This user may have left Wikipedia. Funky Monkey has not edited Wikipedia since 5 April 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
Archives |
---|
Can I just ask about this edit by you? It appears to have been to someone else's post in a mediation case I'm involved in.
Of course I do not mind anyone watching a mediation case I'm involved in, or anything. It's just that you edited Carbonate's post, and I'd like to be sure that everything above Carbonate's signature (well, to the next dividing line) is indeed his writing, and his opinion.
Are you Carbonate? No offence intended, of course.
The edit seems harmless, since I read "synonomous" as a typo for synonymous, though it might well be a greek word in its own right ...
RandomP 21:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. Not the end of the world.--Crestville 12:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you saw the swearing in the diff (especially being performed by an IP) and thought that the IP was performing vandalism, when in fact, the IP was actually reverting vandalism. No harm done, I've already reverted back. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
yeh, so now you get a vandalism warning! lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.210.97 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for fixing my spelling of "acquisition" on NetIQ and AttachmateWRQ. I'd just realized my mistake and came back to fix it, but you'd already done it. Thanks again! Tyrel Haveman 19:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
So, you are definitely sure of this issue. We should put this in a proper article, imho, or these remixes are mentioned somewhere?--Doktor Who 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining which direction NEN is? You reverted my removal of the word from Charlemagne, Quebec ([2]). Orane (talk • cont.) 01:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Funky Monkey, thankyou so much for your comment on my user page. It means so much to me that there are people who think enough of me that they'd be wiling to do that. I will give your offer some thought. Thankyou. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have explained my edits in the talkpage.UberCryxic 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes...I am more than well aware of the three revert rule and have made no violations yet. Thanks for reminding me though.UberCryxic 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you told Sarah about a supposed violation of 3RR on my part. This is actually funny because just a few days ago another user falsely filed a 3RR report against me, which failed. Just so I don't have to go through that again, here's the 3RR rule: "Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period..." I really have only made two reverts (the third wasn't a real revert; it was including a sentence that I thought was appropriate).UberCryxic 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Funky, I feel a bit out of the loop with regard to the MJ article. What is the consensus now? That no nicknames are to be included? I'm happy to have a word with the person, but I just want to make sure I have my facts straight! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted that edit. It didn't contain the nicknames, but I think it's very problematic. I do not think we need to be making comparisons to Elvis, The Beatles and Sinatra in the opening paragraph! And the reference, as far as I can tell, is an article about James Brown, not Michael Jackson. I didn't read the whole thing but I couldn't even see Jackson's name. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, if it appears that I am taking it personally, then I want to apologize. I obviously did not intend any such thing. Regarding the source, I would say that it is the most respectable and prestigious in the entire article. I mean...it is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee page. Furthermore, it contains plenty of facts, so that's an odd coment on your part. Here are some facts:
Thriller topped the charts for nine months (37 weeks) and remained in Billboard’s album chart for more than two years (122 weeks). Jackson won eight Grammy Awards and seven American Music Awards for Thriller. In 1985, it was proclaimed the Best Selling Album of All Time by the Guinness Book of Records. As of July 2001, Thriller has sold 26 million copies in the U.S., making it the second best-selling album in history behind the Eagles’ Greatest Hits (27 million). Worldwide, Thriller has sold 51 million copies. Beyond the numbers, how important was Jackson’s record-shattering feat? As producer Quincy Jones told Time magazine, “Black music had to play second fiddle for a long time, but its spirit is the whole motor of pop. Michael has connected with every soul in the world.”
I eagerly await your comments. Sarah suggested that we should not be making comparisons to Elvis, the Beatles, and Frank Sinatra, which I agree with. That's why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is making them, and I would suppose they know more about it than we do.UberCryxic 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Your thoughts are interesting, but I suppose what's confusing me is the "speculation" label. The people who made this statement presumably know a lot about how musicians are viewed by the musical community. As such it is reliable enough to be included in the article. If you want to just copy the statement from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame page, then I'd be fine with it. Doing it for one sentence does not constitute a copyright violation.UberCryxic 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Basically what I'm getting at is that when you say "speculate," it's sort of like you're dismissing their views. But their views should be way more important than yours or mine. They are, after all, the people who put Michael Jackson in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why could they not do the same to you, and suggest that your claims that Michael Jackson cannot be compared (or should not be) to these other people are also speculation?UberCryxic 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"It's still opinion not facts"
Wikipedia is not supposed to document truth. We are supposed to make verifiable statements backed up by reliable sources. The statement is verifiable and comes from a very reliable source. I do not want to get philosophical, but in a sense "fact" is a label for a predominantly held view. As regards this topic, it is not necessarily one where you can have hard facts, particularly with issues about how people view him.UberCryxic 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There's still a fundamental problem that you haven't addressed though. Your stance is also an opinion. Why should it receive greater weight than that of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?UberCryxic 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.
In fact, I am well within my bounds to include the opinion of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.UberCryxic 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
And also from the same place: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.UberCryxic 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! You probably want to check out the use for Speedy deletes templates! In the article Jayson mills it is so obvious that we should not go through the regular deletion process, but can rather use the speedy delete. Check out Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Mceder 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Funky Monkey for your Support! |
PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)
Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)} |
Hey Funky Monkey, thank you so much for your RfA support and your congrats message. And thankyou for offering to nominate me yourself and for encouraging me to get on with it. No, I'm not too upset by the negative comments. I fully expected the 1FA people to oppose. But Orane really baffled me. I have never exchanged a single word with him, so I'm rather confused about his attitude towards me. I'm just glad that it's all over! Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with any adminy things (and please tell me if you notice me screw anything up!) Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:
Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, sorry about that I didn't know. Thank you for informing me of this. Is this source okay.[3]--Stardust6000 17:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The Afd that you voted on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to thank you for your welcome message on my talk page. I'm sorry I haven't gotten around to touching base with you sooner. I actually have a quick question for you. I did a little bit of work on the Richard skipper article, the text of which had been almost entirely deleted for copyright violations. I noticed that the "S" in his last name on the title of the article isn't capitalized. I'm not sure how to correct this. Would you mind helping me out? Thanks! KindSould 09:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not be hasty when removing information from articles. In your latest edit to the Mariah Carey article, you removed important information from the intro, claiming that it was not sourced. However, it is not imperative that things be sourced in the intro (unless it's the d.o.b); information in the intro is (or should be) repeated/replicated in the body of the article, and should be sourced there. In other words, if you had checked the body of the article, you would see that the information that you removed was sourced there. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
On POV-pushing
I can NOT emphasize this enough.
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
Jimmy Wales, Tue, 16 May 2006 16:30:15 -0400
The claim I removed is rather a bold claim, and despite other lesser claims being sourced in the intro, this one remains unsourced, therefore I was quite within my rights to remove it. As we're all supposed to be adults here I have added a citation needed tag and request as a compromise you add the source to the claim. I once again remind you of WP:CIVIL and request you moderate your tone in any further correspondence with me. Funky Monkey (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And don't quote "civil" at me. I was never aggressive towards you. And if you require sources, I'll place them on you talk page as well as in the article: proof. This first source is from youtube. Listen closely, the information is repeated a million times. Other sources: [4], 2000 World music awards results, Billboard, reported on mc archives, find articles, island records. Hope there's no confusion. Please, do have a lovely day and a Merry Christmas when it comes. lol Orane (talk • cont.) 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Your reply confirms what I've been saying. I did not simply '"pop up" on [your] talk page with threats of a warning and "leading to any relevant actions I may have to take".' I reminded you respectfully, not to be too hasty and look in the body for the information was sourced there. That's all I said. You, on the other hand, were blunt and unyielding. If you hadn't behaved that way, I would never have dreamed of referring to any warnings.
Never mind that you believe the policies were on your side, a point that can be argued as you clearly see that the policy (and Mr. Wales) were referring especially to the removal of controversial/harmful information, which I pointed out to you. The fact that they may be on your side isn't what I'm getting at. The point is that the way you chose to explain yourself, and the tone of your replies are condescending (again, telling me to "get some help with my paranoia," telling me not to e-mail you, or using the fact that you may be abiding by the policies as an excuse for your blunt and disrespectful replies). And this didnt start now. It has been going on for a while whenever you correspond with me. For instance, when referring to the edit about the article long ago, you said "A simple check here, (this is an encyclopedia after all), would have shown you..." You don't see an ounce of unpleasantness in that? I know its an encyclopedia. I'm an Admin for it. And in case you have forgotten, you did display trollish behaviour (example) when the situation had nothing to do with you. I could cite more if you wished. And, if you weren't tracking my edits and contribution (trolling) you wouldn't have ended up in every issue I've been involved with to somehow oppose me (which, as I'm sure you have realised, had no effect on the outcome. I am still, afterall, a mediator :D, and I'm still using "Orane" as a sig)
Anyway, that being said, I'm going to ignore you whenever I can. But if I see you displaying questionable actions, I will approach you whether you like it or not (and I do encourage you to do the same— respectfully). I'm gonna be as kind as I can however. I just hope that you can return the favour, whether or not you feel you are in the right. Have a good life. Orane (talk • cont.) 18:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Your edit summary here [5], is totally out of order. Following wiki process is not "FUCKING NONSENSE". I felt that the claim should have been cited and added the request. If you have a problem with this I suggest you start a WP:RFC on my actions, otherwise moderate your language. Also stop taking every edit I make as a personal insult. You don't own the article and I am quite within my rights to add a fact request. Any further profanity and I will take things further. You are not above the rules. Funky Monkey (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi User:Funky Monkey!I wish a lot of joy!I am a vegetarian also!So drop me a line if you want sometime, maybe we can be friends!Trampton 11:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Sure, if you say so. You may be interested in this thread where the removal was discussed beforehand. >Radiant< 08:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
While assuming nothing but good faith on the part of the editor who merged the articles, due to the history of as well as lively and vigorous discussion about this article, I have restored the article and substituted instead two merger discussion boxes, one on Bisexual erasure and one on Biphobia.
I look forward to discussing and working on this and other subjects with you in the future. Respectfully CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
no problem i already reverted myself on tht part about the daily mail. Realist2 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
like i said i noticed my mistake before you warned me so just take it easy. Realist2 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted you again because that stuff might be sourced but it has nothing to do with his financial situation. Stories about Children and gay porn need not be there. Realist2 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
never mind its clear it should be there.Realist2 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 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) 08:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 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) 08:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 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) 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 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) 03:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
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) 07:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
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) 08:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
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) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 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) 07:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 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) 22:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 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) 07:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 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) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 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) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 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) 09:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 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) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 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) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 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) 09:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sources arent needed in the lead so long as its sourced within the article, im a reviewer myself. That said a source IS needed in the lead for the "best selling pop albums" sentance as its not sourced within the article. I thank you for bringing this up, ill get it sourced, ive just got a lot on with exams at moment. Cheers. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a primary example of an unsourced lead article that is FA. Here. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 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) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 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) 07:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 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) 06:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 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) 08:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 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) 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 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) 09:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Transparency | ||
WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 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) 06:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Help wanted | ||
WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
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 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 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) 21:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 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) 05:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 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) 10:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | 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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | 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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)