Jump to content

User talk:Sue Gardner/1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thanks for being part of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

[edit]

all the files are now online – and thanks again for coming along for a chat... whether you were vocal, or more of a listener, your support is fantastic – and do consider hosting a skypecast of your own before too long! (I think I pressed all of three buttons this time!) – once again thanks, and I look forward to seeing you around! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow very impressive to hear the big cheese herself talking to us on the NTWW. It was very interesting and very exciting.--Filll (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Dutch happening

[edit]

Dear mrs. Gardner, may I draw your attention to some trouble, recently spoken of on the Help-page: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 June 24#No answering yet ... and es:Usuario Discusión:Pling. → With great respect and kind regards from: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC) D.A. Borgdorff, retired IEE PEng.[reply]

In addition: I have tried to warn you in time about growing explosive situation with possible consequences of press releases. Meanwhile I contacted Cary Bass as well, who responded to me for dealing matters. Sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff editing via 86.83.155.44 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC) PS: Meanwhile further strange developments are evolving as was expected. Respectfully: D.A. Borgdorff = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also: here and there. High esteem from D.A. Borgdorff – MASc E.E. by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, D.A. Borgdorff. I'm sorry you're having trouble, but I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help you. As Cary said, if you're having a disagreement with the Dutch Wikimedia community, you will need to resolve it with them directly. I wish you good luck. Sue Gardner (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll herewith like to really "contrathank" you again for your attention, because in my opinion it looks absurd to being stalked everywhere on the wiki's around the globe in a 60+ aged condition ... (some of letters will do). Greetings though from dAb with:86.83.155.44 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I did want to take your idea into practice, but unfortunately I'm immediately blocked-up again, apart from ca 3 months in NL (by persecution) on many others too, even till finishing touch on metaW. So I can't reach nobody anymore there. I'll remain much obliged faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SF Meetup #8

[edit]
  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 8
  Date: November 8th, 2008
  Time: 2PM
  Place: Metacafe, Palo Alto, California
  prev: [[Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "–".|Meetup Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "–".]] – 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 ^_^ 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Bangalore Wikipedian

[edit]

Happened to see this, letting you know that I am from Bangalore India. -- Tinu Cherian – 14:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year 2009

[edit]

Happy New Year Sue Gardner/1!!!! I wish for you and your family to have a wonderful 2009!!! Have fun partying and may you make many edits!!!

-RavichandarMy coffee shop 11:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

[edit]

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

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT – 13:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

[edit]

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

Hello Sue Gardner! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 713 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Larry Biddle - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

[edit]

SF Meetup #11

[edit]
  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 11
  Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2010
  Time: 15:00 (3PM)
  Place: WMFoundation offices
  prev: [[Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "–".|Meetup Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "–".]] – next: Meetup 12

This is posted to the groups by request. Please sign up on the Invite list for future announcements. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

[edit]

March is U.S. Women's History Month

[edit]

National Women's History Project's 2010 Theme is "Writing Women Back into History" and I think that is a good reminder that Wikipedia English has quite a few gaps in our coverage of articles about women.

Since the first of March, I've been creating and expanding articles related to women and came across Carol Sutton who caught my attention because the reason for her notability is her trailblazing work as a female journalist and editor.

Sutton faced systemic bias in her newspaper but addressed it head on by changing the "Women's World" section to the "Today's Living" section to cover substantive news stories about issues that women would find of interest. She became the first woman to be a Managing Editor of a major newspaper. Her writings about her experience as a journalist are thought provoking (at least to me :-).

Kimberly Wilmot Voss has been blogging about her over the past year. [1] Evidently she is publishing a piece about her to come out this spring. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

As we move forward into "2010s", and make plans the next decade for Wikimedia and Wikipedia, I think it is good value to look back at the experience of the women that broke the glass ceiling. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

[edit]

Articles for deletion nomination of Noticiero Digital

[edit]

I have nominated Noticiero Digital, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noticiero Digital. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

Zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia

[edit]

Sue, I read in the news that you said that Wikipedia "has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography". We at our organization are interested in adopting a similar policy. Would you be kind enough to point me toward this Wikipedia policy? The closest thing I could find after many minutes of searching was Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy; however, that page clearly says that it "is not a policy or guideline", only an essay. I have similarly searched WikimediaFoundation.org for "zero tolerance", but there is nothing; as there is likewise nothing about pedophilia. There is also nothing on Meta Wikimedia about "zero tolerance" and pedophilia. -- Calling Occupants (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

[edit]

Best Advertisement of first half of 2010

[edit]

Sue, we here at the Cable Ad Bureau wish to congratulate you as the winner of our informal "Best Ad" award for the first six months of 2010. Your commercial spot found here bested a tough field of competitors. In the end, we felt that your ability to push through the Wikimedia Foundation's message without any hint of journalistic objectivity creeping into the piece was what put this advert over the top. Congratulations! -- 72.43.107.130 (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

[edit]

Failure of ArbCom to block pro-paedophila advocate when notified

[edit]

Sue, before I get into the rather serious subject of my message, let me first wish you a happy new year and congratulate you on another very successful fund raising campaign.

Some people believe that the internet is full of paedophiles looking to pounce upon unsuspecting children. I am not one of those people. It is unlikely that Wikipedia would be a very fruitful place for those looking to contact children, yet common sense suggests that we should ensure that Wikipedia is not used for pro-paedophilia advocacy. Experience has shown us that it has been done before and remains a temptation to those who wish to push their ideology, although this is hardly exclusive to paedophilia.

I was disappointed to learn that ArbCom members did not act when notified of an editor engaging in pro-paedophilia advocacy on English Wikipedia. This editor is quite easily identified off-wiki, where they have openly stated that they are a member of NAMBLA, among other things.

My understanding of the situation is that individual ArbCom members were notified of the situation but either outright refused to act or failed to respond at all. Several weeks later, a message was sent to the general ArbCom email, as advised by WP:CHILDPROTECT. The editor in question was blocked a day or so later on English Wikipedia, but remains unblocked on the other WMF projects to which they have contributed. I think it would be an obvious and sensible policy to globally lock the accounts of anyone blocked for these types of activities, don't you?

I would like to make two suggestions to improve our handling of similar situations in the future. First, any ArbCom member who receives notification of pro-paedophilia advocacy should forward it to the larger ArbCom group for review (if they choose not to act on it themselves). Second, ArbCom members who place such blocks should request that the accounts be globally locked as a standard part of the process.

You have made public statements which support the principles underlying the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy on English Wikipedia, so I hope you understand that the purpose of this message is not to shame individual ArbCom members but to suggest that we need to find ways to deal with similar situations more effectively.

Regards, Delicious carbuncle

(mailed and posted) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sue, I see that you have made a couple of edits here since I posted my message, but I'm not sure if you were back from the holidays in your official capacity. This probably isn't anywhere near the top of your list of things to do, but I think you will understand that it is distressing to know that someone has been identified as pushing a pro-paedophilia agenda but ArbCom members are refusing to deal with the issue. I am afraid that if people feel that the official process does not work, or that ArbCom members are selectively enforcing it, then people will turn to disruptive on-wiki and off-wiki accusations, which can only harm the project. I think the suggestions I have made for improving the process are very straightforward and can be implemented immediately, so this shouldn't take very long for you to cross off your to-do list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

SuggestBot regular?

[edit]

Hi,

I noticed your username was added to User:SuggestBot/Regulars on Jan 4, but it was an IP that made the edit. To make sure that the bot doesn't send you suggestions unnecessarily, I just wanted to know whether this edit was correct or not? If it's an error, let me know and I'll remove you from the list. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

New York Times article 1/31/2011

[edit]

Ms. Gardner,

I read with interest the New York Times story about the disparity between male and female editors. I think it's an interesting point, and it would be great to see more female editors. I am myself female, an FA writer with 20 FAs and a dozen or so GAs. I'm holding off right now on writing as I have in the past because I'm unhappy, with a nebulous feeling that I haven't been able to clarify, although I don't think it's related to the gender of the editors I interact with.

Instead, actually, I saw your commentary in the article: “The difference between Wikipedia and other editorially created products is that Wikipedians are not professionals, they are only asked to bring what they know.” and “Everyone brings their crumb of information to the table.... If they are not at the table, we don’t benefit from their crumb.”

In these comments, it struck me that you may be giving the wrong impression about the kind of editors that need to work on Wikipedia. I am an expert in nothing I have written here. I've read all the sources I've used in the articles I've written, and the more I read the less I consider anyone, really, to be an expert. In practice, I find myself telling many editors to disregard the knowledge or opinions that they have picked up and simply summarize the sources they have access to--and of course, find more sources. I don't find it particularly difficult to write an article. It just takes a lot of dedication: to hunt down as many excellent sources as possible, to write, rewrite, rewrite, edit, edit, edit, and pore over the prose for weeks or months. I wonder if publicizing the fact that Wikipedia desires people already knowledgeable in a particular topic may exclude editors of either sex who are willing to research an interesting topic and work tirelessly on forming an excellent article.

I've had this discussion with other editors: the value of experts vs. non-experts. Perhaps selfishly, I use Wikipedia to learn about topics in which I have a vague background but compel me to read further. I can only say that I hope the articles I write are the most accurate and interesting they can possibly be. I welcome expert opinion on any article I've written, but what drew me to work here is that I am able not only to work through a particular passion, but be an integral part of forming free information about that topic. Since I've began to write here, more than 3 million people have read my writing, a statistic I find a bit dizzying. I think it a misstep to limit Wikipedia to only experts or novices, either in policy or publicity. I'm fond of saying that novices should work to become so familiar with the issues surrounding an article that they are able to speak intelligently with an expert, and experts should come to Wikipedia willing to justify their knowledge.

I didn't want to come here and complain so much. I know what that's like to do the effort and see nothing but complaint in response, and that's never fun. I think this is an interesting discussion to have. I'm glad the story appeared in the New York Times, and again, hope that many women take heed and decide to jump in and do some work.

Thanks again and best regards,

--Moni3 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moni, I also read that article with great interest. I hate the cliche of us Wikipedia editors as white male nerdy twenty-and thirtysomethings (I got 3 out of those 4), and I hate that it's true. My particular crumb of knowledge doesn't always come in handy; like you, I write about things that I don't always know much about, but I'm willing to learn them, and here I get that opportunity.

    But rephrase 'crumb of knowledge' into something like 'method of perception and digestion' and you have a little bit of both. I have a background in literature and philosophy, and I can easily read those texts and secondary sources because I am used to their construction and organization. I can't do science articles that way.

    Anyway, I would like to see a certain emphasis placed on the process of writing that takes place here--and if I look around in my department at who teaches composition, that's hardly an exclusively male field, on the contrary. My rosy vision is that more instructors will teach Wiki-'stuff' in freshman comp, many of those instructors will be women, many of their female students will see that wiki-writing is a valid, educational, and useful enterprise and not just about monster trucks and GI Joe, and maybe some of those students will start contributing here. We're having a few faculty training days this spring on wikis (in general), and I'm doing a session on editing on Wikipedia and possible class projects. I hope that some of the instructors (in my university, they're all women!) will jump on the bandwagon, and get their students to do the same.

    Moni, I think you are on to something. You're a content writer, much more than me, and I think you're right--that it's writing and reading skills that matter greatly, more than particular expertise. This emphasis on expertise isn't always conducive to recruitment, esp. in the sometimes macho atmosphere of some of the notice boards (I can't speak for FA reviews--I only have an FL). Ms. Gardner, can't we sell the writing idea more? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

Added template for SuggestBot

[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Fawcett Society
Liebe ist ...
Assignment in Eternity
Franco Pillarella
Arar
Esther Peterson
D.C. (TV series)
Todd Snare
Science and technology in Asia
Jungian Type Index
Google Ventures
Chris Sacca
Jung Type Indicator
Doge
Food policy
Requiem (book)
San Miguelito District
David Lepper
Linda Coffee
Cleanup
Brother's Keeper (film)
Negev
Nuclear weapons and Israel
Merge
Electronic journalism
Alternative media (U.S. political right)
Feminist psychology
Add Sources
ISTP (personality type)
Israel
Russian Hill, San Francisco
Wikify
The Fallen Leaves
Domestic policy
NC Policy Watch
Expand
Presidency of Shimon Peres
Pope Benedict XVI
Künstler

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

Thx!

[edit]

Thank you for the kind welcome you put on my page. Also, since you said that you missed Canada, where are you now? Brian Zhao 16:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOPbottle (talk • contribs)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Franco Pillarella
Jung Type Indicator
Science and technology in Asia
Fawcett Society
Arar
D.C. (TV series)
Liebe ist ...
Google Ventures
Chris Sacca
Open source journalism
Arar Domestic Airport
Requiem (book)
Todd Snare
San Miguelito District
Sriracha Tiger Zoo
Jungian Type Index
David Lepper
Local news
Doge
Cleanup
George Mason University School of Public Policy
Consent management
Simón Bolívar
Merge
Personality type
Electronic journalism
Information security policies
Add Sources
ISTP (personality type)
Russian Hill, San Francisco
INTP
Wikify
Eric Butler
Domestic policy
The Fallen Leaves
Expand
Pope Benedict XVI
Presidency of Shimon Peres
Joe Kraus

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Like I'm the only one who has problems with vacations? :) Back atcha. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner/1&oldid=1166515924"