Saw this coming a mile away... Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the statement; I was waiting to hear from you before posting my thoughts on the matter. Good call. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Covent-Garden Journal, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sydneysiders :-) - this is just a 'last call' note to let you know that the meetup tonight at the belgian beer cafe. This meetup coincides with the end of an 'unlocking IP' conference, and various folk from creative commons, and other interested parties are hoping to come along, so it should be an interesting and rewarding meet - plus Casliber assures us the beer is fantastic :-) - it's an 'all ages' venue, and I hope to see you there! best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created an account, Socks 01 on September 10 2006. In late 2007 I wanted to change my name to Wwesocks so I created a new account, not realising that you can change your username. Is it possible that you could maybe merge Socks 01 with Wwesocks? Then my edits before December 2007 will be in Wwesocks contributions. Also that would mean that my account, Wwesocks would show up as being created in September 2006, just like when you rename an account. This would be really appreciated if possible. Thanks,

I'm afraid that contribution merges are not technically feasible. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least make Wwesocks show up as being created in September 2006, or as that not possible also?

You're so good and efficient I haven't had the opportunity to help out in this way yet -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're user pages says you're busy, but since you've been involved in discussion on this in the past, I thought I'd let you know about:

Delivered by

I have made renaming requests on the projects on which I have made at least one contribution. Otherwise, it would a bit overwhelming (by automatically logging in, I have created the account on about 222 projects of the Foundation, 43 only of which have contributions). My previous username is locked on these projects, and as soon as I log on them with my new username, a new one will automatically be created. Therefore, I do not see why it would be necessary. And afaik, I have not made any contribution to wikispecies. Thank you for your help! Litlok (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just thought it might be convenient for you if you wanted to do it while I was around, since I noticed your crosswiki requests. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, first off, for the closure and well wishes! I wanted to double check on whether or not I'm supposed to have been formalized as an admin yet though. I don't seem to be seeing the admin function tabs listed at the new admins' school, and my user rights don't seem to list anything. Please forgive me for getting up on you so quickly, but it's no emergency or big concern. - Vianello (Talk) 03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am on the list of admins though, so I'm not sure what's up. If it's just a process still in progress, I apologize and I don't mean to sound like I want to rush you. I'd just sooner nothing fell through the cracks and all! - Vianello (Talk) 03:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I accidentally promoted User:Vianallo because the promotion link on the RfA was wrong and preloaded the wrong username. I've contacted a Steward, desysoped Vianallo and promoted Vianello. You're all good. :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You WHAT?! How could you? Vianallo has been busting his hump for the sake of this project for nigh-on... okay I can't really keep this joke going, but hey, thank you very much! Everything seems to be working fine now. Take it easy, amigo. - Vianello (Talk) 03:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked through the history of the RfA and I noticed that 212.85.12.211 changed the link to Vianallo. The account "Vianallo" was created two minutes earlier. I think that

GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Weird. Well, it's all straightened out, I hope. I went ahead and deleted the redirects and posted it to UAA. I felt in my rights to do the deletions, but I'd rather not go and do a block or anything myself. Too much of a COI there. - Vianello (Talk) 01:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small update: Another admin responded to the UAA by blocking the account in question indefinitely. Seems a reasonable response to me. Anyway, just FYI. - Vianello (Talk) 01:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to come off dismissive or anything, I'm glad you didn't take offense. Personally I feel like renames should mostly be processed and discretion should be rarely used when the reason is something sort of odd or vague ("I like this better" and that type of thing). We want to make processes as easy for users as possible, and stopping everyone who wants a real name is another example of clogging it up and slowing it down. Andre (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently helped

I've moved it. AD, remember when usurping to delete any redirects to the usurped name. For example, in this case you should have deleted the redirect you created to

User talk:MC10 (usurped) on User talk:MC10 after the usurp because renaming does not override the old page. When you renamed, it should have also said somewhere that "User talk:MC10 exists and cannot be overwritten." bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 04:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Biblio, I deleted the most of those redirects. There were so many of them; see my deletion log. It just seems I missed the user talk one. Thanks for fixing that. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really easy to miss that "Talk:Pagename exists and cannot be overwritten" message; tucked away as it is down at the bottom of the screen. I'd been puttering around

WP:RM for a couple months before someone pointed out to me that I'd moved a page and somehow not managed to move the talk page. Then I got to enjoy sifting through my move log trying to find any talk pages I hadn't moved; lots of fun! Anyway, thanks for taking care of that, you guys. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem. Usually the user talk is a prime suspect to being left behind, so I always check for it first. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 18:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. -Lisa (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast, friendly, and accurate - thanks so much. - 2over0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing this article, I am happy to say that it is a definite pass. It meets all the criteria without question. Keep up the good work, and I hope to see this as a FA soon.

This pass has been reverted as End of yarn is a brand new editor with a new account and has no basis to claim it passes GA. The article is still at GAN. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some clarification: When you talk about quarks, there are two SU(3)s. One is a global SU(3) that is used for classifying quarks according to flavour - at least as long as you look only at u, d and s quarks. For these quarks, you get, for instance, baryons in the 8-dimensional adjoint representation (N, P, Sigma, Lambda, Xi) and mesons in another octet. This is the eight-fold way stuff. In Gell-Mann's classification "very strong interactions" do not break the SU(3), "medium-strong interactions" do.

All this works as elementary group theory: for instance, baryons have three quarks, and if you "multiply" the basic representation (3) three times, you get a sum of representations: 10 plus 8 plus 8 plus 1.

The colour SU(3) is something completely different. Here, the quarks are again elementary, and the adjoint representation is what the 8 gluons are in. This symmetry is local, and it's used to construct the gauge theory.

So yes, I mean the section needs a complete re-write. It's about color charge, so it should recount the basic properties of the colour SU(3). The statements in the same paragraph that, instead, describe to the flavour SU(3) (Gell-Mann and Ne'eman, baryon decuplets and octets) should go into a different section, namely one about quark flavours. (The section where the isospin is explained - cf. my other comment!) The current version conflates the two different SU(3)s, which is just wrong.

You say that 19/20 people who go to the page are actually looking for the poem. Can I please see the statistics that back this statement up? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as how the Simpsons was also referring to the actual work, there is no real need to provide stats on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. The user's logic for moving the page was that everyone who visited there was looking for something else. When you make a statement like that, you should actually have something to back it up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave you a legitimate justification that nullifies any reverting of the move. The Simpson's title is referential to another page. It is referential to a famous title ("Homer's Odyssey"). There is no other way to work it here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I don't have statistics. It's common sense: the first extant work of Western literature vs. one of several hundred episodes of a television show. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, do you plan on going through and fixing all of the Simpsons-related Homer's Odyssey links? Since they now redirect to a completely different page, it seems only fair that you fix them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll make sure to do it tomorrow. It's quite late here, and I honestly doubt if I've the diligence right at the present to do it. Thanks, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How the hell did you get to be a bureaucrat? You back up your statements with crap you made up and you don't even make an effort to fix links to a page that you redirected. That doesn't really seem like the kind of behaviour that should be associated with the position. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • He said he'd do it tomorrow. While that's obviously not ideal, it did not need a response like that, Scorpion. Please leave your ad hominem arguments away from here. I also agree with AnonDiss/Ottava (obviously). Odyssey is much more significantly important than some random episode from a cartoon (not a very good episode at that either). Sorry for butting in, but I think questioning AnonDiss's ability to be a bcrat was totally rude and unnecessary. Majorly talk 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In wiki-speak, "I'll make sure to do it tomorrow" means, "I'm making an excuse so you'll go away and I don't have to do it." I'll just do it myself. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're not particularly assuming good faith here. It is, in fact, 1 am where I am; and I have school tomorrow. The encyclopedia will not fall apart in the 15 hours (maximum) during which these redirects are not repaired. I can't be on Wikipedia all the time, and we're not talking about anything groundbreaking here. Just a few redirects. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging approved bots! Your bureaucratic super-mop work is appreciated. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Just glad I can be of assistance. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no idea what "NZ" would mean. It's not used like "USA" and "UK". I think "N. Zealand" leaves one knowing what country is being discussed. Is this just me? hmwithτ 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not be comfortable saying that it is just you; but, for me, over here in Australia, it's an abbreviation I hear frequently in reference to the country. Here, it is like UK, or USA. But we're quite strange and remote. ;-) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I see. People in North America (where the flu is doing the most damage) probably haven't heard of it. You know we silly US-centrists. :P But I'll take your word for it, though, and assume that no one else will be confused. I'm sure it's fine. hmwithτ 14:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no qualms if you want to revert it. If you really think N. Zealand would be better for most folk, it should be reinstated. I'll leave it with you. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will like to usurp the ॐ account since it is no longer used by its user (he/she left).--Anagami (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:USURP. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010

The