Archives

Archive - Archive 1 - 04/2007 - 05/2007 - 06/2007 - 06/2007 2 - 07/2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

You may have been redirected from User talk: Anynobody

Thanks for your contribution, which was the most thoughtful on the subject.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem :) How does the government issue work in the UK? You may not be familiar with the division of government here so before I compare the two I'll briefly explain. Each state is like a mini version of the Federal government; Arizona for example has a legislature, executive (governor), and supreme court. Within Arizona there are 15 counties with their own minor governments, I live within Maricopa County in the city of Phoenix. So it breaks down like this:

• Country: US

• State: Arizona

• [1] County: Maricopa (I'd upload the flag but the copyright is difficult to determine.)

• City: Phoenix

And I thought the UK broke down like this:

• Country

•  Ulster Province

• Counties (dunno which Belfast is in)

• City: Belfast

How are the various local/regional/national governments actually divided? Anynobody 21:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply - sorry for the delay - very busy and off to Poland tomorrow. Expect a response at the end of the week!--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, enjoy Poland. (Did you know that when the Nazis invaded from the West in 1939, the Soviets invaded in the East and more ore less met them halfway? They were also every bit as "nice" as the Nazis; Katyn massacre.) Anynobody 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not "move" pages by cut and paste, as you did at Mantle, it violates the GFDL and the copyright of previous authors. If you can't move the page using the move function, please request administrator assistance at WP:RM. Also, if content is moved around by cut and paste (it sometimes happens in the case of merges), the original page where the content came form must not be deleted for copyright reasons. Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I have fixed this by merging the page histories. The (disambiguation) redirect can stay and is potentially useful, see WP:R and WP:DPL. Kusma (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have had to fix anything, I used the move tab to do it. Anynobody 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did for the move of "Mantle" to Mantle (vesture), but not for the move of the old "Mantle (disambiguation)" to Mantle. See [2]. Kusma (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I had figured the redundant page would be deleted and thought the article didn't have a talk page. Anynobody 10:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do what you want with the the Mantle (disambiguation) page but frankly I don't see how having a superfluous page which links to the page a user would get after inputting mantle anyway is useful. (They'd have to type mantle (disambiguation) to get there or pick it as the 11th item on a search.) Anynobody 09:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an administrative redirect for the WP:DPL project. Usually, articles should never link to disambiguation pages, but to the intended target instead. The Mantle (disambiguation) link can be used to clarify that you deliberately want to link to the disambiguation page, for example from other, related disambiguation pages. See WP:R#Miscellaneous_and_administrative_redirects and Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages. Hope that helps, Kusma (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update on the COFS RfA and the Wikipedia Scanner info. If it helps, the list of Scientology IP blocks I have are:

• 12.9.238.*
• 12.9.239.*
• 198.77.154.*
• 198.77.155.*
• 198.95.10.*
• 205.180.15.*
• 205.227.165.*

Also used by some of their websites:

• scientology.org = 192.216.201.9
• various anti-mental health medication sites = 64.70.59.(131-188) & 207.217.96.(33-45)

I probably won't be active in the discussion, but I am interested in finding out the results of the arbitration. Thanks. -- HiEv 10:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page, but forgot to say thanks for the IPs. Thank you for the IPs. :) Anynobody 06:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! mattbr 07:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist that specific details of the PBM should be included in the lead -- not forgetting that the death toll from that aircraft is already mentioned in the lead - then I will insist that all other pertinent details are included as well, such as the ship etc. Moriori 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]