User talk:Wafulz/Archive 15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Erotic Capital"
Hi Wafulz: The entry, "erotic capital" appears to be on the chopping block. The concept is developed in, arguably, the leading sociology journal for social theory--Sociological Theory (forthcoming March 2008 and touched on in an article (under the name 'sexual capital') in this same journal from 2006 from Martin and George, cited on the page of the entry). This journal is the official theory journal of the American Sociological Association. Its appearance in this journal, alone, should legitimate its includion in Wikipedia. Moreover, the concept is part of a larger framework with concepts that are likely to be added to Wikipedia in the near future, including "sexual field", "sexual stratification", among others. It would be ashame to 86 the term.
FavoriteDog (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
-Favorite Dog
p.s. "erotic capital"
To follow up on the delete page discussion, the concept "erotic capital" has never been formally developed as an extension of Pierre Bourideu's capital concepts (social and cultural). Its appearance in a journal prior to Bourdieu's writing (in 1965, someone claims) would not represent the same concept.
FavoriteDog (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hibernian will not allow any of my edits on the Network of Europeans site.
Wafulz could a block of Hibernian be a good idea considering that he will not allow any of my edits on the Network of European Technocrats article ? He is claiming that he will not allow them in the future as well. He has also reverted most of the simple and basic information links that I have recently done on other articles. He is also being taunting and rude. The article with his edit is an advertisement for NET only. He linked references also to only their self published info on their website and in reality NET is only a website. It may be time to delete the Network of Europeans site because of notability issues. Hibernian is not writing objectively. Does this article meet the inclusion guidelines for websites or organizations ? It does not seem to. It is all self published information put up mostly by the editors from the NET site itself which seems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. My attempt to work on the article to make it objective is being ridiculed and personal attacks by Hibernian are really antithetical to the process here. skip sievert (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Informing you about Mediation
Hello Wafulz, I thought I would just inform you that isenhand has started a formal Request on Requests for mediation, here: Requests for mediation/Technocracy movement. I don't know much about the procedures of this, but I've informed Skip also, and thought you might like to know as well. Bye. --Hibernian (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You know, you're not supposed to offer ultimatums in these requests. That kind of eliminates the point of mediation....-Wafulz (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wafulz I am wondering if what these users are now doing could be a form of harassment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Technocracy_movement
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Technocracy movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I responded to them. It seems that this group will stop at nothing to control these Technocracy related articles. Because one of these people is the NET Director... who I believe made the article in the first place.. Isenhand/Dr. Andrew Wallace, and the other here is a current NET participant I feel like I am doing an uphill slog here. Consensus is not possible here if you are not a member in NET apparently http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=85&Itemid=65 Network of European Technocrats - Ross Murphy
I am tired of fighting with these people believe me. My response to them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Technocracy_movement Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Technocracy movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since neither of these two are cooperating or even seem to understand the process much here could you expedite the possibility of removing the Network of European Technocrats article for the afore mentioned reasons ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29 Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) The conflict of interest thing has become glaring. My reasonable attempt to modify their self written information has failed. They refuse my edits without compromise which I would do and have done. You may have noticed Wafulz that Technocrate is back. He also deferred to you to speak with Isenhand when his short block came about. He also did another wholesale revert yesterday without explanation. That is the reason you blocked him before along with his claim of others being vandals.
I am sorry. I really did not think these people would want to go to such extreme lengths to continue to edit and control their self published information. I would also note that the beginning of the NET article is a call for membership and who they accept as members. So this article could also be viewed I suppose as advertising. It is noted also that NET is a commercial company that gains money as their member base grows.http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&id=4203&catid=20&limit=15&limitstart=0 Network of European Technocrats - Re:Information for payment - N.E.T. skip sievert (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll just ignore that diatribe above. Hmm, well it seems the Mediation thing didn't work, and upon reading more of the details of the process I can see that it obviously wasn't the appropriate place for it. We've certainly got to bring the issue through one of the appropriate Wikipedia procedures, but at the moment I don't know which one or how to start, have you any suggestions on that Wafulz? --Hibernian (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wufulz, as recommended we went for mediation. Unfortunately that did not get us anywhere as the dispute with skip lies with him disregarding secondary sources, entering his POV and compromising the integrity of wikipedia. So now we have tried discussing things with skip, compromising and mediation as well as you blocking skip on two occasions. None of that seams to work. We appear to end up back where we started with skip entering POV and someone else deleting it. Suggestions as to where to next? Isenhand (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The articles are being controlled by the NET director Andrew Wallace/Isenhand wikipedia editor. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php
Network of European Technocrats -. Network of European Technocrats makes an example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29 Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The above editors (Ross Murphy/Hibernian and Isenhand/Andrew Wallace along with some surrogates (Technocrate and some other members of NET) have displayed no real interest in compromise and doggedly revert and stick with edits that lead in circles back to Andrew Wallace/Isenhand editor and NET Director and his book and website and their drive for membership and that means money at NET a commercial group http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&id=4203&catid=20&limit=15&limitstart=0 Network of European Technocrats - Re:Information for payment - N.E.T. - The material those people post revolves around the content of the book by Andrew Wallace/Isenhand. That book is based on several fiction books which are not fact based but speculative fiction. They were never well recieved even when they were first published and are full of errors as to the antecedents of the Technate design group http://www.lulu.com/content/750510 Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace. These editors take down links to Technocracy Incorporated and links put up describing the history and back ground of Technocracy concepts and ideas in favor of the self published and not peer reviewed or even outside published material on the NET site. All of the material given as reference on Network of European Technocrats goes to their own self published material. skip sievert (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
summary
This: “several fiction books which are not fact based but speculative fiction. “ (skip)
and from the request for mediation, where skip refuses to mediate:
“This is a ridiculous request. I have no part in it.” (skip)
really sums it up. So long as we consider we should base the article on secondary sources as much as possible and not just enter our POV and so long as skip disagrees with that and refuses to engage in a rational discourse then I think we will never get a settlement. So, what's it to be? Should we abandon the pages and let skip just write whatever he wants or should we continue to try and get some good material in them supported from secondary sources as much as possible? Or is there another alternative? Any more suggestions Wafulz? Isenhand (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. This time, don't make it your goal to have other editors punished. I wouldn't participate in a request for mediation if the goal was to get sanctions placed on my edits. Keep your comments limited to content, and keep them brief. This goes for everyone involved. All of you suffer from a condition known as "I can't express myself without writing a dissertation in the process."-Wafulz (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. It is also not remotely black and white in the vein as expressed by Isenhand. I also reiterate... I have no interest in NET or the article. But... since it does exist and it probably should not as it lacks merit and leads in a circle to the editor here who is the NET director Isenhand/Dr. Andrew Wallace... it should at least reflect some others idea rather than the self published and now controlling Network of European Technocrats group. My guess is that an outside opinion would confirm that a conflict of interest and a lack of notability should make that article in question(Network of European Technocrats) a candidate for immediate deletion. Also the fact that the same editors are trying to control the content of every related article to feed to the NET site. Obvious conflict of interest and commercial promotion by the authors of the site as editors here. skip sievert (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe the issue is notability or conflict of interest. I think there are several problems. With regards to NET, Isenhand et al forget that the NET is a relatively new and minor organization. Since they work in it and with it, it's significant from their vantage point, and they tend to overemphasize it. All of you have also been squabbling over very minor details and personal vendettas.-Wafulz (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Point well taken. I wish to break the syndrome. It is possible to describe NET objectively for what it is currently. That will take flexibility on the part of the NET director and his assistant here and others on their team here. One basic problem is the deletion of the links and exclusion of Technocracy Incorporated information in favor of their highly controlled version of their information which does relate to the Isenhand Dr. Wallace book. That has been my aim here. I admit to being annoyed. I have not intentionally made that the basis of my edits though skip sievert (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
just did a re-edit
Tried to make it plain and simple and accurate. Network of European Technocrats
skip sievert (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Wafulz - Hibernian is just reverting everything without compromise or discussion. Instead of reediting and writing things differently to compromise. Also Technocrate who I still believe is Isenhand or Dr. Wallace or at the least takes orders from him completely reverted my Network of European Technocrats rewrite that I did with the aim of starting a new direction. He gives no imput and does not try to compromise or modify. Just deletes like a machine.
-
Technocrate is merely a sock puppet here. I think his user account should be removed. His language and demeanor are identical to Isenhand/Andrew Wallace. That is my opinion.
Hibernian as said is just reverting every connected article of every thing that was rewritten yesterday to lead to the NET article only with biased information. Is it possible to throw some obstacles to those peoples editing the 6 or 7 articles they are controlling. Is now a good time to just nominate the NET article for deletion ? Since no other outsiders can break into their editing team ? skip sievert (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the rewritten edit that Technocrate reverted. I hope that now it may form a basis for a new approach and compromise. Objectivity is my only concern. Not leading people in a preprogrammed way. skip sievert (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- What a load bull. I've just offered you the opportunity to discuss the content of the article on the talk page, and you only responded with more accusations and slander. I will say it again, if you think you have some useful edits to make in the article, then present them on the talk page with reasons why they are necessary, all you did was reinsert the same old edits that everyone can see are garbage. --Hibernian (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Liz Garbus
Hi. I've recreated Liz Garbus, which you just deleted as a copyvio. I was editing out the copyvio when you deleted it. I guess I'm a little slow :-) I hope that the new version is OK? Bláthnaid 20:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll add sources. Thanks Bláthnaid 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Requests for comment - Skipsievert
Wafulz, I have now put up a request for comments regarding skip. See here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Skipsievert Isenhand (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I consider what this user (Isenhand/Dr. Andrew Wallace/Net director) is doing to be harassment. skip sievert (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Wafluz, mediation and request for comments does not appear to get us anywhere. We just end up back where we start with the same old behaviour and skip even refusing to participate in any form of mediation. Suggestions as to where to go to next? Thanks. Isenhand (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we are back to the same old story. All this messing around with mediation and request for comments haven’t changed a thing. As it seams like nothing is going to be done about skip, I have now tried a different tactic of trying to get skip to discuss the changes first before making any edits. Isenhand (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Missionary position
Ah, it didn't make it. This time, they took it off FAC more quickly than I'm used to. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Erotic Capital
Wafulz:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the erotic capital entry. Here is a link to the article which is now published at Sociological Theory.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/soth/26/1
I certainly have no issue with the entry being expanded to accomodate other existing works that develop the term. However, to my knowledge, none has done so in a focused, systematic manner.
As to concerns regarding "origination" of the term, I have no stake. I claim, rather, to build on Bourdieu's framework and offer a systematic conceptualization of the term in light of his work. I believe the entry reflects this position.
Thanks, A
Adamisaiahgreen (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The Five Pillars (MMORPG)
I find it strange that similar pages has been allowed for years, and that every reference to this is deletes promptly.
from the page you refer to: Steps to list a new deletion review Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Also it is strange that the following exits when not being open for other than the "selected few"
- List_of_multiplayer_browser_games
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Massively_multiplayer_online_games
- Massively multiplayer online games
- Massively multiplayer online role-playing games
- Massively multiplayer online real-time strategy games
This should be added to all games that fall under the category of a massively multiplayer online real-time strategy game.
I really hope you will reconsider.
Olav Bringedal (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Articles need independent reliable sourcing, and those that can't present them are deleted. There are tens of thousands of online games, and Wikipedia is not a directory for everything that has existed. Sorry.-Wafulz (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks for prompt answer. I will add citactions and references, and repost then. Sorry about the nagging, but it's a bit hard to get a grip on the wikipedia way of working :) Olav Bringedal (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Incivility
Hi. Yes, I read that uncivil edit summary to BetacommandBot. Tut, tut! BTW, what is going on with that thing? I watch several admins' and friends' pages for vandalism, but all I've seen today is Image Fair Use warnings, by the truckload. Does it save them all up for the 13th of every month, or has someone instigated a backlog catchup blitz? Am I glad I don't do images! Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 00:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Or are they BetacommandBot's idea of a Valentine's Card? :) Ref (chew)(do) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- BCB runs a ton of different tasks, so I'm guessing Betacommand alternates between them and does them in bunches. All I know is that I'm getting messages for images I uploaded when I first joined, and that I was really unaware of Wikipedia's fair use policy back then (but then again, who isn't?).-Wafulz (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The team controlling six or seven articles and in particular the NET article
- Isenhand/Net director, Hibernian/Net registered user and Technocrate who answers to Isenhand/Andrew Wallace NET director are barring edits that expand information with links and content other than their chosen material.If you look.. all their edits lead viewers back to Technocracy movement which funnels people to NET and they delete links to Technocracy Incorporated. Also they have deleted other interesting and important information connected to the official Washington site (links and articles). Could you page protect the edits I have just done on NET and perhaps think about protecting the related articles also ? skip sievert (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wafulz did you look at Technocrate's reaction to your blocking him at the bottom of this page ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Technocrate User talk:Technocrate - skip sievert (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wafulz it is a no win situation for any one trying to blockade the group editing the Network of European Technocrats article in my opinion.
I appreciate the fact that you are trying to intervene with a positive approach. However...This is the original incarnation of the article written by Andrew Wallace/Net director and wikipedia editor Isenhand http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_of_European_Technocrats&diff=191487043&oldid=87965482 Network of European Technocrats skip sievert (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Wallace created the NET article
Since Andrew Wallace created the NET article to begin..and he is their Director.. and it is at least half devoted to raising money.. how notable is it and why is it even on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29 Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
Is this not a blatant case of writing about ones self http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also the links or references in the article except for a dead link that Technocrate just edited back in along with Isenhands previous edit all go to their self published information.. only. skip sievert (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Mana (series)
I believe I have corrected your concerns, so please let me know if your concerns are satisfied or if there are others. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to explain?
On the one hand we have an editor who actions indicate someone who is editing wikipages without good intent, refuses to discuss his changes, will not cooperate and refuses all attempts at mediation and requests for comments. Yet you allow this editor to continue. One the other hand you have an editor that tries to maintain good edits on wikipages and you block her for a month. Would you care to explain? Why should an editor who causes trouble be allowed to continue to do so and one who does good be blocked? I don’t quite follow what you are doing nor the reasoning behind your actions? Isenhand (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can't have an account dedicated to reverting another user.-Wafulz (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don’t and she has an account dedicated to maintaining the integrity of wikipeidia. I don’t have time to keep correcting bad edits. Technocracte was just doing that because we have more import things to do.
-
- BTW, 3rtd attempt at mediation with skip looks as if it has failed as well. So, what next? He has refused to take part three times now. Refuses to cooperate with other people and just goes into personal attacks again, putting in bad edits, no discussion and breaking numerous guidelines and policies. Are we going to try something else and drag this out longer or do you think he has had more than enough opportunity to behave himself and we should just go to the inevitable? Isenhand (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wafulz Isenhand just reverted my edit on the NET site again and I did state my reasons on the talk page as I have done right along. Could you think about possibly page protecting the NET site ? I am now going to sign the mediation agreement. I added a couple of things but tried to keep it short. Does the above from Isenhand count as personal attack ? Is it at the very least not civil in this context. I find it very difficult to work together with Isenhand. He does not seem in the least cooperative but only interested in his edits and the peoples edits that he controls. skip sievert (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Technocrac movement. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
so, where to now? Isenhand (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- We'll just do it the old fashioned way and examine the changes one bit at a time. I'll try sometime later this week.-Wafulz (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, that could get time consuming (time we should spend improve the pages rather than monitoring skip) and I can’t get here everyday to check him. There are some good grammar edits but as skip has no regard for anything not in the TSC nor any wish to cooperate with others most of his other edits are incorrect and just reflects his POV, which is hostile to anyone who doesn’t agree with him. I have changed them today and put up an explanation why they are wrong. I think we need a better solution. Isenhand (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have been going though it and removing the POV edits as normal. Usually things like not wanting to use citation, removing things that don’t agree with his POV that the TSC is the only source to use such as links or references to sites / wiki pages like Jacque Fresco and Technocracy.ca. Jacque Fresco does have a link to Technocracy Inc, have been a former member and has received support from Tech inc members. As his ideas have a lot of similarity to Tech inc its of interest and should have a listing under see also. The information regarding the formation of NET in 2005 on Tech.ca is correct and it gets removed because of personal dislike of kolzene. Hopefully you can come up with something that will actually sort this problem out finally in the mean time I’m off for 2 weeks so, we shall have pages that reflect POV rather than what the sources say.
Just in case it’s need when I’m away I’ll state my position: Edits should have support from secondary sources as much as possible. They should not reflect POV nor be placed there to as an attack on others. Conservational edits should be discussed first. You can see my position in more detail on the various attempts for mediation etc pages.
Have fun. Isenhand (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could I suggest for a short block on Isenhand ? Personal attacks would imply that this editor has no desire to cooperate on articles in question. skip sievert (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you check my recent edits
on Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated and Network of European Technocrats and give me some feedback ? skip sievert (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Legends of Elveron
Hi Wafulz: I found our page deleted today. I was working on an improvment and was talking to my english speaking friends about making it better and that articles need independent reliable sourcing to fit in wikipedia. I hope you can reconsider adding it so we can add citactions and references. Zipz (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
hi wafulz
hello wafulz hi wafulz how are you today wafulz 129.15.131.254 (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Delegable proxy
Hi, I just wanted to inform you that we have taken the Wikipedia delegable proxy experiment live. This is a proposal to let users appoint a trusted individual to represent them in debates that they themselves (whether due to time limitations or whatever reason) are not able to participate. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to User:Wafulz/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter:
{{subst:Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table/Designate|Absidy}}
You may remember me as User:Sarsaparilla. We worked together on the missionary position article. Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but this seems like a lousy idea to me considering that "voting" is discouraged.-Wafulz (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BRUINS
You do have a point. I didn't notice the sub projects. Could you help me change over to one of those without doing something to the templates? STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll give it a try later this week. I'm a bit bogged down at the moment.-Wafulz (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
