User talk:Andyvphil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

A barnstar for you[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! ProfJustice (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. (above added by Wikidemo, 10:34, 8 June 2008

Do not edit others' talk page comments[edit]

Please do not edit others' talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Barack Obama. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. Shem(talk) 17:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Without diffs, I have no idea what you're fulminating about. If you are talking about headers, you don't own them, and you don't get to use them argumentatively, per policy. Andyvphil (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, diff:[1]. Changing a section head can shift the meaning of a user comment. In this case, the edited head restricts the comments to "Option 1 Supporters," and that was not there when Shem made his comment. Changing section heads can be done when it's helpful, but not if it is partisan. That new section head was quite possibly offensive. (I have not followed the arguments enough to be sure that it was, but that Shem protested is prima facie evidence that it was. It was his comments whose context was altered by the shifted head, and he was the one who had added the heading and the comment under it. Thus it was a changing of user comments, and, while a mild example of it, does seem to be inappropriate. However, the editing of the section header in your own Talk page is clearly offensive. I'd say, Andyvphil, that you may be trolling to get blocked. And then you will be able to scream that it was unfair, you were only editing your own Talk page. But altering user comments on your talk page, and that is what happens when you edit a section header, if done offensively, as you did here, is clearly not acceptable. Don't say you were not warned.--Abd (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reread what I told Shem above and follow the blue link I supplied: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." "This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus" is an unsuitable header and if fixing the header shifts Shem's meaning or is "offensive" (which I deny) he needs to change his posting behavior, not whine to me about my refusal to let him "own" the page. Andyvphil (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to be as civil as possible in my reminder, but you're making your own bed, Andy. You've been reported at AN/I. Shem(talk) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil -- while it is true that "a heading should indicate what the topic is," I believe that if someone leaves a comment on your talk page, and that is the only comment under that section, editing the heading (as you did here is entirely inappropriate. The "wider latitude on [your] own talk page" that you refer to does not apply to refactoring other's comments, and in my opinion, changing the section header of a warning constitutes refactoring (unlike changing the section heading of an ongoing discussion, which can be useful at times).
The ANI report will sort out whether your other modifications to talk page headings were appropriate. But I would give you this advice: If you don't like a warning on your talk page, remove it (that is acceptable under WP:DRC). Don't refactor it in an antagonistic fashion. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for ongoing disruptive editing, including incivility, personal attacks, altering other editors' posts, tendentiousness, and a fundamentally argumentative and uncollaborative approach to editing. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell Talk 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noted this block at WP:AN/I for review and feedback. MastCell Talk 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Andyvphil (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Request unblock for sole purpose of responding to allegations at AN/I and SSP. I will make no edits outside those venues until the ban is lifted or lifts. Andyvphil (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That is not a reason to unblock you, as it does not address how your block is supposed to violate blocking policy. You are not blocked becaused of allegations, but because of specific misconduct. You may make any pertinent comments here, by means of a brief and well-reasoned unblock request. —  Sandstein  21:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Andyvphil (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I am not now alleging that the block violated policy, though I reserve the option to make that argument in the future. I am requesting parole for the specific purpose of responding to allegations being made against me. WP:BP:"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Also, however, "administrators should not undo other administrators' blocks without prior discussion", so I have no objection to your passing on this unblock request to MastCell without acting on it yourself.

Decline reason:

Per discussion and instructions below. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Comment on the unblock request[edit]

Ordinarily, I'd think the request for unblock to allow the user to defend himself from allegations would be reasonable. However, the offenses for which the user was blocked included personal attack in the very areas (and certainly in the SSP report) where the user now wishes to "answer" allegations. If the user could, here, cite allegations requiring response, then an administrator could review those specifically, and then balance the benefit of allowing the user to respond against the hazard of further disruption from continued personal attack and tendentious debate. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I concur with Abd's observations. — Athaenara 06:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a template somewhere which allows a user to use a section of his user talk page, which is transcluded in the necessary place on the target page. This would probabally be a better route to take than unblocking. If this user then breaks policy, then all that needs to be done is the template removed from the target page, and the user then cannot comment on it again. I think this would be a reasonable option, but I can't remember what the template is called. :-) Stwalkerstertalk ] 09:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No need any template to just show a thread from this talk page, just use this: {{User talk:Andyvphil#Comment on the unblock request}} (or what ever section one chooses) at the target site. Now a template to provide the link back to edit would be nice as current thread link would need to be: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andyvphil&action=edit&section=127 edit] (but that checking of sectgion number is messy) 13:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a simpler solution. Anyone could place a note in the two places that prominently states that the user wishes to comment on or respond to allegations made in those places, pointing to this section of the user's Talk, or to a section that Andyvphil creates. (Unless Andyvphil abuses his Talk to continue to make personal attacks, I'm opposed to preventing him from editing his own Talk. Note that he did previously abuse his right to edit his own Talk page, turning section headers placed by other users into attacks on them. However, there is little harm from risking a repeat of this, and the damage would be confined, and only be visible to those who choose to read his Talk. And, of course, I'd think that if he repeats his prior behavior here, he'd be promptly blocked from editing here as well as elsewhere.) If he asks, I'm willing to place the notices for him, and, indeed, if he wishes, to either use a brief and not aggressive notice that he suggests, or, if I can't do that, to submit my version for his approval before placing it. If desired, that notice could be later turned into a permanent link to a version of this page, when discussion here is completed.--Abd (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair right of reply is generally understood to involve equal prominence for accusations and reply, but given my low opinion of the admins involved it's unsurprising that I should only be offered the right of nearly invisible reply. I will supply the necessary headers. Andyvphil (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Andyvphil, you already had a right of reply. Your replies abused the privilege, in my opinion. I said that I was willing to place notices if they were brief and not aggressive, if I was asked. I don't see that I have been asked; my offer remains open, but I assume that there are other users who could do it, if they are willing to take the risk. However, without being asked, I will comment on the headers provided, here, before them, rather than within the sections, and give a piece of advice to anyone considering placing them on behalf of Andyvphil.
About the "bogus accusations of sock puppetry." I don't see accusations of sock puppetry in that SSP report; rather, there were reported "suspicions" of sock puppetry. Given the circumstances, the suspicions were justified. Suspicion is not accusation, though sometimes the distinction gets lost. I was once "suspected" of sock puppetry, with an SSP report. The suspicion was reasonable -- if one neglected a huge amount of evidence to the contrary, and I don't expect administrators to be paying attention to everything. They make mistakes. I've also been "accused" of sock puppetry. By a blocked editor who has stated that he has other accounts so he wasn't worried about his block, and when he still wants to harass, he uses a particular IP range. The accusations were very different from the suspicions. Suspecting sock puppetry isn't a personal attack. Accusing someone of sock puppetry, absent proof, can be.
However, that is a fine distinction. Absent objection, if Andyvphil asks me to do so, I would place a link to that section here, with the SSP report, assuming it hasn't been closed by then. If it *has* been closed, it should be noticed that no conclusion was reached on whether or not Andyvphil was using a sock puppet. If Andyvphil wishes, I'd make an RFCU request. Otherwise, I don't think I'll do it. Someone else may make that request, it's possible. And that request would not be an "accusation" of sock puppetry, it would be an attempt to rule out sock puppetry, because suspicion remains reasonable, not clearly proven neither way. (It is almost impossible to prove no sock puppetry, to be sure, for there are sophisticated puppet masters who know how to evade detection, but it's a pain to maintain the necessary separation, and most puppet masters, I think, don't do it, or, sometimes, they make mistakes, they forget which account they are using....)
As to the link designed for the AN/I report, I consider it tendentious, itself. AN/I reports almost always describe alleged misbehavior, in the header. When you are calling the police, you don't make some "neutral" statement, you say, "Someone is trying to break into my house!" AN/I is an emergency noticeboard. I went back and forth on this, and concluded that I won't place a prominent link to that there. It's wikilawyering, attempting, after it is moot, to argue a point about an alleged violation of a section header guideline. When, quite obviously, that guideline is routinely not applied in AN/I. I would place, "Andyvphil wishes to respond to accusations made here against him , and a section on his talk page has been created: Response to and discussion of AN/I accusations." If he asks in time. There has already been mention of Talk page discussion there in the AN/I report, but I don't see any response here to any accusations, just a criticism of the Talk page header. The sock puppetry suspicion was irrelevant to the AN/I report.
Frankly, Andyvphil, I think you are wasting your time beating a dead horse. You've been blocked for a month. I don't see any sentiment at all for reducing that, and some for converting it to indef or to a ban. Is that what you want?
Now, advice to others thinking of placing the links. If it is done in a neutral manner, I think the risk of being sanctioned for it is low, unless one argues tendentiously over it. But there might be some wikitrout-slapping. We don't argue for the sake of argument, at least we shouldn't. We debate when there is a decision to be made. Community consensus is already clear: Andyvphil was grossly uncivil, in addition to editing tendentiously. The tendentious editing, itself, might or might not have resulted in a block, if it didn't go beyond obvious limits. But the incivility, against editors, groups of editors, and any administrator who dared to restrain Andyvphil, was quite enough. An administrator is not allowed to block someone who is uncivil to him or her. Rather, an administrator may block someone for violating policy not involving the administrator personally, and particularly if continued after warning. Andyvphil was warned many, many times for incivility. I did not see, however, any insulted administrator seeking to influence other administrators to block Andyvphil, they were quite restrained. (They are not required to be so restrained, an admin can, indeed, complain to AN/I about incivility from a user, just as any other editor may.) There is no issue here with sufficient support to justify continued debate. If Andyvphil thinks otherwise, he's still able to use this talk page. But if all he wants to do is to complain about the form of an AN/I section header, he may well lose even that privilege.
Further, if Andyvphil continues to think that he was wronged in some way, he remains free to pursue dispute resolution. I'm not familiar with the exact process, but if there is a charge of administrative abuse, a request for arbitration could be made, and ArbComm would decide whether or not to hear the case. But I have not seen any charges here, with any substance to them, of administrative abuse. Note the unblock request: "I am not now alleging that the block violated policy." Unless you change your mind, Andyvphil, the rest of all this is largely moot. Why should the community allow any more space to be filled with debate over ... what? People are blocked precisely to stop endless debate that has gone beyond bounds. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Just as a brief interjection, I personally find a month long block excessive. I do see that Andyvphil's participation often turns up the heat, and that he is not the image of a collaborative and easygoing editor. On the other hand, his reasoning is often sound (even if I disagree) and he is not intractably stubborn on content issues as many other editors can be. I would be very strongly opposed to an indefinite block/ban. AvruchT * ER 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Avruch, the issue is not his "reasoning." He isn't blocked for his political positions. He is blocked for disruption, and, specifically, for the kind of disruption that breaks down the core of how Wikipedia operates, he was blocked for incivility. The incivility was severe enough to warrant exactly the block that was given, he'd already been warned many times. He is, here, arguing against technicalities. Did he violate 3RR? But the substance is clear. Whether he violated 3RR or not, he was edit warring, which is a blockable offense. Edit warring can be a grey area. I sometimes use reverts and sometimes push the 3RR limit. If an administrator blocked me, unless I could show clear bias, and that was relevant, I'd not attack the administrator. Instead, I would either say, "Oops! My bad!" and move on, or I would argue that my edit warring was justificed under WP:IAR or other policy. And if no admin would unblock me, I'd say, "That's the consensus, get over it" and move on. Consensus is what this community runs on, and defiance of consensus (not merely in disagreeing with it, which is necessary, we don't have real consensus if disagreement is sanctioned) is the soul of disruption. Now, back to Andyvphil's prior response: --Abd (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
What I'm blocked for is supposedly "ongoing disruptive editing, including incivility, personal attacks, altering other editors' posts, tendentiousness, and a fundamentally argumentative and uncollaborative approach to editing." What I'm actually being blocked for, in my view, is an unsparing response to a pattern of administrative abuse. You say you "sometimes use reverts and sometimes push the 3RR limit". Which is to say you edit war. Of course you do. It is impossible to get anything accomplished in controversial areas of Wikipedia without edit warring, as Norotron just demonstrated by counterexample at Barack Obama, where he assembled a majority of editors behind at least an anodyne mention of Bill Ayers in the text and watched helplessly as both mentions of Ayers were removed from the page because the resident clique of Obama hagiographers were willing to put reverts behind their arguments and he was not. He finally made good on his repeated promise to withdraw in a a huff, having accomplished less than nothing... and having learned nothing, since he blamed the result equally on the editors unwilling to join him in accepting less-than-adequate wording without noticing that that too could not be put on the page without winning an edit war with the hagiographers.
I support blocks for actual 3RR violations. That way a preponderance of editors can have their way on the page most of the time, which is what "rough consensus" really means. And, in principle, blocks for "edit warring" when no 3RR violation has taken place could, when "behavior is clearly disruptive"(WP:3RR), be justified. But in practice that loophole is in my experience licence for arbitrary and disruptive intervention by editors with an admin bit who cannot be trusted to make good decisions or even look closely into the facts of the cases the intervene in. And a consensus of admins in refusing to unblock you, in the example you gave, would IMHO merely be merely a consensus in favor of treating admin sanctions on peons as infallable if at all possible, not an actual consensus based on knowledge that you had in fact done anything deserving the block. Andyvphil (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if you would stop acting like a complete WP:DICK, you'd have better results... 24.12.114.215 (talk)various times in revert war, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this really your first edit, or are you a WP:SOCKPUPPET? Andyvphil (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That you claim you "weren't asked" and yet accuse me of "wikilawyering" is absurd.

As is the assertion that I can pursue dispute resolution while blocked, though you admit you don't know how that might be done and you are preventing me from stating my case in any venue where it might be seen, or creating such a venue.

In what way is "Further responses by Andyvphil to AN/I section named, contrary to guideline, 'Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andyvphil'" unduly tendentious? Whether or not the guideline is routinely ignored at AN/I, there is no exemption in the guideline for AN/I and as far as I can see you do not argue that the header does not violate the guideline absent such an exemption. My header would violate the guideline, of course, if anyone argues that the AN/I header does not violate the guideline, but if you don't object to guideline violation at AN/I and Talk:Barack_Obama it's in any case a bit late to object to it here. That individuals are blocked to stop debate is an interesting admission. That you would break your freely offered word in order to stop debate more interesting still. Andyvphil (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

...But I will nonetheless give you the opportunity to break your word again. You said you will RFCU if I request it. I hereby request it. Again. Andyvphil (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Andy, sit back and ask yourself if the wording of section headers on talkpages (not articles, even!) is really worth all of this. I'll foreshadow the expected conclusion - no, it isn't. What do you truly gain by refactoring the headers of others, or arguing about it on article talkpages, at AN/I and your own talkpage? Its not like we can't see and identify for ourselves when a section header is biased or leading. We can, and it isn't necessary to war over it. AvruchT * ER 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
What it was worth to change the header to reflect the guideline is not the issue. Shem reported me at AN/I for "tendentious editing" for changing a header at Talk:Barack_Obama in a way that I am contending was completely unobjectionable. The first step in unpacking the kitchen sink of un-diffed justifications Mastcell offers for blocking me is to establish that the original accusation was unjustified abuse of process. Since I fully expect that Mastcell will again ignore his obligation to provide transparency for his decisions as an admin (he has never justified his assertion that I had performed "5+" reverts in his first block of me), and will not be held accountable for that, there is little that I can expect to happen. But I plan to clarify the record insofar as possible and make unremittingly clear my contempt for the pattern of abuse that has taken place and appears to be SOP. Andyvphil (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
How about this for wikilawyering: my offer to request checkuser is not binding, void for lack of consideration. Serious lack of consideration. It's a pain to do it, it's late, and I'm tired. I've been working on an actual article, you know, one of those things. I may file checkuser, I may not. So, we are even. I didn't break my promise about taking the comments to AN/I, I merely wanted the request to be clear. But you've already accused me of breaking my promise, so, hey, why not accommodate you? Maybe I will. But there are others who are more accustomed to filing RFCU. I did it once long ago. So if someone else does it before I get around to it, I certainly won't be offended. Got any friends? Anyone could do it, you know. I'm not an administrator, I have no special privileges. Just enough children and grandchildren, twelve and counting, not to be bullied by accusations of not keeping promises. --Abd (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
To explain this a little further, I tell my neighbor that I will do something for him if he asks, something that anyone could do, and my telling him is an open suggestion. I also say that I reserve the right to not approve of what the neighbor provides me so that I can fulfill my promise. He doesn't ask, he simply provides the raw material for the task, which anyone could use. When I point out that I won't do it unless he asks, he accuses me of insincerity, of nitpicking details ("wikilawyering"). Now, I also said I'd do something else, something that is actually more work. He now, essentially, demands that I do it, daring me not to, since if I don't do it, I will be, presumably, breaking my promise.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Two inmates are in the same jail. One is confined to his cell, the other can roam the halls freely. The relatively free one says to the confined one, "I'll get you some water if you ask." The confined inmate insults the free one, then demands the water. I can tell you, as that free inmate ("Are the birds free from the chains of the skyway"), I'm in no hurry to provide the water. ("If you ask" includes an implied, "If you ask politely.") Anyone can do it. Anyone can file checkuser. Avruch, you could do it. I've only done it once. The suspected puppet master here would be Andyvphil, with the suspected puppets being the other named accounts and any IP edits that Andyvphil didn't acknowledge as his. Checkuser should probably be filed, anyway, just to make sure. (My opinion is, at this point, that there is probably no direct connection, that what was going on would be meat puppetry *at worst*. But I did not examine the details of the SSP report. The two newer accounts were not found to be connected, but Andyvphil wasn't in the picture when the orignal RfCU was filed. He'd like to be cleared, I'd like to see that aspect of this case cleared up. So I do support filing RfCU, and if it is done, and I'm informed, I'd comment in it.) --Abd (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The hand isn't feeding me and you're not a fellow inmate, except to the extent that Wikipedia is an asylum. And maybe I've escaped from that. I made a reasonable request that I be allowed to answer the accusations against me (including those made by you) in the places where they were being made, and you offered the bogus alternative of invisible or nearly invisible response. It serves my argument not to refuse the offer but rather to confirm by test how bogus it is, but I won't thank you for that opportunity to waste my time. Andyvphil (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Further responses by Andyvphil to bogus accusation of sockpuppetry[edit]

Further responses by Andyvphil to AN/I section named, contrary to guideline, "Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil"[edit]

I just noticed that the content of the tendentiously-titled AN/I section, "Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil", has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil. That no one has commented on the fact that Ncmvocalist apparently systematically sees pro-hagiographic edit warring as less objectionable than the opposition to it is interesting. When an admin doesn't edit an article it doesn't mean he is unbiased -- merely that you have to look to other evidence (e.g., which edits he finds objectionable) to see what his biases are. Scjessey saying he hasn't violated 3RR isn't even funny, though the fact that he's done it so often without corresponding reflection on his block log seems to be a result of that kind of bias. The evidence points to Wikipedia admins being a fairly pro-Obama demographic, with predictable results in their kangaroo courts. That said, I don't care whether Obama has 1RR or 3RR provided it is enforced as a rule and admins refrain from checking their biased guts for whether a violation of a penumbra of the rule has taken place. Of course, perhaps the worst atrocity that was committed in this sequence of events didn't involve reverts at all. Jossi's block of FoveanAuthor as a sockpuppet merely because he was on the same side as Kossack, and without any due diligence, takes that cake. Andyvphil (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I also want to direct a question at Noroton regarding his statement that, "In any event, since information on Ayers has been discussed and no consensus has been reached, it can't be restored to the page unless a consensus forms to do so. Edits that add Ayers material should be reverted at this point." Is it really his position that well cited non-tendentious material whose presence was supported by a majority at talk page discussion can be vetoed in this fashion? Andyvphil (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that you want your first comment posted on the AN/I subpage? I'm not sure that it will improve leniency towards you and your cause and may, in fact, negatively impact you and your cause. Would it be possible for you to rewrite your first comment to not include the personal attacks? --Bobblehead (rants) 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC) PS: The noincludes are so my comment won't be included if this section is transcluded.
I turned off the noincludes -- hope you don't mind. Feel free to restore them if you do. Put it around this comment and I'll refactor to restore the parts I want. Anyway, my "cause" isn't leniency. My cause is to be as clear as possible in my accusations of arrogant, biased and abusive admin behavior. It's clear that that's really what I was blocked for, not changing headers on my talk page, still less the ones at talk:B_O and AN/I. What Jossi did was both inexcusable and reflective of a larger problem, and I have no intention of pretending that the pissed upon and the pissers are happy comrades in arms in a joint endeavor. Andyvphil (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Andy, please calm down. There is a way to edit the article constructively. Please cooperate with me. You really need to control your anger or you will become completely ineffective. You will be indefinitely blocked if you keep this up. Control your anger and in a calm and rational manner, state your case in neutral terms against the admins. It will be addressed. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


Andy, anything you want to say on the subpage of the noticeboard should be inside the onlyinclude tags. Anything you want to say here that you don't want on the board subpage should be said outside those tags, or inside separate noinclude tags. AvruchT * ER 00:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And also for your kind words on my actual editing of maintext, etc. Andyvphil (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 24 9 June 2008 About the Signpost

Board elections continue WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia" 
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Main page day 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) 06:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #6[edit]

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 6
GG-bridge-12-2006.jpg
  Date: Saturday, June 28th, 2008
  Time: ~1:00PM
  Place: Glen Park Branch Library
  prev: Meetup 5 - next: Meetup 7

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 25 23 June 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor 
Board elections completed; results forthcoming WikiWorld: "John Hodgman" 
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26 26 June 2008 About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial 
Global group discussions in progress WikiWorld: "Raining animals" 
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes 
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) 07:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 27 30 June 2008 About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy 
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking" 
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine 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) 03:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification[edit]

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 28 7 July 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency 
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed 
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane" News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June 
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) 09:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bill Ayers election controversy[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bill Ayers election controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Ayers election controversy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 29 14 July 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency 
WikiWorld: "Goregrind" Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30 21 July 2008 About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics" News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts 
Dispatches: History of the featured article process 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) 05:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #7[edit]

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 7
GG-bridge-12-2006.jpg
  Date: September 6th, 2008
  Time: 3 PM
  Place: Freebase HQ, San Francisco
  prev: Meetup 6 - next: Meetup 8

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.[edit]

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 31 28 July 2008 About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up WikiWorld: "Terry Gross" 
News and notes: Unblocked in China Dispatches: Find reliable sources online 
WikiProject Report: Military history Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Volume 4, Issue 32 9 August 2008 About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy" 
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33 11 August 2008 About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members 
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos" 
News and notes: Wikipedian dies Dispatches: Reviewing free images 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34 18 August 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted 
WikiWorld: "Cashew" Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article 
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) 05:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 35 25 August 2008 About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell" News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Interview with Mav 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36 8 September 2008 About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent" 
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Featured topics Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August 
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) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama[edit]

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to paerticipate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 37 15 September 2008 About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi" 
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review 
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) 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion[edit]

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #8[edit]

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 8
GG-bridge-12-2006.jpg
  Date: November 8th, 2008
  Time: 2PM
  Place: Metacafe, Palo Alto, California
  prev: Meetup 7 - next: Meetup 9
You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Birth Hospital[edit]

There are some reports that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital and some that he was born in Queen's Hospital. How do you reconcile these contradictory reports?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.[edit]

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 42 8 November 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor 
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43 10 November 2008 About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week ArbCom elections: Nominations open 
Book review: How Wikipedia Works MediaWiki search engine improved 
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day 
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Volume 4, Issue 44 17 November 2008 About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license 
Wikimedia Events Roundup News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones 
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) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009[edit]

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.


The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue 
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones 
Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open Wikipedia in the news 
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System Features and admins 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track 
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK 
Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting 
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers 
Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey 
Features and admins 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: December themed Main Page 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology 
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices 
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet 
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates 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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by 03:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored 
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news 
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins 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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009[edit]

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16
From the editorA new leaf
Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting
News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more
In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom
Dispatches
How busy was 2008?
WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games
Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins
Approved this week
Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 05:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppettry[edit]

Care to chime in? [2]. Evidently Ratel thinks we are the same person. CENSEI (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 07:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR[edit]

I have nominated Barack Obama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Avi (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »
The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 15:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey[edit]

Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

SF Meetup #11[edit]

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 11
GG-bridge-12-2006.jpg
  Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2010
  Time: 15:00 (3PM)
  Place: WMFoundation offices
  prev: Meetup 10 - next: Meetup 12

This is posted to the groups by request. Please sign up on the Invite list for future announcements. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · 91.198.174.201 (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic[edit]

Hi there! In the past, you've expressed an interest in local meetups of Wikipedians. Well, here's your chance! On Saturday, June 25, we'll be joining Wikipedians in cities all over the country for the first annual Great American Wiknic -- the picnic that anyone can edit! We'll meet up at a park in SF -- hopefully in the sun -- all other details are still in deliberation!

If this sounds fun, please add your name to the list: Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Wiknic and add that page to your watchlist. (And of course, feel free to edit that page with your ideas, questions, etc.) I look forward to wiknicking with you! -Pete (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

New AfD of article you have worked on[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (3rd nomination). BigJim707 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012[edit]


The Signpost: 09 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012[edit]


The Signpost: 23 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012[edit]

No personal attacks, please.[edit]

Hi, Andyvphil. I'll dispense with the flowery wording and cut straight to the chase: please cease with the personal attacks and commenting on editors, such as the ones on the article talk page and in edit summaries like this one. Also, you are welcome and encouraged to participate in the ongoing content discussions, but edit warring your content changes into the article while that very content is being discussed in 3 separate RfCs and 2 noticeboards is disruptive. Please help us to achieve consensus in those ongoing discussions before implementing your edits. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BAIT - 3RR[edit]

Don't take it. A resolution to the clear violation of WP:YESPOV in the Swiftboating article resides in this RfC. What the article currently contains or does not contain is irrelevant and will ultimately be predicated upon the interpretation and application of WP:POLICY. Utilizing the ongoing process for that determination is the way forward, not ad hoc edit-warring or tit-for-tat goaded ventures into ad hominem. Just my .02 JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Andyvphil. You have new messages at JakeInJoisey's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Swiftboating shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ----Snowded TALK 10:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012[edit]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Age of Empires Online, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012[edit]

San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon[edit]

San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon!
Who should come? You should. Really.
We Can Do It!.jpg
The San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon will be held on Saturday, March 17, 2012 at the the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco! Participate in editing subjects about women's history and beyond! Workshops will also be hosted. New and experienced editors of any gender are welcome!
We look forward to seeing you there!

The Signpost: 05 March 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012[edit]

White Hispanic[edit]

How can someone be a "white Hispanic" when his mother is Peruvian and his father described the family as "multiracial"? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ask the New York Times. Check my edit comment -- I said it deserved derision. But I will note that there's an assertion in the Hispanic section of the talk page of some prior use. Andyvphil (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Zimmerman identifying as Hispanic is already in the article if you scroll down a little. How did Martin identify? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I assume "Black" but have seen no RS for Martin's self-identification, unless you count his Twitter handles, etc. The lede is a summary. It is expected that it will repeat some of what is summarized, though some things can be said once in the lede alone. GZ is Hispanic, and executing a WP:WEASEL is uncalled-for obfuscation. What's the point? Andyvphil (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012[edit]

George followed Trayvon after the police dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that"[edit]

Hello, AndyV. You've been following the case more closely than I have. Is there any evidence that GZ followed TM after the dispatcher's request that he not do so? Thanks! --Kenatipo speak! 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012[edit]

You're invited: San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2![edit]

San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! You are invited!
We Can Do It!.jpg
The San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 will be held on Saturday, June 16, 2012 at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco. Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join us! This event will be specifically geared around encouraging women to learn how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Workshops on copy-editing, article creation, and sourcing will be hosted. Bring a friend! Come one, come all!
EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC) · Unsubscribe

San Francisco Wiknic 2012[edit]

Wiknic logo.svg San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park LA Wiknic 2011 Group Photo.jpg
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. Max Klein {chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite.

The Signpost: 28 May 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012[edit]

Thought you would be interested in this edit[edit]

Mass reversion of Warren's self-identification section.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

courtesy note[edit]

I've posted at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elizabeth Warren (Talk page comments) continuing the discussion from the Elizabeth warren talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012[edit]

You're invited! - Wiki Loves Monuments - San Francisco Events[edit]

Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco

Hi! As part of Wiki Loves Monuments, we're organizing two photo events in the San Francisco Bay Area and one in Yosemite National Park. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact User:Almonroth with questions or concerns.

There are three events planned:

We look forward to seeing you there!

You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012[edit]

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco[edit]

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco[edit]

October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited!
Ada Lovelace color.svg
Come celebrate Ada Lovelace Day at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the Ada Initiative, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer.

The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome!

You must RSVP here - see you there!
SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 26 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012[edit]

Edit-a-thon tomorrow (Saturday) in Oakland[edit]

Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.

If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! -Pete (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013[edit]

GA review[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Warren/GA2#GA_Reassessment - Youreallycan 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013[edit]

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter[edit]

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013[edit]

Wiknic 2013[edit]

Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making
Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (Oakland, CA)

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions[edit]

  • Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
    • Nearest BART: 19th Street
    • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
    • Street parking abounds
EdwardsBot (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013[edit]

You're invited...[edit]

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

  • Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
  • Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

  • Featured content: F*&!

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon[edit]

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!
Csaky madonna.jpg
Hi Andyvphil! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco.

Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!

SarahStierch (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

You're invited! WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley[edit]

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!
We Can Edit.jpg
The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history!

The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library.

You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]