From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents
- 1 Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
- 2 Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg
- 3 Shock Sites
- 4 Privacy
- 5 Re: Abigail and Brittany Hensel
- 6 hensel pic
- 7 Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
- 8 re Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg
- 9 Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
- 10 Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- 11 re Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg
- 12 Talk:Abigail and Brittany Hensel
- 13 Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
- 14 Your edit to Wikipedia:Username
- 15 Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
- 16 Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
- 17 Blocked
- 18 Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
- 19 "Bowdlerizing Luddites", external links, and leaving Wikipedia
- 20 Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
- 21 Unspecified source for Image:Ld02.jpg
- 22 Unspecified source for Image:Tt3.jpg
- 23 Arbitration re: Abu badali
- 24 Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
- 25 I struck out your additional endorsement on the RfC
- 26 Nonsense
- 27 Hi!
- 28 Abu badali is a symptom not the disease
- 29 Re:My image deletion problem
- 30 More on Badali
- 31 Chandra images
- 32 Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
- 33 Deleting NASA Images
- 34 Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
- 35 Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
- 36 Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
- 37 math philosophy
- 38 Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
- 39 Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
- 40 Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
- 41 Abu badali
- 42 Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
- 43 Arbitration against Abu badali
- 44 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali
- 45 Blocked for making physical threats and uncivility
- 46 Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
- 47 Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
- 48 Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
- 49 Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
- 50 Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
- 51 Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
- 52 Fair use rationale for Image:Daria1.jpg
- 53 Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
- 54 Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
- 55 Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
- 56 Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
- 57 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali closed
- 58 A Caution
- 59 Another Caution
- 60 Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
- 61 Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
- 62 Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
- 63 Signature
- 64 Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
- 65 Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
- 66 Signature, again
- 67 Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
- 68 Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
- 69 Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
- 70 Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
- 71 Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
- 72 Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
- 73 Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
- 74 Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
- 75 Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
- 76 Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
- 77 Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
- 78 Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
- 79 Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
- 80 Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey
- 81 Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
- 82 Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
- 83 Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
- 84 Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
- 85 Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
- 86 Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
- 87 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Daria peek.jpg
- 88 Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
- 89 Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
- 90 Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
- 91 Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
- 92 Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
- 93 Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
- 94 Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
- 95 Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
- 96 Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
- 97 Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
- 98 Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
- 99 Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
[edit] Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
Automatically delivered by COBot 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg
Hey, thanks for uploading this image. But I believe we can foster Wikipedia goal to promote free content even more if we produce a free alternative for this image. Do you know about someone with enough drawing skills to produce an equivalent diagram based on the information on this one (and the info on the article and it's sources)?
And according to our policy, we avoid any replaceable unfree material. But, of course, thanks again for the initiative to help. Keep on the good work. --Abu Badali 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shock Sites
I saw your comment about the Shock Site page and its needing to be expanded but no one is able to. Every bit of information that is added is repeatedly deleted by the same administrator over and over again. He originally voted to have the entire page deleted. Shock Sites like Meatspin need your help. Please sign this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mangojuice Ciper 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Privacy
Please see this edit summary of mine. What you did was out of lines and what /b/ does shouldn't affect this. The pictures were not meant for public viewing. Also read WP:BLP. Yanksox 01:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Abigail and Brittany Hensel
I added a comment replying to your question. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hensel pic
The issue isn't who the picture is OF, but who owns it. If Ansel Adams takes a picture of Tom Cruies's car at the mall and you steal it and put it on wikipedia, it's Ansel Adams who has a right to get pissed off; Tom Cruise doesn't have anything to say about it. In this case, the Hensels owned the photo in question, so that was why they got to make the decision, not because it was a picture OF them.
see my comment on the hensel article talk page about the Life mag pic Faye Kane 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
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 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg
I have deleted this image because:
- Although Life magazine no longer exists, the Time-Warner corporation certainly does, and holds the copyright.
- This is, in my opinion, too much information for a fair use image. Fair use text may be quoted in small amounts to help illustrate, but may not be copied in in paragraph-size blocks to help create the substance of the article. In the same way, this image doesn't just illustrate, but forms a significant part of the substance to the article. This is why the magazine cover illustration may be fair use, but this image is not, in my opinion.
- It would be very difficult to replace this with a free image, but not utterly impossible.
Sorry. If you think this image was deleted in error (which is certainly possible), you may take the issue to WP:DRV. Thank you for your work on the Wikipedia, cheers, Herostratus 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
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 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please remember to avoid attacking the character of other contributors. This, for instance, is completely unacceptable. Jkelly 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg
I've restored the image, and listed it at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 31#:Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg. This page is seriously undermanned and I doubt that much useful discussion will be generated. If no resolution is reacherd here, I will feel duty-bound to delete the image as copyright violation, sorry. I do recognize your good intentions in trying to make the article the best it can be.
Basically, we don't use copyrighted material. Yes, an exception is made for for fair use images, but even that is made reluctantly and defined as narrowly as possible, and the Foundation would like to - and may, in the future - get away altogether from fair-use images.
And this is not a publicity photo that is given away for free to publicize someone (and even those generally are not allowed). This is a drawing that cost Time-Warner a lot of money I'm sure, and that they would most likely be unhappy to see passed around on the internet.
All this is because a bedrock principle of the Wikipedia is that any part of it may be re-used by any person for any reason at any time. This is considered by the Foundation to be more important then that the Wikipedia be of the highest possible quality. I recognize that deleting this image would detract from the article and therefore from the encyclopedia, but this is the policy of the Foundation, for good or ill. I myself find this maddening at times but you can't fight city hall.
As you say "It is quite impossible [to replace this with a free image], absent drawing one yourself". Well, we do have artists around. You can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures, although of I do recognize that realistically this probably won't work. But I\if no volunteer artist can be found, and if a detailed anatomical drawing of the twins is deemed essential enough to the 'pedia, then the Foundation should commission one, and absent that we shouldn't steal Time-Warner's work.
Again, thanking you for your contributions, and sorry we have to butt heads over this... Herostratus
I have completely removed this section from this page; talk page guidelines require that all discussion remain focused on the article and not on the contributors thereto. Further, we must ask that you read and understand civility guidelines and avoid making personal attacks against other editors.
Finally, we point you to Wikipedia policy on the fair use of images and other media and where and how to use them. Many Wikipedia editors are working diligently—and, usually, correctly—to remove media that could potentially expose the project to legal action.
Thank you for understanding, and we hope you will take the time to read policies and guidelines, put in place to make us all better editors. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] violation of WP policy
you deleted my pic and, following WP policy to the letter, I had another admin undelete it and place it in the delete consideration list so others could comment on it first.
You then bypassed that process and deleted it directly from the consideration list mere hours after it had been placed there, not giving others a chance to comment.
please put it back per WP policy; that is what the image delete consideration list exists for.
What you did is the equivalent of being a judge who found someone guilty, then bursting into the courtroom during the appeals hearing shouting "guilty! guilty!" and ordering the guards to drag the accused back to his cell and that the hearing be stopped.
the proper thing to do would be to leave your MESSAGE about why you think the image should be deleted, not unilaterally disrupt and destroy the deletion review process.
please respond on my user talk. note that "I think the image should be deleted" is insufficient response, as it ignores the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is that the delete consideration list is the WP procedure for appealing a deletion, and you have disrupted that procedure.
Sys Hax 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please, understand I'm not (and had never been) and Admin, and have no power to delete (or undelete) any image. Btw, thanks for writing a whole message void of personal attacks.--Abu badali (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
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 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 |
Do not allow incorrect grammar to stand on any policy page where you find it. (Thanks for fixing it!) —Doug Bell talk 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
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 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
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, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
You have been blocked for 24 hours for incivility. Please take a break. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
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 08:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Bowdlerizing Luddites", external links, and leaving Wikipedia
You wrote: I used to be excited about WP, but not any more; I have all but quit editing. You say WP is not a democracy. Right. It is a dictatorship of the few, and something I choose not to participate in anymore. Only when people aim their attention at providing informational content for wikipedia instead of erasing and destroying it because it gives them a rush, will wikipedia be truly generally useful. As it is now, WP is being destroyed from within.
- Faye, I understand your frustration with the process and rules that govern Wikipedia. However, you have to take into account the fact that Wikipedia isn't just a little website published by some guy in his basement. It's high-profile, and is getting more so every day. We must take all necessary steps to make sure it is in line with copyright law, and those who work on that are generally seen as helping Wikipedia. It may appear that those, like the Abu you mentioned, are on some sort of power trip, but I can all but assure you that they are not (well, some people are, and that's truly a shame, but most really are trying to help the enyclopedia). "Fair use" has its basis in law, and those images that really do not qualify as fair use need to be removed, or else the existence of the project is put in jeopardy. What we really need, in order to make Wikipedia better, is a group of qualified individuals willing to create necessary illustrations (as well as individuals ready to take professional-quality photographs of hard-to-capture subjects like celebrities). That's a major limitation we have, being non-profit, that we can't pay people to do what a paper encyclopedia would. That doesn't mean we can just "steal" the work of others to make up for it, though. Aside from media we're granted the right to include, we have to follow fair use very carefully.
- Now for the video external link; I've argued for its exclusion, although I haven't removed it again. It does appear to have some use, as there are some clips from it, although I don't see that it is terribly useful. I'm actually not all that fond of external links in general, as they direct readers elsewhere, when the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to try to sum up the available knowledge in one place.
- That said, I ask you not to stop editing Wikipedia. You obviously have a desire to see it bettered, and I'm sure you can help in doing that. The attrition rate is pretty high these days, with people getting fed up with working within the constraints of policy, but you can still do a lot within those boundaries. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
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 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Ld02.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ld02.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, TechnoFaye. You tagged the above mentioned image as a movie poster, but still described it as a studio still. Could you check this little discrepancy? Also, consider adding some sort of verifiable source information to it. Let me know if I can be of any help. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tt3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tt3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- When and where was this image released as promotional material? Thanks, --Abu badali (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration re: Abu badali
Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
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 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I struck out your additional endorsement on the RfC
Here, because you've moved user accounts you should only be voting/endorsing once on any given subject. SeeWP:MEATPUPPET#Voting_and_other_shows_of_support. I'm sure it was a mistake, so feel free to remove the endorsement yourself. Cheers. Megapixie 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nonsense
Regarding this edit. Don't talk nonsense. You might not agree with Abu Badali (and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria but that he does it because he thinks it's funny or deliberately fooling new editots, is nonsense. And that's besides the fact that it's not so clear regarding this site if it is public domain or not. Garion96 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please also read Wikipedia:Canvassing and stop contacting every user who has/has an image tag placed by Abu Badali. Garion96 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I blocked you for 24 hours for vote/rfc spamming. Garion96 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I am relatively a new user and I have no problems with User:Abu badali. So I will stay away from the RfC. Thanks for your understanding, and the comment too :)--Scheibenzahl 18:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Abu badali is a symptom not the disease
I recently read your post to my talk page about User:Abu badali, while yes his tone is designed to be divisive and as off-putting as the pictures he likes to place on his userpage - he is not the real problem. The real problem is that wikipedia's standards on photos are in flux. There is a division between people like him who view the standards with an exceedingly legalistic sense, and others like me who hold that such things as the fair use clause on illustrating a subject are far wider than the other camp maintains.
This became apparent to me when I had a photo of a mid-level Bolivian minister who took up a job at the world bank deleted. Though there is no free image of this person anywhere and the photo was a promotional photo by the world bank the person calling for its deletion (who was not Abu badali) pointed out that it was humanly possible for someone sometime to get a photo of this person and so it was deleted. This seems bizarre to me as the only way a person could get such photos is to break the law and stalk these people with a high powered camera. The camp of the deletors is not limited to Abu badali and unless some more definite standard is formed this struggle will continue. Wikipedia's sister Wikinews now prevents any uploading of non-free images and bans any citing fair-use and it may be that Wikipedia will go that route.
I believe that if there are fewer images on its pages fewer people will use Wikipedia. The net is a visual medium and people like to have images to illustrate subjects. It is unfortunate that Abu badali takes such perverse glee in his actions against photos but he is covered by the current flux concerning what photos are acceptable and what are not. Moving against him personally seems pointless to me as he can argue for his interpretation of the rules and there is a camp of people that might well rally to that. More importantly the amount of glee that he obviously derives from this indicates that even if he is banned and his IP is blocked he'll just get a new ISP and a new username to continue to get his jollys in this manner. Unless the standards on photos are declared more explicitly not only will banning him not insure others of his camp don't continue his crusade, but it will only be a temporary nuisance to him and he'll just log on with a different name from a different Internet provider or a coffee shop, library, workplace, or school. This is because deleting photos from articles and seeing people's reactions is what gets him off. Only by arguing for a clearer standard can these kind of conflicts be ended altogether.
- --Wowaconia 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:My image deletion problem
Hi,
Thank you very nuch for your kind message. I appreciate the moral support. But I think that in my case Abu badali did do his homework at least insofar as obtaining license restrictions in pdf from the parties involved etc. He has a few not so smooth edges such as a tendency to copy and paste message sections from his page to other pages. Plus he has a rather unusual user page with controversial imagery and captions. Aside from that however he has exhibited understanding of the issues involved and although he sticks to a very narrow interpretation of the fair use criteria he doesn't have the power to delete images. Administrators do that. In the discussion page of the last unfortunate casualty Chandrasekhar.gif you can see that apart from Mangojuice noone came to the defence of the image. As I mentioned in that talk page I did not want to defend a few kilobytes of image real estate alone. I meant that in the current climate of flux there is no concerted effort from users to defend images candidates for deletion by joining in the conversation and defending an image. Abu badali is not responsible for that. He chose to do a job. The optics may not be that particularly good but he does his job as best as he can. Now if we can create a big discussion around a few of these images and a consensus emerges to keep them, there comes salvation in terms of precedent. Maybe administrators can then be persuaded not to delete these images. The worst I can say about Abu badali is that he is a zealot with a mission. But he is a zealot that has a message and uses research to sustain it. He is a thinking and intelligent zealot. Only when we can develop better counter arguments and band closer together to defend each others' images, we can hope of some type of change for the better. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this. Take care and let me know about any future developments. Tasos (Dr.K. 00:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
[edit] More on Badali
On your post to my user page you wrote that people crusading against photos was why you and many others "have ceased contributing to Wikipedia". Please count me among those disillusioned with Wikipedia as well. For me it wasn't just this photo thing, though that kind of tops it off. Originally I had envisioned Wikipedia as someday being the most complete collection of human knowledge anywhere, but I am sadly over that now.
One of the biggest criticism against wikipedia is its lack of depth. For example articles on Clinton or Bush barely even mention that they were governors, much less layout the achievements or set backs of those major years in their political career. I thought I'd work to change this lack of depth by starting with Federal politicians from my own state. I expand sections and then for length concerns moved sections to their own sub-pages with links from the main article. But bizarrely these pages were attacked as having too much information (as if people clicking on links that say "for more details see" didn't actually want more details). Someone then called for there deletion and a handful of editors who bothered to vote, got the pages deleted. Wikipedia's own policy seemed to be calling for more information (see WP:NOTPAPER) but instead of expanding articles about other politicians (that are little more then stubs elsewhere) articles with depth are criticized for being abnormal and then edited or deleted back into being shallow tripe that would be well suited for the back of a box of Lucky Charms sugary cereal, or the inside of a bubble gum wrapper.
As I write this USER:Badali (you keep calling him Bidali but its obvious he chose Badali as a pun for Bad Ally) is zapping photos on a page I contributed of a national politician that were taken when he was in the state legislature. I just don't have the energy to fight and point out that these photos are important to illustrate the subject and aren't repeatable because they represent his past career (which is obviously unrepeatable).
In fact I am sorry to say that I know full well that wikipedia's use will decline with fewer photos; and as I am now feeling highly jaded towards the project - I wish Badali all the best on his crusade to rip the visual guts out of Wikipedia. Perhaps some future incarnation of an online encyclopedia will do better, there is already Citizendium (at http://citizendium.org/) though I haven't checked it out. So as Badali and his ilk perversely excite themselves over how much outrage they can invoke as they drive a stake into the heart of Wikipedia - in my eyes its not like a mad werewolf ripping into your favorite college professor, its like a werewolf sinking his teeth into Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde. I really don't care who wins - hopefully they'll kill each other. As for me I'm going to be flipping the channels, occasionally tuning in during commercial breaks but not keeping up with what's really going on.
I already knew that the world has plenty of self-important people that are devoid of common sense but full of personality problems. Wikipedia just showed me that there is a lot more of them than I anticipated and in numbers large enough to form a great wall. I've got better things to do then bang my head against that wall.
I thank you for your comments and count you as among the people I've run into in this project that prove that humanity isn't just a collection of ill mannered jack-asses.
- --Wowaconia 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chandra images
You said:No, Badili was NOT right, he was WRONG. NASA images can be used by anyone, anytime for any reason, period. And someone who makes it his business to delete images should know that, as should his apologists. The reason the permission request form is on that site is NOT for Chandra images such as the one in question, but for other, non-NASA images on that site (and yes, Chandra IS run by NASA). How do I know all this? Because I asked the person who put the permission form on that site, Kathy Lestition <kathy@head.cfa.harvard.edu>, and I would be extremely happy to forward her email saying so to anyone who gives a damn about keeping images in wikipedia -- if there are any such editors who have not quit in disgust yet. That leaves ME out, since I quit because of Badali, as have the ex-editors who emailed me. Badali and the rest of you Bowdlerizing Luddites can wallow in this increasingly-useless playpen by yourselves. TechnoFaye 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, TechnoFaye, Chandra images are generally the one exception with regards to NASA images. There is something somewhere on Wikipedia that explains this, but I don't know where that might be.
-
- Additional: I might actually be thinking of something else, not Chandra, but the NASA policy is clear; "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA." Since there is a permission request form, the images are copyrighted, and therefore cannot be used without permission.
- Now, if you requested permission to use Chandra images on Wikipedia, and permission was granted, then that's another issue entirely--there's actually a place you are supposed to forward such e-mails to, in order to get that permission to be properly recognized by Wikimedia, so that there aren't any problems with users not "believing" that permission has been granted. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions on the proper way to ask for permission (the copyright holder needs to understand and consent to the GFDL), and for the place to forward the request and the response to. It's a bit of red tape, but once it's done, there should be no further trouble. Lexicon (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- One further point: While your request, as it was formulated, may have received a grant of permission, you likely did not request permission that the images be licenced under the GFDL. The GFDL is quite a wide licence, and allows anyone coming to Wikipedia (including, but not limited to, the numerous for-profit mirrors of Wikipedia) to use the licenced content for commercial purposes. I wish you good luck in getting Chandra to confirm licencing of content through the GFDL. Lexicon (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ms. Lestition has informed me that she does not think she would have said what you are claiming that she said in the permission request you made to her. If you could, please forward her reply to me (you can use the E-mail this user link on my talk or user page). Thanks. Lexicon (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- HEY BADALI: You omitted the last chapter of the above discussion on this show-off page of yours (no doubt unintentionally). I sent Lexicon the full email I received from the observatory. It states unequivocally that NASA images are public-domain. Unlike yourself, Lexicon seems to have a genuine interest in the issue of image use, as opposed to merely disrupting WP, and so Lexicon has changed his mind (below):
-
-
- Abu badali, I have confirmed that Chandra images, if not tagged on the site as including information from ground-based telescopes which are not under the control of NASA, are, in fact, completely public domain for all purposes, including commercial, so long as NASA-endorsement is not implied through their use (which is actually a completely different issue from use). If you have listed Chandra images for deletion, could you let me know what they were, so I might look up and find out if they truly are fair use? Thanks. Lexicon (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I fully expect you to delete this refutation, but leave the previous entries intact.
-
- PS: you will never approach the Übermensch destroying the works of others. That is an activity of the rabble, Nietzsche's bane. And don't EVEN think of tagging images under another name after you've been permanently banned, an outcome you so richly deserve. TechnoFaye 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
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 07:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleting NASA Images
I've actually never deleted a single NASA image, Faye. I'm mostly just an observer on the issue. Lexicon (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you have the names of any Chandra images that were deleted, please give me them so that I may check that they are solely NASA-created and if so, undelete them. Lexicon (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
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 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
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 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
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 08:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] math philosophy
see my note on User talk:Faye Kane nadav 09:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
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 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
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 07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
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 06:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Abu badali
I know Abu badali is a heated issue and I agree with your frustration but I would like to politely ask you to perhaps take a breather! Threatening physical violence isn't going to help anything here. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
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 06:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration against Abu badali
Further to our conversations at and with respect to User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu badali, I will be posting the arbitration including a summary of all of our concerns shortly. Jord 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked for making physical threats and uncivility
You've just been blocked for a period of 1 month for your threat of physical violence and uncivility against another user. You had the opportunity to talk about your concerns in a different way instead of using physical threats. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since you're cited as one of the parties for an accepted arbitration case, if you'd like to present evidence, please use an {{unblock}} template to let us know that you intend to do so. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've unblocked you but you are not entitled to edit anything at all except this page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. I hope it is clear. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
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 05:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
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, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
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 08:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
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 03:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
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 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
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 08:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Daria1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Daria1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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. ShakespeareFan00 11:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
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 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
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 08:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
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 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
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, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Abu badali (talk · contribs) is counselled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who question his tagging of images and to work with them in a collaborative way. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 16:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A Caution
Calling another editor a "fuck-up" and comparing them to the Taliban could lead to you being blocked for incivility and personal attacks. I understand that you and PU are unhappy with the Arbcom outcome, but you are just giving people ammunition to use against you and it really isn't in your best interest to do that... unless you are looking to get blocked.--Isotope23 talk 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another Caution
I have reverted the personal attack you left here. I will tell you what I told PageantUpdater: These incivil personal attacks will not help your cause and can only lead to you being blocked. In light of the message just above this one, you should consider this a final warning. -- But|seriously|folks 01:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would caution Butseriouslyfolks to seriously consider the fine line between policing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and censoring the opinions of others and basically removing their right to disagree with the status quo. I appreciate that a community like this needs policies and guidelines but the right to free speech should also be considered. I'm not saying that i necessarily agree with all of TechnoFaye's comments... but I am concerned about the way that cautions and blocks are being used to effectively shut people up. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I hate to be the bearer of bad news... but you have no inherent right to free speech here PageantUpdater; I can tell you why on my talkpage if you are interested in specifics. That said, I'm not trying to shut anyone up. My caution was just what I said it was... a caution. TechnoFaye is absolutely free to take my advice or ignore me and delete my posts unread if she so chooses. All I'm saying is that there is a right way to disagree and a wrong way. I simply say this as someone who has been around here for a while: the wrong way tends to get a person blocked.--Isotope23 talk 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- If there is no inherent right to free speech then that is damning and yet another reason why this place is shot to hell. Why oh why did I get addicted to editing here? If people don't have the right to say what they really feel, and if they get blocked for expressing themselves candidly then this place will only get worse, not better. We really are in a North Korea or Zimbabwe-type situation here. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 02:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well you see what's going on around here, pagent. My comments were to YOU on YOUR talk page. I didn't mention violence or use any "bad" words. If this were a "real" organization, they could never get away with it, at least not in the US. But it's virtual. It's just like red china, where they said "assuming we think we're right, why should we let people say we're wrong"? You wanna know how dictatorships happen? Not by someone saying "I think I'll do evil", it's by people saying "I want what I think is best and I don;t care if other people think something else is best. I have power and I am going to use it to suppress the people who don;t agree with me" That seems 'perfectly reasonable' to a certain kind of ethical lowlife.
-
-
-
- Now watch me get banned for saying this.TechnoFaye Kane 04:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't want to see either of you get banned or blocked... hence the caution; If I wanted to see you blocked I would have just blocked you. Beyond that, the fact that Wikipedia is based in the U.S. is precisely why you don't have an inherent right to free speech in the respect that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, about whomever you want to. I won't bore you with a civics lesson, but suffice to say that lots of "real" organizations "get away with it" every day... If you want to write a whole page on who unfair the decision was, that is your prerogative, but comparing other editors to the Taliban, even implicitly, probably will not end well. Lest you think I'm here to harangue you, this is the last you will hear from me about this. I'm sure you are both more than capable of making your own decisions how to proceed here. Regards, --Isotope23 talk 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
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 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
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 09:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
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 21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signature
Hi, WP:SIGNATURE#Internal links states
- It is common practice to include a link to your user page or user talk page (often both); the default signature links to the user page. At least one of those 2 pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talkpage and contributions log.
Please modify your signature to link to either your user page or your user talk page. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 08:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
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 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
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 06:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signature, again
[[User:TechnoFaye|<span style="color:green">Techno</span><span style="color:blue">Faye Kane</span>]]
Hi, please feel free to use the above as your signature. You need to select "Raw signature" in your preferences, if you use the above, though. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
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. R Delivery Bot 05:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
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. R Delivery Bot 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
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 03:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
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. R Delivery Bot 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
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 14:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
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 06:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
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 08:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The material I removed from this article was unsourced. Feel free to add back criticism of Wheat, or anything else you'd like, provided that it's verifiable and supported with references. Groupthink (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Daria peek.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Daria peek.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
