User talk:Rebroad/Archive 2008

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_causes_collapse

And their unfortunate attempt to delete it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse

Lordvolton (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're not watching my talk page but I wrote a response to your question. --ReCover (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I was blocked.

The reason I contacted you was because of your experience editing similar articles. Sadly, the debate has devolved into personal attacks and what I believe to be a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia – admins coordinating their efforts to attack editors defending the existence of an article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse

It’s unfortunate that enthusiasm for a topic ends up being a mud slinging contest. If they put as much effort into helping improve articles as they do threats of blocks and deletion of articles Wikipedia would be a much better place.

Let’s hope I don’t blocked yet again for writing to you and sharing my opinion. Lordvolton (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged

Try adding your list of mnemonics to OSI model or, if they get deleted as trivia, to its talk page. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have SVG version of IE7.
Icon of W. Vista shouldn't be converted to SVG version. Use PNG 256 is right.

{{unblock|i'm unable to edit due to using Opera Mini. please could i have an exemption to the 195.189.142.0 block so that i can edit? Thanks.}}

Which rangeblock is getting you? --Selket ^Talk 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

195.189.142.0 is the range that is being blocked. Thanks.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I have granted your account an full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in. Please read the page IP block exemption conditions . Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Request handled by: Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi you signed up as being interested in being a memeber of wikimedia UK 2.0. Just a reminder the that the vote for the inital board at m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Vote ends next Saturday (September 25th).Geni 03:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you once asked what the oldest edit on Wikipedia was. Do you still want to know? Aiden Fisher (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it probably is a bit disappointing in that the earliest edits are made by the software itself. According its contributions the first edit was the logout text. Aiden Fisher (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])

Thanks for your email yesterday. You may not have seen it, but I opened a discussion at

While I am sympathetic to your view of the way things were done, I don't plan on

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

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.

A public forum attracts many kinds of people. One kind is insanely attracted, because they like to cause trouble and watch as people react. In order to continue the mischief often 'sockpuppets' are used. And finding all the sockpuppets is a never-ending task - very difficult. You should never doubt that it is hard to do, or that mistakes can be made.

Look at Special:Contributions/ImNotObama. See anything unreasonable? Um, okay, how about extremely unlikely?

How long did it take you to become aware of talk pages? How long did it take you to become aware of

Anyway, if you want to read how painful sockpuppeting is, read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ACORN_again._This_needs_to_finally_stop. (If it gets archived it'll probably end up here or here ) See the mention of a particular editor, that links back to User:ImNotObama? Look at how much discussion there is before people are convinced that blocking editors is the only possible action. Look at how much trouble it is.

Can mistakes be made? Yes. And sometimes the duck test and looking at the overall evidence has to be good enough. This might not be the apology or explanation you need, but you should at least get the idea this a large problem and difficult to handle. It often looks wrongly done. That's part of the problem - socks try to look innocent. Shenme (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Shenme, thanks for the reply. What's your point? Presumably you still agree with

Please be more careful in your cut-and-paste moves at ANI; your changes have been reverted several times already for botched jobs. This edit removed a portion of an archive template; and this moved your comments successfully, but you removed other comments and templates as a result. seicer | talk | contribs 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And unlike what you stated here, there was no deletion -- but a movement of comments to an appropriate header where the issue was dealt with. seicer | talk | contribs 20:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a deletion as well as a move, as I had added additional comments. --Rebroad (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please cite that? I moved the original discussion to its present location, but lost no comments in the process. seicer | talk | contribs 21:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It was this edit, for one. Cheers, --Rebroad (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This may help you Rebroad. If it doesn’t, nothing will.

• ImNotObama’s wikipedia career in summary (b. 11/8/08, d. 11/12/08):
• 1st edit: Long, annoying and contentious criticism on Obama talk page, followed by call for up down on consensus
• 2nd edit: nonesense sentence on own userpage.
• 3rd edit: All cap demands about what people MUST do on obama talk page on an issue that had already been talked and argued to death
• 4th edit: Enters own votes on own consensus call made in first ever wikipedia edit.
• 5th edit: Launches an attack on wikidemon at AN/I while simultaneously replacing a “resolved” template with an “unresolved” one. Fails to mention this in edit summary.
• Edits 6-20: Alternates obstinately and unproductively stirring trouble on Obama talk-page withh pushing commas around in random articles, both characteristic of the BfP cast of characters.
• Edit 21: defends self from vandalism warning.
• Edit 22: contests indef blocking of proven BfP socks at AN/I
• Edit 23: makes a perfect unblock template request at proven BfP sock K4T’s talk page with a spurious reason for unblocking.
• Edit 24: makes a contested edit to Obama main article (with the characteristic BfP misleading edit summary) absent consensus on talk page.
• BLOCKED
• Next few edits: Whining about check users and “proving” this or that in a manner thoroughly typical and diagnostic of the BfP class of socks.
• Then you took up his cause.

--

Thanks, Bali_ultimate for the summary. I agree that it is suspicious that this user knows their way around Wikipedia so quickly after joining, but I too was also a fast learner when I first joined wikipedia, and was initially accused of being something I wasn't. Had anyone at any point actually asked ImNotObama to explain why he/she seems to know their way around wikipedia so well, and why they gravitated towards the articles in question? --Rebroad (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you edit seicer's archive? [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.73.25 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rebroad. You recently changed the formatting for some of the mentions of Doctor Who episodes and serials, but it looks like you didn't realise that Wikipedia uses different formatting for individual episodes and multi-episode serials. Serials, as longer-form works, go in italics (like novels), but episodes, as short-form works, go in quotation marks (like short stories). So it's Logopolis, but "Silence in the Library". I know it looks inconsistent, but it's a Wikipedia-wide manual of style standard. Haipa Doragon (talk · contribs) already fixed this in the article and noted the reason in his edit summary, but I wanted to make sure you saw it, to save you trouble in future. Best, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, see

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). — Edokter • Talk

• 13:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The edit you're pointing out, I assumed was vandalistic. I am unable to find anywhere that references that specific acronym. Bobo. 15:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I hadn't realized there were so many results. Thank you for getting back to me. Bobo. 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)