User talk:Royalguard11/Archive 5
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jewish opposition to evolution still protected[edit]
It's been four months. How about unprotecting it so that we can get some good edit wars going again? ;-) --Eliyak T·C 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Notification[edit]
Just a super quick note, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 21 is out and can be downloaded at the usual places (if you've forgotten, WikipediaWeekly.com works wonders. -- Tawkerbot 01:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.[edit]
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 31 | 30 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 00:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Saskatchewan Wikiproject expansion[edit]
Do you think that SK is ready to start a Saskatchewan portal? This would help us to increase our {Saskatchewan} presence in Wikipedia, and help to emphasize feature articles, or works in progress on the three wikiprojects - Sk WP main, Communities WP and roads WP. Do you have the time to start the layout of such? Should such an enterprise be proposed in the WP SK newsletter or begun so that folks can add their 2 cents as it also grows and expands? Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 18:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 09:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Another article, Jewish reactions to intelligent design, was protected at the same time as the first. Your assistance appreciated. --Eliyak T·C 03:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Good Evening (GMT time); I see you've recently protected the above article. However, I'm currently Mediating this case, on behalf of the Mediation Committee, and it is my wish, as the Mediator of this article, that the article remain unprotected from edits by registered users.
This is, I believe, an action that will protect the case, and retain the voluntary nature of Mediation. Therefore, I'd like to ask you to lift the protection from edit:sysop, move:sysop to edit:autoconfirmed, move:autoconfirmed.
In addition, this is to prevent the locking out of some parties from the article, but not others: a few of the parties are Administrators, but the majority are not.
Kind regards,
Anthøny 21:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree the page should be unprotected, and would add that your protection seems to have removed a great deal of sourced content [1]. If users are not able to work together, as clearly evident from their edit warring, block them rather than blocking everyone else from editing the article. As it is, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was just released from a two month full protection less than two weeks ago. - auburnpilot talk 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Autoconfirmed Proposal[edit]
I've tagged it as {{historical}} - as it's unlikely to happen, remember Wikipedia:Delete unused username after 90 days?? - that was in the same vein as this proposal, but was rejected. Same thing will happen here.
It's a bad idea, so just leave it tagged as historical, 'kay?? --Bolusball200 20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
August Volume 1, Issue 3 Newsletter[edit]
WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 1, Issue 3 - August 2007[edit]
The WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and Saskatchewan Wikipedia / Wikimedia activity as known/reported.
Archives | Tip Line | Editors | Subscribers |
|
|
| ||||
SriMesh | talk 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Request for comment[edit]
I recently peeked into a new wikipedia area to me...and stumbled upon ... 5 Brendon Demerais. Is it an article worthy of submission? ... As it is something that a Saskatoonian has entered a drifting event in the U.S. You seem to have more experience on Wikipedia and thought I would ask this of you. SriMesh | talk 04:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Moving Milena velba to correct capitalization[edit]
This article was created with an incorrect capitalization, presumably to get around the protection of Milena Velba, the correct spelling. Looking around, it seems an unreferenced version of the article was deleted at the start of the year, and several attempted recreations were deleted as "recreation of deleted content". After thinking about it, I think a professor at a respected university claiming the world's largest anything is sufficiently notable for an article. This is to notify one of the deleting admins; if you disagree, let's talk on the article talk page. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 33 | 13 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 20:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the article's edit history - perhaps I worded my request in such a way as it seemed preemptive, but it's not, vandalism on the article is currently very high. TheIslander 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Kelowna, Kamloops, etc.[edit]
If you haven't seen it yet, I'm compiling a list of Canadian cities (cities only, not towns yet) for which "City" currently exists as a redirect to "City, Province", so that they can be systematically reviewed as to whether the plain titles should become the article titles or be converted to dab pages instead. I'm not entirely done the section for Quebec yet, since the whole ville problem makes that one a vastly longer and more daunting list of cities to plow through, but the list is at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities if you have any input or want to help review which ones should be nominated for moves. Bearcat 00:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, having a centralized discussion is probably a good idea. The list is already insane enough just looking at cities — I haven't even started touching towns yet. (As if there were ever going to be any other Channel-Port aux Basques or Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands anywhere else in the world...) But for what it's worth, I've already identified two cities where a dab page was more appropriate than a move, so I sincerely doubt that every place on the list is going to get moved. So I'm also looking, if possible, to save everybody some time and effort by identifying all or most cities which aren't viable move candidates, and striking them off the list, before getting into a mass discussion. Bearcat 01:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You mention protecting Quebec until the dispute on the "Quebec is a nation" are resolved. I think it would be appropriate to do so now, by reverting the page to its initial state: without "Quebec is a nation", a (highly) POV statement maliciously added by Pgsylv (talk · contribs). Thank you. Tomj 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I showed how Quebec is a nation just like Scotland. I proved it with scientific method. The majority of specialists says that Quebec is a nation. Lexicon has used a speech of S. Dion on Youtube as a reference wich is weak and biaised because S. Dion is a Liberal politician. Since the french version says Quebec is a nation at the begining and that it has been accepted, it should be the same way in the English version. It's no big deal. Scotland is a nation after all, but its country is the U.K. Same thing with Quebec and Canada. Thank You Pgsylv 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 05:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 06:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
France[edit]
Thanks. I'm trying to build an encylopedia here by filling in the red links first. Then info boxes are added then the article itself begins to develop as most of the articles we have on wikipedia on places today. the bot will come along and add locator building the wiki map. Yet some user added a speedy biography tag to them!! I find it easier to stub them first and then develop them later at least the encyclopedia recognizes these places as existing then . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Disturbed song article A7[edit]
Hello!
As you most probably know, you have taken out a speedy deletion template from an article I tagged. I understand why you may think this is not covered by A7, and I apologize. The discussion I had with the author of the articles can be seen [User talk:Zouavman Le Zouave#RE: Disturbed Song Articles|[here]], where I explicitly asked him if he was okay with the deletions. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I am glad to see that you actually checked before deleting! ;-) Zouavman Le Zouave 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Cliff's notes thing of the whole Sazabi/Jagd Doga/Zeong dispute[edit]
Basically, the articles were improved greatly by User:MalikCarr a while back. User:A Man In Black, who, by the way, has a rather long rap sheet, came along and started futzing with them, eventually sawing out large portions of the article and attempting to impose a new infobox, against consensus.
The major source of the dispute is the infobox; A Man In Black has shown himself completely unwilling to accept any other solution of his own, and despite the fact that a new consensus has emerged on the WP:Gundam talk page for an improved infobox that has more real-life relevance in it, he has continued to revert the page to his perferred version. Myself and User:MalikCarr have been reverting him and restoring the page to the last good version; as A Man In Black has proven impossible to negotiate with, there is not much else we can do. Jtrainor 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 28[edit]
Good news, everyone: Wikipedia Weekly Episode 28 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/09/04/wikipedia-weekly-28/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project!
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 04:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 36 | 3 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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. R Delivery Bot 04:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 37 | 10 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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. R Delivery Bot 20:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please pop by and check out our latest newsletter additions. SriMesh | talk 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Tibet[edit]
More problems with proposed deltion of new geo articles. PLease see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demqog and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deleg (2nd nomination) thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The SPC article[edit]
Hey royal. Thanks for having my back on the old SPC article. Would you mind replacing the current image of the card with the new card? I have no idea how to do it myself. Thanks! Spyco 05:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks[edit]
Thanks for the protection, so speedy! JavaDog 18:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
=NAMBLA[edit]
You unprotected it this morning and the vandalism is already beginning. I do wish you'd reconsider, or at least give editors warning on the talk page before taking such a step. Jeffpw 11:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 38 | 17 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 03:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello there
I see you have had a hand puttering at this article - it is at Featured article review/Louis Riel. My first time at a FAR. I added requested references, and updated images. Do you, in you considered opinion, think there should be more inline citations? I don't know what to do with the first references begun on the page, they appear with a bullet in the reference section, and follow behind my citations added which use Citation templates. Do you have any comments for the folks at Featured article review? SriMesh | talk 02:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| 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. R Delivery Bot 02:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 31[edit]
Oh, boy! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 31 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/09/26/wikipedia-weekly-31-return-of-the-panel/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly. We're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project!
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 02:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Please re-block 66.129.5.5[edit]
Hi. I see that you blocked anonymous edits from 66.129.5.5 (The McCallie School) back in January 2007 for 6 months. Well, they're back to their old tricks with a vengeance, and have messed up the Beowulf article a treat. Could you restore that block, and for a year this time. Please.--Farry 12:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Two questions[edit]
How can I keep a user from trumping up complaints about me to an admin? Should I file a complaint for his threats, or the things he's done already, just to let them know theres a problem? The other thing is: why am I listed as one of your tools?FlaviaR 03:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Love page lock[edit]
RG, I suggest that you re-add the new user lock to the love article; it has already had five vandalisms this day alone. It's too much effort to keep a page like this on our watchlist if all the edits are love notes to people (even the talk page is the same way). Please put on permanent lock. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- One user who is blocked did all the recent vandalism. It's not really that bad. It would just be nice if people didn't all the sudden panic when a page is unprotected. It's not the end of the world. I'm not going to reprotect, but you are free to ask another admin, although most wouldn't reprotect one day after unprotecting. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- R.G. thanks anyway, I've asked other admins before. I just think that certain pages should be perm-protected. If you change your mind let me know. --Sadi Carnot 00:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
UBM guideline[edit]
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration. Please feel free, obviously, to continue the discussion there. - jc37 19:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Back - could you undelete my userpage[edit]
Hi Royalguard11, I'm completely back on wikipedia (the addiction no one can shake off). Since I db-u'ed my userpage when I left out of frustration (the last time the userbox deletions flared) I'd like to ask you if you could restore it for me. I'd ask El C who deleted it for me but his talkpage kinda confuses me :D. Best wishes! CharonX/talk 00:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Page protection[edit]
Hi, Royalguard11. You recently unprotected the article Abortion. There have been 3 incidents of garden variety vandalism since then.[2][3][4] The nature of the article's topic makes it prone to disputes, but, with the semi-protection in place, we at least haven't had to worry about dealing with the daily occurrence of hit-and-run vandalism in addition to the unavoidable disagreements over content. Would you consider re-protection? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 07:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Severa about reinstating page protection. I have started a discussion topic on talk just in case there are objections. See Talk:Abortion#Page_semi-protection. Since you unprotected the page, I am soliciting your opinion specifically (but don't feel obligated to reply). Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Having some problems with a user[edit]
I'm having some problems with User:Necator. We are currently engaged in a content dispute over the S-400 Triumf article; Necator keeps inserting POV and irrelevant unsourced material, whereas I have been attempting to keep the text neutral. He has violated WP:CIVIL on a number of occasions and violated WP:3RR twice in the past week, as well as accusing me of being a sockpuppet of User:MalikCarr and falsely reporting that I have been violating policy and inserting POV material, as per his recent edits on the administrator noticeboard and the Wikiquette Alerts page. Jtrainor 21:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, he accused me of being a sockpuppet of you, I believe... in any case, I would be happy to comply with any administrative requests to facilitate an end to these allegations and relevant nonsense. We've all got more important things to do, I'm sure. MalikCarr 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 32[edit]
Great news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 32 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/09/episode-32-trust-me/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 08:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Wikipedia Weekly[edit]
A couple new episodes - we're posting the infobox to save duplicating info.
Subscription · Feedback
For the podcast crew -- Tawkerbot 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
MfD notification[edit]
Just so you know, someone has nominated a user-subpage of yours for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Royalguard11/Userbox personalities. Thanks. Acalamari 17:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Genghis Khan[edit]
Hi, looks like you accidentally clicked the wrong link when trying to s-protect here. --Latebird 10:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 10:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
lignicolous[edit]
Hi - why did you delete the page called lignicolous months ago? Was there a better page? Thanks. I need a page to refer to lignicolous fungi, i.e. those that grow on and decay wood. Heliocybe 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Image source problem with Image:George Reed.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:George Reed.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Here is the new October newsletter for WikiProject Saskatchewan, showing recent developments, challenges, and successes for the 'Saskatchewan wikipedia community. Thank you for perusing our newsletter!
Please help develop the November newsletter by adding your new Saskatchewan related article contributions on wikipedia. Also add any considerations for WikiProject Saskatchewan|SK articles, roads, communities and neighbourhoods article growth on Wikipedia. Or just pop a note in to add a seasons greetings to others on Wiki Saskatchewan. Thank you!SriMesh | talk 02:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
November newsletter and election[edit]
You added a note on the WP SK talk page regarding the election, would you care to add it into the Nov newsletter?
Kind Regards J SriMesh | talk 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
WP Saskatchewan Roads and Highways[edit]
Can you if you have a spare moment pop into the talk page for roads and highways and or the issues added to the talk page for user ultraflame. There are quite a few highway articles, and decisions undergoing, and it may be of assistance to ultraflame / Sk roads and highways to give road and highway articles under deletion / merger/ etc an added two cents worth of another opinion. I don't know who else to contact to formulate various decision making processes which seem to be underway, or it it best to let things run there course.SriMesh | talk 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed an honour and privilege to award you with the Wikiproject Saskatchewan ribbon for your many contributions to Saskatchewan on wikipedia. Congratulations and thank you for all that you do. Your achievement will be noted in the upcoming WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 1, Issue 6 - November 2007. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 05:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:George Reed.jpg[edit]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:George Reed.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 09:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect my talk page, please?[edit]
I'm having a problem with a couple of anon IPs that are annoyed at me for nominating an article they like for deletion recently. Both have dropped false warnings on my talk page a couple of times, and I'd like said page to remain vandal-free (one of the anon IPs has a number of vandalism warnings) Jtrainor 22:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33[edit]
Great news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/26/wikipedia-weeekly-30/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP (?) 07:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
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 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 06:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for move protecting this page. Unfortunately, you did it right after someone moved it back to the POV name. Is there anything that can be done? I'm watching this page so feel free to respond here. Carter | Talk to me 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks man. Carter | Talk to me 03:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34[edit]
zOMG! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34 has been released, and it's the biggest panel in quite a while!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/03/wikipedia-weekly-34-aka-fundraiser/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 35[edit]
Let us rejoyce! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 35 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/11/episode-35-secretly-famous/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 01:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 08:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Saskatchewan Wikipedia Newsletter November 2007[edit]
SriMesh | talk 00:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| An interview with Florence Devouard | Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution |
| WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals" | News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the News | WikiProject Report: History |
| 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) 10:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like there is now 4-1 consensus to move this page to Penticton. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The beginning steps of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan/Newsletter/December 2007 are underway, Seems like mid month appears to be a delivery rotation as of late. Did you wish to add anything, and wishing you all the best for the season coming up! SriMesh | talk 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
John Hale[edit]
Oh, sorry about the quotes thing, I was just trying to point out that in the play/book, which I'm writing an essay on, it says that Hale is famous for discovering that an accused woman was not a witch, not finding someone to be a witch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.244.252 (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Québec[edit]
English has an official statu perhaps in the Quebec but its place is not in the infrabox! bye ! Lipton1995 19:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is you the "vandal" ! Me I live in the Québec, of you of in the Saskatchewan then I think that I know the Québec better than you! Furthermore if English has an official statu in the Quebec then French has an official statu in the Saskatchewan !?!?!
Thanks Lipton1995 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner | Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open |
| Possible license migration sparks debate | Featured articles director names deputy |
| Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed | WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay" |
| News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| WikiProject Report: LGBT studies | 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 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Wiki-Image-Nazi's[edit]
The only thing they are complaining to be about is rule 10c, which says that each fair-use image has to have a rational for each use. I just add the line "Image is used in the articles X and Y to illustrate the subject." As long as you have the names of the articles written down somewhere in the image discription, the bots should be happy. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit]
Archives | Tip Line | Editors | Subscribers |
|
|
| ||||
SriMesh | talk 15:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Page Protection[edit]
Hi, Royalguard11! Well, I just survived my RfA, and the first area of cleanup I'd like to get involved in is unprotecting those pages that I mentioned. Would you mind giving me a bit of advice on this process? I've completed the "New Admin School" on page protection, but I have no clue about this "Office Actions" thing, and the protection page says "be careful with indefinitely move-protected pages", but doesn't say how or what I'm supposed to be careful about. So - any advice? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Twinkle Not Working[edit]
Responded. Hope this fixes your issue. ffm 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images | Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction |
| WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here" | News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the News | WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester |
| 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) 07:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wayne Howard[edit]
Thank you so much for protecting Wayne Howard when people were posting then-unconfirmed rumors about his death. Someone has just placed his funeral home notice (http://www.funeralplan2.com/hullfh/obituaries?id=115850) on the Talk page, so it's safe to unprotect the article when you have a chance. And a funny thing, but out of all this I'll bet a lot of casual Wikipedians learned a bit about research technique. Thank you again! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
George W. Bush[edit]
I noticed you unprotected this article along with several others. Was this one intentional? - auburnpilot talk 23:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I failed to notice the absent "W". When I saw it pop up, I couldn't believe somebody would actually unprotect GWB. - auburnpilot talk 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication | ||
| Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed | Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee | |
| Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge | WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam" | |
| News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones | Wikipedia in the News | |
| WikiProject Report: Plants | 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) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We did carbon-copy the English on this one, actually. Chatham used to be an independent city within Kent County, perfectly replicating the one in England — a municipal merger less than ten years ago is the only reason there's a hyphen in it now. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious why you didn't just merge this rather than taking it to AfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Unprotecting[edit]
I was hoping you'd read my notices on Talk:Cancer and Talk:Obesity. On both these pages, the vast majority of anonymous edits (before protection) constituted vandalism. Either would attract 20-30 vandalism edits a day - some very defacing and awful. I will not reinstate these protections without giving you time to respond, but I urge you to reconsider. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- On what grounds (i.e. policy) do you decide whether 1 month is excessively long for a major vandalism target to be protected? JFW | T@lk 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As a fellow admin I am distinctly disappointed in your abrupt termination of our conversation with "eight and a half months is excessive. Period." I have given you a reasonable argument why these pages would benefit from protection. You have not given me a reasonable argument about what constitutes "excessive", on which grounds and on the basis of which policy. Unless you can clarify this urgently, I will have to request community opinion on this matter.
Like many other editors, I am not prepared to let six years of hard work - editing, consensus building and sourcing - get destroyed several times an hour by mindless vandals who take delight in adding that "Rick is fat" or "your mom has cancer". JFW | T@lk 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- For purposes of clarification, I am basing my actions on this policy: "Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as the George W. Bush article." The policy does not quantify this, but I believe both pages are subject to heavy and continued vandalism. JFW | T@lk 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The pages in question were semiprotected. The protection was completely according to policy, and I believe you are riding roughshod through a very touchy issue. I'm afraid I've had to leave a message on this matter on WP:ANI.[5] JFW | T@lk 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your reference to WP:OWN (on my talkpage) doesn't come into the picture at all. As I stated, these pages are the result of many users seeking consensus. JFW | T@lk 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I would also strongly suggest that you cease unprotecting pages while your actions are being questioned. JFW | T@lk 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto[edit]
I came here to question your decision to unprotect Ugliness. The article was vandalized just a half an hour after you unprotected it. Vandalism to that page has been reverted 17 times in the last five days. If you are going to unprotect a page that is subject to heavy vandalism then you should at least take some responsibility for reverting the vandalism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you're busy. Please appreciate that several admins (and some bots) have been made busier by the removal of the semi-protection. I suggest you check the articles you unprotected and see if any should be re-protected. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for full protection on Waterboarding[edit]
Hi, could you consider reprotecting Waterboarding again so we can trash out a new revision to the lead. Unfortunately after all the hard work it is devolving back into a main page edit war, slow for now - but I think it will get bad again. We need to get a more encompassing consensus lead agreed in the talk page, but this is not being helped by a few unilateral edits on the main page - I haven't counted, but I'm sure #rr is getting hit again, but more importantly it is clear as long as it is editable we will not be able to calmly develop a replacement lead to accommodate some recent arrival's wishes. I think most of the protagonists are willing to work on it and give ground in Talk:Waterboarding - but the developing edit waring in the main article doesn't help the cause. Say 2 weeks, earlier by request if we can trash it out. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi could you remove the protection. Tensor was premature in the request and furthermore was actually the only person who was edit warring. There is a great deal of discussion on the talk page and protecting it the article without evidence of an edit war makes the discussion moot. See the talk page where Tensor asked for a vote on protection and everyone there disagreed. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Brad Wall[edit]
I reverted blatent vandalism (removal of links) from you, and I removed information on a former member of the Saskatchewan Party caucus that was completely based on rumour and innuendo, not fact. Such has been thoroughly discussed on the Brad Wall "talk" page, and a consensus was reached that the material on Brenda Baaken did not belong, much as certain material does not belong on Lorne Calvert's page.
Your comments on my talk page were completely innappropriate.
64.110.244.76 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Wales appoints six arbitrators | Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible |
| WikiWorld comic: "Molasses" | News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the News | WikiProject Report: Plants |
| 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) 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm dropping you a note because you are listed on Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin as an admin that is maintaining a personal SALT page. Recent software updates now allow deleted pages to be protected just like other pages. Please consider migrating any pages on your personal list to normal protections, and clearing them off of your list. There still may be situations where a personal list may be the best way to handle a page though. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Asian fetish[edit]
Thanks for putting up the protection. Tkguy (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "O"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "P"s through "S"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)