User talk:Ayla/Archives/2008

Why the Welcome?
The reason that edit was reverted is because it was vandalism. Look at the edit itself. It's a personally attack. The Warning was removed earlier because it was a misunderstanding. --Neverquick (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Neverquick (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ayla,
I. I felt that should respond to this immediately! 1. I affectionately respect Wikipedia; 2. I don’t use word ‘butt-head;’ 3. And I would never wrote that stupid comment about Alexander Hamilton or any other historical or public figure... 17: 15 - Eastern Time - 24 January 2008

II. That was really fast. Thank you Ayla, for clearing my name! Because of that information glitch now I have one. Lesson for everybody: Registration With Wikipedia Is A MUST!! From (now known as) Tsagoy 17: 45 - Eastern Time - 24 January 2008 P.S. I will learn how to sign my comments. Thank you again.

Re: Freddy Moore
Haha; thanks for the heads up on the double userbox :P Hadn't realized. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I got the revision columns mixed up for the first time, thank you for correcting it! Otherwise it would look strange if I had undid a vandalism fixing revision. Texas Patriot (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem; it's not the first time something similar happened to me. Cheers! Ayla (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
- for the user page revert! :-) Scarian Call me Pat  18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion ...?
Hi. I was just wondering if you could take a look at the edit history on Brendan O'Connor (journalist). I saw your report on AIV about someone we both remember from a couple of months ago yesterday, and it dawned on me that there might be a link. Honestly, I'm not sure and it's more than likely that the two aren't connected, but if you could take a look?  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (reply)I ran a traceroute on the IP's just to see if I could narrow them down a bit. They are both on Eircom, but as that is still the biggest telecom company here, that's no surprise. (I just about remember when they were still the Department of Post and Telegraphs and the only telephone company here before privatization.). And they are both in Dublin, but they seem to be in different parts of Dublin. Eircom IPs are dynamically allocated, but  IP ranges are assigned to telephone exchanges, so you can narrow them down a bit. So, I don't think there is a case for a checkuser here.


 * I probably have to choose my words carefully here, but I would expect some vandalism and pov on the Brendan O'Connor article in the normal course of events. (I can however definitely say that I am not a fan. ;) ). The  edit from Brian O'Farrell account, while it definitely was a BLP infraction,  doesn't fit in with the pattern of the guy I have been dealing with.


 * Which is why I was wondering if it was Reddyb. There were some stylistic similarities between the two. Have a look at the O'Connor coming out section in the vandalized versions, where there is bit about a relationship with a former boy-band member. Now, not that I am well-informed about boy bands or anything :O), but the band mentioned were never a big thing in this part of the world, so going for slightly obscure bands seemed odd. (OK, Rednex were a one-hit wonder here, but not exactly the first thing that would come to mind if I was going vandalizing.) BTW, and you might see my comment in the edit summaries, the quote is ripped straight from the Mark Feehily article, and he is in the Irish boy-band, Westlife. And my guy seems to know his way around the templating syntax, so he isn't new. The trolling messages and edit summaries and straight reverts were a bit similar, but I don't think they are the same guy, now that I look at it again. Anyhoo, he won't have the O'Connor article for a few days and he might wander off.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Brendan O'Connor IP vandal came back last night and was a bit annoyed to find the page protected. He ended up getting blocked anyway for trolling and vandalism. I'll be watching the page and if it needs protection again, Ill go for it; eventually he'll get bored :O)  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome
We vandal hunters have to stick together. :)  Corvus cornix  talk  22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob...
Actually I did that revert by mobile phone :-), but the connection to the server keeps dropping. Will be back at a real computer with a real keyboard in a few minutes :-)  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 23:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * the dedication to edit Wiki by mobile. Madness. more like :O). Fun to try, though.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer
Sorry re entities, just doing a cut and paste from the proper link, have spotted this on occasion, will try and correct in future 86.130.126.86 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks. I managed without your vote ;-) I know and appreciate that you have dealt a lot more with that case. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008
Could you please restructure this with one city per line, in alphabetical order by city? Cirt (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. In fact, I was thinking of converting it to a sortable table, with columns for city, state (maybe), country, and figure. However, I'm going to finish with adding back the cities first. Ayla (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Columns and the organization you suggest would be spectacular. But I think it should be simply alphabetized after that just by the city.  Eh, or maybe country and city.  Since you seem to be quite on the ball here, I'll defer on that part to you.  Cirt (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway to have some sort of autosum function at the bottoms of the min/max columns? Cirt (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries, just a thought. Thanks for the answer though.  Cirt (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks okay. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor point: Cites should go after the commas. You're doing a great job on this! Cirt (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Cirt (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks nice. Cirt (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you don't really include all the info that could be included in the cites at the template, though of course the info you give is plenty enough to satisfy WP:V. I generally use Cite news or other templates from WP:CIT, ever thought about including more info in the cites? Cirt (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant other data, like publisher, author, I usually like the "work" to be italicized, minor stuff like that, no biggie. Either way, it's really great.  Cirt (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpupeteer
I reported him to WP:AIV, you may wish to doublecheck what I put down there. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Result was blocked for 48 hours. Curious why you blanked the list?  Cirt (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Newscast
Best not to include the YouTube links w/ these, even commented out. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to leave a means for future editors (and myself) to verify the sources, but I guess the links on the talk page would be sufficient. Ayla (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, perhaps that is best. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian Reddyb
Why did you blank the list of suspected/actual Brian Reddyb sock puppets? 217.67.140.50 (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (second attempt)
Yup, time for that sock to go back in the drawer.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That got lost in the errrrr.. edit conflict with Reddy:O)  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!
Can i suggest something? To reduce your talk page, i suggest to try archiving! There is a bot on my talk page that archives discussions. They're automatically moved after 4 days. You can look at the template on my talk page...

Thanks!

-- Par t y! Talk to me! 18:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowswe User Check
Hey! Congratulations! You are fully eligible to use AutoWikiBrowser! A admin will review it shortly and add you to the authorized list of users! -- Par t y! Talk to me! 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser
Hi,

I have approved you for AutoWikiBrowser. You can get to work immediately (you can download it from here ). Good luck!

 jj137  (talk)  04:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)    jj137   (talk)  04:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New Message
Hi Ayla, would you mind taking a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anonymous_%28group%29#Reworking_article_-_unwikipedian_attempt. I could use some input as to whether this meets WP:NPOV and WP:RS.DigitalC (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Active link. Ayla (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reddyb
Brian Reddyb and his derivatives have been involved in a lot of coups recently.... :) Reddybop (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please state immediately your reasons for the revision at Malta
All the content I added was acceptable. if you do not state good enough reasons for your revert, it will be undone as seen as a POV pushing. Thank you 89.241.219.79 (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Explained at Talk:Malta. Ayla (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied there, and reverted to my revision but taken out the material in issue. We now need to discuss what you disagree with this sentence about though, as i do not have any problem with it. 89.241.219.79 (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than having the page protected, I suggest you actually dicuss your reasons, as accusing me of propaganda is a very serious issue indeed. 89.241.219.79 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I would like to remind you not to mark your reverts with "minor" when they are not classifiable as so. Thank you. 89.241.219.79 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The reversion was minor since I had already contacted you on your talk page about the addition previously, and you had failed to reply, thus rendering your repeated edit contentious. Ayla (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I replied here. And even if i had not replied, that does not make it a 'minor' edit. I suggest you read what a minor edit is. Thank you. 89.241.219.79 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to this, is it not sexist that you said "he/she" and not "she/he"? Next time, please use "they" for a more neutral solution. :) 89.241.219.79 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Conversely, is it not racist that you are favouring left-to-right over right-to-left? :-p Ayla (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Refer to this request for checkuser. Ayla (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting my Malta edits. It could be construed as vandalism. Regards, Maltese Reddy (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't give up, do you? Reddyese indeed. Ayla (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * huh? what is Reddyese? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Another fabrication by a long-term sock puppeteer, hoax perpetrator, and community-banned user. Something you can safely ignore. Ayla (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh ok thanks. I saw you'd replied in this section, so I wasn't sure if you were talking to me. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I was addressing the (now blocked) sock. Although I admit it was inconsiderate of him/her them to use your thread when there are plenty, on this very page, dedicated to them (1, 2, 3, 4). Ayla (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008 updates/new sourcing
Full cites for both of these are already in the article itself, so you'd have to do some moving around of cites between article/template to add these 2 stats to the template. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Another of the sources you added today was also helpful for the Anonymous article on grounds of its Facebook mention. Ayla (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. If you're reading here: How about distributing the references amongst city names when these are given sequentially? For example, "Cities with turnouts of one hundred or more protesters included Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney, Australia; Toronto, Canada; London, England; Dublin, Ireland; Austin, Texas, Dallas, Texas, Boston, Massachusetts, Clearwater, Florida, and New York City, New York, United States.[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]" becomes "Cities with turnouts of one hundred or more protesters included Adelaide,[58] Melbourne,[59] and Sydney,[60] Australia; Toronto,[61] Canada; London,[62] England; [...]". Or do you think that would be superfluous? Ayla (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to do that, go for it, I just am lazy at the moment. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll leave it for tomorrow or Wed though. Ayla (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to say "from partyvan" in the edit summaries when adding new sources. If the sources are secondary sources that satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, just the source/cite info itself will be sufficient. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I use it to keep track of where the source was originally mentioned. It tends to be useful in cases where the source is a newscast with a YouTube link which could not be included in the citation. Do you think editors might have a problem with the partyvan site? I could copy the link/mention to the template talk page instead. Ayla (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, either way, not really that anyone would have a problem w/ it, more that it's not necesary, but yea, the talk page idea would be better. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the suggestion :-) Ayla (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

hey
WP:ANI: the bottom (well it might have moved up slightly now) thread is about me. They are saying I have been doing something wrong. Can you please go help prove that my contributions have been good? Thank you... Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Your intentions might have been good, but you still remain a banned user. If you wanted to make an unnoticed comeback, you should have picked a different topic area for editing. I filed the checkuser with a fleeting hope of proving you innocent, but ended up convincing myself that you are not. Ayla (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Info
Hello Ayla. You should know that Crystalclearchanges claims, in his user page, that you are one of three editors he "is close to". Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you :-p I'm not acquainted with the Iamandrewrice case, so I'm not taking any assumptions on this one. I filed the checkuser report in order to settle the suspicions one way or the other, given that the user has expressed himself/herself willing. Ayla (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, so am I :)! And I've asked him to remove me from that list. This user is highly suspect and this list seems like a strategy to demonstrate supposed support. I just thought you should know. See you around! The Ogre (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems more than suspicious now. I've presented my evidence at the RFCU, the case should be closed soon. Cheers! Ayla (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian Reddyb Coups
There are so many. The question is, however, how many can you find? Please note many of these coups were orchastrated by derivations of Brian Reddyb...makes them that bit harder to find and all the more interesting. Regards, QuintessentialReddy (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So. As per what QuintessentialReddy has just said. How many have you found? Not quite as easy as the Rednex episode was, is it? Regards, REDeeBee (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on successfully finding reference to Briyan al-Reddyib's bloodless coup in Libya. That was quite a find; no doubt you just googled 'Briyan' 'wiki' 'coup', and Bob's your uncle as they say. However, you failed to uncover a number of other coups. These coups were also orchestrated by people who are named with deviations of Brian Reddyb. Unfortunately for you, these entries were made using completely new IP addresses. In addition the usernames used, while deviations of Brian Reddyb, are not necessarily so obvious and easy to find. I bid you good luck in your quest to find them. Regards, RespectableReddy (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ReddyFreddy
Believe it or not. I do not know of this user. Could be an imitator or could just be an innocent new user. Checkuser wont work I'm afraid; as you can no doubt tell based on my last few edits. Trust me, I know not of this person. 134.48.216.40 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to other editors: I appreciate your reversions of this user's posts on my talk page. However, given that they are not uncivil, offensive, or particularly disruptive, I do not think it worthwhile to revert war over them. But please do keep any used IPs on watch for mainspace edits. Thanks. Ayla (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ayla! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page.

Finally, I'd like to appologise for any delay, and wish you luck with VandalProof! A le_Jrb talk 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :-) Can continue where I left off on the RC patrol now. Ayla (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Don't bother. I won't bother even replying to the RFC because anyone who's been on Wikipedia long enough knows I'm strongly opposed to the process' mob mentality. Will (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the tag in userspace is intended to be used if they overturn, but adopt Jeske's proposal for relisting. Will (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With the Anonymous article, the article creator is an editor who has stated that people like Phaedriel deserve their ED articles (I have chatlogs) - that, and the article didn't assert its notability. With Project Chanology, that was a good-faith delist because I felt it didn't meet the GA criteria. I shouldn't really be punished for my internet being slow. For ED - well, the article's been at DRV so many times that most review starters get it speedy closed and banned (and only Shii's reputation has saved him), and my responses have been rather restrained on the DRV. With the image, what you can do if you want the image kept is to find where the author of the image says to /b/ "okay, here's a logo/propoganda poster" (or a thread like that). But seriously, you're blowing this up way more than you need to. Will (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More things to explain? In order: no consensus to delete doesn't mean keep. In fact, several articles have been nearly immediately merged due to patentyly failing content policy even though their AFDs ended "no consensus". Images are speedyable if they fail the NFCC, no matter how many DRVs or IFDs. I restored the speedy tag because I felt the closer hadn't applied 10a correctly, and it's stupid to have the clock reset for the same concern. Will (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, bringing the same evidence again and again (which Shii did - 80% of the sources have been used in previous DRVs) to an issue which has such a massive consensus on it is seen as disruptive. And with the image, NFCC states that an image needs "Attribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder." (emphasis mine) The point I'm trying to make is that 4chan don't own the copyright, Anonymous, as a group (or "cultural phenomenon") lacking any heirachy, can't hold copyrights. (but the CoS can as they have a business arm and actual heirachy) The copyright is held by the original poster of the image, and if you find that (the Project Chanology wiki might have the source), I'll be happy to have the image kept. Will (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I actually do see your point and partially agree that I have been agressive with 4chan related articles, because of the (admittedly well-organised) trolling that comes from there, means you have to be on the lookout, lest we end up with another controversy. I'm just trying to make sure people don't use Wikipedia to overinundate itself with 4chan related material which wouldn't stand if it was, say, Bebo or Myspace related. (e.g. GameFAQs has one article, and us LUEsers used to be as bad as /b/tards) Will (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Noinclude?
I think it is time to wrap all the citations at Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008 with, and then to re-add the cites back into the main article, Project Chanology, separately. This way, the cites and references won't show up in the Project Chanology article itself, but just in the template, which would still satisfy WP:V but hopefully would speed up loading the main article. Also, readers could more easily differentiate between cites used to back up paragraph-text, and cites used in the template itself. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean in order to reduce the number of references in the main article? Yes, fair enough. I can take care of the modifications to the template myself (shouldn't be too hard using the AutoWikiBrowser). However, copying the appropriate citations to the article might be a little laborious; do you have any tools to facilitate the process? Some suggestions:
 * Leave a note on the talk page of the article in case some editors wish to contest this change on grounds of WP:V.
 * The link to the template should be made more prominent (specifically, within the table header, rather than footer).
 * Any occurrences of N/A can also be wrapped in.
 * I would prefer to tweak the template in order to make the inclusion/omission of references specifiable through a parameter. The net result would be the same.
 * Ayla (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of your above points, I will leave a note on the article's talk page when I get a chance, or you could, of course. I don't really know of an easy way to add the appropriate citations back into the article, but I don't think that there are that many, maybe 5 or so that are in both.  Cirt (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's closer to 20. Don't forget the "turnouts of one hundred or more protesters" and "wore Guy Fawkes masks" city-by-city lists. Ayla (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right, I had forgotten about that, crap. Well, it still shouldn't take too long - so long as the names for the refs are the same, shouldn't be too hard to copy and paste.  Cirt (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All done, except for the parameter-based part, which was becoming too bulky. Ayla (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks great. The only thing left is to collapse the cite templates in both places, to take up less space. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer it being non-collapsed within the template page. People visiting the template would most probably have done so in order to see the table, since it is the primary content of the page. Ayla (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, no you misunderstand, I mean collapse the citation templates, not the template itself. When unnecessary spacing is removed from the citation templates used inside the references, it cuts down on the size of the page/article. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're referring to the newlines separating the parameters? Keep in mind that the newlines have no effect on the layout as spaces and newlines are stripped from the start and end of parameter values of named parameters. Thus, the rendered HTML would still be the same. Removing newlines would reduce the page size in terms of server storage, but then WP:PERF advises not to worry about server performance. The way I see it, the vertical vs. horizontal layout of citation templates is mostly an editorial decision (also discussed at Don't use line breaks). I have no objection to converting the Project Chanology citations to horizontal format (although I haven't found how to AWB-automate it yet). However, if page size is the only issue, I would prefer keeping the template's citations as vertical, since it makes the markup more easily legible (at least for me). Ayla (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me, I was really only talking about for the article actually, not so much the template. Cirt (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to figure out the regex for automating it later; if not, we could just do it manually. Ayla (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Or would you rather we removed the newlines altogether? I've left a newline at the very start and very end of the citation templates (i.e. just after the ). Ayla (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really they could just be removed altogether, that's what I do on other articles. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, all done. Starting to get the hang of AWB now :-) Ayla (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cirt (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Project Chanology protests, March 15, 2008
FYI. Cirt (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if you can get a chance, it would be helpful to add these same secondary sources as they appear to the "Sources" section, at n:Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" celebrates L. Ron Hubbard's birthday. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Do you think we should transclude the template into the article from now? Since it will be fully sourced, I think we could. Ayla (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would wait. My inclination would be to work on it a bit, and add it in perhaps by the end of the day, if a multitude of secondary sources come out.  As far at the article itself, I have been steadily compiling new sources to incorporate, and listing them on the article's talk page, but just haven't sat down and added stuff in paragraph form to the article yet, but I will at some point soon.  Cirt (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out style considerations in the placement of the template. Because it takes up the entire width of the article, it needs to be placed in a position that's not near images and can fully take up that space without creating gaps in the text.  Also, I am of the opinion that it should be placed at the end where it doesn't look out-of-place sandwiched between two sections of text.  However, if you can provide a convincing reason and example where it is better in such a position, I'd be happy to concede the point. Maratanos (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Logical flow of text content. The last two paragraphs talk about events which happened after the February 10 protests. However, that section has been worked upon mostly by Cirt, so I'll leave it up to him to decide whether the new layout is acceptable. Also, from your alterations I'm assuming you're on widescreen; keep in mind that most people still use 1024x768. Any width for the template below 90% results in split rows. Ayla (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with those templates at the very bottom of their respective subsections. FYI, I have begun to do some preliminary work with a new subsection for March 2008, you may want to add some of those cites for statistics to the new template as I add paragraph-form stuff to the article itself re: the turnouts. I will try to get to add more stuff to the article from the secondary sources I put on the talk page, and I will do it at some point - but a heads up that I might not get to it for a week or so, due to some other stuff on my plate. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anonymous (group)
An editor has nominated Anonymous (group), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Useful source

 * Has info on statistics for February 10 - according to the article 6,000 turned out worldwide on February 10, in 100 cities. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Same source says 200 people attended February 10 protest in Clearwater, Florida. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And says that (according to Anonymous) 500 people were at both the Los Angeles and London protests on February 10. Cirt (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, added (as reference "CookMar17"). Ayla (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? Peter Griffin? Ayla (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Ayla (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Project Chanology summary
Template:Project Chanology summary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Eleven Special (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source
What is considered a reliable source for that sort of thing? (referring to the deletion of san juan on project chanology)

 Wach apon  <sup style="color:#808080;">2  02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your template expertise
You seem to be really good at putting these together and working on them - what do ya say we start up Template:Project Chanology protests, April 12, 2008 ? There are a good number of sources reporting on numbers - 300 in London, 135 in Clearwater, Florida , 150 in Boston , etc. - On the other hand if there aren't as numerous an amount of secondary sources as there were for the previous 2, as far as reported turnout in number of protesters at the various cities - might be best to not have a template of statistics for this one and just have it mentioned directly in the article text. What do you think? Cirt (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:Project Chanology protests, February 10, 2008
 * Template:Project Chanology protests, March 15, 2008
 * I was thinking along the same lines. If only a small number of cities (say, below 15) are given media coverage, creating a table constrained to those sources would be under-representative. I think we should just list the sources at Talk:Project Chanology for the next day or two, and then decide whether there are enough to justify a new template. Ayla (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Though a day or two might not be enough time to gauge it, but a week would be more than enough time.  Cirt (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New citation tool
Have you heard about this tool developed by ? I think you'd really like it: http://wpcite.mozdev.org/ - There is also some info about it on his userpage. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the recommendation :-) I've installed it, I'll try it out soon. Ayla (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert (again). Now wondering if I should some of his other contributions oversighted, as apparently he has realised that I am really the Caped Crusader. :O) <font face="monospace" color="#004080"> FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)