User talk:Yanksox/archive11

NEDM?

I read something that referenced an internet meme called "NEDM" and I was VERY disappointed to see that it was deleted as a listing on Wikipedia. Is this the abridged version now? The way I see it... there isn't a single piece of knowledge that should be purposefully excluded from Wikipedia. Of course, there might be exceptions... but I am a huge fan and don't like to be let down.... especially since it is 'protected' and I don't have to opportunity to even see what it was previously!

why did you delete H Liqueur site?

why did you delete H Liqueur site?

You delete H Liqueur site, when there are plenty of similar small site that are still alive, why?

You delete H Liqueur site, when there are plenty of similar small site that are still alive, why? example? --Vodka 3

Thanks

My sig

Why don't you think my age should be there. I'm not giving out any other personal info except that I live in the US. It'll be pretty hard for someone to find me. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 12:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's for your own benefit. I don't think it's a very wise idea to reveal your age: A) people may look down upon you for it, B) I'm not entirely sure that it in line with WP:SIG, C) It's just something that you shouldn't be displaying in your signature. It's ok, I suppose, for your userspace to have it, but blatantly wave it around in your signature is not beneficial in any way whatsoever. Yanksox 18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I should change my sig to list my weight. Oh, will that be fun! - crz crztalk 18:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that number would fit on a page, crz. :) Alphachimp 00:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you put your IQ in though, the single digit won't make your sig cumbersome :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 44	30 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway	Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles	Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia	News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny vandalism

Here's funny vandalism to brighten up your day - crz crztalk 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

heh. Nice stuff. Yanksox 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OOPS! Thanks for fixing my comment at the RfA :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!) Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach. Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. What's New? The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one! A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived. There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia. The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested! In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias. A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted! Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Thanks for your trust

Thanks for your comments and trust, even if you are completely wrong about the notability of shopping malls :) If tere are any projects that could use some more admin help, just holler over yonder. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching - November 3 - Unassigned

Are you and your coaching partner ready for a new student? Please reply at my talk page, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why. ;) I'll assign you someone new soon, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been assigned Daveydweeb (talk · contribs) as a student. Once coaching begins please move your note in the coaching box to the Active section! Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's okay. Harmonious coaching, *polishes giant S on chest and flies off again* Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Azlea Antistia

"The result was Delete. Argument for deletion is much stronger than opinions in favor of closure."

Um, I think you may have meant something else? Aren't delete and closure more synonymous than antonymous compared to delete and keep? Or am I missing something?—Chidom ^talk  23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'm using closure in the sense of security for the article. It is confusing, and my fault. I'll use better wording. Yanksox 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, and no "fault", either. Sounds like you're tired, get some rest! Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please restore it! It is a violation of Wikipedia policy. --Haham hanuka 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are you joking or serious? I'm too tired to tell. Yanksox 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm serious. There is NO consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azlea Antistia (2nd nomination). You can't delete it just because you think that "Argument for deletion is much stronger than opinions in favor of closure". Please restore it. --Haham hanuka 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhh.... yes he can. The vast majority of the keep arguments were along the lines of "keep, real person", whereas the delete arguments referred to official guidlines, namely WP:PORNBIO. I believe that the deletion was correct. If you have a problem, you can take it to deletion review. It's not good practice to upturn an AfD on your own. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally with Deskana. Btw, for anyone that cares it is on DRV. Yanksox 15:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gmail

Check it, por favor. I won't be online for a couple of hours, though. My fish is giving birth and I've got to make sure the breeding trap is working. >< Grazi. Srose (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hope you feel better soon! Srose (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin coach

Heya. I've created my admin coaching page here -- it's deliberately a user talk page, so changes to it are immediately highlighted as an orange box at the top of my screen. It saves having to check through my amazingly long watchlist all the time.

I'm glad you'll be my coach, given your help at my RfA all those months ago. Seems fitting, really. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 00:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the first day of coaching -- as lame as my mistake with Mock Duck may have been, I'm glad you were able to explain exactly where I went wrong, and I hope I'll do better with uncertain CSDs in the future. I'm off to bed (eek, 1:24am..), but thanks again for the help! Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 14:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Intentional vandalism by Derex.

Derex has been consistently removing comments from the John Kerry Wikipedia article to reflect his own views. Comments from previous edits often have no justification and include:

(nope)

(oh, i've talked plenty. have you bothered to read?)

It started off as a blatant attempt to make the article POV (as evidenced by his willingness to place himself over the talks page), and now he keeps reverting any attempt to point out that Democrats have criticized Kerry as well, and that Kerry apologized in the name of "simplification".

Please, don't encourage the vandals. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's quite an accusation from someone who is now consistently deleting well-sourced material that you don't like. I, and most everyone else, on talk felt this should be at most a one-line section with a link to wikinews. You persisted in adding lengthy details. Ok, but you don't get to pick and choose which detail as it suits your point of view. I've added detail, such as the view of Republican Dick Armey to match your discussion of the view of Republican John McCain. You insert Harold Ford's call for an apology, but you delete his accepatance of Kerry's explanation. I've added sources, going to notability, that almost all pollsters think this amounts to almost nothing in the election. You have removed that as well. Trying to keep a very minor incident in the scope of a lifetime brief in accordance with undue weight provision of npov is not vandalism. Repeatedly selectively removing well-sourced and notable detail that disagrees with the POV you are trying to further is vandalism. Derex 01:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was NPOV before you started making your edits. For example, Kerry initially refused to apologize, and I linked to an article with confirmation of this fact. Repentance is important in politics, as what Kerry did could have amounted to career suicide; several times you deleted the statement that he even apologized at all. Another example is when you added that Democrats accepted Kerry's apology, yet failed to indicate that the White House and Republicans have as well; failure to mention this would only serve to create bias against Republicans when people read this and see that only one side accepted the apology. I've left in your comment that pollsters think that this will have no effect on the elections, though the statements by Dick Armey and the nonpartisan pollster serve to undermine the importance of what Kerry said, and turn attention away from Kerry, respectively. I attribute your refusal to participate in the discussion and continue to delete criticisms of Kerry by Democrats as vandalism because you're undermining the integrity of the article, and even calling me names in the comments and on your talks page. Way to be neutral. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Page blanking vandal

Good catch on that IP out of Texas. Thanks! -- Avi 14:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Yanksox 01:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of User talk:66.226.79.49

What do you mean by contact me via e-mail if anything comes up?? in your block summary?? This is a school IP, that I'm on, and it's part of Internet for Learning. Be careful about blocking the IP address, as it is a shared one for an entire high school, well, two actually - Formby High School, and Range High School, over 300 + computers have this IP, so be careful about blocks, OK?? --Colbber 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

See user talk. Yanksox 01:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

U2 band member pages

"it's a detail about where the band is, not about the band"

They're they same thing. A detail about where the band is about the band - how can it not be? And anyway, how is it relevant to a biographical entry about a person? 86.17.246.29 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See User talk. Yanksox 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 45	6 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration election campaigns begin	Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clergy abuse article

Hi,

I meant to take a copy of the Clergy abuse article so that I could work on it in my userspace but somehow lost track of the fact that the AFD was about to close. Could you undelete it long enough to put a copy in my userspace under User:Richardshusr/Clergy abuse? I think you will agree that the AFD debate was not an obvious consensus (majority vote rather than overwhelming majority). I believe an NPOV article could be constructed from the latest revision. In fact, if you compare the edit history of the article against the votes, you will find that many of the Delete votes were cast before the article underwent substantial expansion and revision.

There are two paths forward: a Deletion Review or a re-write followed by re-creation. I am proposing the second if you will help me by restoring the deleted text to my userspace.

Thanx.

--Richard 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So, wait: Are you bargining with me? I would have been happy to userfy it, but I feel that you are posing mild threats to me. AfD is based on strength of argument, not a head count. Yanksox 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I did it already. - crz crztalk 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Yanksox 17:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK what happened there - I made multiple changes to the Brassiere article today, then my computer crashed and they have all gone. Although they can be found in my contributions - is that retrievable?

Massachusetts election

Yanksox, I am with the Healey campaign and we have not conceded. You can confirm this with an IP trace or by calling us at the CHQ (617-523-0844) and requesting to speak to me, Mary Joad. The current feed is at 48 percent. Articles should not be modified at this time.

see above - 10:31 PM

It's over. Yanksox 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate admin conduct

Yanksox,

You should understand that I was acting in accordance with the Healey campaign's request that the articles not be changed until the official count was completed or Ms. Healey conceded, which she did at about 10:40 PM.

It was not appropriate to issue a block in this case on the following grounds:

(1) You, yourself, violated 3RR as well. (2) It is Official Policy that an administrator who is involved in the dispute may not block. (3) In light of the fact that neither an official vote tally nor a concession had been made, any repeated statement that a new governor had been elected (or that the governor elect was now the governor) could be interpreted as vandalism. In response to the seconded issue taken by user:Rhobite on User talk:MJoad, the edits applied to Kerry Healey, Deval Patrick, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts up until 10:40 PM did not state that they represented projected results, but were inappropriately and repeatedly stated as fact.

I am requesting that you take the following action:

(1) Assess your role and possible violation of Official Policy in this dispute. (2) Confirm via an official retraction on my talk page that your actions in this case were in violation of Official Policy. (3) Engage in a continuing discussion with me regarding higher involvement e.g. sysops status for myself as an inappropriately blocked party as, I believe, I am at least as cognizant of the Official Policies and conduct codes as has been demonstrated towards me.

Thank you. -MJoad

>>11:32 PM>> I should add that I believe you were acting without abusive intent and therefore I do not believe arbitration is appropriate at this time. However, I do believe the blocking was an Official Policy violation and should be addressed. -MJoad

As a fellow administrator on Wikipedia, I can confirm that Yanksox was acting appropriately to Wikipedia's policies. I hope this helps alleviate any potential concerns and feel free to follow up if necessary hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review, it seems as if Yanksox actually did violate Wikipedia policies in terms of using the block feature while involved in the dispute and violated the 3RR given that the dispute appears to be a content dispute over legitimate sources and not vandalism. Apologies for my initial error in assessment hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It probably would have been better for Yanksox to get an uninvolved admin to block you. However given the time-sensitive nature of the information and the speed at which you were reverting, the block was appropriate. It's good that you're concerned about the integrity of the information Wikipedia reports. In the future, please make more of an effort to discuss your edits on talk pages and come to an agreement instead of reverting articles. I'm sure you understand that if Wikipedia changed its articles based on the wishes of political campaigns, it would quickly lose its objectivity. And on a side note, according to the timestamps on news articles (as well as my own memory), Healey conceded around 10 PM, not 10:40 as you say. Rhobite 04:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

>>11:52 PM>> Thank you Rhobite for adding to this discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on the desires of political campaigns. My reversions, however, are not a statement of campaign policy, but they are at the request of the campaign that the integrity of the articles in question be maintained until the election results were resolved.
With regard to Ms. Healey's concession, I requested a copy of the Letter of Concession which was sent by mail and hand delivered to Deval Patrick's CHQ, and those of our other opponents, and to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, signed at 10:33 PM.
In terms of article integrity, the statements that anybody had become governor-elect, much less governor, before that was actually the case is detrimental to the integrity of the affected articles. Per your point specifically, it would not have been such a detriment to state that news organizations had projected the victor. -MJoad

I stand by by block since you were editing with an agenda and because it was 15 minutes. I know my way around the Healey camp, say hi to Athena for me while you're there. This is very agitating, and to be honest, Mary you should be ashamed. Ashamed that you were trying to push and stretch out the election as long as you could, on Wikipedia of all things. I probably violated a rule or two, but I did it for the general overall interest and won't back down. Take it up for a review if you want. Yanksox 10:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just want to note that your request to be sysoped is outrageous and humorous. Yanksox 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. >< Poor Yank. Srose (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For those keeping score this is on Wikipedia Review. Yanksox 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your question

I've answered your question at my RfA. Please let me know if you have any more quesitons and I'll be glad to answer them. - Mike | Talk 00:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

By the way, I sent you an email (although it's not urgent material, so carry on for now). -- tariqabjotu 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I responded. Yanksox 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah... you must have been thinking of the one I sent last night (unless my e-mail server is taking awhile). -- tariqabjotu 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Obsessing over adminship

I couldn't have put it better myself. He really is obsessing over this admin schooling stuff. Compare his overall contribs with his mainspace contribs. A grand total of one mainspace edit in the last 9 days. -- Steel 01:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Help

Can you please take out vote of recently blocked User:Akaneon from Third holiest site article. Please see his comments while voting, in case you think that his vote should remain there. Thanking you in anticipation. --- ابراهيم 12:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

List of people from Pittsburgh

Hi, can you explain why you removed Congressmen Geoff Davis and Mike Doyle from the entry? Thanks, DB13

See User talk. Yanksox 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Akaneon

Thank you for indef blocking this guy. I was very suprised that the first two bans were only for hours and not days considering the level of his disruption. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh -- I always try to assume good faith. I just assumed that a 1 hour cool down period would end the difficulties. Wow was that wrong, but one can only hope. Alphachimp 15:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think is a good that you tried to salvage that editor, suprise does not mean disagreement(for me atleast). It was very possible that the short block could have cooled down the user. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of my opinion of the user, thanks for the block. Robovski 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Kappa

Would you like some help in submitting everything to AfD that Kappa unprodded on his psychotic deprodding episode? His actions fill this deletionist user with Wikistress. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 19:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like help, not for stuff to get deleted, but for the sake of consensus. Yanksox 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ERM

How would it be causing trouble?

Suicidal tendancies 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please dont waste my time. Suicidal tendancies 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

just dont.

why

erm... no it isnt... why are you wasting my time just leave me alone. Suicidal tendancies 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My new account

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOT ONLY HAVE I HAD TO CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF YOU, I HAVE LOST ALL OF MY CREDIBILITY. formerly suicidal tendancies.

Ring modulator 14:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the bright side, atleast your record of incivility has been removed. Perhaps you can keep this account incivility free. Sorry about the name problem. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Two Dickinson Street Co-op

your deletion was uncalled for. it is a new article, thus its content has not had time to develop. please visit the discussion page for that article, and make your reasons clear. 2D is a vibrant subculture of Princeton that helps define the larger social dynamics of the place.

remaining evidence of page that I can find is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Two_Dickinson_Street_Co-op

Aaron.michels 22:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - the page will develop more soon.Aaron.michels 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

rouge or rogue?

I've been really rouge lately, so don't worry.

er, are you rogue or rouge? what do you mean?

It's a joke. Yanksox 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You took less time to go rouge then I did. I've only recently gone rouge. I think I'd better add myself into the category. Or perhaps just block everyone for no reason, let them know that way. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

hehehehe, yeah, I don't think I snapped or anything, it's just a weird thing that happens. Yanksox 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u

Regarding your protection on Cute 1 4 u's page. Can you please unprotect it? We really need to hear what she has to say.Tennislover 02:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u is blocked on Wikipedia, unprotecting her page negates the whole purpose of protecting the page. She would troll on her talk page and that was all she did. There is no need to unprotect it. Yanksox 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not like she did anything really bad on her talk page.Tennislover 03:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand she is blocked, and she was using her talk page to troll. It's important not to feed the attention span of such a user. I'm such you can talk off wikipedia. Yanksox 05:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Muchos gracias!

I will be sending out my "thank-you's" to all the people who voted for my RfA, but I wanted to first drop by and thank you for all your help! If you ever need anything, just let me know. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL!

You don't deserve civility, i should submit a request for your de adminship. Ring modulator 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Yanksox, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as a expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

		Mike's RfA Thanks
		Yanksox: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/4. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of questions for you

Heya. Just thought I should draw your attention to a couple of questions I had recently, here. I'd be grateful to hear what you think of them. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 00:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. ~ trialsanderrors 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 46	13 November 2006	About the Signpost

Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia	ArbCom elections: Information on Elections
Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic	News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[Statement of gratitude]

[Unique statement of excitement]! [Your username name, not subst:ed properly], [statement of gratitude] for [your specific vote] in [link to request for adminship], which passed with a final tally of [final tally][percent in parentheses (optional)]. I plan to [statement of intentions regarding admin tools] and [statement acknowledging oppose votes as helpful]. If you [type of desire for help] or want to provide any [type of feedback], feel free to [link to talk page or e-mail]. [Statement of gratitude, again (optional)] [signature of new admin]

Because people often complain that RfA thank-you messages are impersonal, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to create your own. -- tariqabjotu 04:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

OK I have been handed a NPOV for my edits on Brassiere. Perhaps not surprising given the subject matter. What happens now? Does that stay on the article for ever. I can try and respond to the criticisms, but I can't lie! And others disagree with the critic. Mgoodyear 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway now it has become a warzone Mgoodyear 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point...

There is an ancient Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon could go to China." youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. Just wanted to inform you that my article was edited to include information pertaining to the artists participation in a nationwide song writing competition, in which he placed in the top 10. According the the criterion, that qualifies the article as a legitimate addition to the website. If any other further editing is needed, feel free to let me know. Thanks in advance and have a wonderful day.

MLB All-Stars categories

Hello YankSox. Thanks for let me know about you. I'm sorry to say that some people thinks that all American and National Leagues All-Stars should be deleted and merged into their parents. I would favour keeping both categories. I find categories useful for browsing related articles and exploring people with something in common. You know what? Finally, all Dates in Baseball articles were deleted because some wiki users don't see baseball history by date as notable or useful. I think is a shame to just threw away all this hard work. Now, is the turn for the All-Stars cats. It could be a bad precedent for future projects. In any event, could you have a look at MLB All-Stars categories for deletion? Please think about this and let me know what you think. Thanks. MusiCitizen 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox. The proposal is not to delete the American and National League All-Start categories, it is to delete the subcategories by year and merge the contents into the two parent categories. The team rosters should be listed in individual articles about each all star game. This is happening in articles such as 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. Listing this in an article adds the possibility of annotating the information with positions and other stats. Making categories out of this information clutters up articles such as Hank Aaron. If the information is in articles, it would MORE useful for browsing related articles and exploring people with something in common. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern with this is that categories are becoming the only way that people think they can create lists to browse through articles. In the case of a team roster, it seems an article does a much better job of listing the roster than a category. In the article about each player it can say "Bob Smith was chosen for the National League All Star time in 1960, 1963 and 1964". Each year could link to the articles about the game from that year (my example here is not so linked because many of these articles have not yet been written). Here are the advantages of removing the by year categories as I see it:

• It would get rid of quite a bit of category clutter
• The games would be linked to the teams when it the subject comes up in the article
• The articles would have information about all the players in the articles about each game
• The merged category would include All-Star players from every team.
• It sends the message that team rosters by year is not a good practice. Imagine if people start categorizing every major league team by their roster each year!

What is the advantage of having this information in a category? The only one I can think of is that the software will automatically alphabetize the roster. It might be slightly easier to browse to the category list than to find the roster in an article, but in some ways it is more difficult because they are not together in the same place. Also, the ease of browsing some categories has to be weighed against the difficulty of browsing all the other categories because there are so many of them. I'd like to understand your thinking on this better. --Samuel Wantman 07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A Disheartening Issue

User "Pjacobi" has marked all of my contributions for "deletion debate". I have no issue conducting a debate on whether an article should be deleted or not, but there are no rational nor constructive arguments for the deletion of any of my article contributions. If a user has an issue with my additions they should change the sentence structure, or add information to the article, not mark it for deletion. Frankly I don't think he can understand my complex writing style, for if he did he would realize that my sentences convey rational and verifiable information.

I am an autohority on the subjects that I have contributed to. I have been involved for years on a College level and have recently unconvered that Wikipedia had pages on the subject matter. I was soo disheartened with the state of the pages that I felt in necessary to contribute, and what do I get, irrational attacks by unproficient users.

I guess what I am asking for is a little special attention to my contributions, and especially the deletion debates on various articles. I feel that all attacks agains me, and my contributions are irrational and unsubstantial. Everything I add is straight forward and logical. Thank you for your attention. Noah Seidman 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An Oath of Sincerity

If my article contributions are decided to be kept on the Wikipedia network, yes it will make disgruntled people angrier, but it will be providing an invaluable resource that has hitherto been lacked by internet 3'rd party sources. The quality of the material that I have added to Wikipedia is outstanding, and the lack of proficiency by users demanding deletion is not a substantial reason to delete the information. There will always be users tha have a problem, or want to discredit controversial information, but if the information in question is retained a great step will be taken to squash unsubstantial stereotpes about a technology that is extremely straight forward, consistent with the laws of electrolysis, and definetly consistent with the laws of physics. The blatent arrogance that users have to discredit such rationally written information should not impact the availability of information to users that actually have interest or care about the subject at hand. The attacks against my contributions are out of malance, and I don't even think they actually read the articles. I strong urge that before deletion the entire article be read in depth by either yourself or a coexisting administrator. If the article is read in depth it will prove clear as to why the material should remain on the Wikipedia network. Noah Seidman 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Oh, hey, it's no problem about the Wikibreak -- I'm happy to see you back, though, and thanks for the comments at the admin coaching page. I've still been active while you were away, but I didn't come up with any particular questions to ask you, and (AFAIK) there have been no more incidents to ask for help with. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 03:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Im at the point

Frankly I'm at the point where I don't care whether my articles remain on Wikipedia. There are too many crackpot conspiracy theorists throwing around unsubstantial accusations. If the Brown's Gas article is indeed removed, so be it. There should be no article created in its place and Wikipedia should not allow an article about Brown's Gas in the future. If false accusations are made in a future article, such as "fraud" or "hoax", I do believe "defamation" is an appropriate terminology that most lawyers are familiar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nseidm1 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict, typo was correct)"I do not think that word means what you think it means", deformation is what happens when an old vinyl LP gets left in the sun. You probably meant defamation which is a term that most lawyers are familiar with. Which brings me to my next point...you can use words like "fuck" and not provoke as much response as you can with words like "defamation", please consider carefully the tone and content of comments that contain legal terms, many wikipedians (including myself) are allergic to them :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

PS to Yanksox - Pardon for having intruded on your page, but I just couldn't resist a chance to drop in an amusing quote/link. If my profanity was offensive, please delete. Happy editing : ) Doc Tropics 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My Two Cents

F*cuking "shit", the shitty shit, the shit who shits wont shit forver. Sorry, just getting out all of my inner feelings. I understand why the page was removed. I wasnt the starter of the page. All I ask is that when some fool tries to start the page again, that it be moderated with some extra attention. Only a court of law can conclude that something is a fraud and Wikipedia is not a place designed to perpetuate stereotypes that are not founded on prior legislation. I guess in the end its best that the page dousn't exist at all because of all the ranting back and forth. There will never be common ground on the topic until more mainstream research is conducted, and I hope this will be the case in the near future. Best regard to a tidy Wikipedia. Sincerely Noah Seidman 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Um...no, a court of law isn't the only thing that decides if something is a hoax. I should know from personal experience...Wikipedia deals with Wikipedia, and this is on Wikipedia so you need to play "the game." Yanksox 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA offer

Heya,

Spawn Man recently offered to nominate me for adminship and created the page for it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daveydweeb. Since you're my admin coach, I'd be grateful to hear your opinion on this before I accept. :)

Thanks in advance! -- Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 02:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for your support! Sorry to have jumped the sharkgun and accepted before your response, but with two nominators I wanted to get it over with. I'm glad to have your approval. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 12:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, sorry if you were planning on teaching him further, sensei! Thought he was ready, that's all :) riana_dzasta 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

104 home runs of thanks

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Favor

Can you please check out E tac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for me and block if you think it's warranted? He has a long history of blocks and warnings, but it's been a while. Recently he has been edit warring on Alex Lifeson and made a personal attack on me after I warned him not to continue being disruptive. I don't want to block since I was sort of involved in the Lifeson article. Thanks :) --Ars Scriptor 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me say at first I was sort of baffled and was trying to remember who you were. But no matter, now I know. Anyways, I blocked the user for 48 hours for a nonsense 3RR, I think a stern lecture about their role on Wikipedia is needed. Yanksox 12:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Satisficing

Hi Yanksox,

Can you help me understand why you deleted my update to "satisficing" today?

I added this paragraph, which you deleted:

"Simon once attempted to explain satisficing to a group of his students by describing a mouse searching for cheese in a maze. The mouse might be searching for a piece of Gouda, but unable to find any would be "satisfied" and could "suffice" with a any piece of cheese, such as American."

This is a good example from Herb Simon that further illustrates the example before it as well as where the term came from. This example helps to further explain the paragraph before, including a notion that is missing: satisficing isn't always immediate; people might start a search for some time looking for something specific and then decide to satisfice. The example, as I said, also actually explains where the term satisficing comes from, which isn't explained anywhere in this article (combination of satisfy and sufficing). Including as example from Simon, who put this term into economics and decision making is relevant.

What about the paragraph doesn't fit?

Craig.borchardt 29 November 2006

Your reply

Maybe you should work on how it rolls out. It doesn't quite fit in as smoothly as it can. Yanksox 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My reply

Hi yanksox,

I've added the paragraph back with a small transition, but the content is correct and relevant, and I think it should be in the article. I welcome the feedback, though.

I think there are at least two things that going on here: one, the entire article needs some type of revision. The article should open when a description of the term, which it doesn't, where it came from, who coined it, and then talk about how it is applied in different fields. Right now, the current article makes it look as though several different disciplines came up with the same term differently, but these are really rooted in the same place because Simon was a cognitive psychologist who worked in areas such as decision making, economics (won the Nobel Prize for economics), and artificial intelligence. The article doesn't have that sense; it reads as though cobbled together.

Secondly, there are issues in the overall structure of the section which literally reads:

factoid/example, factoid/example.

It actually says "example:"

To me, this style of written is something that I think you as an admin should have been focusing on instead. I'm not attacking you. I'm still not clear what about the paragraph that I added doesn't fit. If you mean that I didn't write "example:" before it, then I agree that it doesn't fit, but that's a problem with the article, and I'm not in a postition to revise it. More feedback rather than your deletion would be useful since the content is correct and relevant.

Oratory Prep

I don't believe this edit was warranted at all. Can you state your reasoning please?--dannycas 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by that edit. The information was too promotional and is not necessary for the overall comprehension of the school. Yanksox 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which succeeded. I have a lot to learn but your words of support mean a lot! Any advice is welcome as I learn to use the new tools. Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

About you

You're not a very good admin are you? 1B6 13:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A reply

Sorry, mishap with posting, please disregard my last comment, I posted it here by mistake. 1B6 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email, Yanksox.--Kchase T 02:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I replied to it, so you might want to check up on it. Yanksox 02:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing. Can you send again, maybe here, if necessary?--Kchase T 02:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

22barney22 (talk · contribs)

Despite being blocked from editing, this user still keeps replacing the warning you gave him with a bunch of foolishness, and I have had to revert back to your edit twice. Please semi-protect if possible, and block him once again. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

List of people whose full names are not commonly known

After looking at the AfD for this list, I'm concerned by the reasons given for deletion. Also, several people seem to have the wrong idea about what the list actually is. I'm thinking of going to review, but I wanted to run it by you first, to see if we can resolve this as informally as possible. These were the three main points made for deletion:

• Criteria's too vague, lots of people don't have their full names known

Agreed, if it really was a list of "people whose full names are not commonly known", it would be too vague. However, it's not - if you look at the names, it's actually based around use of the person's first name. That's why I reworked the introductory paragraph there, to tighten the criteria needed to list a name, and suggested, with some support, that it be renamed to "List of people whose first names are not commonly used".

• Can't be verified or checked for notability

If there's an article on Sean Connery, he's passed the notability test.
Sean Connery's full name is Thomas Sean Connery.
Due to community consensus, and based on the volume of published works which use his name, he is referred to as "Sean Connery" throughout the article.
Therefore, by Wikipedia standards, he falls into the category of "someone whose first name is not commonly used", and is a valid candidate for the list.

Re: the original nominator's example: if there were no references, then all occurences of "Buzz Aldrin" in his own article should be replaced by "Edwin Eugene Aldrin". However, the article can use the Buzz name, since it has several references showing how frequently this name is used, even in official publications. (That's where the change from "known" to "used" becomes more useful.)

• List is unnecessary, just go to the person's page

This defeats the purpose of the list. If you're trying to find people whose first names aren't commonly used, and you don't know exactly who you're looking for, what do you type into the search box? Quote from WP:LIST:

If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).

Indeed, there is a whole category, "Lists of people by name feature", which is then seperated based on the nature of the common name. This list is now a notable omission from the category. (However, List of people named after famous people seems too vague, I've prodded it).

I made most of those points during the discussion, but they went unanswered. Based on those points, I still believe the list should be renamed, as proposed. However, if you can answer those three points, I'll happily go away. Thanks for your time. Quack 688 23:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One, how exactly do we determine that someone's name is uncommon from what we expect? That's too vague and too much. Two, how many people used this page? Just a quick response, but if you really want to have true closure mosey on to WP:DRV. Yanksox 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Kid Radd

I accept your judgement because I have no other options, but I could've done without the insult, mild though it was. *sigh* --Kizor 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt, insulted, it wasn't intended for anyone but a more general audience. Please accept my humble apologies. Yanksox 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Forget it. I know it was general. I was worked up because I honestly thought I had for once foiled the three users who are doing significant damage to our coverage of webcomics due to their overrigid-- and now I'm trying to draw you in. The point is, I probably wanted to be insulted. I'll go clear my head. --Kizor 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I don't object to recreation if notability and references are drawn in. Also, you can go to WP:DRV. Yanksox 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Would that I could. What's demanded is multiple large published works with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (about a solely online art form that's perhaps a decade old and has next to no mainstream presence), or perhaps a notable independent award (there's one large source of awards, which they reject so perhaps four webcomics qualify for this, tops) or a well-known independent publisher (which, due to the unique nature of this one, would here be either pointless, infeasible or physically impossible). Notability? One of the most notable ones online had to be saved with DRV. Those are the rules; applicability matters not at all. My case was lost in AfD, it wouldn't stand a chance in DRV. --Kizor 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mall at Stonecrest

The page was already considered for deletion back in April 2005.. the result was no consensus. Are articles supposed to be considered for deletion more than once? (see Talk:Mall at Stonecrest) drumguy8800 C T 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• GNAA was nominated for deletion 18 times before being deleted. You can take something to AfD more than once, though chances decrease it. Yanksox 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that we're on the subject, are there any other rules? Are those wishing for an article's deletion allowed to take it to a vote every few months until they get the result they want? --Kizor 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • In theory they could, but I know where you are going with your train of thought now. If something survives AfD, chances are that it will usually again unless new facts are brought to the light. Yanksox 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Priory Community School

Heya. I may have my mop now, but I need some advice regarding the goings-on at the above talk page: it's reasonably clear that the original text of the article was a copyvio, which has since been removed and the situation explained to the creator in several places. However, should the article be deleted then selectively undeleted in order to remove the original copyvio? What happens here? :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 23:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of on the talk page. Yanksox 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you know if someone is an editor/administrator

I have reason to believe someone is impersonating an administrator and would like to know how you coule tell the difference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Americanbeauty415 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

It's pretty hard to impersonate an administrator considering how they're basically just normal editors with a few extra tools allowed by the software. Who are you talking about? --Deskana talk 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos

I've noticed you're quite involved here, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! frummer 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Deadmin

You have been indefinitely blocked for depriving Wikipedia of a good admin by desysopping yourself. --Deskana talk 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On a more serious note... it's a shame, really. I hope you find what you're looking for by having requested this. :-) --Deskana talk 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hammertime! - crz crztalk 23:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much I'm laughing at what you just wrote crz. --Deskana talk 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, Yanksox requested that I announce that he's leaving (allegedly permanently). I'm not sure if he's made this clear, so forgive me if I'm expounding a point. Allow me to be the first to say that he'll be missed. Srose (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we will miss him. Take care guy. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Truly sad to see you go. I hope you'll come back, someday, but if not, then the best of luck, my friend.--Kchase T 23:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Permanently? :-( --Deskana talk 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not leaving permanently, I'm attempting to take a serious wikibreak for my life and then come back in a reasonable amount of time. Keep on trying to record all knowledge! Yanksox 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, my bad. Misunderstanding, lol. I feel incredibly stupid. Srose (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sysop access restored

Hi. Having verified that your desysopping was voluntary and that there were no controverted circumstances involved, and in view of your request via email to me, I have restored your sysop access. Cheers, Redux 13:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A 62 hour desysopping, that must be a record for a voluntary request. I think you should pay an Early change of mind penalty ;). NoSeptember 14:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Shame on you. _{BOSTON SUCKS!} ^{BOSTON SUCKS!} - crz crztalk 14:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just such a lavish person person and my urges must be controled. :) Yanksox 14:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are an admin still? This is great. But then again – Aw man! I wanted to take part in the record breaking RfA by piling on. That would have spectacular! ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Err, I was resysoped, but I'll try to do my best, heh. Yanksox 19:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Back already? a'right, you're getting blocked again for not taking a proper wikibreak. I think a week is appropriate. Or maybe a month. btw, wanted to make sure you saw this. Thanks again, my friend.Kchase T 19:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

W00t! And here I was afraid we were Yanksoxless. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/W00t_(2nd_nomination) - crz crztalk 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. God forbid that should ever happen. :) Yanksox 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Crz's world?? :) - crz crztalk 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Help me mr yanksox

my article seems not appear like other submitted articles.. can you help me find the error?..

Thank you very much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aziyamarcee (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

• I would like to request some assistance with my ISkin article, which has been marked for deletion. Unfortunately, I am still familiarizing myself with article creation on Wikipedia and would like to ask for a bit more time to gather my data for the article. Any advice or help you could offer would be greatly appreciated! Dazednconfused693 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Alane Wright

Wendy Alane Wright credits and facts can be VERIFIED at the following websites:

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Wendy+Wright

http://www.popinstituut.nl/biografie/def_la_desh___the_fresh_witness.13954.html

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2397715/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyalane (talk • contribs)

I meet 2 of these categories:

1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. YES I HAVE.

1. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. FEEL THE RHYTHM WAS IN ROTATION NATIONALLY.

ALSO, I HAVE REACHED A LEVEL OF NOTABILITY IN THE DUTCH MUSIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. MY EXISTENCE BY THIS OUTSIDE SOURCE CAN BE VERIFIED: http://www.popinstituut.nl/biografie/def_la_desh___the_fresh_witness.13954.html

ALSO THE RECORD I WROTE AND SANG ON "FEEL GOOD" WENT GOLD IN SCANDINAVIA AND HOLLAND.

wendy Wendyalane 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter characters birthday list

Where do you get off deleting and article that has 5 comments saying delete out of 19 total with the rest supporting a merge or keep? John Reaves 22:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If your conclusion was that stuff was already merged, you should have closed it as redirect to preserve the history. - crz crztalk 22:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't anything to merge, it's a list of names and dates. I'll restore and redirect. Yanksox 22:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the format of the list that was useful. Will the prior versions still be accessible? John Reaves 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Restore = Restoration of entire history. Yanksox 23:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and consider the consensus next time. John Reaves 23:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for intimidating you. I'm not "hiding under numbers", I just assumed that you hadn't read he AfD since you deleted instead doing what the majority said, and redirecting. Please don't arbitrarily delete articles based on you opinion of the article instead of the clear-cut consensus of the AfD. John Reaves 23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. John Reaves 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

De Cordova image

Thanks for adding a badly needed image to the Frederick De Cordova article. I saw images on the internet, but had no idea what hurdles had to be lept through to use one, because of all the copvio stuff. Edison 23:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Of course, but they're frustrating when Web sites go down or articles are removed from the site. Just for my own info -- when an article from a reliable source appears to have been removed for good, does that mean that the detail is no longer verifiable and should be removed from an article? My gut is no, the item was still sourced by the article accessed on such-and-such date, just as something in print or in other electronic media wouldn't be Web-accessible. But I'd like to get an "official" take on that topic. (And then if you have time left over you can tell me if my take on WINAD is all wrong. :-P) - PhilipR 06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Mattuck on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arthur Mattuck. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hornplease 06:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Email reply

Since my email seems to not want to send my message (though last time someone emailed me and I thought it hadn't sent my reply, it did, so we'll see), I figured I'd just C&P my response here:

I really, really, really appreciate the kind words. I love simply editing WP, and I certainly don't do so in a quest for acclaim or increased self-esteem, but it's also nice to know that others recognize your contributions.

Honestly is a tough thing- I do feel that it's the "best policy," but it can get you into trouble. I'm proud to say that I don't pull punches, and I wouldn't want people pulling them with me- if you think I've screwed up, call me out on it!

I love 'Deis. It's going to be tough leaving- especially when I have to enter the "real world," which I absolutely do not want to do. But, of course, all good things must come to an end. -- Kicking222 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

AC/DC Article

The links on that page have been the subject of a long, ongoing discussion of which I don't recall you previously being a part of. Many months ago an administrator named SooTHING had to step in and make a ruling on what would and would not be included in the links. That ruling was accepted by all the parties involved. However, sometime within the last 2 months, SooTHING's decision was anonymously removed from the AC/DC talk page and the edit warring began again. Please don't make it worse than it is by adding fuel to the fire of the anonymous vandals on that page. NCC17 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome

I wish I had a dollar for every article that I've {{speedy}} tagged with the word "awesome" in the text!!--Anthony.bradbury 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

w00t

I agree with your definition of w00t, but it needs a source. If that slang page isn't kept strictly enforced, it quickly becomes unmanagable. --Onorem 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

wOOt? Is that something you say when you visit the local Hooters? ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, we'll need sources on that one. :P Yanksox 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. More research... JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Priory Community School

2 things;
1, what makes you want to delete the Priory Community School article as we have only just started building it
2, what is it about having the subjects taught and the heads of those subjects 'unnecessary and excessive'? This is our Priory Community School wiki, thanks to Riana dzasta the article complys with all copywrite laws and website rules. it is being built by staff and pupils but you are not helping by deleting things when they are put up. if you have a genuine reason to delete sections, please do, but do not delete a section because you think thats it is unnecessary and excessive. you are abusing your rights as admin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomato3991 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't want to delete it, I'm questioning the notability. Also, you don't own this article, it is not yours and having a list of teachers is just plain absurd. Yanksox 18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Mattuck deletion

Hi I, the author of the article, have left a message in the Deletion review/Log that I quote here:

[QUOTE] Hi, I am the one who create this article. I did it because The video lectures of Differential Equations at MIT OCW were done by him. Several MIT professors' that are involved in the OCW project haver their article at wikipedia. Just to mention some of them: Prof Walter Lewin, Prof Gilbert Strang and Prof. Sylvia Ceyer‎. The article was really short and to be honest it didnt have anything relevant but the personal webpage and the ocw link to the video lectures, but my intention was to create the article as an stub. Bcartolo 18:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[/QUOTE] Bcartolo 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I'm newbie here but learning everyday. Thanks again Bcartolo 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bonoki page deletion

Hi:
I've contested the Bonoki wikipedia entry deletion, but the page was deleted before I finished.
I would like to ask for reconsider it's deletion. The reaons are on the talk:Bonoki page.
regards ,Rafahoro 22:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ashley Raines Delete

Hi, i only copied like two lines from the artist site in his bio. why did you delete and how can i remedy? Sesac 22:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Need admin help

NCC17 (talk · contribs) has taken ownership of the external links section of the AC/DC article even after you requested he stop. He has gone, by my count, 5RR today replacing his favorite fansites, blogs and chatrooms. He claims that anyone's correction to his WP:EL violations are vandalism even though there was concensus among the articles regular editors that none of the fansites were notable enough and their "official" website was not the site NCC17 keeps pushing. NCC17's edit summaries claiming that he is re-instating Admin SoothingR's link suggestion is also false. SoothingR's mediation was that only the record company links + the DMOZ link should stay. Any assistance would be great. Have a nice day! 198.164.250.44 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps peace and civility will return...at least for a week-I am guessing :) . 198.164.250.44 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with this Yanksox, it's much appreciated. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Being an admin coach

Hello Yanksox. I'm coordinating the Esperanza admin coaching program. You're listed as a coaching volunteer. Would you like a student? If so, would you coach User:Qrc2006? Please let me know. Thanks! --Fang Aili ^talk 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Way cool, thank you. Please contact him to get started, or he'll contact you. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 14:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

coach

doneqrc2006/email 01:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

W00t

A DRV has been opened for W00t. Please comment. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c 01:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry I didn't realise I was logged out! No, not a bot. I'm preparing for the WelcomeBot, by manually welcoming 1000 users. This is for research purposes before i propose the bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval so as to study the negative aspects of welcoming new users. Please see the previous WelcomeBot proposal by a banned user at here and these comments on my page about my proposing it again some time. frummer 05:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

:-)

¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy editing!!!Nice name by the way, very controversial.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

4chan name-calling

Yeah, sorry about that. I frequent 4chan somewhat, but seeing that they screwed with wikipedia pissed me off. I'll remember that for next time. --Sakurina 17:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:USER again.

The page says one of the allowed reasons for having a subpage is:

• archives of user talk

The page you cited is an archive of a User Talk. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. Someone DID post it on my user talk. If it bothers you that much then I'm going to move the page to the Usertalk namespace. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well no duh the history says I put it there! I put it there as an archive of the talk page!!! You're a Wikipedia administrator that doesn't understand basic conventions for archiving talk? And then you have the gall to call me a liar (in violation of WP:AGF)? But I'm going to assume good faith here and guess that you have a better understanding of logic and reason than I see portrayed. So you said:

• "So unless you provide a link to me, that means your lying"

Which means, if I don't provide a link to you, that means I'm a liar. Why should I provide a link to you? You made up this bullshit rule yourself. Nowhere is it written anywhere on Wikipedia "except for my talk page and yours" that users who do not provide links to you are liars.

And finally, why the fuck do you care so much? Stop being a WP:DICK. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice how you said "badgering back". Does that mean you badgered first, and then I badgered in kind? If so, then I totally agree. But the difference is, I'm just a fucking random contributor to Wikipedia, while you're an Administrator. That's the scary part. MfD, ooookay. I can't decide whether that's a violation of WP:POINT or WP:STALK. But ultimately, you're just wikilawyering at this point. Cut the crap. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

all unbeknownst to you

The inner workings of your mind have been the subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch#BoyChat.Herostratus 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BrickFlim.gif

File:BrickFlim.gif

Congratulations! you are in the credits of our movie. Good job Yanksox. Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Click the link, and watch through. Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 05:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Yanksox. How goes? Are you still coaching User:Qrc2006? I see he's got a coaching page going, but there's nothing there yet. Just checking in. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Juliolugo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Juliolugo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof 14:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the replaceable tag to the following images as well:

• Image:Mikemyersbaseball.jpg
• Image:Cococrisp.jpg
• Image:Daisukejersey.JPG
• Image:Terryfrancona.jpg
• Image:Lowegame5.jpg

The reason is that while free alternatives for the above photographs may not be available, they can be created because they are living people who appear regularly in public. Mosmof 15:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote, and your earlier expressed support for the idea of my seeking adminship. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

Why did you block DoctorWikiLove? I would like to thank you, however. He wasn't very nice... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PHDBASS (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

My email

It's turned on now. Go nuts. Mosmof 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I didn't realize that the Shania Twain video screencaps were being used in the articles for the videos themselves, so I apologize for being hasty not being attentive. But I think they should still be removed from the Shania Twain article, since they are either decorative, or can be replaceable for the purposes of describing Shania. Mosmof 13:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I meant to respond earlier. You know, I'm not sure where the Derek Lowe fist pump falls on the iconic scale, so I won't worry about it. You're right that it's only Wikipedians care about fair use, because, well, Wikipedians are nerds by definition and we care about nerdy stuff like the minutiae of copyright. Also, I think there's a tendency to include too much, and pages with unnecessary images taken from the web can look unprofessional, like a Myspace page or a web shrine. So that's where my approach to fair use comes from, because it keeps things down to the bare necessities.

But I realize I shouldn't make edits to make a point, and I try not to, and I can certainly agree to disagree. Mosmof 22:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

MYUM

Hi, I saw that you'd blocked MYUM, who'd been posting vandal userboxes on new users' user pages. Would it be appropriate to undo those changes and remove the userboxes? I would have felt a bit appalled if I'd found that on my user page when I was all brand new... (I posted to MYUM's talk page before I saw that you'd blocked them.) --Bonadea 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

HEY YOU!!

Duuude, it's been....what, forever, almost? How the hell have you been? :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HubHikari (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Konstable

I saw your gracious note to Konstable. For what it's worth, I think you made an entirely understandable mistake (indeed, it's exactly what I predicted would happen when I had previously urged that the wording on the decision page be changed).

It's unfortunate that since November, Konstable has encountered what can only be called a comedy of errors every time he's tried to edit. We can't force him to edit, but he was a good contributor, and I hope your note helps him realize that he is welcome whenever he wants to be here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the apolgy, probably the first one I have received since all the nonsense started :-) I understand that it was just a simple mistake, I'm not holding anything against you. --Konst.able^Talk 02:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Deval Patrick:

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request For Input on Juice Plus Discussion

Hi Yanksox: I sure could use your voice of reason on the Juice Plus page. Julia Havey is acting up again. Please have a look at the Juice Plus discussion page if you get a chance. Thanks Rhode Island Red 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Finneydsd

03:20, 25 December 2006 Yanksox (Talk | contribs) blocked "Finneydsd (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (ED troll)

This guy rocked up in #wikipedia asking why this block was placed. I don't see anything in contributions to explain the block, and the block reason is less than informative. It looks to me like this guy was banned for having an account at Encyclopedia Dramatica, which isn't actually a part of our blocking policy, nor is it accepted practice to gratuitously block all Encyclopedia Dramatica users. Nothing in contributions shows any requirement for a block for disruption, which seems to be the only halfway-sensible reason to place this block. Please let me know if I'm missing something. — Werdna talk 09:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Might have been more useful to note this in the block summary so I didn't have to speak to you to get clarification. Thanks for letting me know. — Werdna talk 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Spintasser (talk · contribs)

FYI, Spintasser (talk · contribs), whom you blocked with a somewhat cryptic block summary has asked to have his block reviewed. I have left a note for the user indicating that I would ask for an explanation. It does look kinda like a sleeper account (no edits after creating the account until he started moving pages, then the comment to Ryulong) but nothing there looks overtly like vandalism. --BigDT 06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ready for the 2007 season?

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)