Oh, get a grip, pal. There's been no vandalism - merely a questioning of the fair use of images which are so liberally sprinkled on certain articles. -- 212.32.97.36 ( talk) 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Commented at both the noticeboard and talked with the user. Overall, I think he is right; the fairuse image can be allowed at Old Grey Whistle Test but it's a stretch to put it at Annie Nightingale. It's sort of the same reasoning why a number of fictional characters have fairuse images but the articles on the actors don't. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, wait. If User:Gnome Economics is screwing around using alternative accounts in what seems like a good hands, bad hands method, that is a entirely different matter. I'll look into it now and you have a good night's sleep. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Where there appears to be some agreement about the issue of fair use.
Funny, that. 212.32.97.36 ( talk) 08:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You'll notice that I've been civil about cleaning up after the on-going 3-way edit war on the Elvis page. I advised what I intended to do beforehand. And nowhere did I use the term "childish idiot", for example, to refer to the the bad behavior that's resulting in the over-size and chaotic Elvis article. I have removed heaps of undocumented, unsourced, irrelevant material to bring the article down to a reasonable size. For good measure, I also removed unrelated gossip and nastiness. All consistent with WP 5-pillars policy, and no need to figure out who submitted the bad/unsourced content. The article, when I finished, was reasonably on topic, and within size guidelines. But I see the original characters are back again with their irrelevant, off-topic content, so we may have to go through the whole exercise again. Hoserjoe ( talk) 08:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi; where are you moving these threads to? Why?-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough; sorry to bother you.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, go back and look at the movie again. In the scene where the group first encounters Ahme, she says to Ringo that if he had showed courage, "none of this would have happened". In the final beach scene, when Ringo is reunited with the others, he mentions that he had showed "this courage" and the ring fell off. I don't know exactly how many times I've seen the movie since 1965 but it's been quite a few. I thought it appropriate to briefly tell just why the ring fell off Ringo's hand at that time. OK? Phyllis1753 ( talk) 17:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- LOL... but in a nice way. I haven't seen the movie in years (really) so I'm flattered by your comment about my memory. Cheers! Phyllis1753 ( talk) 18:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are new to the ongoing edit war going on on the Elvis page (which doesn't include me), but please note that the Elvis Presley article has not achieved Good Article status, contrary to your assertion. The article was a mess of conflicting edit warring, arguments and unsourced opinion and theory. The WP display system also complains about the excessive length of the article. Perhaps you would like to amend your gratuitous comments? Hoserjoe ( talk) 08:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that the Elvis page has achieved Good Article status? (BTW: is this not your Talk page?)
Hoserjoe (
talk)
22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- When you say, then, that "... as to whether the Elvis article was a Good Article, you will see here that another user has delisted it from that status ...", you cannot maintain that the page "has achieved Good Article status". It does not have that status any longer (quite rightly, too), and you ought not try to suggest that it does. It may be a question of your grammar. Hoserjoe ( talk) 22:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that the Elvis page has achieved Good Article status? (BTW: is this not your Talk page?)
Hoserjoe (
talk)
22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help.-- Cap. Mitchel ( talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I I replied to your query on my talk page. I wish I could be more help.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, and thanks for correcting. Please chalk it up to newbie enthusiasm. I'll be more careful from now on. Mlaffs ( talk) 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
FUR boxes added for both. -- Rodhullandemu ( please reply here - contribs) 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Dude i have the references, but i cant add it to the page, because i dont know how to, could you get in touch with me and give me a hand? and btw during the late XIX there were not too many, they were only the 4% of the total immigrants, but by the 1958 they comprised the 10%, these days there are about 40k americans living in Colombia.-- Cap. Mitchel ( talk) 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I am fully aware of what you were saying on the Immigration to Colombia article. I have been trying to help the user above on that article, and changing the word "many" to "some" was merely one miniscule part of the entire edits, and was only done within the context of trying to clean the article up partly from poor English. I didn't need telling as I realise that the word "some" was also not the best, but it was a compromise until figures could be given. The user seems to need guidance which is all I was trying to do. ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, my apologies if I came across the wrong way, it is just, I only got involved at all as the article seemed to need some work doing on it. Head banging on a brick wall sometimes would be easier, and a better exercise, than trying to clean up some articles on wikipedia. :) ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 04:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I am curious as to why you removed my edit to the Julianna Mauriello page, and referred to it as vandalism with such knee-jerk speed. Mauriello is known to be gay, and indeed has stated this on more than one occasion, including on her official Youtube profile. I would hate to think that the reason for your removal of my edit was that this aspect of her life troubles you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.81.113 ( talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict): Thanks for the add on the RFPP page, I was ready to submit the same thing regarding the video "proof" of her alleged sexuality. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA nomination. Unfortunately, I have withdrawn the nom early at 17/13/3. I am presently going to undergo admin coaching in preparation for a second candidacy somewhere down the line. I hope to see your continued support in the future. Regards, — Scott5114 ↗ 07:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[1] Not exactly gonna help get requests filled.
Jmlk
1
7
00:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
- Crassly inaccurate text stricken but left in for ArbCom visibility-- Rodhullandemu ( please reply here - contribs) 20:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- ♠ This is rather peculiar.-- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. If this is
vandalism, I am a banana. --
Rodhullandemu (
please reply here -
contribs)
00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps not vandalism per se, but unnecessary nevertheless. Jmlk 1 7 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought admins were suppose to show kindness, with a presumption of good faith. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The only time I get frustrated is when vandalism is running high on the site as a whole, I'm trying to work on an article, and my watchlist is going crazy with new edits, mostly vandalism. User:Jmlk17
Oh, remember the days....-- Rodhullandemu ( please reply here - contribs) 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I changed the wording of this article, I felt that the word "murder" is showing a point of view, but executed is pretty neutral. I won't let my own personal views relating to this topic taint my comments, otherwise murdered would have remained, and maybe would have been joined by barbaric and retarded Sennen goroshi 14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Uganda: no, I guess a go player would have read it straight, but go is still a minority interest. Yoda, to me, is a go player also. We're strange folk. Charles Matthews 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Point of etiquette: please don't thread discussion; put your replies in your own page section. Charles Matthews 20:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I responded to your comment on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Mthibault 20:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I hope so, this guy has been a problem for months, his case shows some of WP limitations in fighting against clever vandals. Mthibault 20:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Plesae note this was added to your post at WP:ANI. "...then staked and wrapped in garlic? Or would, in these politically-correct days, that be showing undead bigotry? --WebHamster 13:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)" I removed it.
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"If ArbCom is "an unfortunate byproduct", can't see why you're standing." Since it's not going anywhere, I figure it'd be best to try and improve it. John Reaves 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I do agree that it wasn't vandalism per se - but the only other edits by that user were for Pick Me Up Magazine, an article that has been deleted once already and an addition to the Jeremy Kyle article regarding that publication seemed disruptive, in the sense it seemed to be related to showing why the article should exist. But you were right, it wasn't vandalism per se. Whitstable 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
just a Hi, and I felt that the rest of this corrispondance could be done outside the public eye. You are absolutly right, and I am really lazy when I have e-mail access with spellcheck and decide to use another method that isn't quite as effective...especially when I am representing all wiki editors. Your "bite" was not only justified, it probably was softer than it should have been now that I look at the situation.
all that said, I actually hope they ignore my letter. the person who copied Wikipedia dosn't deserve to be fired for trying to make a deadline...in my opinion. and I really would feel bad if she made one dumb mistake, and lost her credibility. thats my opinion, nice chating with you...its not everyday I get to talk to someone with a 185 IQ. Coffeepusher 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, sorry I took so long to give you a reply to this. Haven't been on Wikipedia in a while, needless to say. Well, from what I gather, it seems that you downloaded the CD that was issued by TheMusic.com, who went around the world recording each Genesis show for this tour, and selling them on their website. So you probably have a copy of the Manchester show that TheMusic recorded. I hope that this helps.
Teh_Squonkz 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, Rodhullandemu, are you able to contain your enthusiasm for deleting other people's work? You said on my talk page that you observed some blatant copy-vio, but I'm not sure what you are/were looking at. Are you able to point to any copy-vio content? Did you think to ask before you set about deleting the page? Or are you simply unable to contain your urges? You're being a nuisance. Please reply on my talk page before I request arbitration BomberJoe ( talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that you are a very important person, but I would like to ask you to please show me the alleged copy-vio that you keep mentioning. I can see that the phrase ""known as the Avro (CF-105) Arrow" has appeared on two other sites, but this is not copy-vio. This is a "monkey+keyboard" issue. Copyright is not concerned with trivia.
- The sentence "Haley Industries (originally known as Light Alloys Limited) was founded in 1952 in Haley, Ontario (approximately 100km west of Canada's capital city Ottawa)." is similar to a Magellan brochure which states "Haley Industries Limited, formerly known as Light Alloys Limited, was constructed on the current site by the Canadian government in 1952." Is this an example of what you think is "blatant copy-vio"? Similarity is not a copyright concern.
- Did you perhaps think that the illustrations were "copy-vio"? The illustrations are from the WP Commons, and are in the public domain. Therefore, there is no copyright issue here.
- Did you notice that there is content in the article that was not from my pen. Perhaps this is the "blatant copy-vio" that you are referring to? I cannot vouch for another's contributions, but I would prefer that you didn't delete my contribution for someone else's errors. It would be better for all concerned if you would discuss such questions with the contributors first.
- If you can point out any true "copy-vio", please do so. It would save a great deal of irritation if you could bring it to my attention before rampaging through this article with speedy deletes contrary to WP policy. Remember: similar content is not copy-vio. It must be a lengthy word-for-word exact copy. If even ONE word is not identical, then there is no copyright issue. I can understand that if you are busy writing an encyclopedia, that your copyright knowledge might have fallen by the wayside. If so, I am only too pleased to be able to offer to you my extensive knowledge and experience on this subject.
- Would you please be so kind as to address each of my concerns expressed above? I know you are a busy person, but it is your responsibility to deal with this since you are one of the people participating in the evolution of this article. BomberJoe ( talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Haley Industries article
Hello there, I have made some improvements to this article which you recently commented on. I'm posting to the talk pages of all editors who have been interested here, in case you have any further comments or suggestions. I believe the article is just about OK to stand on its own and meet the criteria for notability but if you have any suggestions please leave them on the talk page. Thank you! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you please show me where it says I can't have the cartoon link (exact spot) and you pasted it on my talk page which makes the point moot. Mister ricochet ( talk) 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats no problem at all.
I just accidentaly read about it, on the other users page.
So I just thought I'd write what I really said in Norwegian, since I thought I should write it, just to make it clear, what it was that I really said I mean.
So I didn't mean to be inpolite, I just thought I'd just try to make it clear, what I really said.
So thats no problem at all.
I thought I maybe was speaking with a Norwegian user, due to the salute, but I should have asked first, to be sure, but I thought it was fun with the Norwegian salute on the page, so that's why I replied with an answer in Norwegian also.
But I should have checked first, and I know I shouldn't really write to much in Norwegian in the English page, I guess I should rather save that for the Norwegian page.
So I'll try to remember that next time.
So sorry about this.
And thanks for the explanation.
Johncons ( talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
After watching for a couple of days, I have belatedly found out that you are right and the page is better off with semiprotection. Happy editing, Kusma ( talk) 07:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be cool, even if it is a joke. But, wouldn't we get in trouble for pretending to be one of them? - Go od sh op ed 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You recently posted "Why not? If it illustrates the poverty of his early life and is properly sourced, what is the problem?" The problem is that user 141 has a history of inserting properly sourced information with the intention of creating more controversial and speculative implications. He has previously tied the Elvis-slept-with-his-Mom issue to sensational speculations by Dee Presley that Elvis had sex with his mother. 141 has attached importance to unsupported claims of one man who claimed he'd given Elvis oral sex. There are many other dubious claims of this nature. He was even serious when he listed a joke list of phrases from Elvis songs with words changed/mis-heard to imply that each song had openly gay lyrics ergo, Presley must be gay. When 141 can't get such claims mentioned in the main article, he seems to push them in gently via the back door. If you look at his editing and talk history, I hope you'll agree that there is a pattern here and that it should be of great concern to us all. Rikstar ( talk) 07:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I appreciate lack of time issue.
Rikstar (
talk)
18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The main problem is that there are some Elvis fans who endeavor to exclude well-sourced information they do not like from the Elvis article. This is a long story. See also [2]. Onefortyone ( talk) 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You actually editted your page back within minutes of my ironic vandalism. I guess I'll let you leave that box in because it must be true then. 99.235.240.87 ( talk) 13:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not crystal balling to include him in the list as his character has been announced and is also featured on the Torchwood website. He has to be added to the list because an attempt to create a separate article on him has been made, so this is a necessary redirect. Obviously all we know is his character name and the actor playing him at the moment. 23skidoo ( talk) 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry for the late reply. "Making Love" and "having sex" are the same thing, so I agree with your comments on my talk page that the two main characters fell in love at the very end. By the way, thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. All the best, Greg Jones II 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I read your comment at the ANI: "as I understand it, has said that Fair Use will cease at the end of March 2008, and so from 1st of April readers must expect to see denuded and boring pages", does that mean that ALL fair use images, even the ones on pages for animated shows, will be deleted or am I misreading that? -- Scorpion 0422 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Annie in Wonderland and others
Hi. I noticed you've reverted the typo corrections made to Annie in Wonderland (there might be other articles; this is the one you brought up on WP:TYPO though. You mentioned that this was because the typos were present in the original album notes.
Is there any reason why the original notes must be reproduced exactly, though? WP:ALBUM doesn't mention this as a style guideline. Crystallina ( talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey there - regarding your revert of my edit to Tesco over the million/billion issue: I had checked the Tesco Corporate website before reverting. It gave me in a financial overview [3] for 2007 the following: 'Group revenue (£m) (excluding value added tax) 42,641', which I interpreted as meaning revenue of 42,641 million (from the use of '£m'). The article (in its state after your subsequent revert/prior to my revert) displays 42,641 billion, which would therefore not be the same as on the corporate site. This being the case, the correct figure in billions would be 42.641 (with decimal point). The same seems to apply for the other modified figures. Mouchoir le Souris ( talk) 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks for getting back to me - glad we could sort that one out. Mouchoir le Souris ( talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiltshire, eh? Hmm... Not a patch on God's own county! Re the Tony Haygarth article, my thinking was that as IMDb is not considered a reliable source, the article would benefit from more citations. You've done a fine job with those and it looks good. All the best now. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask you, as a third-party user, to have a look at the recent discussion on Talk:Elvis Presley. User:GiantSpitoon has repeatedly removed well-sourced content from the Elvis article claiming that the said passage is a synthesis of sources "aimed at advancing a position, which is original research." As most sources agree that Elvis wasn't overtly sexually active, it is clearly not original research. Onefortyone ( talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Perhaps it may help if you could post a short statement on
Talk:Elvis Presley about what original research is and what it is not.
Onefortyone (
talk)
21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is very interesting that user Hoserjoe, who had removed similar passages from the Elvis article some weeks ago, has now reappeared in order to support GiantSpitoon's "useful comments" on the talk page. See
[4] and
[5]. Another Elvis fan, Steve Pastor, also supports GiantSpitoon and says on the latter's talk page that they "tried to clean the thing up." Very interesting indeed. What do you think?
Onefortyone (
talk)
03:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- To my mind, a newly created sockpuppet of User:Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo has repeatedly removed well-sourced material from Elvis Presley. See [6], [7], [8]. The same user, GiantSpitoon has accused me, without justification, of original research. See this discussion. The same thing happened several times in the past with other sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. For evidence of sockpuppetry, compare, for instance, this edit with this very similar one. See also [9] and [10] and this edit by Mingy Jongo, one of the many other sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, which includes the same accusation of original research. Furthermore, it is certainly no coincidence that GiantSpitoon, as a new user, is very familiar with Wikipedia pages such as WP:NOR or WP:AGF and even with the abbreviations primarily used by Wikipedia administrators. It is disappointing that Rikstar now seems to share this sockpuppet's view. See [11]. What do you think? Onefortyone ( talk) 02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is very interesting that user Hoserjoe, who had removed similar passages from the Elvis article some weeks ago, has now reappeared in order to support GiantSpitoon's "useful comments" on the talk page. See
[4] and
[5]. Another Elvis fan, Steve Pastor, also supports GiantSpitoon and says on the latter's talk page that they "tried to clean the thing up." Very interesting indeed. What do you think?
Onefortyone (
talk)
03:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Here you go: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk3/unplaced.shtml#unplaced_torchwood :) the Programme info doesn't last forever but by then the show itself should be able to provide reference. -- GracieLizzie ( talk) 14:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) -- GracieLizzie ( talk) 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Want to work on a rewrite of Supper's Ready with me? I want to get it to GA and I thought you might be of some help. If so, I have a sandboxed version at User:Sceptre/daddiddlywashing. Best, Will ( talk) 20:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- If by references... inline.
Will (
talk)
20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that annoys me too. I don't think that the Before Riches introduction is verifiable (although the Archive one is). I might be able to trawl some sites for some citations, though. Will ( talk) 20:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
My reviews are not the equivalent of going to a bus stop. This is also not self promotion. I am merely a critic trying to post my opinion on this film. Isn't that good enough? I tried to put in a reference as to where you can read my review but the most appropriate link on that site isn't working. Give a guy/critic a break, please and leave my comments in. x
Thank you for your polite response to my brutal zapping of your contribution. I have been keeping watch over And did those feet in ancient time and resisting attempts by people to add all sorts of excrescences. There was a section which attracted people to say that their school in New York State used to sing it and any time it was used by the Fast Show. It seemed that the title acted like a magnet, so I changed it to "Notable live performances" and explained the limited scope of this section. Consequently I am concerned that including a new section to contain ELP's version would be the thin end of a very large wedge. I think the article has to say what the piece means and to describe its extraordinary power to move people from any generation. It is particularly effective in large crowds, hence the section about live performances. I acknowledge that people have also adapted it, some respectfully, while some have mocked it. However to my mind it does not add one jot to the information about the piece. ELP's adaptation is a testament to their creativity rather than anything to do with Jerusalem. Similarly Monty Python's use of it says more about their iconoclasm and so would be best left in their article. Would you add a reference to Rory Bremner to the article about Tony Blair? I will not start an edit war, add it back if you must. However if you decide to re-instate this section and ELP, please volunteer to keep cleaning up the article. JMcC ( talk) 09:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. OK,let's give your suggestion a try. JMcC ( talk) 09:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, get a grip, pal. There's been no vandalism - merely a questioning of the fair use of images which are so liberally sprinkled on certain articles. -- 212.32.97.36 ( talk) 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Commented at both the noticeboard and talked with the user. Overall, I think he is right; the fairuse image can be allowed at Old Grey Whistle Test but it's a stretch to put it at Annie Nightingale. It's sort of the same reasoning why a number of fictional characters have fairuse images but the articles on the actors don't. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, wait. If User:Gnome Economics is screwing around using alternative accounts in what seems like a good hands, bad hands method, that is a entirely different matter. I'll look into it now and you have a good night's sleep. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Where there appears to be some agreement about the issue of fair use.
Funny, that. 212.32.97.36 ( talk) 08:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You'll notice that I've been civil about cleaning up after the on-going 3-way edit war on the Elvis page. I advised what I intended to do beforehand. And nowhere did I use the term "childish idiot", for example, to refer to the the bad behavior that's resulting in the over-size and chaotic Elvis article. I have removed heaps of undocumented, unsourced, irrelevant material to bring the article down to a reasonable size. For good measure, I also removed unrelated gossip and nastiness. All consistent with WP 5-pillars policy, and no need to figure out who submitted the bad/unsourced content. The article, when I finished, was reasonably on topic, and within size guidelines. But I see the original characters are back again with their irrelevant, off-topic content, so we may have to go through the whole exercise again. Hoserjoe ( talk) 08:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi; where are you moving these threads to? Why?-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough; sorry to bother you.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, go back and look at the movie again. In the scene where the group first encounters Ahme, she says to Ringo that if he had showed courage, "none of this would have happened". In the final beach scene, when Ringo is reunited with the others, he mentions that he had showed "this courage" and the ring fell off. I don't know exactly how many times I've seen the movie since 1965 but it's been quite a few. I thought it appropriate to briefly tell just why the ring fell off Ringo's hand at that time. OK? Phyllis1753 ( talk) 17:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- LOL... but in a nice way. I haven't seen the movie in years (really) so I'm flattered by your comment about my memory. Cheers! Phyllis1753 ( talk) 18:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are new to the ongoing edit war going on on the Elvis page (which doesn't include me), but please note that the Elvis Presley article has not achieved Good Article status, contrary to your assertion. The article was a mess of conflicting edit warring, arguments and unsourced opinion and theory. The WP display system also complains about the excessive length of the article. Perhaps you would like to amend your gratuitous comments? Hoserjoe ( talk) 08:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that the Elvis page has achieved Good Article status? (BTW: is this not your Talk page?)
Hoserjoe (
talk)
22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- When you say, then, that "... as to whether the Elvis article was a Good Article, you will see here that another user has delisted it from that status ...", you cannot maintain that the page "has achieved Good Article status". It does not have that status any longer (quite rightly, too), and you ought not try to suggest that it does. It may be a question of your grammar. Hoserjoe ( talk) 22:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that the Elvis page has achieved Good Article status? (BTW: is this not your Talk page?)
Hoserjoe (
talk)
22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help.-- Cap. Mitchel ( talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I I replied to your query on my talk page. I wish I could be more help.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, and thanks for correcting. Please chalk it up to newbie enthusiasm. I'll be more careful from now on. Mlaffs ( talk) 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
FUR boxes added for both. -- Rodhullandemu ( please reply here - contribs) 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Dude i have the references, but i cant add it to the page, because i dont know how to, could you get in touch with me and give me a hand? and btw during the late XIX there were not too many, they were only the 4% of the total immigrants, but by the 1958 they comprised the 10%, these days there are about 40k americans living in Colombia.-- Cap. Mitchel ( talk) 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I am fully aware of what you were saying on the Immigration to Colombia article. I have been trying to help the user above on that article, and changing the word "many" to "some" was merely one miniscule part of the entire edits, and was only done within the context of trying to clean the article up partly from poor English. I didn't need telling as I realise that the word "some" was also not the best, but it was a compromise until figures could be given. The user seems to need guidance which is all I was trying to do. ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, my apologies if I came across the wrong way, it is just, I only got involved at all as the article seemed to need some work doing on it. Head banging on a brick wall sometimes would be easier, and a better exercise, than trying to clean up some articles on wikipedia. :) ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 04:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I am curious as to why you removed my edit to the Julianna Mauriello page, and referred to it as vandalism with such knee-jerk speed. Mauriello is known to be gay, and indeed has stated this on more than one occasion, including on her official Youtube profile. I would hate to think that the reason for your removal of my edit was that this aspect of her life troubles you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.81.113 ( talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict): Thanks for the add on the RFPP page, I was ready to submit the same thing regarding the video "proof" of her alleged sexuality. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA nomination. Unfortunately, I have withdrawn the nom early at 17/13/3. I am presently going to undergo admin coaching in preparation for a second candidacy somewhere down the line. I hope to see your continued support in the future. Regards, — Scott5114 ↗ 07:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[1] Not exactly gonna help get requests filled.
Jmlk
1
7
00:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
- Crassly inaccurate text stricken but left in for ArbCom visibility-- Rodhullandemu ( please reply here - contribs) 20:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- ♠ This is rather peculiar.-- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. If this is
vandalism, I am a banana. --
Rodhullandemu (
please reply here -
contribs)
00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps not vandalism per se, but unnecessary nevertheless. Jmlk 1 7 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought admins were suppose to show kindness, with a presumption of good faith. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The only time I get frustrated is when vandalism is running high on the site as a whole, I'm trying to work on an article, and my watchlist is going crazy with new edits, mostly vandalism. User:Jmlk17
Oh, remember the days....-- Rodhullandemu ( please reply here - contribs) 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I changed the wording of this article, I felt that the word "murder" is showing a point of view, but executed is pretty neutral. I won't let my own personal views relating to this topic taint my comments, otherwise murdered would have remained, and maybe would have been joined by barbaric and retarded Sennen goroshi 14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Uganda: no, I guess a go player would have read it straight, but go is still a minority interest. Yoda, to me, is a go player also. We're strange folk. Charles Matthews 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Point of etiquette: please don't thread discussion; put your replies in your own page section. Charles Matthews 20:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I responded to your comment on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Mthibault 20:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I hope so, this guy has been a problem for months, his case shows some of WP limitations in fighting against clever vandals. Mthibault 20:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Plesae note this was added to your post at WP:ANI. "...then staked and wrapped in garlic? Or would, in these politically-correct days, that be showing undead bigotry? --WebHamster 13:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)" I removed it.
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"If ArbCom is "an unfortunate byproduct", can't see why you're standing." Since it's not going anywhere, I figure it'd be best to try and improve it. John Reaves 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I do agree that it wasn't vandalism per se - but the only other edits by that user were for Pick Me Up Magazine, an article that has been deleted once already and an addition to the Jeremy Kyle article regarding that publication seemed disruptive, in the sense it seemed to be related to showing why the article should exist. But you were right, it wasn't vandalism per se. Whitstable 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
just a Hi, and I felt that the rest of this corrispondance could be done outside the public eye. You are absolutly right, and I am really lazy when I have e-mail access with spellcheck and decide to use another method that isn't quite as effective...especially when I am representing all wiki editors. Your "bite" was not only justified, it probably was softer than it should have been now that I look at the situation.
all that said, I actually hope they ignore my letter. the person who copied Wikipedia dosn't deserve to be fired for trying to make a deadline...in my opinion. and I really would feel bad if she made one dumb mistake, and lost her credibility. thats my opinion, nice chating with you...its not everyday I get to talk to someone with a 185 IQ. Coffeepusher 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, sorry I took so long to give you a reply to this. Haven't been on Wikipedia in a while, needless to say. Well, from what I gather, it seems that you downloaded the CD that was issued by TheMusic.com, who went around the world recording each Genesis show for this tour, and selling them on their website. So you probably have a copy of the Manchester show that TheMusic recorded. I hope that this helps.
Teh_Squonkz 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, Rodhullandemu, are you able to contain your enthusiasm for deleting other people's work? You said on my talk page that you observed some blatant copy-vio, but I'm not sure what you are/were looking at. Are you able to point to any copy-vio content? Did you think to ask before you set about deleting the page? Or are you simply unable to contain your urges? You're being a nuisance. Please reply on my talk page before I request arbitration BomberJoe ( talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that you are a very important person, but I would like to ask you to please show me the alleged copy-vio that you keep mentioning. I can see that the phrase ""known as the Avro (CF-105) Arrow" has appeared on two other sites, but this is not copy-vio. This is a "monkey+keyboard" issue. Copyright is not concerned with trivia.
- The sentence "Haley Industries (originally known as Light Alloys Limited) was founded in 1952 in Haley, Ontario (approximately 100km west of Canada's capital city Ottawa)." is similar to a Magellan brochure which states "Haley Industries Limited, formerly known as Light Alloys Limited, was constructed on the current site by the Canadian government in 1952." Is this an example of what you think is "blatant copy-vio"? Similarity is not a copyright concern.
- Did you perhaps think that the illustrations were "copy-vio"? The illustrations are from the WP Commons, and are in the public domain. Therefore, there is no copyright issue here.
- Did you notice that there is content in the article that was not from my pen. Perhaps this is the "blatant copy-vio" that you are referring to? I cannot vouch for another's contributions, but I would prefer that you didn't delete my contribution for someone else's errors. It would be better for all concerned if you would discuss such questions with the contributors first.
- If you can point out any true "copy-vio", please do so. It would save a great deal of irritation if you could bring it to my attention before rampaging through this article with speedy deletes contrary to WP policy. Remember: similar content is not copy-vio. It must be a lengthy word-for-word exact copy. If even ONE word is not identical, then there is no copyright issue. I can understand that if you are busy writing an encyclopedia, that your copyright knowledge might have fallen by the wayside. If so, I am only too pleased to be able to offer to you my extensive knowledge and experience on this subject.
- Would you please be so kind as to address each of my concerns expressed above? I know you are a busy person, but it is your responsibility to deal with this since you are one of the people participating in the evolution of this article. BomberJoe ( talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Haley Industries article
Hello there, I have made some improvements to this article which you recently commented on. I'm posting to the talk pages of all editors who have been interested here, in case you have any further comments or suggestions. I believe the article is just about OK to stand on its own and meet the criteria for notability but if you have any suggestions please leave them on the talk page. Thank you! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you please show me where it says I can't have the cartoon link (exact spot) and you pasted it on my talk page which makes the point moot. Mister ricochet ( talk) 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats no problem at all.
I just accidentaly read about it, on the other users page.
So I just thought I'd write what I really said in Norwegian, since I thought I should write it, just to make it clear, what it was that I really said I mean.
So I didn't mean to be inpolite, I just thought I'd just try to make it clear, what I really said.
So thats no problem at all.
I thought I maybe was speaking with a Norwegian user, due to the salute, but I should have asked first, to be sure, but I thought it was fun with the Norwegian salute on the page, so that's why I replied with an answer in Norwegian also.
But I should have checked first, and I know I shouldn't really write to much in Norwegian in the English page, I guess I should rather save that for the Norwegian page.
So I'll try to remember that next time.
So sorry about this.
And thanks for the explanation.
Johncons ( talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
After watching for a couple of days, I have belatedly found out that you are right and the page is better off with semiprotection. Happy editing, Kusma ( talk) 07:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be cool, even if it is a joke. But, wouldn't we get in trouble for pretending to be one of them? - Go od sh op ed 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You recently posted "Why not? If it illustrates the poverty of his early life and is properly sourced, what is the problem?" The problem is that user 141 has a history of inserting properly sourced information with the intention of creating more controversial and speculative implications. He has previously tied the Elvis-slept-with-his-Mom issue to sensational speculations by Dee Presley that Elvis had sex with his mother. 141 has attached importance to unsupported claims of one man who claimed he'd given Elvis oral sex. There are many other dubious claims of this nature. He was even serious when he listed a joke list of phrases from Elvis songs with words changed/mis-heard to imply that each song had openly gay lyrics ergo, Presley must be gay. When 141 can't get such claims mentioned in the main article, he seems to push them in gently via the back door. If you look at his editing and talk history, I hope you'll agree that there is a pattern here and that it should be of great concern to us all. Rikstar ( talk) 07:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I appreciate lack of time issue.
Rikstar (
talk)
18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The main problem is that there are some Elvis fans who endeavor to exclude well-sourced information they do not like from the Elvis article. This is a long story. See also [2]. Onefortyone ( talk) 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You actually editted your page back within minutes of my ironic vandalism. I guess I'll let you leave that box in because it must be true then. 99.235.240.87 ( talk) 13:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not crystal balling to include him in the list as his character has been announced and is also featured on the Torchwood website. He has to be added to the list because an attempt to create a separate article on him has been made, so this is a necessary redirect. Obviously all we know is his character name and the actor playing him at the moment. 23skidoo ( talk) 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry for the late reply. "Making Love" and "having sex" are the same thing, so I agree with your comments on my talk page that the two main characters fell in love at the very end. By the way, thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. All the best, Greg Jones II 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I read your comment at the ANI: "as I understand it, has said that Fair Use will cease at the end of March 2008, and so from 1st of April readers must expect to see denuded and boring pages", does that mean that ALL fair use images, even the ones on pages for animated shows, will be deleted or am I misreading that? -- Scorpion 0422 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Annie in Wonderland and others
Hi. I noticed you've reverted the typo corrections made to Annie in Wonderland (there might be other articles; this is the one you brought up on WP:TYPO though. You mentioned that this was because the typos were present in the original album notes.
Is there any reason why the original notes must be reproduced exactly, though? WP:ALBUM doesn't mention this as a style guideline. Crystallina ( talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey there - regarding your revert of my edit to Tesco over the million/billion issue: I had checked the Tesco Corporate website before reverting. It gave me in a financial overview [3] for 2007 the following: 'Group revenue (£m) (excluding value added tax) 42,641', which I interpreted as meaning revenue of 42,641 million (from the use of '£m'). The article (in its state after your subsequent revert/prior to my revert) displays 42,641 billion, which would therefore not be the same as on the corporate site. This being the case, the correct figure in billions would be 42.641 (with decimal point). The same seems to apply for the other modified figures. Mouchoir le Souris ( talk) 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks for getting back to me - glad we could sort that one out. Mouchoir le Souris ( talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiltshire, eh? Hmm... Not a patch on God's own county! Re the Tony Haygarth article, my thinking was that as IMDb is not considered a reliable source, the article would benefit from more citations. You've done a fine job with those and it looks good. All the best now. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask you, as a third-party user, to have a look at the recent discussion on Talk:Elvis Presley. User:GiantSpitoon has repeatedly removed well-sourced content from the Elvis article claiming that the said passage is a synthesis of sources "aimed at advancing a position, which is original research." As most sources agree that Elvis wasn't overtly sexually active, it is clearly not original research. Onefortyone ( talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Perhaps it may help if you could post a short statement on
Talk:Elvis Presley about what original research is and what it is not.
Onefortyone (
talk)
21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is very interesting that user Hoserjoe, who had removed similar passages from the Elvis article some weeks ago, has now reappeared in order to support GiantSpitoon's "useful comments" on the talk page. See
[4] and
[5]. Another Elvis fan, Steve Pastor, also supports GiantSpitoon and says on the latter's talk page that they "tried to clean the thing up." Very interesting indeed. What do you think?
Onefortyone (
talk)
03:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- To my mind, a newly created sockpuppet of User:Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo has repeatedly removed well-sourced material from Elvis Presley. See [6], [7], [8]. The same user, GiantSpitoon has accused me, without justification, of original research. See this discussion. The same thing happened several times in the past with other sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. For evidence of sockpuppetry, compare, for instance, this edit with this very similar one. See also [9] and [10] and this edit by Mingy Jongo, one of the many other sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, which includes the same accusation of original research. Furthermore, it is certainly no coincidence that GiantSpitoon, as a new user, is very familiar with Wikipedia pages such as WP:NOR or WP:AGF and even with the abbreviations primarily used by Wikipedia administrators. It is disappointing that Rikstar now seems to share this sockpuppet's view. See [11]. What do you think? Onefortyone ( talk) 02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is very interesting that user Hoserjoe, who had removed similar passages from the Elvis article some weeks ago, has now reappeared in order to support GiantSpitoon's "useful comments" on the talk page. See
[4] and
[5]. Another Elvis fan, Steve Pastor, also supports GiantSpitoon and says on the latter's talk page that they "tried to clean the thing up." Very interesting indeed. What do you think?
Onefortyone (
talk)
03:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Here you go: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk3/unplaced.shtml#unplaced_torchwood :) the Programme info doesn't last forever but by then the show itself should be able to provide reference. -- GracieLizzie ( talk) 14:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) -- GracieLizzie ( talk) 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Want to work on a rewrite of Supper's Ready with me? I want to get it to GA and I thought you might be of some help. If so, I have a sandboxed version at User:Sceptre/daddiddlywashing. Best, Will ( talk) 20:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- If by references... inline.
Will (
talk)
20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that annoys me too. I don't think that the Before Riches introduction is verifiable (although the Archive one is). I might be able to trawl some sites for some citations, though. Will ( talk) 20:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
My reviews are not the equivalent of going to a bus stop. This is also not self promotion. I am merely a critic trying to post my opinion on this film. Isn't that good enough? I tried to put in a reference as to where you can read my review but the most appropriate link on that site isn't working. Give a guy/critic a break, please and leave my comments in. x
Thank you for your polite response to my brutal zapping of your contribution. I have been keeping watch over And did those feet in ancient time and resisting attempts by people to add all sorts of excrescences. There was a section which attracted people to say that their school in New York State used to sing it and any time it was used by the Fast Show. It seemed that the title acted like a magnet, so I changed it to "Notable live performances" and explained the limited scope of this section. Consequently I am concerned that including a new section to contain ELP's version would be the thin end of a very large wedge. I think the article has to say what the piece means and to describe its extraordinary power to move people from any generation. It is particularly effective in large crowds, hence the section about live performances. I acknowledge that people have also adapted it, some respectfully, while some have mocked it. However to my mind it does not add one jot to the information about the piece. ELP's adaptation is a testament to their creativity rather than anything to do with Jerusalem. Similarly Monty Python's use of it says more about their iconoclasm and so would be best left in their article. Would you add a reference to Rory Bremner to the article about Tony Blair? I will not start an edit war, add it back if you must. However if you decide to re-instate this section and ELP, please volunteer to keep cleaning up the article. JMcC ( talk) 09:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. OK,let's give your suggestion a try. JMcC ( talk) 09:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)