is fact. And seeing as how many of the supporters aren't regulars, even Wikipedia Review was able to state that they were probably canvassed in early support. Everyking didn't deny that after all. So, why would canvassed friends bother to acknowledge the obvious? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Were the 180 people who supported Everyking 4 canvassed too? &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was heavy canvassing on both sides. Any vote in which there are more than 60 people total in 7 days tend to be canvassed. We had a big discussion about it at WT:RFA, and people basically agreed that nothing can be done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you so much for dropping the "S" from my username.  Caden  is cool  10:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Color SU(3)
Looks OK. I made one small change and added one sentence/ref that I think should really be there - it's needed to connect the paragraph's statement with the section title, which, after all, includes "Strong interactions". Markus Poessel (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did make those changes for a reason – as briefly sketched in the accompanying log entry. The current version once more sounds weird in several respects. Where to start? "gauge symmetries" as "a kind of symmetry group" - when I hear the latter, I think of group properties. The fact that it's gauge is something on a different level - it's when you take a symmetry group (any symmetry group) and make it local. It's not a group property, it's about how you implement the group action. About "the gauge symmetry that mediates the color charge" - in what way does it "mediate"? Also, once more this is potentially confusing: why is the fact that it's a gauge symmetry important here? In addition, you deleted my attempt to explain where the gauge part comes in: with the gluons, the related gauge bosons. If you leave that part out, you're leaving out the part that explains (a) why the "gauge" part in "gauge symmetry" is important and (b) what it means that this symmetry "is the defining symmetry" for QCD. As for the "SU(3)_c was introduced" part: is that true? It sounds a bit off, and I couldn't find anything justifying that formulation in the reference (Han 2004, p. 78) you're citing – that page doesn't appear to say anything about the way this SU(3) was actually discovered, as far as I can see. Finally, "the other members of the symmetry are fundamentally associated with this set" - no, not with the quarks themselves. You're taking an attribute of the representation that is associated with the quarks, and making it sound like it's an attribute of those quarks themselves. All in all, I think that your changes have introduced exactly the kind of problematic statements that I'd been trying to get rid off in my previous version. Markus Poessel (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You left out that 3) should not be too long. Without this, 1) and 2) wouldn't be as much of a problem... oh, and 4) encyclopedic style. When I go for 1) and 2) I sometimes end up sounding too much like a popular-science book. Some comments that will hopefully bring us closer to the requirements:

"Quark colors are not uniquely defined: The choice of which state represents a blue, green or red quark, respectively, is as arbitrary as the choice of three coordinate axes x,y,z in three-dimensional space" - you say this is redundant, but I don't think so. It's one thing to say that blue, green and red are arbitrary names for the three quark colors - which is, as far as I can see, you are referring to when you're saying this is already stated earlier in the text. It's quite another thing to say that the three concepts you're arbitrarily assigning color names to aren't even uniquely defined - it's a three-dimensional space; which three directions in this space you choose to call "blue", "green" and "red" is arbitrary. Rotate the directions you've chosen, and you have another set of directions you can give those three names to. This is important, and I think it needs to be stated here.

Then, the gluons: "One crucial property of the SU(3)c is that it is a local or gauge symmetry. For such a symmetry, not only is there one arbitrary choice to make when choosing a specific color scheme. The choice of scheme is allowed to vary from location to location – one choice of colors here, another scheme there. However, the mathematical formulation of the theory only admits this local symmetry when certain additional fields are introduced. These fields are those of the gluons, the carrier particles of the strong force."

I'm pretty sure this is better than before; is it good enough, though? Markus Poessel (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the importance of the concepts you're trying to introduce, but I wager we might want to word them a little less verbosely and a little less informally ("one choice of colors here, another scheme there" is an example of too informal). I'll try and think of another wording somewhat based on what you've given above, and you can tell me what you think. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's part of what I was talking about — that's the somewhat informal style I use for popular-science writing. By all means, let's iterate this and see if we can find something that meets all the necessary conditions. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just realised I didn't reply here. It's among my top priorities to do this, but I've been a bit ill of late, so things are running slowly. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Penny Venetian Red

 * Yes, very good, but what on earth does that plate configuration describe? Yomangani talk 17:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, ideally, it gives the reader some clue about what the article means when it says "the top corner letters identified the position on the plate". I mean, the image gives the view of one stamp, but without the plate configuration table, we hardly have context about the positions. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 11 May 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<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 · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Crat?
Wow, didn't know you became a crat, good luck..it seems there is still a little bit of faith left in this wiki :) ...--Warpath (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Closure of BQZip01's RfA
Hi Anonymous Dissident, just one little question... I noticed that you closed BQZip01's RfA and recorded it here as unsuccessful. I thought that "unsuccessful" meant that "the candidate received fewer support than oppose votes", yet the RfA appears to have 75 support !votes and 38 oppose !votes. Consequently, wouldn't the annotation "consensus not reached" (meaning "the candidate received at least as many support as oppose votes, but support was deemed by bureaucrats to be insufficient") be more appropriate and accurate than "unsuccessful"? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, unsuccessful mean that it didn't pass. RfA has never been defined by 50%, in fact the 'crat descretionary range is generally viewed at around 70-75%.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) it states at the top of the page:
 * "Comments on the descriptions listed:
 * unsuccessful means the candidate received fewer support than oppose votes
 * consensus not reached means the candidate received at least as many support as oppose votes, but support was deemed by bureaucrats to be insufficient"
 * I am not suggesting RfA has ever been decided on 50% (nor should it be). I just thought that since there are descriptions given for each comment, it is desirable for the comments to be used consistently with those descriptions.  EdChem (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would then argue that the wording needs to be changed. This page was initially an essay established by a single user, so his interpretation of the wording are contained therein.  I think the general community view is that anything less than 65-70% is unsuccessful.  And 65+ would be where consensus comes into play.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that definitely needs to be revised. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I reworded it and then made a post to WT:RFA.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)... A few facts...
 * The above quoted categories have been used without change from February 28 of this year
 * Prior to this edit by Xeno the "unsuccessful" category was labelled "failed", but the descriptors of the categories were the same
 * The failed / consensus not reached was used from January 2006 until the renaming of the failed category in February 2009.
 * In other words, these categories have been used for nearly 3 and a half years without any change.
 * This edit by I'm Spartacus! from earlier today is a redefinition of these categories. Unlike the earlier change by Xeno, it does not deal with the consequence that every RfA presently categorised as consensus not reached needs to be checked to see where it falls with the new definition.  The new formulation also implies that all RfA's with less than 70% support will fail, yet that is inconsistent with the decision process which states: "most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion".  There is discretion to promote with less than 70% support.
 * I propose that I'm Spartacus!'s change be reverted, BQZip01's RfA be appropriately described, and a discussion held in a more appropriate place to see whether there should be any change to the practice that has been adopted at Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) for over three years. EdChem (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to make the argument at WT:RFA where I raised the question. But my suspicion is that people are going to go for a change---my wording may not be the final wording, but what is there is clearly wrong.  As for my wording, I used "about 70%" for unsuccessful because it is not a hard rule.  And I clearly indicated that the 70-75% range could be higher or lower---again, because it could be higher or lower.  I think the reason why nobody has really more to do with the fact that nobody else has really raised the question/challenged the wording.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think a definition matters, really. Any definition one can contrive for "unsuccessful" will always be secondary to the real meaning of the word – the RfA did not pass, therefore it was unsuccessful. I'm glad to see that it's been changed. I don't think a distinction between "no consensus" and "unsuccessful" needs to be drawn either way: you pass or you don't. This is a binary relationship, so there should be two (not three) possible "results". &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I changed it back. While I think it should be changed, a review of the past 8 months indicated that for the most part 'crats had consistently used the definition above.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh lordy. Don't tell me I'm causing more WP:DRAMA... :-) I saw the change on the RfA page and thought "hmmm...I wonder if something was brought up on his talk page. I think simple guidelines are a great way to go and, for the sake of consistency, I think they are fine the way they were...or the way they are. In either case, it helps define what we're talking about. I think "generally" is the better term to be used. A Bureaucrat could conceivably shut down an RfA with >80% support as "unsuccessful" or <60% as "successful" by citing WP:IAR anyway. In short, just stick with the current guidelines on such phrasing and it will reduce the potential for OMG DRAMAZ.
 * On a related topic, I support AD's actions on the subject (no matter the phrasing). It is well within his discretion to make such a call one way or another. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds May newsletter
The May 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.
 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  06:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

New Name
Wow, that was fast. Thanks very much Anonymous Dissident. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<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 · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Flying Toaster RfA
I'm guessing you've heard about the controversy following the Flying Toaster RFA but I think you want to see Bureaucrats'_noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me, Ricky. I have recently posted my thoughts there. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, you have my support 100%. To call for you to resign the bit for doing your job properly is lunacy. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, EVula. It certainly helps when esteemed colleagues provide their support. :-) &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and I thought I'd add my two cents to their support too! ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You also have my full support. You did nothing wrong. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kingturtle. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
To avoid the noise, I'll ask this on your talk page. If someone in RL says that a process has gone wrong, do you know what they mean? I think you betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of my point back there. Best Peter Damian (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Help for template
Hello, I've seen your name on the project template and I permis myself to ask you help: I've just created a new portal Portal:Lyon and I would like to create the templates for the subways, trams, bus. They already exist on the french wikipedia of Lyon metro for example. would you accept to help me ? Thank you Lulu97417 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to help you, but I'm not sure if I'm clear on what you're requesting that I do. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WaveRunner85
I have run into a new user named User:WaveRunner85 and he seems to have blown my anonymity and he knows who I am. Is there anything you can do about it? I'm considering approaching a bureaucrat to switch usernames. Wi re le ss Key boa rd ( t a l k ) 21:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed username
Hey, I think you were the one that recently changed my username to Xhaoz, and I am trying to log in to that account but it keeps giving me a database error. Is that normal? Annuit Cœptis (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you describe the error? &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 04:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here's the message I'm getting:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

from within function " ". MySQL returned error " ".

Thanks again! Annuit Cœptis (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll contact the developers. This is a frequent bug, it seems. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a common error, though it's not related to the username change. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd not be so sure. It seems to be an error with the relocation of edits and the "unregistry" of usernames after a change. See also: bugzilla 17313. What do you think it is, JC? &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, nevermind, it works now. I guess it was just delayed a bit, haha. Xhaoz   Talk  15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Spin
Ignoring angular momenta ("sum of the spins of the component quarks") was one part of what was wrong. Also, gluons make a small contribution. Cf. e.g. the section "The nucleon spin puzzle" in http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/32527 - actually, that means that the statement made earlier, about the valence quarks being those quarks accounting for the quantum numbers, is also iffy. After all, spin is a quantum number; in this case, something that is generated very dynamically. Markus Poessel (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But valence quarks are defined as the quarks contributing quantum numbers, right (I may actually be wrong, so do correct me)? Unless you have a citation otherwise, the "iffy"ness is your own opinion. Can we re-instate the spin statement with additional reference to angular momenta and gluons? &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Valence quarks are certainly responsible for quantum numbers such as isospin, strangeness etc., but as the article I've cited above shows, spin is more complicated. It's a quantum number, but the total spin of the hadron is generated dynamically, with gluons and quarks, spin and orbital angular momenta contributing. Which shows that this is not just my own opinion: A valid definition of "valence quark" must incorporate these facts. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Slapsnot (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 25 May 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
 * News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
 * Discussion report: 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

<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 · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Color confinement
My problem with the old version was that, to me, it read somewhat disjointed - as if it had been written piece-meal, and later paragraphs added by someone who didn't read the first ones. How about a compromise: a brief introductory paragraph that, in two or three sentences, gives the gist of it all, and then the background information in the order it's currently in? Markus Poessel (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I'm just not sure how it would look. To be honest, my opinion is that the old version is quite a lot like what you're describing: it starts off with a general description of color confinement before getting into the nitty gritty of gluons and asymptotic freedom. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given it a try. Tell me what you think. Markus Poessel (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny. I was simultaneously working on a version of my own. I like the idea of what you've done – it makes sense to summarise it. However, I think the introduction is too general. Realistically, you're just outlining the points that are to follow without cause (ie. when you say [and I don't quote verbatim]: "the peculiar properties of the strong interaction cause a, b, c and d, e, f are also consequences of the strong interaction.") I know it's nice to kind of have that – but that's why we have the article's lead section. Each section shouldn't have a lead if that lead only consists of a checklist-like mention of what is to follow. I hope I'm making sense. I drafted a new version myself (most of the content retained from your rewrite), as aforementioned. I'll post it here – tell me what you think:
 * ==Color confinement and gluons==
 * A phenomenon called color confinement is thought to keep quarks within hadrons and prevent them from appearing in isolation. As quarks are always confined, most of what is known about them has been indirectly inferred from the effects they have on their parent hadrons. The top quark is an exception to this rule because its lifetime is so short that it does not have a chance to hadronize.
 * A phenomenon called color confinement is thought to keep quarks within hadrons and prevent them from appearing in isolation. As quarks are always confined, most of what is known about them has been indirectly inferred from the effects they have on their parent hadrons. The top quark is an exception to this rule because its lifetime is so short that it does not have a chance to hadronize.


 * Color confinement is propagated by gluons, massless vector gauge bosons. Each gluon carries one color charge and one anticolor charge. In the standard framework of particle interactions (part of a more general formulation known as perturbation theory), gluons are constantly exchanged between quarks through a virtual emission and absorption process. When a gluon is transferred between quarks, a color change occurs in both; for example, if a red quark emits a red–antigreen gluon, it becomes green, and if a green quark absorbs a red-antigreen gluon, it becomes red. Therefore, while a quark's color constantly changes, its strong interaction is preserved.


 * Since gluons carry color charge, they themselves are able to emit and absorb other gluons. This attribute is responsible for asymptotic freedom: as quarks come closer to each other, the chromodynamic binding force between them weakens. Conversely, as the distance between quarks increases, the binding force strenghtens. The color field becomes stressed, much as an elastic band is stressed when stretched, and more gluons of appropriate color are spontaneously created to strengthen the field. Above a certain energy threshold, a new quark-antiquark pair will be created. Thus, any attempt to wrench a quark from a hadron will only result in the formation of new hadrons, and quarks remain permanently confined. 2008 Tevatron results suggest the top quark is an exception to this rule because its lifetime is so short that it does not have a chance to hadronize before decaying into lighter particles.


 * The fact that gluons can emit gluons and exchange gluons with other gluons has led to theories regarding the possible existence of glueballs—objects that are purely made of gluons—despite previous observations indicating that gluons cannot exist without attached quarks.

Thanks, &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did see my introduction more or less as a summary of what was to follow, yes. I've done that in other featured articles I've written, and I think it makes sense that way.


 * Regarding your version, I think there are several misleading statements in it.
 * "A phenomenon called color confinement is thought to keep quarks within hadrons and" - color confinement is the phenomenon, not the cause. This is like writing that imprisonment is thought to keep prisoners within prisons.
 * "Color confinement is propagated by gluons," - gluons do much more; that's why I'm in favour of my more general statement. And since "propagation" has a very specific sense in particle physics, and it's not the sense that is meant in this case, we should probably avoid the word.
 * "Since gluons carry color charge, they themselves are able to emit and absorb other gluons. This attribute is responsible for asymptotic freedom" - well, first of all it is responsible for the other part, namely confinement. That's why the binding is so strong - the binding particles even bind to each other, if you will. Asymptotic freedom is more complicated. Also, you've separated confinement from its explanation. The explanation (force getting stronger, rubber-band-like) is here, but since there are so many issues in between (including asymptotic freedom), a number of readers are in danger of missing that this is the point. This is why there is confinement.
 * "When a gluon is transferred between quarks, a color change occurs in both" - could be mis-read as "in both gluons and quarks" - I like the present formulation much better. Less ambiguous.

All in all, I think your version is losing much of what my version was trying to accomplish - introduce some narrative order, and make the section a proper umbrella for its subsections. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am accepting of the structure of the first subsection (though I will be integrating some of my wording changes), but I must state I'm still unconvinced your introductory statement is worthwhile. I think it's entirely redundant. Imagine a paragraph at the top of the "properties" section saying "quarks have many properties, such as mass, charge, and spin". That would be quite ridiculous. To me, this is exactly the same. Don't waste time and space telling the reader what is to follow just because it looks nice to fill in the space between level 2 and level 3 headers. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm - that was exactly the introductory "gist of it all" paragraph that I thought we had agreed upon earlier. Why the about-face? Markus Poessel (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tfz
Hey thanks for that. &#39;&#39;Tfz&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Omg
I just realized I never came and congratulated you for becoming an uber bureaucrat!!! ~*Big Giant Ariel Hugs*~ Grats, dear! Ariel <font color="F64A8A">♥ Gold  18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words and your support in the RfB, Ariel. As someone I've known since my early days on the site, it meant quite a bit to me to see your presence there. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wild horses couldn't have kept me away :) And, I realize that I did not do my traditional 'Ariel Verbosity' as I usually do when voicing opinions on RfA or RfB, but in your case, it truly was not needed. I could think of nothing that would be better than "Abso-tively!" lol. ~*Hugs*~ Ariel <font color="F64A8A">♥  Gold  00:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ariel Verbosity or no, it was the thought that counted. And, as you note, sometimes conciseness can say it all. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey...
Pssst... – Quadell (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks for letting me know; it slipped under the watchlist radar. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
for taking care of the rename. Cheers, Budding Journalist 07:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Boki m (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

=2010=

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 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) 14:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 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) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 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) 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Name change
User:Lesbianrights needs assistance with a username change. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 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) 18:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Pipes in signatures
tags are automatically removed from the signature field when preferences are saved so in I removed your   suggestion  from MediaWiki:Tog-fancysig. I don't know the reasons to avoid NCR. At Help desk somebody suggested using a pipe-like symbol. That might cause confusion so I prefer the NCR advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:AniMate
Hi, My name is user:M42380. I don't know if you know User:AniMate but I need help with dealing with him. I know that he is admin but I need someone to talk to him about his "attacks" on me. He comes to me and seems like everyday reminding me about simple and little fixes. I reminder him that I don't have the worlds best spelling and I am working on it. But he keeps doing it. I wanted to know if someone could talk to him about it in my favor. His Friendly edits and messages are causing me more stress in my life then I need. Would you please mind talking to him?? Thanks --M42380 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 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) 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)