User talk:Scarian/Archive 21

Back from his block
And back to old tricks The Real Libs-speak politely 23:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * also this IP user was already blocked previously as a different 90.201 addy. same ol... same ol. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The latest version of 90.X is circling around his block. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the newest 90.X The Real Libs-speak politely 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a new one
This user seems to be devoted to subtle date vandalism exclusively...odd. Would you mind helping me out? —Zeagler (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly! —Zeagler (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He's back...I just don't get this. —Zeagler (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is something shifty about that addy Pat. Deserves a lengthy vacation unless they can plead their case. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 10:03, 25 February 2009 Scarian (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 72.231.246.175 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) - I don't have any mercy for vandals Libs ;-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  09:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whois??
Heyo Pat! Just stumbled across this guy For a new account they are very busy-ish. Seems to know a few "insider-tricks" (albeit with quite a few "young'n"-type errors) My Wiki-noia always sounds alarms when a "new" account seems to know too much about how the biz works. And you know what that means :-) They used to go by another account... righty-right! :-D So who was this guy? Frequents the metal-ish stuff. Very wordy (= poetic POV'r) Any way to tweak out a behind-the-curtain whois on this little fella? I just betcha it's someone who's supposed to be blocked up. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... He's not SlayerXT for sure. But he does have a major POV problem that worries me. Who writes that? Seriously? I'm in a perpetual bad mood since I began that "little hobby"... :-D Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Back from their block...
and still ticking The Real Libs-speak politely 16:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

waddaya think
I hate it when some prissy wannabe quotes policy at me. After 60000 edits I know policy better than anyone and I know when to ignore it completely and tell people to f*ck*ff :-D. wp:npa my *ss. (see the reply to my very accurate comment about "1 a**h*le licking another" here). If I had refered to one o f that little trio with a derogatory name then maybe npa would have been broached. But you can read the user talk pages and follow the conversation quite easily. It was an obvious bu**kiss edit between b**buddies and so I called the "spade-a-spade" on it. I hate cabals :-D. Speaking of which what happened to Funerition? He fell off the planet again? ( altough I am seeing the odd/familiar 'funner-like/UK IP' edits on a certain "Pistols & Posies" hard rock band sooo... maybe he's not too far away :-D. ) The Real Libs-speak politely 16:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image pirate
Just noticing the pic uploads from this buccaneer. He claims self work. But all those pics are pretty easy to find if you do a Google image search for Zemaitis Guitars. Thoughts? The Real Libs-speak politely 16:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hymen
You locked in Hymen without evaluating which of the two versions was more correct. Can you at least merge the dupe references and fix the bad url. Do you have an opinion whether a quote from the 1500s should be under "modern perspectives". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard, if you wish to make an edit to a protected article, please use the template on the Hymen talk page. And I cannot have an opinion on anything in regards to that article or else I would be unable to make objective administrative decisions. It really doesn't matter which version was "more correct"; because who decides that? Seriously? See subjectivity.  Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

3rr warning
Thanks for your comment on my talk. I'm still cross about the warning but I have learned from the incident and I will use talk pages more in future. Did you get to rule on the 3rr and if so what was your ruling?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

:D
Thanks for writing your message, I'll take it as a compliment! Don't be too ashamed though, page view stats suggest people are way too embarrassed to reveal their visit! --DFS454 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think maybe one day a slow admin might jump the gun a whole load and not click on it... and just go straight ahead to blocking you :-P - Good ploy overall though! Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How goes the new addiction?
I am heading off for the weekend. Hope your new passion has not got the best of you :-D. If I return Monday and see that you have changed your username to "Buddy_can_U_spare_some_ante?" then I will know :-D. Have a nice day and have a good weekend! The Real Libs-speak politely 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Pat!
Just wanted to say hey and that I hope all is well on the wiki front and otherwise. I also thought I should let you know something. It's really none of my business and I bring no bias (as I don't much care anymore) but I thought I should bring it to your attention. I have gotten a few emails (that are somewhat humorous at times) from different people who seem to be aware of my previous ongoing struggle with Libs. These people keep telling me that ol' User:Wiki libs (and his anons) have been rather bothersome (at least to them). "Jerk" was a word often brought up. They claim that he has been going around "stalking" them and claiming that some of them are even puppets of Navnlos (in other words, me) and other people as well. However, they are definitely not me. I rarely edit wiki anymore and when I do it's just little spelling and grammar issues from anons. I don't touch anything that might even be construed as controversial. Now I don't really care about this whole issue one way or the other (it has no effect upon me), but I just figured I'd tell you and at least let you know. I don't really care what you do with the information, although of course I admit I'd rather like to not be accused of sock puppetry anymore. I don't edit wiki at the moment, but I might again at some time and I don't need Libs to keep trying to tarnish my name. I know very well what I did in the past when I first got here, but I don't bother with such trivial and inane crap anymore and haven't even before I left. Libs needs to find a new hobby. Sounds like he's a harasser, at least from what these people who emailed me have said.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Easily the funniest thing I've read in weeks ( made me pass an entire cup of coffee out my nose ) The entire flaw in his paranoia is that it implies that he may have friends :D. Thanks for the chuckle Navlos... you really take to cake! The Real Libs-speak politely 18:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardy har! First off, I wasn't paranoid. I was simply talking about a few emails people left me. I have no idea if they were correct or not. They could have been completly superfluous! I even said I didn't know whether they were fact or not. I was only letting Pat know of the emails. I was being honest and non-biased about it. But you know what? You are an ass. No amount of your superiority complex is going to hide that. I've seen plenty of your comments insulting people before (though not completely overtly but more in a snide way, so as not to get in trouble and be even more of an arrogant dick) and you seem to get off on it. As far as friends on wikipedia go, I made plenty of them. Some of the people I had positive correspondence with are listed right on my user page (but you already knew that most likely) so cut the high and mighty act out. After a time, when I was a regular user, there were plenty of people willing to help me out and vice versa. But you obviously get a chubby at talking shit to people and looking down on them. Part of the reason I stopped being a regular editor (I'm sure you'll be infinitely please about that) was people like you who took the fun out of the experience of working on this encyclopedia. And I know I wasn't always the easiest person. I've admitted my faults plenty. I put it behind me and started being less of a controversial editor and focused on other types of editing but you never wanted to hear that. You still looked at me the same. For all you know I could be editing under another account name now and be working closely with you (or anyone, for that matter) as a "friend" and appreciated editor. You wouldn't even know. IF I was still editing now as a regular editor under another account, I definitely wouldn't be making any controversial edits and I'd just be another respected editor as far as anyone's concerned. You wouldn't know. Get over yourself. Don't be such a prick.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 05:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't look down my nose at everyone here. Just the one's who make it easy. You need to try and quell the fire in your crystal. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

NOT
WP:NOT vio... big time. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And this IP is on strike 3 me thinkees.

Templates in section headers
I don't know if there's a policy, but it can break the section links in watchlists. (The little blue arrows in a watchlist which take you straight to the section that has been edited). DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Socket Puppet
Hi Pat,

I've been recently accused of socket puppetry by 2 users (Wizzy and FFMG). They've accused me of being a user named 'Sekwanele'.

Firstly, I should say that I am not this person. I guess we have the same interests in social movements and left politics and seem to disagree with the accusers primarily in terms of how important we believe these social movements are.

Secondly, I am not familiar with this whole 'socket puppet' thing and how I am supposed to reply to the accusations. I figured that since you replied to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jaredsacks then you might be able to advise me on what to do.

I'd like to clear my name? How can I prove that I am not this person Sekwanele? I am happy to give out my personal information and even email address to certain administrators. Is that allowed? This is really confusing because it seems users can make accusations just based on politics (and in this case opposition to progressive politics.

I feel these accusations are retributive for disagreeing with Wizzy and FFMG on certain issues. I feel that they have been engaging in bad faith and accusing before even confronting me. What kind of recourse would I have regarding that?

I'm really confused here so could use your guidance if that is possible.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredsacks (talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have re-opened this case, but I am not sure that I have done all the steps necessary at Suspected_sock_puppets/Jaredsacks_(2nd) - I am confused about the last notification step at SPI, it seems to ask me to enter it all again ? Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 15:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable
Scarian, that decision re. Deucalionite is plain unacceptable. Right now I'm just too angry to discuss it calmly, but I'll still ask you to reconsider. Look at this guy's block log, look at his user page, look at his behaviour in discussion, and then reconsider your demand I should "talk" to him. Your insinuation that you are placing my conduct on essentially the same level as his is extremely insulting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Scarian can also look at the over 30,000 positive edits I've made and find out if I'm really a threat to the overall integrity of Wikipedia. The reason I have a long block log is mostly because you love to have me banned whenever things don't go your way. As for my userpage, it's only meant to make fun of everything that has happened to me. What Scarian did was perfectly logical given the fact that you as an administrator have to be disinterested at all times. Before complaining about being "insulted", please inform Scarian about your RFC plus the numerous complaints by users regarding your questionable behavior as a "rouge administrator" on the Administrators' noticeboard. Of course, I've always enjoyed discussing things with you despite our supposed rivalry. Friends? Deucalionite (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Scarian, let me get this straight. A fellow administrator with years-long experience in the field of keeping nationalist POV-pushers in check comes to a notice board, exasperated with the persistent misbehaviour of a notorious disruptive troll, stating it has become so bad he needs a permanent ban. It takes you 4'40" to become aware of the report, read it, check the diffs, investigate the context, investigate the prior history of the persons and articles involved, come to the conclusion that the admin is as much at fault as the troll and they just need to talk and behave like adults, then type out an edit summary and press the protect button. It takes you two more minutes to type two not-so-veiled blocking threats against the fellow administrator. And then you just vanish and are not available for further comments, is that right?


 * Boy, this is Arbcom material. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh. Sure enough, your "years-long experience" in your so-called "field" has made you a liability in terms of engaging in constructive collaboration. Not to be unkind, but calling me a "troll" while carrying plenty of baggage as a "rogue administrator" (i.e. a "legal troll") indicates a hint of hypocrisy on your part. You do have your moments, but this is just not one of them. Sorry. Deucalionite (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

1984
Allmusic (and all of Allmedia) IS a reliable source. It's a professional site that hires its own staff/writers who are knowledgable in their field. It's a company, not just some Joe with a domain name making his own fansite. If they aren't a reliable source, well, then there are a lot of featured articles that have to be reverted, because they use AllMedia websites as a source.

And genre isn't an opinion. Either it's glam metal or it's not. Let's see, the heavy metal article (which is featured, by the way, and uses AllMusic quite extensively as a source) states that Van Halen was one of the groundwork bands for glam metal, so it appears that your obsession, for whatever reason, whether it's fanatic hard rock or heavy metal purism (each are equally annoying), to keep Van Halen separate from metal is contradictory to the "consensus," of which there is none for the 1984 article (if there were, there would be a discussion about it on the discussion page), so this weird little society of Van Halen lurkers needs to stop trying to cite this non-existent consensus.

If you block me from editing, I'll protest on the grounds that I was merely adding information with cited sources and get your admin privileges yanked. Helltopay27 (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see here. NME is a reliable source. Notice any glam metal stuff in there? No. It's a heavy metal band and that's a heavy metal record according NME. NME will trounce AMG on any day with both its hands tied behind its back.
 * In regards to you "yanking" my admin status: that's fine. Please feel free to bring this up on WP:ANI. I am perfectly within policy to warn you about changing genres to suit your own opinion. And I never said that I would block you. Please also read WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. Continued reverts will result in blocks regardless of whether you're "correct" or not. And remember, it's WP:VERIFIABILITY, not WP:TRUTH. Scarian  Call me Pat!  18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine, but even if I add "heavy metal" to the genre list (which I would be fine with), I guarantee that one of the metal lurkers will still revert it, even if I cite your NME source. That's the problem that I'm having. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From your link: "Nine original tracks reaffirmed their position as the leading exponents of heavy-duty melodic metal infused with a pop sensibility." That is essentially the definition of glam metal. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Who decides if that's the definition of glam metal? Scarian  Call me Pat! 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...I think that the fact that glam metal is pop-oriented heavy metal decides that "melodic metal infused with a pop sensibility" is the definition of glam metal. Helltopay27 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think you have misinterpreted me; "who decides" implies that there is no factual support involved whatsoever. This is basic subjective/objective perceptions that everyone should know. You've made an assertion, "the fact that", without any evidence underneath it. Please come back to me with evidence supporting your claim and then we'll move onto less fundamental discussions. Scarian  Call me Pat!  05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence is the genre itself! This is like asking someone to prove that the color black is black. It's inherent: glam metal is pop oriented heavy metal. "Metal infused with a pop sensibility" is another way of saying that. I don't understand what "evidence" you want me to provide to prove this, other than providing dictionary definitions of each word to prove that they mean the same thing. Helltopay27 (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be a great start; please do. And "black is black" is not inherent. Who decides that it's black? You can't say "it just is"; because how do you know "it just is"? How do you know it's just not a dark shade of grey? What's grey? What is what? Exactly. Just imagine I'm completely ignorant of music and I'm so cynical that I need proof for everything. Because that's what Wikipedia is, friend. Summary: Give me real evidence please. Scarian  Call me Pat!  05:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's focus on the generic "heavy metal" label, as A) it seems we would both be satisfied with that listed as a genre, and B) I really don't want to get in a philosophical debate over "this is this." Even if I add heavy metal as a genre (using your source, no less), I guarantee that some cronie will change it back and get pissy like the person who last left a message about this did. What would you propose to solve this quandary? Helltopay27 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I replied below your comments on the relevant talk page. I know you are trying to help this user out, but I would appreciate you to discuss the issues rather than just revert WP:RS. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Linkspammer
Here. Though shalt not blog spam the Wik. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He's gone ;-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  03:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Return of Be Black Hole Sun?

 * I don't want to say for certain, but I believe that there is evidence that points to User:Be Black Hole Sun having returned again, this time as User:This Feels Right. Someone may want to take a closer look into it.-5- (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Message copied from User talk:Anthony Appleyard:-


 * There is also a user User:Black hole sun Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a little too early to tell at this point, although both seem to have an interest in Bryan Adams. I think we'll just have to wait for this user's rate of editing to increase and for him/her to get involved in good article nominations, which is something that BBHS commonly did.-5- (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

One for the blacklist
A website owner complained when I did a WP:EL cleanup and removed the link to his personal fan tribute page from the Journey article. He is a decent editor most of the time but could not see the reasons contained within WP:EL for why his website is a policy vio. I showed him how he can actually get a connection to his website without breaking any rules by using a DMOZ template. So I will leave it on his honour to go ahead with that path. Should he decide not to then we will have to add the URL of his personal webpage to the blacklist. My own allies for the BL are all on a temporary wiki-powder. Can you see about getting it fast-tracked if it stays around through the weekend? I am off now until Monday. I have my Scouts doing an all day volunteer day at a local food bank. Then on Sunday we are loading up the toboggans and heading out on an all day snowshoe hike. Brrrrrr. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:TheOnlyOne12
Looks like he needs a final warning or a block. Continuous copyright violations.  Enigma msg  03:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got confused and screwed up. As a consolation prize, here is an IP that keeps changing the height of various athletes. Continued after final warning.  Enigma msg  14:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Angry Shoplifter IP
here. Undeterred by the first two blocks apparently, it has returned for more.  Enigma msg  06:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Got him. Thanks! Btw, also watch out for accounts that touch Bryan Adams in AS' style. That's his old haunt. Scarian  Call me Pat!  07:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Next time you're aboot
Utan has a new entry who has earned a big B for breaking the 3. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They reply to discussions?? :-D   One notable character trait worth mentioning is that the bulk of them do not use edit summaries when they do it. Even seasoned editors/G warriors like WesleyD... who always use edit summaries... forget them for some reason when they are swapping a genre. Editors like Illazilla and Ni saying Knight have the Wiki-friendly approach for reverting genre trolling and they type out these long polite edit summaries stating that they have reverted the troll because the troll did not use the discussion page of an edit summary to explain why they did it. Which I believe is showing WAY to much respect to the trolls... but... that's their way of doing things. The 2 of them are good editors... just look how much proper editing time they lose by having to type out that long shemeel of an edit summary everytime a troll rolls in. Trolls also have this nasty habit of deleting the hidden text which tells them NOT to change the genres without discussion. WesleyD wanted to create rules for genres. But everyone keeps forgetting... trolls don't follow rules. BTW... an admin locked the Korn page in a "troll" state.. leaving it with 2 links stuck in the infobox that fail WP:RS. It would be wheel spinning to ask you to revert the edit completely. But deleting the 2 links and putting some hidey brackets  around the false genre would not be overstepping would it? Your essay reads well. I like the reference back to the whole debate from the loud minority of whiners who kicked and cried to get them re-instated after they were removed. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

IRC
I was kidding! D:
 * And thanks for the comment about RfA, I'll let you know if/when that happens. :) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  15:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

re: I just had a great idea!
I guess you're right. Who cares if religious editors succeed in censoring the most popular reference site on the internet? It's only knowledge, right? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Quick question
Extremely rarely - it's probably been years. It's not something many people I know are into.  Flying  Toaster  21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations. The religious editors on Ramakrishna won the edit war with your help. The losers are the readers of the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 12:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

When you have the chance
Someone tried to steal a re-direct and make an article out of it for the NN band. I restored the re-direct. Can you lock it down? The Real Libs-speak politely 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai
Hello Pat. Did you consider this ANI thread to be enough discussion to warrant going ahead with a sanction of Monshuai under ARBMAC? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re; Neutrality of Reception of article "Project Reality"
Hello, I see you have put a "The neutrality of this article is disputed." notice on this article due to the contents of the Reception section.

I do not think that the neutrality of the section is disputed at all. The contents of the section are merely all the reception Project Reality has received from major publications/organizations. If you can find any other reception from major publications/organizations, be it good or bad, please add it! I can not find any more.

I do not see how it is non neutral. The reception section section includes all reception from major publications/organizations. It is not like it has been selectively chosen to only show positive things, it's all reception.

I know, you must think, surely, not everyone must likes Project Reality? Yes, not everyone likes Project Reality, but no major publications/organizations have written about not liking it.

GeZe (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we did more more reception.

We just won MOD DB's Editors' Choice: Best Multilayer Mod

http://www.moddb.com/events/2008-mod-of-the-year-awards/features/editors-choice-best-multiplayer-mod

It is announced in the video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeZe (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GeZe (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Alert
Troll has earned a B. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I have responded to your post at ANI. BigDunc Talk 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Guess who?
gets blocked on the 27th. But already admitted on my talk page to having an account. And after the IP was blocked the account (out of Atlanta Georgia... hmmmm) starts editing.... see. An angry sniffpicker? The Real Libs-speak politely 01:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And the other pair o socks . The Real Libs-speak politely 01:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And another The Real Libs-speak politely 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And another The Real Libs-speak politely 01:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And another.

quite the modus operandi... creates accounts to vandalise his own edits so that he can use another account to revert the vandal back to himself. Retarded... mentally... not just musically. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though there's no definitive evidence they're still all very obvious. Same sort of vandalism and same sort of userpages... I just love a good day when you score big on c sock patrol :-D Scarian  Call me Pat!  11:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Heavens to betsy, the day's hardly begun and Libs is throwing drawers into the open goes to find a quiet, dark place to avoid the wafts of sock coming his way btw. why do the bad socks always have crap user names, I'd never be caught dead editing under a ALLCAPS123 name, eeeeeewwww.--Alf melmac 11:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. All right, I'll give him two points (begrudgingly) as Sammy Samhain is alliterative at least... --Alf melmac 11:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. I think this one is getting sponsorship... I should've blocked him as an SPA advertising account. Scarian  Call me Pat!  11:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai
Hi, the discussion about you took to ANI the other day seems to have petered out without much further input and has been archived without concrete action. What's your view on the outcome? Those who commented did seem to support sanctions, and since it's an ARBMAC case, it could easily be enacted now without further formalities. Would you be willing to make a call on it? Cheers, (and sorry again for the misunderstanding, which was quite unintentional :-) --Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Ah, sorry, didn't see there was already another thread above. If you want to leave it at that, okay, just ignore this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - February 2009 Issue
Summary: The chapter is now up and running, and we have now opened our bank account. We have a new website, and are putting plans in place for the first Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, February has seen the successful Wikipedia Loves Art at the Victoria and Albert Museum, bidding to host Wikimania 2010 has opened, and the Government's Intellectual Property consultation has closed. We also bring the regular news of meet-ups, and a new feature highlighting press coverage of Wikimedia in the UK.

In this month's newsletter:
 * 1) Chapter formation process
 * 2) Website
 * 3) Annual General Meeting
 * 4) Wikipedia Loves Art
 * 5) Oxford Wikimania bid
 * 6) IP consultation
 * 7) Meet-ups
 * 8) News coverage

''Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.''

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)