User talk:EVula

user page // talk page

admin • opining • matrix • fun • awards

This is EVula's talk page, which shouldn't be a surprise if you clicked the link...

My general guidelines:

If I (EVula) left you a comment on your talk page, please just respond there, not here, so that conversations aren't spread out. Similarly, if you post something here, I will respond here.

Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).

Place new comments after existing ones (but within topic sections).

Separate topic sections with ==A descriptive header==, and put new topics at the bottom of the page.

Archives

Current
2014: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q
2013: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q
2012: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q
2011: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q
2010: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q
2009: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q
2008: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q
2007: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q
2006: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q

Re: Sig code

I'd definitely be up for the 1st, more readable variation. Thanks, EVula, you're the best! hmwith talk 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the last variation is even better. Thanks again! hmwith talk 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, EVula!
Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, thanks for helping me along the way! =) I look forward to future collaborations. hmwith talk 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Hayley. If you have any newbie admin questions, you know where to edit. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(don't forget to test your deletion and blocking abilities here and here, respectively!)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost


Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View

Shortcut : WP:POST

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help at RfA

Hi again. Thanks for help in re-redirecting my posting. Also, I have created a legal sock-puppet at User:Bearian'sBooties, as you suggested at my RfA. Bearian 17:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

Alright. Thanks anyway!--Gp75motorsports 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References?

Hmm...you still haven't really explained to me why there is some really good referenced articles and some which are not so great. Is it because some articles don't have to be referenced, for example a computer game...is it because of the fact that a game isn't found in a non online-encyclopedia that it therefore isn't really required to have references (or citations) as long as the info isn't copied directly and it can be proved? Anyway, I decided to talk to you directly on your talk page, both talking to you on manual of style and TomasBats page got a little to hard for me to keep up with the conversation. Any comments? -Jack 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason that some pages have references and others don't is simply because some have them and some don't. Ideally, all articles would be properly referenced, but there are more than 2 million articles, and this is a volunteer-driven project. People work on what they want, and generally don't work on what they aren't interested in. For example, I haven't edited Campiglione-Fenile because I have no interest in French provinces, while I'm sure that other people are entirely disinterested in The Zombie Survival Guide, which is a favorite book of mine (and I wrote the majority of the existing article). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a good point. Hahaha, I already knew that though...I just thought that maybe there was a different reason, oh well. However, I do have another question that has come to mind, after reading your reply...Does wikipedia actually have actual employed staff that manage and contribute (emphasis on the contribute) to this encyclopedia or is it just run and watched over by people like you and me? Oh and another thing…Is paraphrasing considered a breach of copyright (ie. Shouldn’t be done on Wikipedia) when I have found on two websites, containing legal information, that it isn’t? -Jack 01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth Carbon Eagle (talk • contribs)

Question

Since you're always right =) and seem to know a great deal about html (when I thought I did), I have a question for you. I must keep missing something, because it says "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags." when I try to use this signature:

нмŵוτнτ

'''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]'''

It gets my formerly 232 character sig down to 213 characters... if I can ever get it to work! What's wrong here? I'd greatly appreciate the help, and I know as soon as you point it out, I'll hit myself that I missed it. Thanks so much in advance! hmwith talk 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the plainlinks span is extraneous; it only serves to remove the little arrow from external links (compare: before and after). After some fiddling, it turns out that the "offending" code is the lack of quotes around the font color value. The two color values are also unneeded; I've removed the font tag (since font tags are evil) and moved it all inside the link. Here's an even further clarified version (with even extra spaces and ending semi-colors removed, just to get it as low as possible):

нмŵוτн τ

'''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]'''

Heh, I've actually redone the sig four times while writing this... it's been 213, 202, and 192, and this version is a whopping 178. Not bad at all. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to make mine shorter :P Viridae ^Talk 06:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gauntlet has been thrown!

Viridae ^T

[[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|T]]

Hey, you never said I couldn't change it a bit. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat :P Viridae ^Talk 06:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. I never said I was honest. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can always count on you! Haha, you even inspired me to make a matrix, as well. Cheers! нмŵוτн τ 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome at LMO.WP and user lmo template

Hi! Welcome to Lombard wikipedia. The templates user-lmo are fully proteced as the user-en ones are at English wikipedia, if I am not wrong. I will add the interwiki link. Moreover, at that time there was a high risk of vandalism. Probably it's better they remain protected, but everything could be discussed. Bye bye, --81.208.125.60 15:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (lmo:user:Clamengh)[reply]

Boy, if people thought conversations spanning multiple talk pages on the same wiki were confusing, they'll flip at tracking it across multiple wikis. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing

I want to write articles on notable users who will be remembered for things like sockpuppetry. I understand you and Sesshomaru are involved in a few. Could you give me details? --BlackShadowWriter 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVula, take a gander at TimySmidge's most recent creations. He made this BlackShadowWriter (talk · contribs · logs), along with the blocked BlockMeNowPlease (talk · contribs · logs). Kinda disruptive if you ask me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished with all this. Someone already blocked Timy for six months, but I've extended it to indefinite. I've got better things to do with my time than play with socks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

Hi there, thanks for your help. Couple of problems though. The top and bottom borders are missing and the talk link doesn't work. It might be a browser issue. I'm using IE, what about you? Thanks again. Doyley Talk 15:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Well, the talk won't work on your own talk page (see my sig for an example). Similarly, if you placed your sig on your userpage, the "Doyley" link wouldn't work. IE shouldn't be displaying the borders at all, but IE doesn't know jack shit when it comes to rendering CSS properly. Here's an updated sig that should have white borders at the top and bottom:

Doyley Talk

[[User:Doyley|Doyley]] [[User Talk:Doyley|Talk]]

Now it's 232 characters.
Now, all that said, I don't like the borders at all; sigs should just be to identify your posts, not call undue amounts of attention to them. Plus, the white is completely lost, since most pages have light colored backgrounds anyway. I'd recommend just sticking with the first version (since the white gets lost, and just adds to the code). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well on my original version there was a white border to provide a margin and a black border going all the way around. Without the white margin the black border was touching the text and it looked a mess. I think that is whay you are seeing as unnecessary code. Doyley Talk 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have done some work on it, got rid of the border. It is now 219 characters and I think it looks a lot better. Doyley Talk 16:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Heh, I'd just done a revision of the above that weighed in at 186, but I like that better anyway. :) Though, my ever-working need to tweak...

Doyley Talk

[[User:Doyley|Doyley]][[User talk:Doyley|Talk]]

Now it's just 199 characters, and you can tweak the spacing on either side by upping or lowering the "4px" value. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and completely unrelated to sigs, I'd recommend switching to a different browser, such as Firefox or Safari; IE is fraught with security problems and CSS quirks. Then again, I'm highly biased against IE, as I do web development professionally; you'll never meet anyone that does any amount of CSS coding that doesn't hate IE with a burning passion. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've replaced it with your version. I know what you mean, I am a professional PHP developer. I use IE simply because almost all of my clients do and I need to know how it will look on their browser. I have a dual boot with Linux on my computer though that uses Firefox. I hate MS so I understand you biase ;-) Doyley Talk 16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only reason I use IE is to test out sites. I use a Mac, but I don't have an Intel machine (otherwise I'd install Windows *just* for testing sites in IE). I use a website called Browsercam to do all my testing, since I can quickly and easily check it on a wide range of browsers relatively quickly. It's not as good as running it natively, but definitely works well in a pinch (there's a free trial if you want to test it out before putting any money down). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Help

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your help with my signature and for also hating IE. Doyley Talk 16:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love getting a barnstar with a smiley face for it and having it be for hating something with you. Wonderful juxtaposition there. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For knowing when to keep the tone light and in appreciation of these edits which have kept me smilling through an occasionally fraught process... WjBscribe 19:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly liked the second comment. Finally I have an excuse for why my article writing has so many typos in it - I'm encouraging new people to start contributing... WjBscribe 19:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I can justify just about any kind of mistake. Just hit me up with your next debacle, and I'll find the silver lining in it somehow. For example, you just wanted to see if anyone was paying attention. Looks like your test worked.
(See? It's easy! :D)

Seriously though, I have to admit to having some serious reservations about the idea when I first saw the RfA name, but upon reading your argument, I was convinced that it wouldn't be an issue. I think having such a highly restricted purpose helps to alleviate most of the concerns people may have (though obviously not all). I think you are handling this push for an admin bot very well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for personally updating the light, the way, the mouth.

ALthough I too have asked for updates to a section or thread, I was thoroughly confused as to why he wanted a personal engraved report, esp. in light of the fact that he knew that the editor had been blocked... ThuranX 06:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, seems to be a bit of poor wording; looks like a note to AN/I would have been sufficient for him. That said, I can easily understand why a note wouldn't have been dropped in the AN/I thread at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a couple of that sort of embarrassing situation and he'll learn to figure new ways to check for action on a topic, I've done followups, seen it's resolved, and just asked for admisn to close out a thread; now I use that sort or 'status' requests more to get clarifications where a thread seems to have gone into serious discussion for a day or more, then stopped abruptly, and seemingly in the middle, without a clear resolution. that sort of 'what's happening with this problem now?' often gets good summaries, or action moving again, which I think makes for better archives, which in turn makes citation of earlier sections easier and better evidence. ThuranX 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animaniacs for Featured Article Status

EVula,
Thank you very much for your contributions to the Animaniacs article. I have just nominated the article for featured article candidacy, so if you want to express any concern about the article's quality, please do so here. Thanks again, Gak Blimby 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Dear Sir- as an Admin for wikipedia you do realize that you represent wikipedia in every way. For me, you are an official mouthpiece. Thus, I wish to inform you that I am highly offended at your lack of civility and seemingly laughing at me and my very valid concerns. I have read through your request for beurcraticship and it seems many, many others share this concern. I must say it has been substantiated. Additionally, I feel that your levity in dealing with my concerns is unprofessional and unbecoming someone who is an admin. Bstone 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, admins are not official mouthpieces. You are, of course, free to think of me as one. You'd be wrong, but you're still free to think so.

Secondly, while I'm sorry you're offended, you've demonstrated absolutely no understanding of the purpose for AN/I, or what the proper channels for dispute resolution are. Furthermore, I find your instance that massive changes be made simply because you got confused at what a warning message meant incredibly self-centered and arrogant. You're making borderline personal attacks[1][2] and then attempting to pin blame on someone else; I can honestly say that I have very little regard for both your editing attitude and your opinion of me.

The issues raised in my RfB are completely different from my dealings with you; while I appreciate your attempt at constructive criticism so I may better improve as both an editor and as an admin (which I'm actually quite receptive to, in all actuality), I've received far too little feedback similar to your own to feel that this is anything but an isolated incident (and if you want to bring my RfB into it, I'd like to point out that even those that opposed my becoming a 'crat praised my work as an administrator). Given what little direct interaction I've had with you and what I've observed, I think the issue here has very little to do with myself.

I am often light-hearted and friendly in my comments because, let's face it, this is just a website; I dunno about you, but I've got much better things to get worked up about. If my attitude offends you, all I can do is apologize for both the past offenses and the most assuredly future ones as well, as I'm certainly not going to change any time soon. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: if you truly think I'm out of line, and other editors agree with you, I wouldn't be opposed to putting myself up for re-confirmation as an administrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you accuse me of making "making borderline personal attacks" and in the same paragraph you state that I am "self-centered and arrogant". Truly, wikipedia needs no admins who deal with serious situation with levity and personal insults. Bstone 07:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating my opinion, not stating that someone's edits are vandalism. There's a difference; the fact that you see nothing wrong with your own commentary is the crux of the issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi

Hey dude, just as a heads up, I've moved your comment in this RfA to the discussion area.[3] Anon users are most certainly allowed to participate in RfAs :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, anon comments are allowable in the Discussion area, but not in the actual !voting area (as it says on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections"). Good move. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:AN/I

At this point, I'm seeing it as disruption on Doczilla's part. No one else ever commented on the case, and it appears pretty much over (I even lefted a response there verifying what I'll do from now on). What do you think? I'm willing to move on but he is reverting the messages back on my talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is he even talking about? Is this related to the Bstone stuff too? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to that, Doczilla (talk · contribs · logs) has backed off for now. I don't know what he was trying to prove by shoving that crap back in my user talk page when he is aware that the dispute is over, but he likes being disruptive I guess. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thought I'd seen his name in conjunction with the above somewhere, but I could be mistaken. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI help

Did the ANI post list the phone number? Nobody said they would call. The link is dead. I am willing to call if it seems like there is an emergency. Possible prank? Yes. Could someone die? Possible. Mrs.EasterBunny 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To butt in here, the edit was oversighted. Ask User:Eliz81 for details; she was the original poster. I saw the link, the edit went something like this: "Why do I cut myself...call *number* if you think you can help" on a talk page (can't remember which one right now). As I said in the ANI thread, there is the possibility that s/he is serious. Love,Neranei (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on "possible". And by "possible", I mean "practically certain". The amount of drama surrounding this is astounding. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is, but all I'm saying is that this could be someone's cry for help. There have been incidences of stuff like this. Perhaps they don't have anyone to talk to. Yes, it is a long shot, but things that aren't likely do happen. Love,Neranei (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be; I'll grant you that much. But considering the insanely silly furor that's been generated over this and the tone of the IP's posts, the only remorse I feel is about the time being squandered on it, rather than for the potential loss of life. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is much too much drama. Someone needs to take care of it; either establish whether or not it's a hoax, and be done with it. Neranei (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like "unblock me NOW before i slit my throat" (on the now-deleted talk page) most definitely mark this as an attempt at getting attention. The sooner everyone moves on, the better. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:NYCyclist1 for legal threats

Thanks for the block... but how exactly did you become aware of this? It's like you came out of the blue. Just wondering. Gscshoyru 04:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt a disturbance in the Force... also, it was reported to AIV.[4] EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 48 hours? I would have indef'd until they retract (and was going to until I saw you already blocked them)... but meh. On a related note, after hearing the same disturbance in the force, I removed the text that was the root of the problem per WP:V and WP:BLP. If someone finds a WP:RS it can go back in.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm still considering that indef as they mailed en-unblock essentially asking for an unblock so they can gather diffs to send to their council. I'm not too keen on a block expiring on someone with an outstanding legal threat. Thoughts?--Isotope23 ^talk 13:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first legal threat block, so I'm willing to admit that I was wrong to downgrade the block. Feel free to override me if you feel it appropriate to do so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore the indef for now. I'd rather not set an arbitrary time until this is sorted out... though I have no problem at all with an immediate unblock if they retract.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for cleaning up after me. :)
I'm thinking that {{uw-lblock}} needs to be updated; the only reason I backed the block down was that I saw the template said "temporary", and jumped to a confusion about needing to down the block a bit. Perhaps it should say nothing at all about the block duration, since it's an indefinite block, but may be removed at any time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEGAL suggests that while a threat is outstanding, the person should not be editing wikipedia. Personally, I tend to apply that as indef blocks that are immediately removed when the party recinds their legal threat. As long as they are pursuing legal action they are opting to follow a path of resolution that is inconsistent with them editing here. I think the "temporary" wording is there to suggest that it isn't necessarily a permanent block, but yeah... that might be better if clarified.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 32

Great news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 32 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/09/episode-32-trust-me/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 08:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

Wikipedia Weekly

A couple new episodes - we're posting the infobox to save duplicating info.

Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly

Wiki Loves Monuments

Fuzheado, Gamaliel, Effeietsanders, Nikikana, LilyOfTheWest, and SuperHamster discuss the annual Wiki Loves Monuments worldwide photography contest

Onsite · Offsite
Subscription · Feedback

For the podcast crew -- Tawkerbot 20:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the decks!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman ^Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hello EVula, I do believe this is the first time we've talked directly! G'day from Australia :) Well I have a question regarding Tangobot, as the user who made it seems to be inactive, therefore how does the bot run if there is no user to run it? This probably is a silly question. But I’m confused :S Phgao 05:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Tangotango certainly isn't active on Wikipedia in the sense that he's making edits currently, he's most definitely around; when I emailed him about a minor detail about Tangobot, I got a response almost immediately. I think he's at least watching his bot. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right! A clever distinction. Phgao 06:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Admin Closure

Er.. yes I tried to be bold and closed this RfA after consulting with the editor beforehand here, hope I did everything right, would you kindly check? Phgao 09:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks like you did everything properly. Good job. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas

Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008 [5]. So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.

As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see [6].

For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.

If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I'll be sure to keep my May open next year. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocondriac's Thanks

Hypocondriac says thank you for typing in his Talk page and that he and EVula are good friends