User talk:Mr. Anon515

WP:LEM
P.S. Thanks for your work on Count Olaf. — The Man in Question (in question)  08:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Meta Knight (Character)
Hello Mr. Anon515. The page was not deleted, it was just redirected to the List of characters in the Kirby series according to consensus. If you want to recreate the stand alone article, please, look at previous discussions at Talk:Meta Knight and Talk:List_of_characters_in_the_Kirby_series for better information. You can also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. I've also noted the sourcing of your article:

I recommend you to find sources independent on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I presented your request at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Please, follow the discussion here. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

re: January 2011
Maybe you should have seen why I changed the Cannes page first...  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahaha... ;-)  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Try Twinkle
The bots have their own dedicated templates and some automated programs like Huggle and Igloo include the diffs in their dedicated templates, but if you're just doing old school vandal fighting, Twinkle is the best for warnings, though it doesn't let you include the diff (you could always add it in yourself). Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely familiar with what Twinkle is. Does one need to download it onto their computer before using it? Mr.   Anon  515  01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not need to download it. Simply go to the my preferences link in the top corner, select the gadgets tab and check the box next to Twinkle under "Editing gadgets." Done! I recommend you also read the documentation at WP:TW. Usb10  plug me in 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mr.   Anon  515  04:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales
Hello, this edit actually belongs at User talk:Jimbo Wales. By the time you read this, it may have already been moved, but if not, feel free to move it yourself. Happy editing! Feezo (Talk) 06:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I put it there because I felt that such a message would be trivial for talk page content, and also becuase his user page asks users to edit it, so I decided to. I've noticed that even though he has welcomed users to edit his user page, nearly every edit to it is reverted by other users, even ones that are not vandalism. Mr.   Anon  515  16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Vashikaran
Hi there! Umm... I saw that you made an AfD page for Vashikaran. It's pretty blatant advertising, so why not try WP:CSD first next time? Cheers!  Ish dar  ian  05:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I considered doing that, but I didn't know whether it might have been a legitimate article that just needed to be cleaned up. Mr.   Anon  515  05:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. :) I understand your thinking, though. I've gotten spoken to about wrongly tagging articles, but that just jumps out and screams advertising to me.  Ish dar  ian  05:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sperafico
How does removing a dead link "not appear to be constructive"? Did you even check or is this another example of reflexive reversion of IP editor's contributions? I assume the later since you're a "recent changes patroller", use anti-vandalism tools, and place templates on talk pages, all things that correlate highly with sloppy editing in my experience. Here's some links you might want to check out: 128.114.60.41 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome unregistered editing
 * Not every IP is a vandal
 * IPs are human too
 * Chill. On some of my anti-vandalism sprees (like on Igloo) I sometimes am mistaken in my reverts. See WP:AGF. It had nothing to do with the fact that you are and IP, and was mainly because your edit had a tag in recent changes. I apologize for my mistake, and it won't happen again. Mr.   Anon  515  01:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan
Hi, can you please move the article back to War in Afghanistan (2001–present)? It would be nice to not have a move war while a talk page discussion is ongoing and there isn't consensus one way or another. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am confused. The infobox and opening section describe the conflict as ending on December 28, 2014 (today). I only moved the page to reflect this and maintain consistency in the article. Could you clarify the situation for me? Mr.   Anon  515  01:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to fall into the "Discussion" phase of WP:BRD :) The article was changed and moved without consensus on this, and a discussion on whether this was a good idea is now occurring on the talk page (which you are particpating in). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I apologize for my hasty move, then. Mr.   Anon  515  01:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, autocorrect messed up my attempted revision... I feel really stupid now. Mr.   Anon  515  01:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for moving the article back. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work reverting the move but its now at War in Afghanistan (2001–President). - SantiLak  (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just corrected this: this kind of thing happens all the time, and it's a shame that only admins have the user tools needed to correct it. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Despite the rename proposal going through with a 100% consensus, editor RightCowLeftCoast has jumped in again within a day of the discussion being closed and the article renamed and has requested the article name be returned to before and plus merge the 2015-present article into the 2001 one. Your arguments and opinion from before would be appreciated once again at the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have associated myself with RCLC's views, as I believe that the 2001-onwards phase of the conflict is better described as an American-led war rather than strictly a NATO involvement, which actually started only formally in August 2003. I would prefer that we consider the situation when the U.S. special forces (which details I've added a bit to the new article) leave, possibly in December this year. My views are set out in detail on the talk page of the 01-14 phase article. I hope this explains at least why I'm opposing the previous article renaming discussion, and it is, as always, something that can be settled through discussion. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you regard the 2001 phase as more of an American-led war than why do you support the view its still ongoing since it actually is no longer an American-led war? Like me and the others have stated, its now an Afghan-led war where, per the reliable sources, nether the Americans or NATO are the primary driving force anymore and have handed over the lead to the Afghans. As for themselves, they have stated the remaining soldiers are there exclusively in a non-combat role. EkoGraf (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the Americans are very definitely there in a combat role: see the data I just added to the 2015 onwards page! Joint Special Operations Command has a task force conducting offensive operations against AQ, Taleban and the Haqqai network!! See USSOCOM Fact Book 2015, page 42, published November 14, 2014 on the DVIDS portal - http://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/23684, via Afghan War News. Until the JSOC troops are gone, there were be very significant high-level U.S. pressure on the Afghan government to allow them freedom of action while hunting the AQ/Taleban etc. Maybe I haven't clearly stated it enough: I think the 2001-onwards phase finishes when the American combat operators leave. That's logical: it began when Jawbreaker arrived. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's one task force, probably doesn't number more than a few hundred soldiers, while the remaining 12,000 soldiers are in a training, advice and assistance role only . Key functions are listed in the source. EkoGraf (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I spent some time a couple of weeks ago expanding Resolute Support Mission - I hope it's reasonably detailed for now. Whether a few hundred or over a thousand (Afghan War Blog), the fact remains that Americans are still in combat. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, would you mind moving this discussion back to the respective talk page? I do intend to continue participating, but I'd rather not get notifications for new posts that aren't directed towards me. Thanks. Mr.   Anon  515  18:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Broad-banded temple pit viper. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.— cyberbot I Notify Online 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)