|
|
Archives
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
The June 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As per the talk page of spider webs in space, i am considering merging the article into spider web. I saw you had considerable objection towards the previous merge, so i decided to inform you here so you could input. Best, Matt (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 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) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request to extend block
link Enigma message 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, that's a misread by me. I'll block for some months. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Extended to 3 months. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. WP:WHACK!
-
-
- Sorry to hear about your health issues. Do you still want to be listed at HAU? Enigma message 02:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. I'm generally ok, and I'll remain active enough to be listed. Thanks for your concern. Cheers, and happy editing, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Last year I gave the article a big heave and was nibbling at it again two weeks ago. I'll get back into it shortly. Much of what we need is already there. Marskell (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I jumped in with quite a lot of edits today. (Thank you for the poke in the butt—'bout time I did some work on a cat again.) There's a thread on the talk that could use some feedback. Marskell (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. I think the taxonomy section is now just about done.
- I have to say one thing though: I actually tend to avoid zoos and conversation charities when editing the cats. For simple things like coat colour, OK, but not for the hard science. Try to find abstracts and/or books. (I rely a lot on the former, Cas more so on the latter.) Cheers, Marskell (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, do you wanna GA Leopard or not bother and march on to FAC? Sometimes I find GA good as I have had some ver detailed and good feedback recently, but if one has a good template (like Jaguar or Lion), then maybe just marching on is good too. Your call (after more fixing). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think you may be right about GA feedback. Opinion, Marskell? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not bothered either way. I've never paused to do a GA before FAC. I suppose an extra reviewer won't hurt. Marskell (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re from my talk
Not a problem at all. — MaggotSyn 05:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please create new my Account and Subpage
Hello Anonymous Dissident,
please create my Account new (so that he is "red", no more "blue", so that there is no history to see in der user's page, the discussion-page a´nd in the subpage. Please crate even the subpage new, this would be very kind, and then please make this edit/sontributión (== Please create new my Account and Subpage ==) away on this your discussion-page, thank you in advice! Here the links to the pages to create new or better delete the subpage "User:Nup/staffalang".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nup&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nup&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nup/staffalang&action=history
Thank you in advice, Nup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.235.44 (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand this request. Are you requesting the creation of an account? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strangely worded, but I believe he's requesting his userpage, user talk page, and a subpage to be deleted. Useight (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Tank you for your message at User Nup.
- Unfortunately my English is not so good, so that it is difficult to explain what is my request. I try: Can you please "make new" the Account of User Nup, so that there is no more the old discussionpage and no more the old history-page? And delete/make new the subpage User:Nup/staffalang? A little bit like here in the german Wikipedia *http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Mautpreller/Staffa&action=edit&redlink=1
but the discussion field above please make "red" like the word "Benuterseite" (User Page). This would be very nice. And then please wipe away this message here on your discussionpage (new edit without these words here. Please excuse my bad English, and I hope now you understand my request? Nup (not locked in in the moment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.235.44 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes Useight, that is exactly what I mean. Please excuse my strangely worded contributions. Nup (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Nup
I've locked myself hin to confirm, thank you, you are right.Nup (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- All done =] -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I thank you very much, Anonymous Dissident. Nup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.95.31 (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction
I tried to add some details (an OCLC number) to this ref and discovered it's actually a serial. The reference as currently given is misleading (there were a number of those published in 1841, and It's at best dubious Timbs can be given as sole author), but also could be outright useless if the issues/volumes published in that year happens to have separate page numbering. Do you think you could doublecheck for the details? Of course, if it's a second-hand ref from one of the other books, it's probably more accurate to note it as "quoted in foo, p x". Circeus (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- From what I understand, the book I have quoted is the 1841 edition of a series of books all republished under the same name. I'm not sure if that makes any sense. Here, the Google Books link: [1]. Furthermore, the very source of the statement I have made concerning Horace Walpole etc., is page 406 of that 1841 edition. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I switched it to a periodical pub (see page 401, with issue and volume # etc.) with anonymous authorship (other bound collections are given with various attributions in gbooks, and attributing anonymous stuff to the editor is shoddy scholarship anyway). As a side notes, how well could [2] be integrated in the article? Circeus (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. In any case, it may not be reliable, as it is a .com site. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
... for certain details regarding William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. See Talk:Barack Obama. However, a small but extremely active and dedicated group of Obama fanboys are trying to WP:OWN and sanitize the article. Anyone who tries to support WP:NPOV and revert to the consensus version is threatened, called a sockpuppeteer, etc.
First, this has been an ugly situation for some time and more attention from admins is needed. Second, the Obama fanboys need to be brought under control. They do not own the article. WP:NPOV means proportionate representation of all significant POVs. The POV that is questioning Obama about his relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers is not a fringe POV. Editors who seek to include that POV in a balanced manner are not "Obama haters," and when they agree with one another, they are not sockpuppets. Please help. Kossack4Truth (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The one thing you do not seem to have is consensus, unfortunate as that may be. Now, it is quite obvious that this conflict about the inclusion of information regarding these three others has grown into a massive issue, judging by the proceedings in regards to the polls, the calls for closure, the voting and the often heated discussion on the talk page. I really would feel uncomfortable being the only person to look at this situation and come to a conclusion about what should be done here; I think the issue is too large for that. Any decision by me at this point, where "consensus" among the people on this talk page is most definitely not clear (in fact, there seems to be significantly more than two camps, from what I can see...), would simply result in more warring and conflict the minute I had the protection removed. Whatsmore, as I have already stated, I do not think you have "consensus" here at all, so closure by that particular principle is likely impossible for now. I would encourage you to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and take the necessary steps toward resolving this problem. The article has already been protected due to warring; this is a positive step. You have tried to talk it over, but that has just resulted in, from what I can see, a bigger mess and greater division in people. It seems to me that further steps may now be necessary. I'll ask for another opinion on this matter (this matter being what steps of action should be taken in regards to this issue) now. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have elaborated on the matter on the talk page; further details regarding the discussion are there, and, should further discussion from me be required, I would prefer to take it there than discuss it her eon my talk. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 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) 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Changing username
Hi. Look: Changing username. Why you removed my conclusion? Platipl (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I moved it because it belongs at a different venue: WP:CHU/SUL. Don't worry, your request has not been rejected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much :) Plati (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with the IP
Hey Anon D. My new IP is shared by 1000s of users. What can I do? Many users from this IP have caused problems in the past. Do you have any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.21 (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Replied. · AndonicO Engage. 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to state my agreement with AO. There are no drawbacks to creating an account, and it gives you great security in your editing. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
|
|
