|
Thought that maybe you cound include a first wiki project to publishish a book in the next issue of signpost?
Here is an extract from invitation that was sent to MIT community:
The focus of our new book, tentatively titled We Are Smarter Than Me, is just that: a guide to the landscape of community knowledge and the identification of key principles to harness it. Organized initially around the major business functions and processes, the book will contain case studies of successes and failures, and commentary on the lessons learned. But most importantly, this book will (we hope) be written by hundreds or thousands of people, each listed as an author. Using wiki technology, the purpose of our experiment is to determine whether a community approach applies to book-writing, and to harness the knowledge of the community to advance the state of management. You can learn more about how this will work by visiting http://www.WeAreSmarter.org
To ensure the success of the venture, we've enlisted some additional resources to provide support. We're forming an advisory committee of faculty and industry experts, led by Tom Malone, a senior faculty member at MIT who heads up the Collective Intelligence Laboratory . Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has agreed to serve as a member of the Advisory Board as well.
You are invited to participate in the project in a variety of ways. This would include, but not limited to, making contributions to current chapters, or creating new chapters if you believe the current structure is too constraining (you can review the current chapter structure on the website). Or you can simply monitor the chapter(s) you feel are most relevant, and you can provide commentary and content as you feel necessary. If you are interested in participating in this project, please visit http://www.WeAreSmarter.org to learn more about the project and to sign-up as a project participant. 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that your bot is doing the signpost edits, can you set it to not change the unicode things, I think there's a checkbox is AWB. The thing is, there's some template that I use about the wikipedia user page, blah blah blah, and it uses the escape codes to make it harder for people to "hijack" my userpage, for whatever reason. Thanks! ST47 Talk
Thanks for the tip! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an active discussion about the situation between Barnstar and WP:ASR on Talk:Barnstar#Barnstars_on_Wikipedia. As the thread currently is discussing, it might be a good idea to add an external link from Esperanza to Wikipedia:Esperanza instead of an internal link. That way, mirror sites would not have any dead links. This might be a possibly successful compromise between our debate.
On a completely unrelated note, the header of the message you added ( User talk:Ed#Esperanza) contains a link to Wikipedia:Esperanza, not Esperanza. =) E d ¿Cómo estás? 23:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Ral315. I believe that the Wikipedia barnstar link should be added to the Barnstar page. Many other pages, such as that of Administrator or Mediation, have links on top to the article about Wikipedia. I constantly use the Wikipedia link at the top of the barnstar page as well as many others. Although it may conflict with the self avoidance policy, it is extremely useful. Without it, many newbies (and for that matter, some experienced members) will not be able to easily find the page about Wikipedia barnstars.
Sharkface217
01:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that most of the examples of self-refs I found you refered to as essential processes. Now I would like to ask you: How do you define an essential process? What is essential to one may not be essential to another.-- E d ¿Cómo estás? 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Essential Process? Isn't that why we're discussing this? ^_~
But yes, I do believe that the link on the top of the page is essential to finding the Wikipedia:Barnstars page. After all, I always just type in 'Barnstar' on the search box, get sent to that page, and then I click the link to the Wikipedia page located near the top. Sharkface217 03:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Out of interest, does "hoax article" mean the article is a hoax, or the article is about a hoax? David Mestel( Talk) 19:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Your article is false.
The story of Intellipedia, the Wiki for the Department of Defense, is a hoax. Having personal access to JWICS, I can tell you that the leak of this "announcement of an intelligence Wiki" is actually a case of what appears to be mass journalistic hysteria.
If you take a good look at all of the news articles out, they will tell you a little. They'll mention John Negroponte (sometimes as the person who announced it, other times not), and a man named Michael Wertheimer, who is claimed to be 'the intelligence community's chief technical officer' (or as some other made-up, official-sounding name). There is no such thing, nor is there any such reference to this man outside of Intellipedia-related news stories.
When this hoax article was released, many journalists jumped on it as fact. I tell you now, it is not fact. There is no such thing as intellipedia (not that I have heard, and if there was, I WOULD HAVE HEARD IT).
Thank you for your time. ~ PH DrillSergeant... § 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are you nominating all the sandbox pages for deletion? The sandbox pages help to strengthen Wikipedia's sense of community, yet you are determined to destroy some of the main community activity pages where users can have fun and enjoy themselves. Stressed wikipedians are not effective. Please reconcider your stance on the mfd of the sandbox pages. Think outside the box 09:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3]You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Please note that your opinion on a topic does not dictate what should be done on Wikipedia, even though you're an administrator. The self reference in Barnstar was definitely approved by the people who have worked on that article. I advise you to present your reasons for not having the self-ref on the page to the editors on Talk:Barnstar-- E d ¿Cómo estás? 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you guys at the Singpost looking for new stuff/staff? It's been suggested that the Signpost cover WikipediaWeekly, and I'd be willing to write stuff for that, but am not sure if there'd be enough for a section of its own (given how it could effectively turn out to be an episode summary, which we already do). Any thoughts? Cheers, – Ch acor 03:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm wondering if you might be interested in cross-links between your signpost and LSS. -- Improv 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! | |
---|---|
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation. | |
Georgewilliamherbert 05:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
Could you add the Category:2006 births to the Suri Cruise article? -- Carterhawk 10:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks - my wife has reminded me a few times I should be asleep already since I got about 3-4 hours last night :(
Will do re the notes section - I am still trying to figure out what is the most efficient and effective way to prep the list each week.
Because google seems to be including more and more news sources that I would consider not meeting the verifiability standards, I wanted to ask you your view on the editorial discretion of which articles to include. Basically, I am categorizing articles based on source (in descending reliability/interest): large circ, large circ foreign news, small circ, specialized print, online respected, online specialized, online computer news, blogs, PR releases. Then focusing on the mainstream stuff - avoiding the blogs unless it is something particularly interesting versus random complaints/acclaim. I think I'll add a column on "topic" so it will be easier to identify which articles to group together.
Any suggestions you have on that would be helpful - perhaps I'll ask for feedback on the suggestion page. -- Trödel 04:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If you need me to refactor for length, just let me know. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You've given me a number of question #1s :)
I hope this is what you're looking for. Take care. -- Improv 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you missed the various notes I've left around the place, some information on the candidates is summarised here. Carcharoth 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*tip of the hat* -- The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 02:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Heya.
-- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Hello, Ral.
Thank you for collating and editing this! -- Avi 03:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Take care and happy edits Alex Bakharev 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the questions, Ral! (As a side note, you may be interested in using {{ ArbCom candidate}}, something I used for the Jan. 2006 elections... it's been abandoned since, but with a few modifications should be good.) Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1. I have been an adminstrator since November 2005 and have held no other elected position. 2. Though not always the case, the arbitration process is sometimes too slow. I would like to see most cases resolved within 30 days of being accepted. One way to achieve this goal is to have more arbitrators and another might be to have an informal guideline which encourages a 30 day resolution. Since Wikipedia is getting larger by the day, the need for dispute resolution is growing all the time, so I believe that one natural part of that evolution is to make arbcom bigger. My contributions as a arbitrator would be to demand plenty of evidence, not hesitate to ask questions, be open to community suggestions and to ensure a fair but firm resolution. Many a fine editor is sidetracked by those whose primary purpose on Wikipedia is disruption and I would like to have more involvement in putting a stop to that. 3. I was most recently party in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO case. I also was a party in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord case and have commented in Workshop, proposed decisions and in the initial case statements of several other cases.
Thanks for taking the time to go through these! Kirill Lokshin 05:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1. Admin and (emeritus/inactive) Mediation Committee.
2. I'm offering my time and experience because a properly functioning ArbCom is important to the project. I don't claim to be the most qualified nominee, but I may the the fifth-most qualified. I have a couple of years of editing experience including more than 43,000 edits, over a year as an admin, have never been accused of wheel warring, have never been blocked, and have exposure to a range of topics, many types of disputes, and a variety of users. Outside of Wikipedia I've been involved with volunteer organizations and have served on juries and disciplinary or policy-setting committees
3. I've been involved in several arbitrations.
Thanks for assembling this information. Cheers, - Will Beback · † · 05:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
You asked:
The answers are:
I'm happy to expand on any of these if requested. Guy ( Help!) 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1. None as of yet 2. I feel that I can give Wikipedia a fiar, and honest assessment when it comes to arbitration cases for one, and I also feel that I can be even-handed and ratinal when making my case for each arguement. 3. None as of yet
— freak( talk) 23:00, Nov. 27, 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an administrator since July 2005. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I'm not out to "fix" it or shake things up, but I see it as a logical progression of how I can further give back to a community and project which has given quite a lot to me. It's just pitching in, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
No, I've not had any ArbCom cases or RfCs. That's certainly not to say everybody's always agreed with me, but I like to think I can diffuse a nasty situation before things get that far. I've always been a bit of a peacekeeper, and I like to think it's an off-wiki skill that servers me nicely on-wiki as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are you not putting the Wikiproject Report in the signpost. That is a perosanal attack to me. -- Nathannoblet 06:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ral315. Thank you for your interest in that election.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Hi Ral. Answers, as requested:
Hope this is what was required! Proto:: type 10:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Please let me know if you have any further questions. Nandesuka 13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We've already gone to press for this week, but your responses would be added immediately, and you and other late-entering users would be noted in next week's issue as well. Thanks, Ral315 ( talk) 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Anything else?-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
|
Thought that maybe you cound include a first wiki project to publishish a book in the next issue of signpost?
Here is an extract from invitation that was sent to MIT community:
The focus of our new book, tentatively titled We Are Smarter Than Me, is just that: a guide to the landscape of community knowledge and the identification of key principles to harness it. Organized initially around the major business functions and processes, the book will contain case studies of successes and failures, and commentary on the lessons learned. But most importantly, this book will (we hope) be written by hundreds or thousands of people, each listed as an author. Using wiki technology, the purpose of our experiment is to determine whether a community approach applies to book-writing, and to harness the knowledge of the community to advance the state of management. You can learn more about how this will work by visiting http://www.WeAreSmarter.org
To ensure the success of the venture, we've enlisted some additional resources to provide support. We're forming an advisory committee of faculty and industry experts, led by Tom Malone, a senior faculty member at MIT who heads up the Collective Intelligence Laboratory . Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has agreed to serve as a member of the Advisory Board as well.
You are invited to participate in the project in a variety of ways. This would include, but not limited to, making contributions to current chapters, or creating new chapters if you believe the current structure is too constraining (you can review the current chapter structure on the website). Or you can simply monitor the chapter(s) you feel are most relevant, and you can provide commentary and content as you feel necessary. If you are interested in participating in this project, please visit http://www.WeAreSmarter.org to learn more about the project and to sign-up as a project participant. 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that your bot is doing the signpost edits, can you set it to not change the unicode things, I think there's a checkbox is AWB. The thing is, there's some template that I use about the wikipedia user page, blah blah blah, and it uses the escape codes to make it harder for people to "hijack" my userpage, for whatever reason. Thanks! ST47 Talk
Thanks for the tip! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an active discussion about the situation between Barnstar and WP:ASR on Talk:Barnstar#Barnstars_on_Wikipedia. As the thread currently is discussing, it might be a good idea to add an external link from Esperanza to Wikipedia:Esperanza instead of an internal link. That way, mirror sites would not have any dead links. This might be a possibly successful compromise between our debate.
On a completely unrelated note, the header of the message you added ( User talk:Ed#Esperanza) contains a link to Wikipedia:Esperanza, not Esperanza. =) E d ¿Cómo estás? 23:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Ral315. I believe that the Wikipedia barnstar link should be added to the Barnstar page. Many other pages, such as that of Administrator or Mediation, have links on top to the article about Wikipedia. I constantly use the Wikipedia link at the top of the barnstar page as well as many others. Although it may conflict with the self avoidance policy, it is extremely useful. Without it, many newbies (and for that matter, some experienced members) will not be able to easily find the page about Wikipedia barnstars.
Sharkface217
01:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that most of the examples of self-refs I found you refered to as essential processes. Now I would like to ask you: How do you define an essential process? What is essential to one may not be essential to another.-- E d ¿Cómo estás? 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Essential Process? Isn't that why we're discussing this? ^_~
But yes, I do believe that the link on the top of the page is essential to finding the Wikipedia:Barnstars page. After all, I always just type in 'Barnstar' on the search box, get sent to that page, and then I click the link to the Wikipedia page located near the top. Sharkface217 03:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Out of interest, does "hoax article" mean the article is a hoax, or the article is about a hoax? David Mestel( Talk) 19:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Your article is false.
The story of Intellipedia, the Wiki for the Department of Defense, is a hoax. Having personal access to JWICS, I can tell you that the leak of this "announcement of an intelligence Wiki" is actually a case of what appears to be mass journalistic hysteria.
If you take a good look at all of the news articles out, they will tell you a little. They'll mention John Negroponte (sometimes as the person who announced it, other times not), and a man named Michael Wertheimer, who is claimed to be 'the intelligence community's chief technical officer' (or as some other made-up, official-sounding name). There is no such thing, nor is there any such reference to this man outside of Intellipedia-related news stories.
When this hoax article was released, many journalists jumped on it as fact. I tell you now, it is not fact. There is no such thing as intellipedia (not that I have heard, and if there was, I WOULD HAVE HEARD IT).
Thank you for your time. ~ PH DrillSergeant... § 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are you nominating all the sandbox pages for deletion? The sandbox pages help to strengthen Wikipedia's sense of community, yet you are determined to destroy some of the main community activity pages where users can have fun and enjoy themselves. Stressed wikipedians are not effective. Please reconcider your stance on the mfd of the sandbox pages. Think outside the box 09:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3]You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Please note that your opinion on a topic does not dictate what should be done on Wikipedia, even though you're an administrator. The self reference in Barnstar was definitely approved by the people who have worked on that article. I advise you to present your reasons for not having the self-ref on the page to the editors on Talk:Barnstar-- E d ¿Cómo estás? 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you guys at the Singpost looking for new stuff/staff? It's been suggested that the Signpost cover WikipediaWeekly, and I'd be willing to write stuff for that, but am not sure if there'd be enough for a section of its own (given how it could effectively turn out to be an episode summary, which we already do). Any thoughts? Cheers, – Ch acor 03:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm wondering if you might be interested in cross-links between your signpost and LSS. -- Improv 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! | |
---|---|
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation. | |
Georgewilliamherbert 05:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
Could you add the Category:2006 births to the Suri Cruise article? -- Carterhawk 10:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks - my wife has reminded me a few times I should be asleep already since I got about 3-4 hours last night :(
Will do re the notes section - I am still trying to figure out what is the most efficient and effective way to prep the list each week.
Because google seems to be including more and more news sources that I would consider not meeting the verifiability standards, I wanted to ask you your view on the editorial discretion of which articles to include. Basically, I am categorizing articles based on source (in descending reliability/interest): large circ, large circ foreign news, small circ, specialized print, online respected, online specialized, online computer news, blogs, PR releases. Then focusing on the mainstream stuff - avoiding the blogs unless it is something particularly interesting versus random complaints/acclaim. I think I'll add a column on "topic" so it will be easier to identify which articles to group together.
Any suggestions you have on that would be helpful - perhaps I'll ask for feedback on the suggestion page. -- Trödel 04:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If you need me to refactor for length, just let me know. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You've given me a number of question #1s :)
I hope this is what you're looking for. Take care. -- Improv 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you missed the various notes I've left around the place, some information on the candidates is summarised here. Carcharoth 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*tip of the hat* -- The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 02:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Heya.
-- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Hello, Ral.
Thank you for collating and editing this! -- Avi 03:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Take care and happy edits Alex Bakharev 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the questions, Ral! (As a side note, you may be interested in using {{ ArbCom candidate}}, something I used for the Jan. 2006 elections... it's been abandoned since, but with a few modifications should be good.) Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1. I have been an adminstrator since November 2005 and have held no other elected position. 2. Though not always the case, the arbitration process is sometimes too slow. I would like to see most cases resolved within 30 days of being accepted. One way to achieve this goal is to have more arbitrators and another might be to have an informal guideline which encourages a 30 day resolution. Since Wikipedia is getting larger by the day, the need for dispute resolution is growing all the time, so I believe that one natural part of that evolution is to make arbcom bigger. My contributions as a arbitrator would be to demand plenty of evidence, not hesitate to ask questions, be open to community suggestions and to ensure a fair but firm resolution. Many a fine editor is sidetracked by those whose primary purpose on Wikipedia is disruption and I would like to have more involvement in putting a stop to that. 3. I was most recently party in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO case. I also was a party in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord case and have commented in Workshop, proposed decisions and in the initial case statements of several other cases.
Thanks for taking the time to go through these! Kirill Lokshin 05:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1. Admin and (emeritus/inactive) Mediation Committee.
2. I'm offering my time and experience because a properly functioning ArbCom is important to the project. I don't claim to be the most qualified nominee, but I may the the fifth-most qualified. I have a couple of years of editing experience including more than 43,000 edits, over a year as an admin, have never been accused of wheel warring, have never been blocked, and have exposure to a range of topics, many types of disputes, and a variety of users. Outside of Wikipedia I've been involved with volunteer organizations and have served on juries and disciplinary or policy-setting committees
3. I've been involved in several arbitrations.
Thanks for assembling this information. Cheers, - Will Beback · † · 05:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
You asked:
The answers are:
I'm happy to expand on any of these if requested. Guy ( Help!) 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1. None as of yet 2. I feel that I can give Wikipedia a fiar, and honest assessment when it comes to arbitration cases for one, and I also feel that I can be even-handed and ratinal when making my case for each arguement. 3. None as of yet
— freak( talk) 23:00, Nov. 27, 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an administrator since July 2005. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I'm not out to "fix" it or shake things up, but I see it as a logical progression of how I can further give back to a community and project which has given quite a lot to me. It's just pitching in, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
No, I've not had any ArbCom cases or RfCs. That's certainly not to say everybody's always agreed with me, but I like to think I can diffuse a nasty situation before things get that far. I've always been a bit of a peacekeeper, and I like to think it's an off-wiki skill that servers me nicely on-wiki as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are you not putting the Wikiproject Report in the signpost. That is a perosanal attack to me. -- Nathannoblet 06:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ral315. Thank you for your interest in that election.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Hi Ral. Answers, as requested:
Hope this is what was required! Proto:: type 10:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Please let me know if you have any further questions. Nandesuka 13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We've already gone to press for this week, but your responses would be added immediately, and you and other late-entering users would be noted in next week's issue as well. Thanks, Ral315 ( talk) 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Anything else?-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)