User talk:Anthony Bradbury/Archive4

1404:

which one could easily improve in. Now, to your question - I'm rather ambivalent about edit summaries altogether, but I don't think they really need to be used outside mainspace. Unless, of course, you're editing policy pages or something. Edit summaries in user talkspace seem unimportant on the great scheme of things... however, MathBot only calculates summary usage for mainspace edits, so I don't think the lack of summaries when you're communicating with users is bringing your percentage down. Let me know if this helps :)

1340:

1276:

1592:

Hi there; I have come to your page because the edit summary of the automatic edit page lists you as first contributor. If this is not so, please tell me and I'll go away. There are now several questions posted on the talk-page of this article, several, although not all, from me. Is it possible to get

1381:

Well, it's just a suggestion, and it isn't the main reason for my neutral "vote". If you think it's off-topic, I'll strike that part out. Anyway, I do think it's good to stay calm, even in extreme cases of vandalism. And I didn't mean at all to suggest that you'd sworn at or insulted the vandal. It's

1317:

1702:

I've thought a lot about the whole IP editing. In the end I came down on the side of the status quo. The idea that anyone can just start editing with no overhead is important. The vandals would most likely just register anyway, so restricting editing to just registered users wouldn't make much of a

2013:---a valuable addition to the Admin staff. I am going on Wikibreak for awhile in order to work on a script---I have decided to have myself blocked, actually, because I cannot seem to control my need to come here and play new page patroller. So, I will see you again in a month or two. Cheers! --- 1904:

Thanks for the clarification - if only other editors were so conscientious in their patrolling! I do so because the Talk pages are red links and letting vandalism go by without acknowledgement benefits no one. Tonight's edit conflicts probably occurred as we were both patrolling the same area of

1749:

It is my regretful task to inform you that your recent request for adminship failed to achieve consensus to promote, and has been closed. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please

1720:

As someone who does, for the most part, anti-vandalism work, I understand how hard it can be to avoid biting. After looking over your explanation, and how civily you handled the switched votes(RFA's can be stressful, and keeping a Cool Head, can be difficult). I've disregarded my previous concerns

1403:

Hi Anthony - firstly, I hope the RfA isn't stressing you out too much. While I don't want to give you, well, false hope, RfAs that don't reach consensus the first time often succeed on a second try (if you decide to run again, of course). Luckily, the oppose comments all seem rectifiable and areas

1339:

1275:

1868:

Hi there: I do not want to criticise, and i am fully aware that you were enthusiastic in your support in my recent failed RfA. But tonight, on three occasions, I have tagged articles for deletion, gone to the editors talk pages to explain why, and found that i have an edit conflict with your good

1656:

Yeah, I was surprised by your not signing the comment, too! I've seen your name around the project and know you're a pretty good editor. Sorry for chastising you -- I'm not in the best mood on my Monday back from vacation. I should probably sign off before I go on a deleting rampage. ;) --

1641:

and then append a welcome message after it--welcome messages don't need to be the very first thing a user sees, though it is nice if it works out that way. Also, please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~. If you have any further questions, drop a line on my talk page. Cheers. --

1879:

As do I, which is why the edit conflict occurs. We're both on new page patrol, which is fine. You can tag and warn, which is due process and I can speedily delete and warn/report, which is also due process. I don't necessarily have to tag an article and wait for an admin patrolling

1936:

To be honest, I am not certain that I can! This is a page which I have not, until now, investigated; it does seem to me to be to some extent self-explanatory. I note that you are an adoptee; do you think that your adopter is the right person to ask, or do you think that the

1692:

Sadly not much else. The good news is we can now block IPs and allow username creation. This allows us to put much longer blocks on shared IPs than we used to as genuine users can still register and edit. I for one take full advantage of this. Best,

2027:

Uh, maybe I should have been a bit clearer: you don't have to cut and paste all the sections of the talk page individually in section editing mode. If you use the "edit this page" tab at the top of the screen instead, you can do it all in one go.

1630:

users, not just experienced ones. Not leaving a message would be tantamount to biting the newbie--the message I left explained why the article was deleted and provides some links the user can read to become more informed. You can use

1603:

Hello! I created the page to document the automatic edit summaries (which initially confused me) to the best of my understanding. I had no involvement in the creation of the feature itself, and I don't know the answers to any of the

1382:

just that I think a good trait for an admin (or any countervandal, for that matter) is calmness in the face of vandalism. But as I said earlier, it's not really a big deal. My neutral still stands for other reasons, though.

1318:

510:

Thanks for your concern about the article. I clicked save before I had finished my first edit all the way. It might end up getting deleted anyway. but I'll try to make it better. Thanks for your vigilance. Regards,

1791:) taking a back stage with the project, I was thinking that you might want to get more involved, and help get it really going, especially in getting it out to more noobs. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. 1869:

self. Except for the most blatant vandalism edits - e.g. my sister f***ks the whole street while shooting dope - or near equivalent, I always put a message into the editors talk box. Trust me, I'm a doctor!--

1783:

Hi there - sorry that you did not get through to be a Admin - good luck on the next try. I hope it does not decrease your enthusiasm for Knowledge - though I hope you take full advantage of your wikibreak.

1541:

Hi, Thanks for your question. I would suggest more participation in AfD and more eperience with the CSD and PROD before trying again. You will probably fo fine as an admin-- just need more experience.

1922:

Could you check this WikiProject out and tell me what needs to be added? Obviously, a lot of things need to be added before it can become active, but can you tell me specifically which? Thank you.

1988: 1997: 1894:

I'm not criticising. Just saying that if I tag them I will warn them, so if you find an article that I have tagged you can be certain that I will warn them, and you need not do so.--

1884:

to perform the deletion. Speedy deletion candidates can be deleted without a prolonged debate. Plenty of editors don't bother with the {{nn-warn}} tags, so I am glad that you do.

38:

Just wanted to say thanks for the sandbox advice and ask if you can help me to learn how to become a member of certain groups??? or tell me some more tips for Knowledge.

1951:

Well, my adopter is not currently active, and he isn't altogether reliable. (hint: he has less than 200 edits) Thus, I've been trying to get help from other people.

1804:

Yes I have already suggested for the Welcome template - maybe if Adoption becomes a major thing we can get it added, or maybe we should push for it now - hmmm. See

1557: 1542: 1247: 1217: 1197: 1090: 973: 953: 863: 843: 769: 749: 675: 655: 204: 184: 1909: 1888: 1994: 1193: 1086: 949: 839: 745: 651: 180: 1722: 1672: 1615: 1434: 1370: 1124: 1857: 1833: 1565: 1306: 1131: 1024: 887: 118: 1017: 571: 550: 23: 1955: 1396: 1812: 1332: 277: 91: 1104: 997: 1597: 499: 1976: 1707: 1697: 1175: 1068: 931: 821: 727: 482: 1980: 1665: 334: 162: 1205: 1098: 961: 851: 757: 663: 1531: 1168:

Yeah, those are usually people with no intention of making good contributions to the encyclopedia. He's been indefinitely blocked, btw. –

1061:

Yeah, those are usually people with no intention of making good contributions to the encyclopedia. He's been indefinitely blocked, btw. –

924:

Yeah, those are usually people with no intention of making good contributions to the encyclopedia. He's been indefinitely blocked, btw. –

814:

Yeah, those are usually people with no intention of making good contributions to the encyclopedia. He's been indefinitely blocked, btw. –

720:

Yeah, those are usually people with no intention of making good contributions to the encyclopedia. He's been indefinitely blocked, btw. –

155:

Yeah, those are usually people with no intention of making good contributions to the encyclopedia. He's been indefinitely blocked, btw. –

2032: 1581: 192: 1847: 528:

P.S. If you answer your questions well, I'll be happy to be the first one to support you for your RfA! Tell me how it goes! Regards, --

1898: 1873: 1823:

I just used the "move" tab to move the article to his user page. The move function automatically creates a redirect at the old title.

1288: 287: 1773: 1751: 1141: 1034: 1686: 1611:

is responsible for most of the recent work in this area, so you might try asking him. I'm sorry that I couldn't be more helpful. —

1416: 327: 101: 2017: 897: 383: 128: 1469: 1452: 1352: 540: 523: 76: 1945: 1496:

Thanks -- yeah, I reported him. Usually they do it for a bit and then get tired of it, but he seems rather persistent. Cheers.

1386: 1114: 1448:

You raise a good point. I should probably be looking at C:CSD rather than Special:Newpages. I will start doing that instead.

1322: 1007: 618: 1739: 1514: 348: 2007:

Hello, Tony. I was sorry to see that your RfA was not successful. I believe that you would have made---and will eventually

1750:

continue to make outstanding contributions to Knowledge, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find

1678:

Yeah, its pretty bad. This one's from the California State University Network so it may be a dynamic IP. You've given it a {{

1486: 1798: 1650: 378: 1162: 1055: 918: 808: 714: 362: 1550: 263: 248: 1827: 149: 1576:

I am a newcomer - could tell me what I must do with two of my pages to take away the labels on them - it's the Louise "

1241: 1211: 967: 857: 763: 669: 198: 1926: 1522: 1500: 1754:

helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask.

1587: 2022: 1110:

Yes, definitely an inappropriate username. Fortunately already indef blocked for the name by Sam Blanning. Best,

1003:

Yes, definitely an inappropriate username. Fortunately already indef blocked for the name by Sam Blanning. Best,

451:! And your great country is responsible--for reasons which I still do not understand--for the early partition of 1744: 1181: 1074: 937: 827: 733: 639: 1130: 1023: 268: 1969: 1805: 1788: 1671: 1137:

Yes it was. Thanks for the heads-up. I've deleted the article and blocked the user who created it. Best,

1030:

Yes it was. Thanks for the heads-up. I've deleted the article and blocked the user who created it. Best,

893:

Yes it was. Thanks for the heads-up. I've deleted the article and blocked the user who created it. Best,

168: 124:

Yes it was. Thanks for the heads-up. I've deleted the article and blocked the user who created it. Best,

1832: 886: 505: 292: 106: 82: 17: 1808:, I have started a things to do list, so that maybe we can get some direction for the project. Cheers 428: 1906: 1885: 1730: 1682:}} - I'll keep an eye on it and will issue a fairly substantial block on the next vandalism. Best, 1270: 1103: 417: 41: 1155:

I was just surprised to find out when you were born, and that you're effectively a doctor. Heh. –

1048:

I was just surprised to find out when you were born, and that you're effectively a doctor. Heh. –

911:

I was just surprised to find out when you were born, and that you're effectively a doctor. Heh. –

801:

I was just surprised to find out when you were born, and that you're effectively a doctor. Heh. –

707:

I was just surprised to find out when you were born, and that you're effectively a doctor. Heh. –

579: 358:

Thank you for posting the link for writing better articales. I will try to improve that articale.

142:

I was just surprised to find out when you were born, and that you're effectively a doctor. Heh. –

1853:

As I said, I don't mind if you want to speedy it. (in response to your comment on my talk page)--

1479:

No problem. He reminds me of someone we've seen before. I responded on his talk page. Cheers,

1721:

over lack of Project edits, and swapped my vote back to support. Happy editing, and good luck.

1443: 1429: 1411: 1376: 1365: 1347: 1301: 1283: 996: 1942: 1895: 1870: 1863: 1635: 1594: 1511: 1121: 1014: 547: 470: 444: 440: 2014: 1312: 478: 333: 8: 1621: 1483: 1460: 1189: 1182: 1082: 1075: 945: 938: 835: 828: 741: 734: 647: 640: 448: 176: 169: 2002: 1466: 1146: 1039: 902: 792: 698: 588:

I just thought I might share with you some articles--or direct your attention to some!

463: 1965: 1854: 1844: 1474: 1424: 1406: 1360: 1342: 1296: 1278: 489:. She, by the way, was her Ladyship, the "Countess of Bathurst," Lilias, (1871-1965). 353: 308: 260: 229: 57: 1778: 1763: 1172: 1159: 1065: 1052: 928: 915: 818: 805: 724: 711: 566: 535: 518: 401: 293: 159: 146: 133: 107: 42: 307:

So I think it would be better to keep a/the brief article with advice to klick on

228:

So I think it would be better to keep a/the brief article with advice to klick on

56:

So I think it would be better to keep a/the brief article with advice to klick on

1938: 1931: 1915: 1612: 1449: 601:

subject I thought might contribute something which I do not know since I'm not a

436: 215: 1192:

is the part of Knowledge that starts out with "Knowledge" in the page name. On

1085:

is the part of Knowledge that starts out with "Knowledge" in the page name. On

948:

is the part of Knowledge that starts out with "Knowledge" in the page name. On

838:

is the part of Knowledge that starts out with "Knowledge" in the page name. On

744:

is the part of Knowledge that starts out with "Knowledge" in the page name. On

650:

is the part of Knowledge that starts out with "Knowledge" in the page name. On

408:--especially in history, political history, and legal history. As a naturalized 179:

is the part of Knowledge that starts out with "Knowledge" in the page name. On

1973: 1964:

Hi Anthony - if you are dealing with this issue thought I would point out that

1916: 1818: 1809: 1795: 1715: 1679: 1491: 1480: 1393: 1383: 1329: 1319: 1264: 1234: 990: 880: 786: 692: 633: 221: 1905:

the new articles list. I'm off to bed now, so the matter ends here. Regards,

2029: 1881: 1824: 615: 496: 486: 409: 375: 345: 324: 300: 284: 245: 114: 98: 73: 49: 1577: 1704: 1694: 1683: 1528: 1505: 1465:

Thanks for the advice. I replaced the template - it should be fine now. --

1138: 1111: 1031: 1004: 894: 474: 404:. In fact, among my vast interests is my facination with almost everything 359: 125: 1756: 1658: 1643: 1608: 1536: 1510:

this is a test addressed to myself to look at automatic edit summaries.--

1196:, it does show you have 107 Knowledge name space edits. Hope that helps. 1169: 1156: 1089:, it does show you have 107 Knowledge name space edits. Hope that helps. 1062: 1049: 952:, it does show you have 107 Knowledge name space edits. Hope that helps. 925: 912: 842:, it does show you have 107 Knowledge name space edits. Hope that helps. 815: 802: 748:, it does show you have 107 Knowledge name space edits. Hope that helps. 721: 708: 654:, it does show you have 107 Knowledge name space edits. Hope that helps. 560: 529: 512: 456: 413: 367:

Do you think that the subject is notable enough to countinue working on?

254: 183:, it does show you have 107 Knowledge name space edits. Hope that helps. 156: 143: 1843:. However, if you still think it needs deletion, thst is fine with me.-- 594:

I am sorry for having written in such a manner that you felt otherwise!

546:

Thank you. Seriously. Bed time now (UK) so look at this time tomorrow.--

1952: 1923: 1422:

Glad to hear it's not getting you down. Take care, and all the best :)

1358:

Glad to hear it's not getting you down. Take care, and all the best :)

1294:

Glad to hear it's not getting you down. Take care, and all the best :)

393: 1839:

I reverted the page to a version in which it is a useful redirect to

1497: 452: 1840: 598: 432: 405: 397: 33: 1993:

I'll reinstate it when I have more information on the subject.

591:

Again, you have nothing to apologize for--at least not to me.

473:'s soverign predecessor's subject, the managing editor of the 1120:

My oversight; I checked his talk page but not his userpage.--

1013:

My oversight; I checked his talk page but not his userpage.--

396:, I presume, due to your name, and the fact that you live in 1258: 1228: 984: 874: 780: 686: 627: 462:

On the last item or issue, perhaps you'd like to read about

317:

For the time being, I'm reverting - I hope you don't object?

238:

For the time being, I'm reverting - I hope you don't object?

66:

For the time being, I'm reverting - I hope you don't object?

1968:

has in total 7 adoptees. If you want bring up the issue at

602: 421: 370:

Actually, there's a template for that one: {Db-redirtypo}:

340:

Actually, there's a template for that one: {Db-redirtypo}:

372:"It is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo" 342:"It is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo" 1246: