Jump to content

User talk:Doopdoop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ahechtbot (talk | contribs) at 09:11, 22 August 2018 (Task 2: Fix LintErrors (missing end tag)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!


Welcome!

Hello, Doopdoop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they are appreciated. I hope you like it here, and decide to stay. Here a few pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask at the help desk, leave me a message on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  · AndonicO Talk

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 5 28 January 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: New feature 
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III Signpost interview: John Broughton 
New parser preprocessor introduced Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness" 
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology 
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles 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) 03:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 6 4 February 2008 About the Signpost
Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored 
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes" News and notes: Milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Tutorial: Adding citations 
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates 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) 07:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadsheet animation

I noticed you have moved the spreadsheet animation to the formula section of the article. This seems to me to be missing the point of the animation, which I believe attempts to encapsulate almost the entire essence of a spreadsheet in one extremely simple demonstration. I took my "Q" from the animated GIF in internal combustion engine which is excellent. If you can do better, please feel free. I used a free web based tool that only allowed me to use a maximum of 10 images to produce the GIF. If I had been allowed say 30 images, I could have just as easily demonstrated many of the other components of a spreadsheet. There have been various previous attempts at showing a generic spreadsheet but all so far have either been too specific to a particular product or have had other weaknesses. I had hoped my new GIF would be both simple and generic. Now, once again, there is no image at all to accompany the definition - too bad - please do better!Kdakin3420 (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that some users might not like blinking animations. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you remove the "blinking" lot of them including the excellent animation on internal combustion engines? !!!Kdakin3420 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoopDoop/Freedomwarrior/Kborer

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doopdoop&action=edit&section=6 Editing User talk:Doopdoop (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You just tried to revert my edit 3 times. Its pretty clear that you and Freedomwarrior are one and the same. You both seem to share an interest in right wing philosophy, and an interest in editing with POV articles on health care and Cuba! You clearly forgot to log out and log in again. I mentioned in December that in 2008 we can expect to see new WP editor accounts emerging to take up the job of adding bias to those health care articles. Well lo and behold, your account was created 31 Dec and you now edit alternately with your alter ego. This is a warning to you not to start edit warring like you at the end of last year and not to use "shell accounts" as you called them, to push your POV. And now Kborer has picked up again. Its amazing how all three of you have suddenly emerged again from a long edit break to start work pushing POV into the health care articles. At least be honest and just use the one account.--Tom (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you don't get mixed up in all the contra arguments you are having with yourself at Universal health care! Maybe you need more time in the Caribbean to recuperate!--Tom (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say that you haven't already probably inferred, Tom is paranoid. He keeps on accusing me of creating shell accounts and the like, because I suggested that it'd be stupid to handle disputes through a democratic process. Now, if I was really using sock-puppets, why on earth would I object to a straw poll that I could easily win by creating sockpuppets? It really makes no sense, does it? But you see, Tom doesn't do that whole reason thing.

Tom has gone so far as to present a formal accusation against Kborer and me. Despite an administrator telling him that he was dead wrong, he nonetheless insists on accusing Kborer of being my sockpuppet. Give him time and he'll even make a formal accusation against us, lol

It's the classic argument by intimidation. Fortunately, Tom isn't all that intimidating...

Anyway, welcome to the back and forth that I've been enduring for months now. It's always good to have other editors who are willing to give reason a try. Cheers, Freedomwarrior (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the legal response would be "not proven" not "wrong". WP recognizes that an IP check is not a proven way to demonstrate sock-puppetry and that behaviour of editors is often the way to prove this. I think I am building up a good record of a pattern of behaviour here. Especially the pattern of frantic and sudden changes that happened around Christmas. Although you can make it hard to undo edits I think there are enough editors now with enough determination to prevent overt or covert POV coming into these articles. Hopefully you are not about to engage in another bout of that. We have to try to present the subject matter fairly and without bias and representing all major shades of opinion and the facts that underlie those opinions. If we can edit in this way, we can all have an enjoyable edit experience. Otherwise it's just tedious back and forth and I don't suppose you enjoy that any more than I do. Its better to work out these issues on the talk page first. This constant denial that the term is principally used in the U.S. is already starting to become tedious. If you have evidence to the contraty please present it. --Tom (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to an issue I raised at Talk:Socialized medicine you said that "I have read quite many GMU sources and accordingly I tend to use them, however when Kborer returns he will be able to supply additional references from Mises Institute and other sources, so there is no WP:Undue problem". For someone who claims there is no connection between you and that other editor, it is a strange thing to say. Care to explain yourself?--Tom (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:) I have noticed Kborer is a fan of Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell and others like them. I'm not a fan of these organizations, but I know their views. I hope that Kborer returns soon, but because there is no connection between me and him I don't know when it will happen. I this explanation OK? --Doopdoop (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I does not explain the statement "when Kborer returns HE WILL..." Although WP asks that we assume good faith I have to say that it is very difficult to believe what you say. Reading your edits of the past weeks it is very clear that you are as bent on using the same techniques that I have described before to twist this article towards giving a view of the subject that seems to reflect your personal beliefs and away from a neutral examination. Such techniques include
  • focusing on CLAIMS rather than FACTS

This makes it easier for you to use WP policy on verifiabilty to make non-factual statements about socialized medicine. Anyone can CLAIM something but this does not make it true. The section on innovation is a classic example of this. One of the articles you quoted focused on statistics on investment, research, Nobel prizes and made relative comparisons between the European Union and the USA and argued that the USA is more active and more successful and that somehow the Europeans and others grab all the benefits of R&D without funding it. It is complete nonsense of course. If the same argument had compared Britain and the USA, the results would have been reversed. British inventors have been highly involved in innovative developments in medical technology and medical research, and given that the USA is five times bigger than Britain, the argument could equally have been how highly successful the UK has been in Medical technology and research and that the USA benefits from UK public and private investment in health.

  • BIASED and SELECTIVE use of quotes

You also make claims from research papers that you think support your opinions but disregard those that put the other view. Greg Alton has recently gone on to check the references you gave and has shown that you do this, adding back the qualifications that were in the original papers that you omit.

  • USE of POLITICALLY BIASED U.S. sources to discuss an international topic

You are also fond of using institutes such as Cato, CPA and others (which are biased pressure groups for a particular shaping of US national policy on health care) and presenting them as somehow something other than a source to be treated with great caution. It is also highly destructive and biased to keep using such one nation biased sources to discuss a topic which is really very international and not really practised in the U.S. much beyond the socialized medicine practiced by the military and veterans health care systems. I recognize of course the politically charged debate ongoing in the USA but there are other articles where those arguments can be aired such as health care politics, which really should be renamed health care politics (USA).

  • Sequencing arguments and counter arguments in such a way that a lazy reader could read the "negative" claims about socialized medicine and completely miss the "contra" factually based claims and arguments (because you move them away from the original claims so the connection is less clear).

I could go on. The same techniques were used by Freedomwarrior and Kborer. Your edits in the past weeks have, in my opinion, been relatively destructive to the fabric of this article. You do not discuss your main edit ideas using TALK as should happen. It is tiresome to have to keep challenging you. I would be curious to know what other editors think about your actions and motives and what they think should be done about it. Sadly I suspect that nothing can be done other than for the rest of the community to be more vigilent. For various reasons I have not had the time of late to participate in this activity.--Tom (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "when Kborer returns he will BE ABLE...", not "when Kborer returns HE WILL...", please avoid distorting my quotes in the future. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 7 11 February 2008 About the Signpost
Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad Foundation's FY2007 audit released 
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope Best of WikiWorld: "W" 
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review 
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) 08:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadsheet - "Fake reference"

I cannot see why you describe the reference to the ICI Works Records System (a fully interactive CICS transaction processing system) as "fake". I have no idea about the other quoted "Time sharing" systems (which were probably teletype based at that time), but the ICI System was certainly an IBM 3270 display terminal based, WYSIWYG spreadsheet, comparable to todays spreadsheets but combined with a database. Kdakin3420 (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a reference to a published source. Could you provide one? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not having been published (yet) does not make it "Fake". Fake suggests a deliberate attempt to falsify (i.e. invent) facts. I do actually own one of the original "Works Records System" nanuals from 1974 and I have already reproduced 8 pages of it on the Editgrid web-based spreadsheet website - [1]
along with other interesting facts about the System, including photographs, technical information and a mock-up. Since I published it, the original critics have remained silent as I am sure they realize my original updates to the Spreadsheet article were completely genuine.
The efforts being made to suppress this information are leading me to the decision to actually write a book (or E-book?) about it myself. Even if I do however, I understand it will still not be eligible for Wikipedia as it will then be self published material!Kdakin3420 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Fake" suggests a reference that does not lead to a source. All efforts to scan original pre-PC era spreadsheet manuals and put them on the web are really appreciated. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already did!
Fake- Please check your Wiktionary dictionary definition
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fake

Kdakin3420 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Marginalism
Coquimbo
Health reform
Coquimbo Region
American Hospital Association
NHS Care Records Service
Health Resources and Services Administration
Injury
Rende
Spanish Armed Forces
Bureau of Primary Health Care
Care in the Community
Military of Belgium
VisiCorp
Committee on Social Thought
Military of the Netherlands
East Siberian Sea
George Maciunas
Military of Croatia
Cleanup
Stagflation
History of Latvia
Fiat currency
Merge
Military of Hungary
History of money
Limousine liberal
Add Sources
Property
Laffer curve
Military of the Republic of Macedonia
Wikify
Post-Keynesian economics
Corporation (university)
Form follows function
Expand
Iowa Electronic Markets
Electrophysiology
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 8 18 February 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab" 
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 9 25 February 2008 About the Signpost
Signpost interview: Michael Snow Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon 
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned Two major print encyclopedias cease production 
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia" News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Family Guy 
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories 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) 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest economic risk

Actually, aren't those who get the most money at greatest economic risk when the world ends? You can't lose what you don't have. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) --Doopdoop (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 10 3 March 2008 About the Signpost
Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties Eleven users apply for bureaucratship 
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas Role of hidden categories under discussion 
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected 
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing" News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones 
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article WikiProject Report: Football 
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap 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) 07:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow motion revert war on Socialized medicine

Doopdoop, you have reverted the reference to pejorative usage in the lead of the article at least four times over the last three days. The discussion is ongoing, and you have not attempted to show evidence to counter the numerous references that support the pejorative characterization. I urge you to self-revert. I also urge you to re-read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Putting a comment on a talk page, by itself, does not achieve consensus and does not justify another revert. Nothing is resolved. If you insist on continuing this way, it can be perceived as disruptive editing even though it does not technically violate 3RR. I'm suggesting we all try to get out of the bad habit of slow-motion revert wars on this page and actually try to resolve things in talk. I'm open to suggestion on how we can work together more constructively. --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be very happy to self-revert if you could explain why there is no left-wing bias. I urge you to re-read WP:NPOV. Politicised viewpoints do not belong to the lead, but of course they might be entirely appropriate somewhere below if they are counterbalanced by other POVs. And I don't believe any consensus exists about the lead, as there was a big edit war about it with many participants on both sides (date was Feb. 16-18, I didn't participate). --Doopdoop (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As they say, you can't prove a negative, so I have no intention of trying to prove that there is no left-wing bias. However, 80 references in Google Books to "socialized medicine and pejorative" and, without even looking at them, you accuse them all of sharing the same bias? How do you know that? And may I remind you, WP:NPOV states: "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". So, really, all you have to do is find a reliable source for your assertion that only left-wing commentators consider the term a pejorative. Without that, you really have little to stand on except your own belief, which is original research. --Sfmammamia (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8I

"I think the whole history is no longer compulsory in the UK schools" If this is true, I am truly shocked...--Molobo (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you have learned about slavery at school (Egypt, Lincoln etc.), but many UK pupils haven't (at least until 2006 - see [2]) --Doopdoop (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand, don't remove

If you feel an article is unbalanced with new information, unless it is the case of WP:UNDUE, please expand it. We have space. Besides, the articles make it clear the numbers are cited for the city. Feel free to expand it or clarify it with numbers on the region itself (where indeed the numbers where somewhat different). But both articles - I just checked - state that, so I don't really see how anybody could be confused. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have statistics about the region myself, so I cannot follow your recomendation. --Doopdoop (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some statistics in the articles themselves (hence I think there is little danger of misunderstanding) and in the ethnography of the region article linked from them. If you don't want to expand the articles, don't worry - sooner or later somebody will do so. But please don't remove valid information; remember - many articles are like brick walls, we add brick by brick and eventually it will all be level (and neutral).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim

You removed several comments of mine to User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim's talk page with the edit summary cleanup. The removal of my comments wasn't massively appreciated - as I pointed out in my second comment to the user's talk page, my commentary was solely meant in a productive light. The editor in question has recently been appointed an admin, and the issue of his constructiveness when working with others on topics he feels passionately about, and in particular where he disagrees with others was specifically brought up at the RfA. (In point of fact, one object specifically made reference to an edit to an article I, too, have disagreed with Deacon regarding the editing of). If you dislike my commentary, or feel that it should be altered or made in a different way, you're more than welcome to come and talk to me about it, and try and work together with another editor in the same manner I believe Deacon should - but "cleaning up" other users comments which appear to be inconvenient, or which you dislike, is little more than censorship. Treating an "ip user"'s comments as somehow irrelevant, which I believe is the undertone of your (and Deacon's) edits is also an unfortunate commonality on wikipedia, and one which I believe needs to be changed; there are numerous and prolific examples of anonymous (solely IP-based) users whose contributions to wikipedia are substantial. Thanks for your time - please let me know next time you have concerns or commentary regarding my wikipedia contribution. 82.35.210.119 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in Russia article

Hi Doopdoop. I support your edits in article Russia because they are based on better sources. Unfortunately these edits met very strong objections to tell this politely [3]. In fact, most my edits about Russian politics are currently reverted by a group of users, no matter how well they are sourced. So, I would rather do something else at the moment. Thank you for enforcing WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability policies, but they are violated, and there is little we can do about that.Biophys (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When there are two groups of opposing editors, tagging articles and sections with NPOV tags can sometimes be a good solution. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 11 13 March 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule" 
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling 
Tutorial: Summary of policies Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 12 17 March 2008 About the Signpost
Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles" News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at peer review 
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts 
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) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hello. I am not sure that you remembering me, but our contributions in certain articles overlap. I would like to thank you for the involvement in Simonas Daukantas article. As you witnessed in had problems. However this is not the only one article, identical situation is with Jonas Basanavičius, as multiply contributors on its talk expressed strong concern that certain info is not accepted there [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], but it seems that single contributor insisting for keeping it in contrast to consensus (see history for background). So i thought maybe you could help in this article too? M.K. (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mentioning "Basanowich" in the lead also raises WP:UNDUE issues, so I'm adding this article to my watchlist.--Doopdoop (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tel Aviv

Hi Doopdoop, I think the issues you raised at the Tel Aviv FAC have been addressed. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadsheet - ordering of computational steps/single entry point v. OO

The sentence you removed seems to me to be almost entirely innocuous and although I didn't write it, would agree with its argument completely. I cannot see what OO has to do with it or for that matter "popularity" (as it is not a contest)! In my humble opinion, you remove an awful lot of content without replacing it with anything else, thereby denuding the thoroughness of an article for no apparent reason other than "compactness" - which is of dubious merit on its own.Kdakin3420 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I also agree with the argument, the specific version presented in the article is obsolete (e.g. modern OO systems do not have a single entry point). Also, Wikipedia requires to remove content that cannot be verified. --Doopdoop (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 13 24 March 2008 About the Signpost
Single User Login enabled for administrators Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers" 
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter WikiProject Report: Video games 
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) 07:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economic "Freedom" Article: My 3RR Violation

My apologies for the 3RR breach. In my defense, it was by four minutes, I was aware that it was my second revert today, and that i'd made two yesterday, one quite late, however I was not aware that they over-lapped as they did. Further in my defense, it was in my continued attempts to maintain an NPOV opening paragraph, which was being obstructively reverted with no adequate explanation and no engagement on talk. Nwe (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 15 7 April 2008 About the Signpost
April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges" 
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence 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) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land value tax article NPOV

We've restructured the land value tax article to eliminate inherently POV sections as you suggested - would you mind giving it another look and tagging any remaining problems when you get the chance? --Explodicle (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could comment...

Since the source is used in both articles, and you agreed the other is of GA quality: [10] and see Talk:Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905-1907).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 16 14 April 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles Image placeholders debated 
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk" News and notes: Board meeting, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Featured article milestone 
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) 08:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

Thanks for the note. I'd appreciate if you could look at this article, and historical cost, which I think has degenerated into original research. I have a history with this editor - who is promoting his own research - and would like to avoid this getting personal (given the history).--Gregalton (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing dispute at Socialized Medicine

Doopdoop, I reviewed the discussion page for this article; and suggest that you do so as well. You continue to re-insert an edit, "Some opponents argue that increased bureaucracy costs more money" that has been in dispute on the talk page since April 17. I have attempted on a few occasions to propose alternate compromise wording for this sentence, but you have reverted any attempt to make this sentence acceptable to all involved editors. To refresh your memory, Here are the diffs of your ongoing revert war on this phrase:

How can we break out of this repetitive edit dispute loop? I am open to suggestions, but I fail to see how reverting the same wording over and over gets us any closer to consensus. Once again, I would be happy to work with you toward consensus, but so far you have displayed little to no willingness to do so. May I suggest that we work toward a constructive compromise on the talk page? --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems someone beat me too it . . complaining about your editing that is.. I am tiring of your blatant failure to co-operate and your twisting of all the evidence. Of course we can say "opponents argue that" and repeat argument which may not be validated by facts or are supported by only very weak arguments but include them because the arguments are made and verifiable. But it tells nothing about the real situation. We should not be focussing at all on "opponents" or "supporters" but on factual data that is independently collated by people without an axe to grind. Supporters and Opponents may be appropriate in an article about health reform in the US but this is about socialized medicine... i.e. state funded and state managed health care. There is plenty of available data without reference to biased opinion one way or the other. I want you to prove that direct spending on the delivery of health care as a percentage of all health care spending is higher in non-socialized systems than in socialized systems. Because socialized systems have no advertising/promotion/invoicing/billing/claim scrutiny/ etc. etc., let alone no private investors to pay-off, I think you will be hard put to prove your case! I appeal to you to be more productive and less biased in your editing. --Tom (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, but you want to remove some viewpoints. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are serially reversing the edits I made today. Some of the reasons you give are completely fallactious. Your editing is both destructive and biased. Please desist. The article you added about patients queuing outside British hospitals is typical of the type of bad news reporting that sometimes happens in the UK and the US. The article reported some statistics (about turnaround times) and then an allegation (by a trade union official) that this was due to a particular reason (hospitals trying to fix the statistics) which turned out not to be true (the BBC report quote of officials denied that it was possible to fix the stats in this way. Furthermore, the original observer report contained a lurid picture of the consequnces of such actions (if it were true) and some comments of medical people and politicans who were no doubt vox popped about this rather dubious story as if it WERE true. Undoubtedly, ambulances do sometimes have problems handing over to hospital staff, but we have no real data to tell us what the causes tend to be. I suspect they are multifarious and that statistics rigging is not one of them. You are just using WP to recount lurid stories based on little or no factual data and which not give the truer picture (which is what my edits did).

The issue of the appropriateness of government targets is a real contraversial issue in UK medicine and potential statistical fiddling is often talked about. It is thus a valid issue for discussion in this article. It is one of the many focusses that I feel should be addressed. Silly stories such as the one you quoted are not really taken very seriously, especially when the sources are individual trade union officials rather than offical medical bodies. The IPSOS-Mori polls show that the British public do not trust newspaper reporting about the Health Service, and for good reason. It is often inaccurate!--Tom (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 23 2 June 2008 About the Signpost
Board elections open WikiWorld: "Facial Hair" 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes 
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) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning (again)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Socialized Medicine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. This is not the first time I've had to warn you about multiple reverts to this article. The next time, I will be forced to report you to ANI.--Sfmammamia (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 24 9 June 2008 About the Signpost
Board elections continue WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia" 
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Main page day 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) 06:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 25 23 June 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Board elections completed; results forthcoming WikiWorld: "John Hodgman" 
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 26 26 June 2008 About the Signpost
Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial 
Global group discussions in progress WikiWorld: "Raining animals" 
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes 
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) 08:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 27 30 June 2008 About the Signpost
Private arbitration case criticized, vacated Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy 
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking" 
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine 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) 04:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 28 7 July 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: Transparency 
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed 
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane" News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June 
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) 09:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
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
WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics" News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts 
Dispatches: History of the featured article process 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) 06:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadsheets - Remote data deletion

You will eventually remove all references to everyting in this article by your deliberate deletion of anyting you dont want included. What is your "raison d'etre" minimalism ? Are you suggesting it doesn't exist ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.253.51 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting Changes to Milton Friedman Article

I've requested a reassessment of the good article status of the Milton Friedman article based on lack of neutrality, and have added a POV tag to the article. Please join the discussion, if you are interested. Thanks. Jdstany (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 31 28 July 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimania 2008 wrap-up WikiWorld: "Terry Gross" 
News and notes: Unblocked in China Dispatches: Find reliable sources online 
WikiProject Report: Military history Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 32 9 August 2008 About the Signpost
Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy" 
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 33 11 August 2008 About the Signpost
Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members 
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos" 
News and notes: Wikipedian dies Dispatches: Reviewing free images 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
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) 05:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 35 25 August 2008 About the Signpost
WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell" News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Interview with Mav 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 36 8 September 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent" 
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Featured topics Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August 
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) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 37 15 September 2008 About the Signpost
Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi" 
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review 
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) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 42 8 November 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 43 10 November 2008 About the Signpost
Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week ArbCom elections: Nominations open 
Book review: How Wikipedia Works MediaWiki search engine improved 
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day 
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 44 17 November 2008 About the Signpost
Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license 
Wikimedia Events Roundup News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.


The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: 200th issue 
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones 
Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
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
From the editor: Getting back on track 
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK 
Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting 
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers 
Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: December themed Main Page 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology 
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost
Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices 
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet 
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates 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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered at 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost
Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored 
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news 
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

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 01:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On writing articles on global warming and climate change

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 08:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Talk:Minor sabotage

Some time ago you moved small sabotage to minor sabotage. I've started a discussion on talk to discuss the proper name of that article, you may want to comment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Russia GA reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Russia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Philipmj24 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

GA reassessment of Russia

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arnold Kling for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arnold Kling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doopdoop&oldid=856014298"