Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask - Just click here to leave me a message; or add {{helpme}} to this page.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was your edits on the DYK suggestion page that drew my attention. Good work! I had a interesting time reading your articles. :-)

You have also submitted them correctly. A little bit of "techinical" work might be required before they get selected, though. The facts in the article (such as Soldier Boy is the shortest film) should be individually cited. A good way of going about with this, is to use footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for help on this. Also, one important criteria for an article to be displayed on the front page DYK section, is that it should not be a stub. Try to make the articles a bit longer. You can take your time, as you have 5 days to do this. Good luck!--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 06:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you seem to be a storehouse of interesting trivia. Nice to see more entries from you on DYK.

Btw, so sorry for the delay. I'm currently taking a break from wikipedia. Hence, I noticed your message only just now. The footnotes issue has been fixed. Good job. Now all you need to do, is to tone up the prose with some minor copy editing and expansion.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Abus gun

It looks better. Some more precision about its origins and period of use would be useful. I removed some of the wikilinks - you don't need to link the same word more than once, and you should check that the links actually go to the correct article. Not quite sure what you are having problems with regarding the referencing (try copying a reference from the Updown Court article and just replace the fields). By the way, please don't add Civilization One back in on the 19th - nominations on DYK go on the day they were created. If you add it back in on the 19th it reduces the chance of it being used, as it will probably have passed the 5 day limit by the time it comes to be selected. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This article might still be challenged, though certainly not by me.I strongly suggest you revise it to emphasize the real world use of it in the Ottoman Empire, and put its role in Civ III into a final separate paragraph. DGG 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Repeat Articles

You should know that several articles you started already exist: Martin PBM-1 Mariner, Curtis P-40 Warhawk, & Heavy Tank Charron B1 Bis. Make sure you do a search of Wikipedia before starting an article. All the best. --Bryson 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Welcome, Anonymous Dissident, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
• Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
• We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

Here are some tasks you can do:

• Requests: University Church of Marburg, Prussian semaphore system
• Copyedit: Die Räuber, Heinrich Himmler
• Wikify: Friedrich Kapp, Privatelektro, 1936 Summer Olympics, Heraeus
• Merge: German Autobahns,
• Unreferenced: Franz Josef Jung, Limburger Dom, High German languages, Jacob Bidermann, President of Germany, 1954 FIFA World Cup Final, Erika Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Amelie Beese
• Cleanup: Johann Fischart, Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens, Düsseldorf-Volmerswerth, Fußball-Bundesliga 1985-86
• Expand: Palatinate Forest, Hitler's rise to power
• Disambiguation: Elector, German, Rothschild, Reichstag
• Stubs: Federal Ministry of Justice (Germany), Greeks_in_Germany, Tegernsee (lake), Römisch-Germanisches Museum, Democratic Awakening
• NPOV: Erich von Manstein, Anti-German sentiment, Willy Brandt, German Visa Affair 2005, Germanisation, German-American relations, Hitler's rise to power
• Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture
• Other: Help categorise Germany-related articles and assess the quality of 2,992 unassessed articles

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! -- Kusma (討論) 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 January 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Civilization One, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 10:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio and fair use

I've noticed that some of the articles you are are putting up at DYK, are using the referenced works almost verbatim, merely rewording or slightly rearranging the sentences. This does not stop them being a copyright violation - you need to write your own article and use the sources as references.

On another issue, if you upload non-free images for use in an article, they need to have a fair use rationale written for them, otherwise they will be deleted.

Erfurt Cathedral is an example of both these problems. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The obvious pointers for me are that the articles mirror the structure of the sources. The timeline of Erfurt Cathedral could be rewritten as prose rather than a list, as could the U-boat articles. Take a look at Unterseeboot 656 - this uses the same source but written as prose it avoids the copyvio problem: it is using the source as just that, a source, while being an original work. Try to use more than one source and blend facts from the different sources in the flow of the article.

As regards fair use images, the rules are rather strict on this - I see you are are using some on your user page, this is not allowed at all - if a free image could be obtained (as could be with a photo of Erfurt Cathedral), then the fair use image can not be used. If you think that an image qualifies as fair use, then you need to write a rationale for it and give the appropriate licencing information on the image page. Take a look at Image:Laika.jpg to see what I mean. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You can copy the infobox from Unterseeboot 656 and just change the information. I doubt there is an infobox for cathedrals (not every type of article has one). I wouldn't worry about having one on every article you write, if there is an infobox somebody will soon come along and add it. Yomangani^talk 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 January 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Updown Court, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 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 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Why? Where was copyvio?

At first glance, Unterseeboot 14 and Unterseeboot 29 appeared to borrow rather liberally from [1] and [2], respectively. Quick review leads me to believe my judgement is probably correct, but you are free to submit a request at deletion review if you feel I'm being unreasonable. Please see our copyright policy for more information -- if you are the owner of that content, you would need to release it under the GFDL before posting it on Wikipedia; alternatively, you can use the listed pages as sources, and rewrite the articles in your own words. Again, see WP:DRV if you feel I'm being unreasonable. Luna Santin 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dead_planet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dead_planet.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideas

There are still a lot of areas with poor coverage, or areas that are big enough only to have partial coverage. Anything US-centric tends to be a washout, but European history, flora and fauna, and a lot of South American and African topics still have articles waiting to be written (the second two topics are more difficult to find sources for). If you can speak any other languages, then checking the Wikipedias for those languages might give you an idea. Research redlinks from existing articles to branch out. If I can give you some more advice...I'd slow down: researching a topic in depth often leads to discovering other articles that are still waiting to be written, and you'll do yourself and the topic more justice by spending some time on it. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 14:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My articles ideas come from my brain, I just have wide interests. There is a project, WP:MEA, for missing articles - I'm not sure how up-to-date their lists are, but I'm sure you can find some article that need writing from there. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 12:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Supermassive

An editor has nominated the article Supermassive for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermassive. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Supermassive during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, NV Ingenieurskanntor voor Scheepsbouw, was selected for DYK!

On January 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article NV Ingenieurskanntor voor Scheepsbouw, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cod31.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cod31.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Butseriouslyfolks 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 January 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spider webs in space, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 10:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

		The Oddball Barnstar
		For creating an excellent article on Spider webs in space I hereby present you this award. :) Rosa 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why yes, I enjoyed it a lot and thought it was quite interesting even if it was on such a whimsical topic...I've never heard about this experiment and I'm glad to have learned something new (and a bit funny). Adiós, Rosa 17:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

2008

On the nature of Wikipedia

I've lately done some hard thinking about what's in the headline - did research, held a school presentation, gave an interview - and on that basis, I beg you not to go through with the AfD spree you suggested. We were started as a co-operative community and cannot survive as anything else. Mass deletion nominations are just about the most combative kind of act readily available. They ignore the quality of our coverage of the topic as a whole; they are inherently divisive; they are a non-trivial drain on the resources that could be spent improving content; they overwhelm the capacity of editors and especially the local experts on the subject, volunteers all, to expend the time and effort to give fair judgment; they disgust away the aforementioned local experts, making any kind of compromise or reasonable discussion less likely. Et cetera.

I am currently talking with people about the basic nature of Wikipedia. If you've seen any significant discussion of this elsewhere, please let me know. I'd like to extend this to you at some point in the future to help get some basic concepts down and clarify our opinions, resources permitting - I'm in #¤%& pieces and didn't really need having to extend myself further right now - not to mention that attempting to have a deletionist vs inclusionist discussion would be interesting in itself. (Those two camps see little discussion. Much head-butting, but little discussion.) --Kizor 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

When *I mentioned that, I was using it to make a point that just because the others havent been nominated, Patronus shouldnt be deleted. I am just tired of seeing fancruft pollute Wikipedia; while Wikipedia may strive to catalogue all that is notable and all that is worthy of discussion, I think basic "hygiene" in this encyclopedia is very necessary to Wikipedia's nurturing of its already damaged and flawed credibility as a useful source of knowledge. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem - one could argue that a Patronus curse may have more written about it than some obscure biological, theological or astronomical article. Also remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. AD, if you haven't done so at some time have a look in a university library catalogue or library. I've been working next to UNSW, but there is a whole annex on popular culture/film etc stuff in Paddington. The potential on WP for the listing of notable critiques and reviews of various popular culture items/issues etc. is huge, matched only by the, erm, rough state of many of the articles. I have started referencing stuff but to do more requires a visit to material offline, like I pointed out with Linkin Park - going to the library and getting a few Rolling Stone mags would do wonders....

One thing that I have found as I have researched more obscure topics is the wealth of material that doesn't exist online, which is one reason I get frustrated when editors claim no sources after a few minutes on Google, or worse, don't look at all. All the Psychology of the Sopranos/Star Trek guides/Dr Who biography/guides etc....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. However, it is an encyclopedia. There must be basic criterias for inclusion, and there are. I feel that it really is doing Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia harm when these articles, which are inside of this encyclopedia, involve subject matters that truly do not warrant the exclusive mention that an article allows. I do feel that these things have a place, are worth a mention, but I feel that this place often comes in the form of a larger body of similar content, such as a list. Maintaining a basic state of "cleanliness", so far as not going overboard in our zest to write articles about every conceivable topic, is, I feel, is important to sustain our credibility as an encyclopedia, and not lower Wikipedia as a collective to something closer to a kind of database, and I think that, as Wikipedia ages and develops, this will become ever more important, as our body of content grows larger, and as our contributors become larger in number.

While your point about referencing and cleaning this material up is very valid, Casliber, and I agree wholeheartedly with your noble and driven effort, I think that, without sounding like a quitter, as it were, it may be time to come back and say to ourselves "the amount of unreferenced, unencyclopedic, sketchily written material is growing faster than we can eliminate the aforementioned problems, and, quite often, these problems are quite impossible to fix. We need to find an alternative." Because, no matter how hard we work, the latter is inevitably true, and the faster we realise this and take radical action on this issue and others, the better the possibility that we can keep Wikipedia and its reliability afloat. This radical action may come in the form of something alone the same vein as what is already being attempted; huge, organised and well-thought out and approved task forces working around the clock solely on the most critical issues. It may come in the line of a mass cleaning; a huge line of task forces on the lookout for, and in the search of, material that needs to be removed. It may come in the form of policy revision. It may come in a combination of all three. Do you see what I am saying? I understand that what I have said regards quite extreme thinking, and a fair bit of speculation on the future of the English Wikipedia, but, I think the time for passiveness and evasiveness should come to an end as soon as possible.

Wikipedia is growing. It is getting larger every second. Every second we have an influx of pages worth of quality material pouring into our servers. However, this represents only a portion of the material that Wikipedia accepts. This other portion is poorly written, non-notable, unreferenced, libelous, misrepresentative, POVish, quietly attacking, blatantly false or otherwise very unsuitable for inclusion in a project that strives for quality, not quantity, and to create a free encyclopedia for everyone. This is indeed a noble cause, but, in my honest opinion, we are going forward with this goal of "the sum of human knowledge" too quickly, and taking the latter much too literally. Without seeming like arguing semantics, the sum of human knowledge includes what I ate for breakfast. While this is obviously an extreme example, there must be a line drawn, obviously. This line has been painted in policies and guidelines, but, unfortunately, policies are not automated to fix these problems, but to rather give the editors out there something to base their decisions.

So, I aim not to nominate as many pages for deletion as I can, I just feel sick being passive while this problem grows larger. I think I may soon propose something at an appropriate forum soon, or at least try and say my bit about the issue. The number of problematic articles has entered the hundreds of thousands, and we may sink soon if we cannot find a way to slow down, re-establish our quality and credibility, and work on culling the content that is festering the issue, in an attempt to keep this chaotic boat we call Wikipedia afloat. Kind regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, that's an interesting way of looking at it. My take on it is, though, some of these things are so esoteric that no-one stumbles over them as such, and as such they don't clutter anything. Also, there is generally precious little libellous or harmful in most if not all the pop culture and RPG and computer gaming material that is being listed. Given that good article writing is at a premium, doesn't it make more sense to improve serious (as it were) information on core/vital articles, the political, environmental, geographical and otherwise newsworthy items as a priority rather than concentrate on highly obscure (for the most part) material that most folks won't find unless they are looking for it? Intially the idea of referencing was for material likely to be challenged. The tragedy is plenty of it can be referenced by all sorts of scholarly and notable works, it's just that people aren't. To me there is little difference between pop culture and folklore through the ages, typified by mythology, religion and now celebrities etc. They are the same and stuff what the common folk believe in and are interested in. Take a look at any newstand or magazine circulation figures. For some editors to arbitarily decide what is notable with some imaginary line drawn somewhere between 1900 and 1950 would be highly amusing if it weren't so annoying. Part of WP's attraction is its universality and once I see parts beginning to be hived off I wonder where it will end. Do we split off biology-wiki, religion-wiki etc after RPG or TV-wiki go, what next? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely a good point, but I think we can agree that, when it comes to certain subject groups, especially works of fiction, for instance, there is a lot of room for people to readily expound from their own experience (OR) on these works of fiction, and we are seeing this in these articles written on subject matters that truly do not warrant articles. We should draw a line on what belongs in a manual of x work of fiction and what belongs in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia aims for universality, true, but it does not aim for the many problems I listed above, and while they all may not apply to these fancrufty articles I speak of, many of them do, and they do form part of the problem; yes, I think we can certainly agree that there is a growing problem? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope y'all will forgive me for joining to say that I strongly agree with Anonymous Dissident's contributions to this thread, in particular that "I understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. However, it is an encyclopedia".

Some editors appear to treat wikipedia as extension of myspace or geocities, a place where any content is welcome, regardless of its significance or even is verifiability (I have even had an ANI complaint made about me for mass-tagging unreferenced articles which showed no evidence of notability!). It's time for wikipedia to get serious, and for editors to be more frequently reminded that WP:V is central to what we do here, central to both the content of an article and to its suitability for wikipedia. If that takes more of what was referred to above "AfD sprees", then bring it on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

- ::::::To a point, question is, where one sticks the goalposts, and I think much of what is being nominated is overkill. I was musing on this this morning as I found some material on folkloric and mythological significance of snails which I added, and had trouble tracking down the page that was deleted some months ago (when I found it it was, in retrospect, pretty shoddy...), and wouldn't have found it had I not been an admin. In any case, I am not sure the problem is growing. Much of what is nominated has been around for a long time, during which time many other projects have seen a huge number of FAs and GAs - even in the 18 months i have been here. Actually, having said that I haven't systematically looked at the ages of more than a few so I'll have to check on that. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, how can you assert that the problem is not growing? The number of problematic articles gros every few minutes, and so, the overall problem is definitely growing. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you as it is easy to copy and paste fancruft into Wikipedia, but it much more difficult to have it deleted by peer review. The admins closing AfD are to blame for this fact; they are not rigorously enforcing notability and verifiablity guidelines, and are afraid to go against majority decisions. As a result, there is now two tier in Wikipedia; the core encyclopedic tier, which is periodically published in CD form for charitable purposes, and the rest, which includes lots of fancruft. I think there needs to be a much broader effort to get rid of non-verifiable and non-notable articles by enforcing existing guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Riana. I hope you have a great 2008 too. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK then...

Would you agree that this was fairly extreme (i.e. obviously notable and likely to have sources) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops - just realisd you voted keep. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know its an old one but some others recently have been nearly as extreme. I'll find it later but must run now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was extreme. It is obviously notable; lions are a figurehead in pop culture. Articles on Harry Potter's wand are not, if you get my point. They may deserve a mention in a larger article about Harry Potter himself, and that all comes back to what I was saying in the AFD. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here is where our goalposts differ, so to speak, the patronus curse was a central subject of one film and book, and the Harry Potter Series has sold a $%#$* load of books and almost single-handedly revived interest in adolescent fantasy literature and reading in the late 19902. Its impact culturally has been massive and detailed analyses are out there. Anyway, part of our wonderful wiki-culture is being able to discuss differing opinions. anyway onto other things...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Our goalposts do differ. It was a part of one book. A fraction of a fraction of the series. It regards a magic spell in Harry Potter. Avada Kedavra, for example, does not have its own article, and it is extremely prevalent in at least three of the books, yet it has conformed and merged with the spells in Harry Potter article. Why should Patronus be any different? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it a factor here that it was found that Avada Kedavra could be well covered as part of a larger whole, while the Patronus Charm works better on its own? --06:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizor (talk • contribs)

Who is drawing these conclusions? You? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

happy Mango season

Hehe, thanks a lot. I should enjoy these :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For Anonymous Dissident

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Anonymous Dissident is awarded The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar by Majorly, for always being there for help and advice, someone to talk to when you're feeling down, and above all, being a fantastic friend. Majorly (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Alex. I really appreciate it. :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Dear Anonymous Dissident, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and more prolific and happy editing! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Awarded to Anonymous Dissident for his contributions to art articles.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blnguyen, and I hope you have a prosperous new year. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You blocked me. Block 684

After I'd spent weeks trying to fathom how to contribute to this baffling place, I finally seemed to have successfully created a new page then written my review of the author James Bailey and his excellent book, then saved my 'work' and added it to the pages of wikipedia.

Today it seems my computer has automatically been blocked (or the IP adress has been) because it is associated with user:only1feathers and because I had already been blocked by another user, which it would appear was you.

The rationale I was given was that I 'focused on James Bailey' and was deemed as being 'unlikely to contribute.' -In your opinion of course. Even though it was my first attempt of what I hoped to be many.

Yes I did focus on James Bailey. I'm not sure what else I could do when my sole intention was to add James Bailey and a review of his book to the pages of wikipedia. Could you please advise how I should go about avoiding focusing on an individual who I actually want to write about?

Can you also please advise what I should do to avoid further blocks as well as causing other users to make the (wrong) assumption that I'm 'unlikely to contribute?'

Thank you, Caroline (only1feathers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.231.58 (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Caroline. Firstly, it was not Wikipedia that you were contributing to. It was another site, called MediaWiki. MediaWiki is not Wikipedia; this is Wikipedia. MediaWiki is solely for the documentation of the software behind Wikipedia.

Secondly, you are perfectly welcome to contribute encyclopedic content here, on Wikipedia. However, by the sound of it, you are biased towards this James Bailey: "...James Bailey and his excellent book..." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and strives to be as neutral as possible. If you do write on this person and/or his book, make sure everything you write is referenced and neutral in quality.

Lastly, please make sure that "James Bailey"/his book are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Relevent policies describing what is and what is not acceptable include WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Please read both and make a decision - the right one. Remember, if you say to yourself "what the hell - this isnt really notable enough, but I'll write it anyway", it will be deleted anyway, so you will have wasted your time.

Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dewoitine D.33, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you VERY MUCH for everything that you do for DYK! --Royalbroil 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

Sorry. I have no idea why VP put that on your page. Doczilla (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Late again. I've prepared the update, just needs someone to post it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has attended to it. Sorry - I wasn't around. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

About vandalism on Methuen_High_School

The vandalism is out of control. Please assist if possible
Compwhiz II 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So I can see. It's unbelievable. I am deciding what action should be taken. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Never mind the offenders have been prosecuted. Compwhiz II 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole history of the article reveals vandalism. I have semi-protected it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No need, I have already requested this, Unless your a sysop. Compwhiz II 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops :P Compwhiz II 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, don't worry about it. Thanks again, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oberhof bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track

I tried to fix the references to this article where they could be clumped together, but that did not work out. Could you assist on this? I would appreciate it. Chris (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I see where I screwed up on the multiple footnote listings. Someone needs to update WP:FOOT to ensure that this is done correctly on this for future articles. Thanks for your help. Chris (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article earned DYK late yesterday. Thanks for your help. Chris (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Distrest

Are you planning any more Hogarth articles? I just noticed The Distrest Poet blued itself while I was checking - I'll go off and work on something else. Yomangani^talk 10:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, were you planning on taking it? I am awfully sorry about that, but you often give m inspiration. No, I have no future plans for Hogarth articles, but I am rather spontaneous. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I hadn't got very far into it, but if you do plan any more give me a heads up before I go into an editing trance, so I can avoid the "WTF?!?" moment when I press "Save". Yomangani^talk 10:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you were actually editing it at the time? So sorry, again. Maybe, if its not too late, you could cate the content and make "The Distressed Poet" article..? And I will do just that next time. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did the Musician yesterday and the Poet was going to be today. I've tweaked your stub a little, but let me know when you've finished and I'll add anything I have that you've missed. (not sure what you mean about the "The Distressed Poet" article...if you mean the oil painting, it doesn't merit an article separate from this). Yomangani^talk 10:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Finished the analysis, and yes I was referring to the oil on canvas, but I guess you are right. Any additions or correction would be appreciated; you are the art connoisseur - I'm just interested in art ;) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are still a few more sources to check: Hogarth himself, Ireland, some of the 19th century commentators, and Uglow. I'm a little busy at the moment which is why I haven't got to it yet. Yomangani^talk 10:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:The distrest poet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The distrest poet.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All fixed up. Sorry, forgot. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Script

Hey, I was wondering about the script for updating the articles you created. I currently have it set to run once at day at 0:00 UTC . I didn't know if you wanted it to update immediately after you added the article to your list. Let me know. Mønobi 04:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

DYK is a big problem. Skipping hooks because they are expired is not good. Using expired hooks so that current hooks eventually get skipped is not good. The solution is timely updating the main page with hooks.

I help in non-admin tasks in DYK. If all goes well, I should be able to help update DYK using sysop tools starting tomorrow. I'm writing to you because I saw your comments in the edit summary. Archtransit (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your assistance. However, we cannot ignore the perfectly good hooks in January 3. It is nonsensical. Jan 4 has a whole day, and Jan 3 is expiring. We must use Jan 4 hooks in the update after next, so that Jan 3 can be used. I am going to start campaigning for 7 days, not 5, because this is ridiculous. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Propsal: Prospective DYK hooks must be submitted before the article (or it's greater than 5 fold expansion) is 5 days old. Earlier submission is preferred so that there is an opportunity for evaluation and time for the submitter to improve the hook. Hooks are considered "expired" after 7 days. In unusual situations where the hook is exceptionally well written, an additional days grace period may be given.

DYK updates would still have to be on time or we will have the same problem in about 2-3 weeks when 8 day old hooks start to get passed over. Archtransit (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vorpostenboot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On 10 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bombardment of Algiers (painting), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

You're not going to believe this, but I actually have a Paint by number of Bombardment of Algiers. I'll have to take a picture of it and upload for you. I was so excited to see that someone had finally written an article on it! --JayHenry (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Please, do take a pic and upload it. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Late again. Can you do it? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal Gorge Bridge

Both of the vandals are blocked and the page unprotected. Sorry about that, I apparently didn't pay close enough attention. :(   jj137 ^♠ 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 1	2 January 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter"	News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Scouting
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 2	7 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Stepping in after delay
New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam	WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind"
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 08:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reeve Aleutian Airways

Hi, i see that you removed the large picture of the 727 under the airline infobox, claiming that it does nothing for the article. Thr result of this removal is a large area of blank space under the infobox. Would you consider replacing the picture?, IMHO a picture is better than blank space. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the white space does look better, because the imge is not relevent at that point in the text. Plus, the white space is not very big. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 11 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leo Laliman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower

Gah! Protection conflict: [3]. At least we protected for the same amount of time, 3 weeks. Great minds think alike... bibliomaniac15 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I know they do. Idiots minds think alike too, as we have just seen. :P -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You active?

DYK late again. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Re:Block

Nah, somehow thought that was an account. Changed to 31 hours. :) Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Distrest Poet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for everything that you do! --Royalbroil 02:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi Anonymous Dissident - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. If it all looked good, I'm not sure how closely you could have been looking, but I'll try to prove myself worthy of the confidence you expressed all the same. The RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: A new weekly feature
Special: 2007 in Review	Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added	Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect"	News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 07:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK next update

Would you be interested in doing the next update for DYK? It needs a couple more hooks (including the pic one). I added a few but I didn't feel comfortable adding hooks that I verified and I know that something "special" needs to happen to the pic nom. If your busy, I can help by delivering the messages if you like? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, It looks like the Borgqueen is taking care of it. So it's all good. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RFPP

Thank you for informing me of my use of the wrong template; I appreciate it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries; I didn't mean to lecture, which, upon review, it looks like I was doing. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That was stupid, I deserved a short lecture. Enjoy your vacation. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Contacts

Hey, you know where I get most of my contacts from?
Wik
How's your holiday going? andrewrox424 ^Bleep 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too ;) Yeah, the holiday's going great; thanks for asking. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of REVOLUTION!

		The Revolution Barnstar
		For unlocking Criticism of Wikipedia, your contributions to Dystopian, your wonderful essay Wikipedia:A Hybrid of Political Doctrine and Encyclopedic Collaboration, supporting radical, revolutionary change to Wikipedia policy for the better, and demonstrating an appropriate understanding of Ignore All Rules. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I am glad that you like and sympathise with my essay. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

thx

I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?	Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)	An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (2008)

Is there a way that the article can be protected, once more? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, LAX 03:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Six-Day War

I'm about to unprotect Six-Day War and instead invoke a sanction from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. However, since I see you're online (and you protected the article), I want to know if you have any objections to me doing that. -- tariqabjotu 04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

done -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and question

Aaay! (the Fonz) thanks AD for granting of my protection request. It was getting crazy and very annoying for me (and I'm sure other editors). I guess I made a compelling argument huh. As long as the vandalism stops :)
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, here's a curiosity question for you: I'm guessing that even though now the Jo-Wilfried Tsonga article shows a heading in a box with the words:

Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled until February 29, 2008 (UTC) due to vandalism.

If you cannot edit this article and you wish to make a change, you can discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

and no lock icon (), that in a few hour or day's time the message will disappear and the lock icon will show in the corner as in other articles? (e.g. Will Smith)

Or is that separate process that the admins will be taking care of? I think it's better when the article has the lock icon rather than the message.

(p.s. - sorry I couldn't find an image of the tiny form of this lock :) )

~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

well, making the lock smaller is as easy as inserting |small=yes to the template, which I have done. Apologies for my negligence. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That idea about it disappearing isn't bad actually... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, don't be so hard on yourself lol. This site, and all other sites for that matter, are too difficult for me to understand lol. I learn one item at a time it seems, rather than all this language code. still don't know how to make that giant lock I put on your talk page tiny. oh well. Take care

(p.s.) glad I could make the suggestion. Maybe you could make that disappearance happen in the template programming.

(p.p.s.)Ok I think see what you did to make the lock here smaller now: 15 pixels? thanks ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Adminster.

Done. · AndonicO ^Hail! 09:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

please help

Hi Anonymous Dissident,

You're an admin and I need your help. I've been having a 1-sided conversation with user:Tennis expert for the last hour or so. Every single post I have talked to him about, he has reverted them all and it's not appreciated. He cites to me the Wikipedia policies of HUSH, UP, AGF, and User space comment removal. But no one attacked him or vandalized his pages. Yet he is short and curt with me, and just reverts every thing I do. It started last week when he reverted an entire edit I did because he had a problem with part of it, so in reverting it, he also reverted my corrections to several typos and wrong informations. Now this.

Please review the edit history of his and my talk page. It's very upsetting to have perfectly non-attacking, non-vandalizing edits reverted just because the person doesn't want to listen to them or consider them. Let me know what you think thanks ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look into the matter in a little while, and do the best I can to assist you. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten in contact with him. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Cheers! Weirdy Talk 07:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK Update

If you happen to be on right now, the DYKs have not been updated for 11 hours. Haven't seen a trace of any admins. whose name is on the contact list. Thanks.--Bedford 12:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hate to bother you, but its 3 hours past due again. Do you know someone who can make the change? Thanks.--Bedford 11:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bedford, I really would help out, but I need to go to bed (school tomorrow; same happened last night). I would ask someone else on the list... maybe Majorly? I dont know, he might not be around. Sorry, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. I need to go to sleep myself. :D --Bedford 11:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)