User talk:Krasniy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for Krasniy

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) and leave a useful edit summary. Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

I don't like fudge. I mean, I prefer replies to be all on one page, whether it be your talk page, mine, or both. I will watch your page if I'm waiting for a reply, but if you prefer to reply here that's alright. Okay. Bye-bye. Alight? Okay.

Please add new discussions at the bottom of the page.

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Krasniy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful links. (I just figured out how to indent replies) ;c) --Krasniy(talk|contribs) 03:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption?

Hello! You would like to be adopted, eh? I might consider you - what sort of areas are you interested in on Wikipedia? This will give me an idea of any advice that I can offer - process, projects, editing, etc. (aeropagitica) 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Well all I do now is revert! I guess I mostly need to learn more about formatting pages. I've thought of helping to wikify pages that otherwise have good content, but don't really know how and am kinda leary to do something that substantial. All I pretty much know about is jewelry-type smith (metalwork) stuff, movies, and dogs. I don't know a whole lot about any of that (though I think I could probably start some dog breed stubs) except for the metalwork, which I'm still a student of but have quite a lot of first-hand knowledge. In general, though not very specific, any way of giving to any subject matter is what I'd like to do. :) ≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Adoption

Hi there, thanks for adopting me! What's the best way to communicate with you when I have questions and such? IM, email, talk pages, or probably anything else works for me. ≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A message on my Talk page when you have a question or issue will be enough for me, thanks! I look forward to working with you soon. (aeropagitica) 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Alrighty, first question!

Well practically the only page I pay any attention to is Alaskan Malamute. Three times an anon from 3 different ip addresses (presumably one person as all are from the same block owned by a single broadband UK company) added the UK rescue link. The first time I figured it was better suited with a link to the actual club, plus there aren't any other rescues linked and all the clubs have links to rescue organizations.They added it once again since I last looked; while they didn't do it quite right, they did stick it under a new heading. I think it's better without rescues link because for one thing, external links won't end up be unnecessarily long, but am leary to once again get rid of it because 1) they'll probably add it again, 2)I don't want to get into an edit war, and 3)I realize I'm new and maybe it is better to have all the rescues as a link. (This question was my motivation for wanting to be adopted, by the way.) So, what do you think? ≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, for external links guidance I go to Wikipedia:External links, paying particular attention to "Links normally to be avoided". First off, http://www.malamuterescue.co.uk/ states that it is; "An all volunteer non- profit making organisation dedicated to the welfare & re-homing of pure bred Alaskan Malamutes in the U.K.". This is not the definition of a charity registered with the Charities Commission here in the UK, so it has no official status. Point one of the external links guidance states;

"Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."

As this isn't the official site of the Breeders Club for the variety of dog, the Kennel Club or other officially-recognised canine organisation, I would say that this argument doesn't hold water.

Secondly, the first statement in the 'Links to be avoided' section states;

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource..."

A scan through the pages of the external site doesn't indicate that I can learn more about this dog breed here than on Wikipedia - another argument for its removal.

Thirdly, the ethical breeding page on the website offers a 1pt meta-packing paragraph containing variations on the following;

"...puppy farmers are disgusting, stamp on them dont fund their evil trade..."

I think that statements such as these are point-of-view and shouldn't be counted as official statements from authorised bodies. It is their website, so they can state whatever point of view they wish but a link on Wikipedia might be seen by some as carrying a type of imprimatur, so this shouldn't be fostered.

Lastly, point thirteen;

"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject..."

This external link is about fostering a dog breed, something that is at-best a tangent from the main WP article.

It's up to you as to what you would like to do. Remove the external link and give the above reasons to the anon-IP editor; ask them to justify the inclusion of the link on the article's Talk page, as it isn't clear about why it should be there; warn them about vandalism and report them to WP:AIV when they get to {{test4}} status - it's your call. (aeropagitica) 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh goodness, read the front page, www.alaskanmalamuterescue.co.uk is the offical AMCUK site!!!

Your opinions are just that weak opinions, unfortunately in this day & age especially after 8 below the film breed rescues need to be highlighted. Have you emailed the club to ask them to remove the link??? I cant believe some people can be so petty—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.247.211 (talk) date

[1] "is an affiliate of the Alaskan Malamute Club". Of course I wouldn't have the actual club [2] site remove the link. External websites are not under the power of wikipedia. I assure you this is all based on Wikipedia policy, and are not just arbitrary. Check out WP:EL for the policy. Also, it's useful to sign your posts with 4 ~, and to also get a username which is simple and free!≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AfDs

I figure I should expand a bit with my contributions. What do I need to know to get involved into Afds? Could you provide me with some links or anything useful so I can know what to do and how to do it right? I figure I'll read up on it and try my hand at it later in the week. Thanks! ≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the best thing to read up on in order to study AfDs are... AfDs! They are archived by date, so take a look through any of the last years' worth, or all of them if you have the time! The things that I would suggest that you look out for are the quoting of policies and guidelines when editors back up their opinions. You will get a sense of which editors are familiar with and like to refer to policies when making their judgements, so you can look at their contributions to see how they go about performing their duties. From there, read the policies and guidelines themselves. There are a lot on the list, so start with the most quoted ones in AfD - probably, WP:BIO, WP:NOT, WP:CORP, WP:Music, WP:SOFTWARE - just off the top of my head. You will also begin to see where nominations could also be speedily deleted, using criteria set out in WP:CSD. Some people make mistakes when giving their opinion and state 'speedy delete' when the criteria says no. You will be able to spot these in time.

Personally, I would recommend that when you begin to give your opinion on the discussions that you back each one up with a policy or guideline, i.e.

Delete Non-notable biography as per the criteria set out in WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That way, if anyone disagrees with you and tries to tell you otherwise, you can be sure that your opinion was based upon one of the key sections of WP - it's their problem, not your problem! So, to summarise - 1) read the AfD discussions, 2) follow the work of editors who quote policy in their opinions and 3) read and become familiar with the policies and guidelines. This will take a few months, so don't treat it like a University Finals exam! Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image Licensing

The new WP:GL is right up my ally of my limited computer graphics ability. I can make SVGs without a problem, but I'm wondering about licensing. For this I think I just upload over the old image which I figured out how to do, but I am not sure what to pick looking at the drop-down menu for licensing. I'd release any SVG I uploaded into the public domain, but does it count as my own work? Hmm maybe it's asking to upload to Commons. I am probably too asleep to comprehend correctly. It's nap time for this mom-to-be. Appreciatively,≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello there! I hope that you had a nice sleep! The place that I would go to in order to understand licensing my own work for use on Wikipedia and related projects is Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, specifically For image creators. This section states:

"The licenses in this section are designed not so much to restrict use of your work, but to keep it free."

I imagine that this is what you had in mind. I would also consider uploading to Wikicommons in order to make your images available to as many WikiMedia projects as possible. I hope that this is useful for you! Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Anon problem

Once again an anon has added the UK rescue link to the Alaskan Malamute page. The last two times it was from the same IP, but usually it's from various different ones that I think all belong to a block from a UK broadband company. What should I do about this since it tends to come from different (so far, 5) IP addresses?≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 03:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! This article is having a little problem with this anonymous IP editor using Tiscali and originating out of Manchester, isn't it? I have added a {{spam}} warning to each of their respective Talk pages, along with the diff showing the evidence of their spamming the inappropriate external link. We at Wikipedia are a tolerant bunch and these warnings are issued in order to educate editors as to the errors of their ways. If they persist after warnings such as these, we increase the warnings up to level four and then report them to WP:AIV for admin attention. An admin then reviews the evidence of their contributions and decides what to do. A short block is usually in order, the length increasing for each subsequent vandalism. You can issue warnings up to level four, as can any editor. Blocking can be done by admins such as myself. Hopefully you won't have to report them to AIV but let me know if you do. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for a range of warnings that can be issued to editors. The appropriate warnings in this case would be {{spam}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}} and {{spam4}}. If the page was being repeatedly spammed several times an hour then there might be a case for requesting semi-protection but I don't think that this is appropriate here. Regards, (aeropagitica) 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the help and adding the first spam warning. I hope I won't have to report them to AIV too ≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Warnings

Hi, happy holidays and such! I hope that they all went well for you. Mine were a little too good apparently, and I missed the addition of the UK rescue link to the Alaskan Malamute page from yet another IP for some time. I added the first spam warning to their talk page but am wondering about beefing it up to or also adding the next one. Also, should I added the second level warning to all the addresses it has come from so far? Thanks ≈Krasniy^t/_c 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I only usually add warnings to Talk pages of users to whom I can attribute edits. The varied number of IP addresses all posting the same URL to the article does suggest a concerted effort by one party but there is no conclusive proof that they are all coming from the different IP addresses. I would only warn the IP editor that appears in the edit history of the article. We have to be careful blocking IP addresses for spamming, especially as they could be randomly reallocated by the ISP, as with AOL. It could be that this editor is aware of Wikipedia's policy about spamming and blocking, so is using an IP reallocation method to evade blocks. As we can't be sure of their originating IP address at the moment then we can't be sure that the warnings will reach the correct editor. If it does keep up then there may be a case for alerting the appropriate authorities at Tiscali UK about a spammer and providing the times, dates and IP addresses for them to check against their logs. To summarise, you can escalate the warnings as you see fit but I wouldn't warn editors to whom I cannot attribute edits.

Let me know if you have any other questions about other aspects of contributing to Wikipedia! Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rewriting an Existing Article

Hi, I want to do a rewrite of the Malamute page (naturally!) and am wondering about the etiquette of that, informal or not, as I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I was basically thinking of starting from scratch (the original is nearly entirely unsourced) in a sandbox I make under my username using some of the reliable websites about its history and standards as well as two books I own.

I've also gone over WP:CITE and don't know how best to cite the article. I plan to use my book sources most since they are heavily researched and won't change/disappear as websites might. What do you think I should do for that?

Also, any Wikipedia pages I should especially take a look at before I start this venture? ≈Krasniy^t/_c 06:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! The way that I would go about this would be to outline by plan for the article on its Talk page - what needs to change and why. This will let you take in to account other editors' views on the subject and may prevent you from wasting time on something unnecessary. It doesn't need to be a point-by-point account, just broad strokes. I would then create a user sub-page called something like User:Krasniy/Alaskan Malamute and copy the text of the article over to work on. That way, no one should revert your changes before they are ready for you to paste back in to the live version.

The structure of the article at the moment is fine, so you can follow that layout. Follow the format described in WP:CITE or WP:FOOT. Take a look at the citation templates for examples. Harvard referencing seems to be quite good for books - I have used that before. As for looking at Help pages to assist you, I would always start with Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, Wikipedia:The perfect article and Wikipedia:Article development - the first two in particular. Let me know if you need any help, I will do what I can! Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Archiving

Hello! How do you personally archive your talk page? I've looked into the bot that does it and other methods but wondered what you do, and why you use it. Also, that box on top of your talk page, is that a template or can I yoink the code from here to put on mine? :) ≈Krasniy^t/_c 19:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I archive my Talk page physically when it gets to 32k in size. It's quite easy to do!

Open the page for editing, go to the archive section and create a new link with the appropriate dates.
Cut the section of the Talk page that I want to archive and leave an edit summary to say so.
Open the now-saved empty Talk page - the new archive link will be in red.
Click in the link, open the empty page and paste the contents of the Talk page there.
Add a {{talkarchive}} tag so that visitors will know that they need to post to your current page for you to see their messages.
Finished!

It's quite ok for you to steal code from my or any other page. I think that I stole it from someone else in the dim-and-distant past. There are many more elegant pages than mine out there and also automated archive features, so don't be afraid to experiment. It's a good idea to not let your Talk page rise above 32k in size as some browsers cut off articles that are larger than this, and you don't want editors losing their comments because of Wiki-browser interaction issues. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah oke, that sounds pretty simple. Thanks a lot! ≈Krasniy^t/_c 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Alerting an internet provider about a spammer

Hello! So the anon(s) has been really keeping me on my toes about the silly rescue link thing on the Malamute page. I figure the time has come, if not past already, to tell Tiscali about it. I know they've read at least the first spam warning and I put a comment in the page about the talk page and to see Wikipedia policy on links. At this point, I don't see how they could possibly not know and it's basically vandalism. Anyhoo, how should I go about this? Thanks! ≈Krasniy^t/_c 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can take a look at Wikipedia:Abuse reports and list the IP addresses there. Has the editor used an IP address for more than one vandal attack? Check out Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Guide to abuse reports to make sure that the details are all recorded in your report for the investigator to act upon. Let me know if you need any more assistance with this. This editor is very persistent! Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They have used the same IP twice through all this I believe. All together it's been 9 different IP addresses so far. I'll go about reporting the IP's at Abuse reports. Thanks for the help. :) ≈Krasniy^t/_c 20:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I add further IP address to my report if there are new ones that vandalize the article? ≈Krasniy^t/_c 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Check that they are coming from the same ISP, which I believe was Tiscali, somewhere near Manchester, UK. If they are then there is a strong possibility that it is the same person and you will have reasonable evidence so that you can add it to the report. If they are coming from multiple ISPs then each will have to have a separate case built up for the benefit of each ISP sysadmin. (aeropagitica) 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've been reading through the abuse reports page and I've seen a note that says reports will be rejected unless the IP addresses being reported have been blocked at least five times. As I am not aware of any of the Tiscali IP addresses being blocked for spamming the Malamute article, I think that I may have given you this advice too soon. As it stands, each IP editor posting the spam link will have to be warned and can only be blocked once they have gone past the {{test4}} or {{blatantvandal}} warning. This has to happen five times before the report can be posted. I think that this is a measure to stop the reports page from being swamped, which is understandable. We'll have to do this the long way, then. Is the article on your watchlist? If so, watch for the addition of the spam link and issue the appropriate warning to the offending editor. If we have reasonable grounds to assume that it is the same editor then they could be classed as a blatant vandal. If they edit the page twice under the same IP address having been warned about blatant vandalism then there may be grounds to block them. I think that this may have to be a long-term goal of yours. It is achievable, though! Regards, (aeropagitica) 16:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image

Hi there, I've done something different. :) I uploaded CU_AF_Insignia1961.svg to Commons as requested on WP:GL. Could you check it real quick to see if I did it right? Not a lot to mess up I suppose, but I'm paranoid. Thank you!

Oh yes, if the abuse report gets rejected I'll be sure to tag the link spammer under my long term goals. :) Is it acceptable to give out the blatant vandal warning as a first or second warning? ≈Krasniy^t/_c 02:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the image looks fine - you've released it for all the world to use and that's quite clearly stated. I can't see that it would be deleted for copyright reasons, so I reckon that this image is a very good first effort, well done!

I would say that tagging someone as a blatant vandal all depends upon the circumstances under which you encounter them. There is a long history of someone tagging this article with the inappropriate external link, so you can point to that as a demonstration of determined efforts on the part of the vandal. It would be on the balance of probability that a new IP editor on the article adding the same link would be the same person. You can use that evidence to point towards the justification for issuing a blatant vandal warning. More information on checking IP editors' point of origin on the network is available at Help:CheckUser. It's fascinating! Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

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


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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

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


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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Red links

Hello, I was wondering what are and/or where I can find the guidelines for linking terms to pages that don't yet exist. I presume there is some room for things that should have articles but don't yet. Thanks ≈Krasniy^t/_c 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I would have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery, Wikipedia:Red link and Wikipedia:Requested articles for starters. Let me know if you have follow-up questions after looking through these - I think they are relevant to your question but I could be wrong! Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those were relevant and answered my question perfectly, especially the second one. Thank you :) ≈Krasniy^t/_c 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons voting identity confirmation

I'm the same Krasniy here as on Commons. ≈Krasniy^t/_c 19:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Citing a website

Hello! In working on the rewriting of the Malamute page, I am using more than one page of a single website. Should I have separate citations for each page I use, or use one citation for the website itself? I hope that makes sense. :c) ≈Krasniy^t/_c 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that if you are citing references to a large website then you don't just want to send a researcher to the top level and leave them to dig through the content, performing the same research that you did to get the reference in the first place. I would cite each page if required. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ASUE

Hello, Krasniy and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3Clamster 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

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


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

[edit] Picture question

I AM TRYING TO FIND THE ORIGIN OF THE KOMI DOG PICTURE. Where did it come from? who took it? who did the dogs belong to? that sort of thing. Thank you

Mary Zwahlen mzwahlen@adelphia.net—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.177.20.34 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 7 February 2007.

I have no idea. I don't know what picture you're talking about. You're probably best off asking the creator/uploader of the image.≈Krasniy^t/_c 04:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

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


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

[edit] Reflux image

Sorry to step on your toes. I didn't see your claim to this image conversion before I had already finished a conversion. I won't bother posting it if you have already put work into the conversion. But if you haven't started and you wouldn't mind, I can upload mine.-Andrew c 21:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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

[edit] Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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

[edit] Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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

[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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

[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/r/a/User_talk%7EKrasniy_3f26.html"