User talk:Random832/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Random832. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| 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) 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
WebCite
Does work, I just did [1]. -- Naerii 20:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"Random" question (nyuk nyuk)
Hi Random, I think you're a template/MediaWiki personage - how hard would it be to create a template that when invoked would insert/override a banner message when the web page was presented?
Specifically, along the lines of template:fool which would override the top message with "The date is April 1st <yyyy>" if the date was still Apr. 1, yyyy. I'm thinking about a graceful way out of pranking problems. Franamax (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
potentially Misleading statments
Was there anything I could clear up for you? I do not intend to potentially mislead. I'll answer questions here, if you would like to strike that part of your comment. (or not, I'll still answer) Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I love this template. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Improved diff gadget problem
Hi there. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Improved diff gadget problem. —AlexSm 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Kilogram
Random832. Please see Talk:Kilogram#Volt. I could certainly be wrong, but my math shows that the volt would be unaffected by a change in the kilogram. If you disagree, go ahead and revert, but please post your analysis and your math on Talk:Kilogram and give me a heads up. Greg L (my talk) 23:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, ready here on Talk:Kilogram regarding the “volt v.s. the kilogram.” I hope you can understand my method as I could not reciprocate by explaining my point using your analysis. Let me know what you think. Greg L (my talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you are correct. The volt and the tesla would be affected by a change in the kilogram; by the square root of the difference. You are quite correct and I was wrong. Greg L (my talk) 02:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Delimitnum
Carl seems to be too busy to finish the delimitnum magic word. Do you know of any other editors who might be interested in writing it? After having discussed it on both Talk:MOSNUM and Talk:MOS, I can tell it will be quite popular and will address a number of issues that have long dogged editors. Greg L (my talk) 01:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your post. No worries about using bold text (I can handle bold-text shouting without crying ;-). In fact, you would more than make up for it if you could think of someone willing to write a template that can intelligently parse out every three to five digits and add some garbage between them. Got anyone in mind? Or someone in mind who might know someone? Greg L (my talk) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Modernista!
You offered to make the notice on the Modernista! article so that it only shows up when they use it, rather than when it is visited as a normal Wikipedia article. Could you go ahead and do that? --Michael Snow (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just leaving the computer now but I'll code something up later tonight. --Random832 (contribs) 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- So, if you'll pardon my coding ignorance, the way it would work is by adding it to MediaWiki:Common.js? --Michael Snow (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
FTN
There was discussion at WP:FTN. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| 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) 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks from "R Physicist"
Greetings Random832. I would first of all like to thank you for the several supportive and fair-minded remarks you have made at the AN/I, and also for taking the initiative to renominate the article Myrzakulov equations for deletion.
Below, I made some remarks concerning the previous AfD that seemed, from your exchanges with user:Cheeser1, to have missed your notice, but this is perhaps no longer relevant.
I would like now to ask you for a small question / service as an "administrator", if I may. The whole AN/I dicsussion has now been archived (by a non-admistrator user: Lawrence Cohen). I have no particular objection to archiving it at this point, since it really was getting too long and off-target. But there are two things that trouble me about it being done this way; namely:
- 1. This seems to have been done unilaterally, and without consultation, but apparently cannot be reversed. I cannot comprehend such a process. Why can one (non-administrator) decide unilaterally to "archive", and thus prevent, ever onward, any other contributor from adding to, or even editing their own previous input?
- In particular, I had earlier decided to shorten and somewhat tone down my final "Conclusion" , in particular, by deleting the reference to the "Dark Ages", which doesn't seem a suitable metaphor. But by this unilateral decision to archive, made by one user, I seem henceforth prevented from ever doing so.
- 2. Some other user (I am unable to track the history to determine who it is) has collapsed the entire main body of the discussion to a "collapse box" - including my initial description of the situation, all the comments added by others, and my own reply and conclusions. Only the subsequent remarks have been left uncollapsed, in the sections that contain the increasingly off-target remarks. This seems to completely skew the emphasis and, in fact, remove the gist of the posting from anyone's attention. It seems this could only have been done with tendentious purposes.
- Is there any way to undo this collapse box? And is there any way to make a last edit of my own concluding remarks? 24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")
(P.S. I have similarly asked admin Hesperian about this.) 24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) )
- I think a simpler explanation for the collapse box was that it was simply to reduce the size of the page by hiding older material while keeping more recent stuff (that was still being discussed) visible, without regard to whether the more recent stuff was 'off-target' or not, rather than in any way an attempt to make you look bad. As for editing your closing remarks - maybe it would make more sense to post a revised version - editing what's currently posted might be misinterpreted as 'changing history' --Random832 (contribs) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, there's nothing stopping anyone from reversing the archiving - if you or anyone else really think the discussion needs to be reopened you could delete the box yourself. But I think a better course of action would be to post your revised closing remarks elsewhere and maybe make a note near the original posting - inside the archive box - that you've taken back parts of it and a revised version can be found at [link to where you post it]. That should be sufficient to discourage people from taking the original version out of context. --Random832 (contribs) 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
To help you, with regard to the history of the "Myrzakulov" AfD etc.
In your exchanges with user:Cheeser1 you were hampered by two things:
1) He was careful to suppress the facts that made him look worst in this business, and emphasize only his own interpretations of WP rules.
2) You have looked at the previous AfD duscussion, but seem to have neglected to look equally carefully at its "talk" page (and its history).
To help set the record straight, I would like to quote below an extract from that, which should make a little clearer what was being said, and by whom. (The remainder can easily be viewed directly, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Myrzakulov_equations_%282nd_nomination%29 ). It is easily verifiable (e.g. by checking IP address locations) that all the allegations made by user:Cheeser1 were false. But they served to destabilize the previous debate anyway, and make the outcome "tally" completely invalid. (Please check the appropriate ANI posting to verify this as well, and do your own Delete/Keep count to see how it accords with what was posted at the closing discussion of the AfD.) 132.205.67.123 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")
(BTW, although I have permanently closed the user account "R Physicist", and have no intention of using it again, I felt it necessary, when making the posting at the ANI, under an anonymous IP address, to let everyone know that this posting was by me, since it would have been dishonest to do otherwise. I am afraid that user:Cheeser1 does not understand the concept of "honesty". (Perhaps because it isn't spelled out clearly enough in the Wikipedia rule book.) It would be too tedious to point out the trail of distortions, subterfuges and outright lies that comprise his stream of postings. This is a person with a problem, as should be clear to anyone viewing these. 132.205.67.123 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC) )
SPAs
I am alarmed at the number of SPAs that are popping up in this deletion discussion. I am concerned not only by their effect on the discussion but by their uncanny similarity to one another. Does anyone else consider this a problem worth further investigation? --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Here they are, for the record:
- Antignom (talk · contribs)
- 82.69.100.45 (talk · contribs)
- 129.31.222.133 (talk · contribs)
- Proscience (talk · contribs)
- 76.68.237.72 (talk · contribs)
I'd also point out that the nominator has contributed 75 edits to Wikipedia (excluding userspace), and 41 of them (55%) have been to this AfD (or the article in question):
I'm concerned that when you remove the (redundant) rationales of these four SPAs (who I suspect, although assume not, to be some type of puppets), the discussion looks very different, particularly in the makeup and substance of the delete rationales. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myrzakulov_equations" Categories:
- It is interesting compare the comments of above mentioned users with the comments some russian users which they did in the first AfD discussion of my article (see please Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations). Also these english comments absolutely same with the logic and contents of comments (in russian) which were in Russian.Wiki.(see please [[3]] and [[4]]). Here I would like to present just one and short quotation from their comments " ... Осталось теперь на англвики добить. --RedAndr 15:26, 24 января 2008 (UTC)" main contents of which can be from russian to english translated approximately as " ... our next task is kill (delete) english version of the article" that is my article Myrzakulov equations. Also both of these two russian users actively participated in the previous AfD discussions directly and in the second AfD discussion anonymously and using (by) associated users. Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Now that is inappropriate. Users from one Wiki are not welcome to flood another in order to influence matters in what is a more-or-less independent project. This kind of tendentious, deliberate, motivated stuff might fly on ru.wiki, but it doesn't here. This certainly explains the fact that so many users have popped up with virtually (or literally) no prior history on en.wiki to vote in uncanny unison to delete this article. I would, at this point, consider this AfD to be spoiled, procedurally, due to the interference of these SPAs, although if one (properly) disregards their contributions, there is a much more productive AfD discussion buried somewhere in here. If I had the time, I'd file an SSP case against all of the editors with little or no prior history on en.wiki who have this otherwise singular opinion - I strongly suspect an abuse of this process going on here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In light of the highly similar editing patterns of these SPAs, I have filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/R physicist. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion debates
- I wanted to thank you as well for your concern regarding the deletion debates on Myrzakulov-related contributions. I also hope that my first Wikipedia experience was an exception and not the rule. Your decision to re-open the debate and the way you are handling it give me real hope.
I would like to have your advice regarding a related issue (since I am still largely ignorant in the ways of Wikipedia): lately, the "appeals" from Ngn/Barstaw/Nuganumova have become a little annoying, bordering harassement (in my opinion). I thought it obvious for anybody that I do not consider her contribution valuable enough to be improved upon. Moreover, I (and many others) cannot be expected to drop everything and start working with somebody we disagree with, on a subject that we think should be handled in a very different way. I wish to avoid breaking any Wikipedia policies, so I would welcome your opinion on this matter. In real life, I would present the person with a cease and desist notice. --Proscience (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. re the above article - I tagged this for PROD as it seems to be a violation (imo) of the WP:NOTMANUAL guideline. I was about to put a standard warning thingy (notice the technical terminology !) on your user page to let you know - then noticed you seem to be an experienced editor. I'm therefore assuming that you'd consider the article is suitable.....so can you explain why (for my information) ? Thanks. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Gadgets
I saw that Nihiltres added the gadget "addsection +". Then Cacycle removed that gadget and a gadget added by me. Nihiltres gadget was then readded by you. (Thanks.) It seems that Cacycle and Alex Smotrov are set on stopping any new gadgets from being added. Those two editors already have their own gadgets installed. Some of Cacycle's wording hint at that perhaps he doesn't like "competition"? Have a look at "your" entry in the table at Wikipedia:Gadget#Currently installed gadgets and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Gadget#"must be discussed first" - ick and Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Tighter page top tabs in MonoBook (and down from that section).
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Symbol font
Random832, regarding the symbol font, please lay it all on me. Greg L (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| 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) 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Unexpected changes on Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals
This edit changed some characters in other users signatures, what browser were you using? Anyway, I guess now you'll have to somehow fix this inside the archive. —AlexSm 02:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for speaking up for me. ManymerrymenmakingmuchmoneyinthemonthofMay (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- or maybe just MMMMMMMM (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well done
For as far as I can tell, being the only voice of sanity in that increasingly loopy debate. — iridescent 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Kilogram
Random832: I couldn’t possibly find the citation now because it’s been such a long time, but this is exactly how they would specify it if they actually specified the kilogram as an proportional offset of the IPK. Normally, the replicas are specified as offsets in micrograms from the IPK. Thus, K20 has a documented mass of 1 kg – 39 µg. This notation can’t be used with a redefinition of the IPK because a microgram of offset would be a circular definition. So to communicate in terms familiar to those expert in this field, one drops “µg” and replaces it with ppb, which, like percent, is just another parts-per notation for expressing a dimensionless_quantity. It beats the hell out of mind-dumbing string of zeros (let’s just sit down and count them on our fingers to see what order of magnitude we’re at). I’ve had about 70 e-mail exchanges with guys at the NIST; I do my homework on this stuff. I own every one of the papers cited in the footnotes. Greg L (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why you deleted the above page? There's clearly a COI here, given some of the comments you've made on WR and you weren't the best person at all to do this, especially when it clearly isn't an attack page. At a push, it could have been taken to MfD, but even then it most probably wouldn't have been deleted. Please restore it ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- How the fuck does posting on a forum mean I have a COI? The page most definitely was an attack page, and it contained outright lies about the content of the "evidence" links. --Random832 (contribs) 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because your attitude on there is very supportive of many of their views. There's clearly a COI, it wasn't an attack page so please restore it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Many of whose views? --Random832 (contribs) 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seems both FM and Ryan have been pretty clear; as was I on the MfD page. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The WR gang. I've seen you stick up for some of their thoughts and share many of their views. You obviously have some empathy for Moulton, hence why I believe you have a COI. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Many of whose views? --Random832 (contribs) 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because your attitude on there is very supportive of many of their views. There's clearly a COI, it wasn't an attack page so please restore it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no "WR gang". --Random832 (contribs) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's really more of a cult, but why quibble over definers. Ryan's point stands no matter what he calls the group of people on WR. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanx, techy
You really know your stuff. Appreciated your work. The best to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Runcorn/Poetlister issues
Hi Random832. I see you requested a checkuser review of the Runcorn/Poetlister case, and you've defended Poetlister publicly, as I have. It may not be necessary to state this, because your last comment on this was about three days ago, but - now would be a good time to drop it. I commented on ANI that, no matter how strong the checkuser evidence may be, I will always maintain at least a reasonable doubt, if not an outright belief, that Poetlister is innocent and that there is more than one person behind the Runcorn sock-farm. It just doesn't make sense that one person orchestrated the full extent of the activity by 11 accounts and probably some non-logged-in edits also. It just doesn't make sense that this person edited every day from October 14, 2006, through May 30, 2007, and showed no signs of slowing down, without any kind of real-life interruption to remove him or her from the computer. It doesn't make sense with all the voting conflicts, overlapping edits, photographs and varied content interests that these are all one person.
There comes a point at which it's not worth arguing about anymore. We've reached that point. My userspace essay accomplished one very good thing: it convinced FT2 to spill the WP:BEANS on the full extent of the evidence he had available. I have thanked him for doing that, and for unbanning Poetlister. That is all I can reasonably expect. Now, as I said, let's move forward. I hope my comments don't seem too harsh: I just want to make sure you aren't feeling bitter about not getting all the answers you may have wanted. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| 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) 06:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Techy expert. Knowing you to be that, could you advise me if the above is in the righ/correct "space"? I seem to be talking to just the same 3 or so editors. Do I have an option regarding that? Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Great. Thanks for the info. A different issue. Where are the WP procedures for (1) Listify (create a list?), and the rules for creating a {{Template}}.? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Gotta. Now what (if any) are the rules for creating Lists of things? Let's try this: WP:List. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC) I guess I don't need that answered! Give me a moment please. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if that WPList applies to: List of historians, for example? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- No you answered that very well. But now I do have a problem I would like your advice on. Give me a moment please. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
As I was talking to you I notice an editor whose been giving me a lot of trouble. Now I wrote something completely out of his field. He seems to follow my work, and then deliberately "fixes" it, delete it, changes it drastically, reverts it, etc. Two questions: (1) is that a violation of WP policy? And (2) if it is how do I commence the procedure to stop it? It's useless to contact him - he refuses to stop. Please advise me. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. It fits his behavior just right. Now what are my option? What do I do to get him to stop? He will not listen. So I need administrative help. How do I do that? Get help to get him to stop disrupting me. Look, here I am trying to learn things from you while he has deleted/reverted several of my Merge notices. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks
You know far better than to engage in personal attacks. It's one thing to express an opinion that the content of a page is inaccurate. It's quite another to call the comments "lies". Calling something a lie implies that the author is a liar. That is a personal attack, and it totally unacceptable behaviour. The fact that the statements appear to be accurate and were almost certainly written in good faith makes your comments all the worse. I realise that you are very involved emotionally here, but you must try to remain civil in heated discussions and strike your personal attacks. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- ONLY ONE of the twelve links under "Moulton recruiting meat puppets at WikipediaReview" even REMOTELY supports the assertion, and that one is tenuous at best. It is not a personal attack to say so. --Random832 (contribs) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- So what are you saying - that the section header isn't accurate? The links are accurately labelled. But anyway, the point is that by calling edits "lies" you are calling people liars. And calling someone a liar is a personal attack. You can all something inaccurate or a misrepresentation without commenting on the person behind the comment. But calling something a lie is unacceptable. So please strike your personal attack. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The links are not accurately labelled. They are labelled as "Moulton recruiting meat puppets" but they do not actually go to evidence of him recruiting meat puppets, and it is manifestly unclear what misdeed the posts linked are supposed to be evidence of --Random832 (contribs) 17:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- You have read our policy on personal attacks, right? You understand the difference between commenting on a person's actions and the motivation behind their actions? You have heard the phrase "play the ball, not the man"? Calling someone a liar is an attack on their motivation. This is a personal attack. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- All the more egregious, of course, when your assessment of the situation is inaccurate. Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The links are not accurately labelled. They are labelled as "Moulton recruiting meat puppets" but they do not actually go to evidence of him recruiting meat puppets, and it is manifestly unclear what misdeed the posts linked are supposed to be evidence of --Random832 (contribs) 17:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- So what are you saying - that the section header isn't accurate? The links are accurately labelled. But anyway, the point is that by calling edits "lies" you are calling people liars. And calling someone a liar is a personal attack. You can all something inaccurate or a misrepresentation without commenting on the person behind the comment. But calling something a lie is unacceptable. So please strike your personal attack. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| 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) 09:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I answered your question on Talk:Coinsurance
CfD nomination of Category:Albert Edelfelt
Category:Albert Edelfelt, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Tallest Buildings in Indianapolis
Hi there. I finally found a picture that has all 8 buildings visible. I'm going to replace the old image with the one I found (it is properly labeled). If you don't like it, please feel free to revert to the old image. Thanks, HoosierStateTalk 05:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I didn't find it, I just managed to take a quick photo while I was downtown one day. HoosierStateTalk 04:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
re: Securities fraud
I've replied to your comment on the talk page. I understand and agree with your concern. If you know anyone who has sufficient knowledge to delve into this article further and really take care of any issues, please ask them to do so; I'm out of my depth when it comes to these financial articles. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: heads up
I have clarified my view. Sorry for the confusion. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| 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) 07:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Question on RFAR workshop
Not a biggie, but I have a quick question that I'd like clarification. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Reply. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
ANI discussing MediaWiki:Sysop.js
Would you mind commenting here? Nothing wrong, but your input would be valued. Cheers, Alex Muller 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've replied there. There was some confusion about what I was questioning so I've made it clearer. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| 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) 07:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)