Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cwobeel (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 12 September 2014 (→No personal attacks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! ProfJustice (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. (above added by Wikidemo, 10:34, 8 June 2008

Do not edit others' talk page comments

Please do not edit others' talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Barack Obama. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. Shem 17:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Without diffs, I have no idea what you're fulminating about. If you are talking about headers, you don't own them, and you don't get to use them argumentatively, per policy. Andyvphil (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, diff:. Changing a section head can shift the meaning of a user comment. In this case, the edited head restricts the comments to "Option 1 Supporters," and that was not there when Shem made his comment. Changing section heads can be done when it's helpful, but not if it is partisan. That new section head was quite possibly offensive. (I have not followed the arguments enough to be sure that it was, but that Shem protested is prima facie evidence that it was. It was his comments whose context was altered by the shifted head, and he was the one who had added the heading and the comment under it. Thus it was a changing of user comments, and, while a mild example of it, does seem to be inappropriate. However, the editing of the section header in your own Talk page is clearly offensive. I'd say, Andyvphil, that you may be trolling to get blocked. And then you will be able to scream that it was unfair, you were only editing your own Talk page. But altering user comments on your talk page, and that is what happens when you edit a section header, if done offensively, as you did here, is clearly not acceptable. Don't say you were not warned.--Abd (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reread what I told Shem above and follow the blue link I supplied: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." "This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus" is an unsuitable header and if fixing the header shifts Shem's meaning or is "offensive" (which I deny) he needs to change his posting behavior, not whine to me about my refusal to let him "own" the page. Andyvphil (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to be as civil as possible in my reminder, but you're making your own bed, Andy. You've been reported at AN/I. Shem 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil -- while it is true that "a heading should indicate what the topic is," I believe that if someone leaves a comment on your talk page, and that is the only comment under that section, editing the heading (as you did here is entirely inappropriate. The "wider latitude on own talk page" that you refer to does not apply to refactoring other's comments, and in my opinion, changing the section header of a warning constitutes refactoring (unlike changing the section heading of an ongoing discussion, which can be useful at times).

The ANI report will sort out whether your other modifications to talk page headings were appropriate. But I would give you this advice: If you don't like a warning on your talk page, remove it (that is acceptable under WP:DRC). Don't refactor it in an antagonistic fashion. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month

I've noted this block at WP:AN/I for review and feedback. MastCell  17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Request unblock for sole purpose of responding to allegations at AN/I and SSP. I will make no edits outside those venues until the ban is lifted or lifts. Andyvphil (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That is not a reason to unblock you, as it does not address how your block is supposed to violate blocking policy. You are not blocked becaused of allegations, but because of specific misconduct. You may make any pertinent comments here, by means of a brief and well-reasoned unblock request. —  Sandstein  21:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Andyvphil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not now alleging that the block violated policy, though I reserve the option to make that argument in the future. I am requesting parole for the specific purpose of responding to allegations being made against me. WP:BP:"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users." Also, however, "administrators should not undo other administrators' blocks without prior discussion", so I have no objection to your passing on this unblock request to MastCell without acting on it yourself.

Decline reason:

Per discussion and instructions below. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment on the unblock request

Ordinarily, I'd think the request for unblock to allow the user to defend himself from allegations would be reasonable. However, the offenses for which the user was blocked included personal attack in the very areas (and certainly in the SSP report) where the user now wishes to "answer" allegations. If the user could, here, cite allegations requiring response, then an administrator could review those specifically, and then balance the benefit of allowing the user to respond against the hazard of further disruption from continued personal attack and tendentious debate. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with Abd's observations. — Athaenara ✉ 06:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a template somewhere which allows a user to use a section of his user talk page, which is transcluded in the necessary place on the target page. This would probabally be a better route to take than unblocking. If this user then breaks policy, then all that needs to be done is the template removed from the target page, and the user then cannot comment on it again. I think this would be a reasonable option, but I can't remember what the template is called. :-) Stwalkerster 09:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No need any template to just show a thread from this talk page, just use this: {{User talk:Andyvphil#Comment on the unblock request}} (or what ever section one chooses) at the target site. Now a template to provide the link back to edit would be nice as current thread link would need to be: (but that checking of sectgion number is messy) 13:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a simpler solution. Anyone could place a note in the two places that prominently states that the user wishes to comment on or respond to allegations made in those places, pointing to this section of the user's Talk, or to a section that Andyvphil creates. (Unless Andyvphil abuses his Talk to continue to make personal attacks, I'm opposed to preventing him from editing his own Talk. Note that he did previously abuse his right to edit his own Talk page, turning section headers placed by other users into attacks on them. However, there is little harm from risking a repeat of this, and the damage would be confined, and only be visible to those who choose to read his Talk. And, of course, I'd think that if he repeats his prior behavior here, he'd be promptly blocked from editing here as well as elsewhere.) If he asks, I'm willing to place the notices for him, and, indeed, if he wishes, to either use a brief and not aggressive notice that he suggests, or, if I can't do that, to submit my version for his approval before placing it. If desired, that notice could be later turned into a permanent link to a version of this page, when discussion here is completed.--Abd (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair right of reply is generally understood to involve equal prominence for accusations and reply, but given my low opinion of the admins involved it's unsurprising that I should only be offered the right of nearly invisible reply. I will supply the necessary headers. Andyvphil (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Andyvphil, you already had a right of reply. Your replies abused the privilege, in my opinion. I said that I was willing to place notices if they were brief and not aggressive, if I was asked. I don't see that I have been asked; my offer remains open, but I assume that there are other users who could do it, if they are willing to take the risk. However, without being asked, I will comment on the headers provided, here, before them, rather than within the sections, and give a piece of advice to anyone considering placing them on behalf of Andyvphil.

About the "bogus accusations of sock puppetry." I don't see accusations of sock puppetry in that SSP report; rather, there were reported "suspicions" of sock puppetry. Given the circumstances, the suspicions were justified. Suspicion is not accusation, though sometimes the distinction gets lost. I was once "suspected" of sock puppetry, with an SSP report. The suspicion was reasonable -- if one neglected a huge amount of evidence to the contrary, and I don't expect administrators to be paying attention to everything. They make mistakes. I've also been "accused" of sock puppetry. By a blocked editor who has stated that he has other accounts so he wasn't worried about his block, and when he still wants to harass, he uses a particular IP range. The accusations were very different from the suspicions. Suspecting sock puppetry isn't a personal attack. Accusing someone of sock puppetry, absent proof, can be.

However, that is a fine distinction. Absent objection, if Andyvphil asks me to do so, I would place a link to that section here, with the SSP report, assuming it hasn't been closed by then. If it *has* been closed, it should be noticed that no conclusion was reached on whether or not Andyvphil was using a sock puppet. If Andyvphil wishes, I'd make an RFCU request. Otherwise, I don't think I'll do it. Someone else may make that request, it's possible. And that request would not be an "accusation" of sock puppetry, it would be an attempt to rule out sock puppetry, because suspicion remains reasonable, not clearly proven neither way. (It is almost impossible to prove no sock puppetry, to be sure, for there are sophisticated puppet masters who know how to evade detection, but it's a pain to maintain the necessary separation, and most puppet masters, I think, don't do it, or, sometimes, they make mistakes, they forget which account they are using....)

As to the link designed for the AN/I report, I consider it tendentious, itself. AN/I reports almost always describe alleged misbehavior, in the header. When you are calling the police, you don't make some "neutral" statement, you say, "Someone is trying to break into my house!" AN/I is an emergency noticeboard. I went back and forth on this, and concluded that I won't place a prominent link to that there. It's wikilawyering, attempting, after it is moot, to argue a point about an alleged violation of a section header guideline. When, quite obviously, that guideline is routinely not applied in AN/I. I would place, "Andyvphil wishes to respond to accusations made here against him , and a section on his talk page has been created: Response to and discussion of AN/I accusations." If he asks in time. There has already been mention of Talk page discussion there in the AN/I report, but I don't see any response here to any accusations, just a criticism of the Talk page header. The sock puppetry suspicion was irrelevant to the AN/I report.

Frankly, Andyvphil, I think you are wasting your time beating a dead horse. You've been blocked for a month. I don't see any sentiment at all for reducing that, and some for converting it to indef or to a ban. Is that what you want?

Now, advice to others thinking of placing the links. If it is done in a neutral manner, I think the risk of being sanctioned for it is low, unless one argues tendentiously over it. But there might be some wikitrout-slapping. We don't argue for the sake of argument, at least we shouldn't. We debate when there is a decision to be made. Community consensus is already clear: Andyvphil was grossly uncivil, in addition to editing tendentiously. The tendentious editing, itself, might or might not have resulted in a block, if it didn't go beyond obvious limits. But the incivility, against editors, groups of editors, and any administrator who dared to restrain Andyvphil, was quite enough. An administrator is not allowed to block someone who is uncivil to him or her. Rather, an administrator may block someone for violating policy not involving the administrator personally, and particularly if continued after warning. Andyvphil was warned many, many times for incivility. I did not see, however, any insulted administrator seeking to influence other administrators to block Andyvphil, they were quite restrained. (They are not required to be so restrained, an admin can, indeed, complain to AN/I about incivility from a user, just as any other editor may.) There is no issue here with sufficient support to justify continued debate. If Andyvphil thinks otherwise, he's still able to use this talk page. But if all he wants to do is to complain about the form of an AN/I section header, he may well lose even that privilege.

Further, if Andyvphil continues to think that he was wronged in some way, he remains free to pursue dispute resolution. I'm not familiar with the exact process, but if there is a charge of administrative abuse, a request for arbitration could be made, and ArbComm would decide whether or not to hear the case. But I have not seen any charges here, with any substance to them, of administrative abuse. Note the unblock request: "I am not now alleging that the block violated policy." Unless you change your mind, Andyvphil, the rest of all this is largely moot. Why should the community allow any more space to be filled with debate over ... what? People are blocked precisely to stop endless debate that has gone beyond bounds. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a brief interjection, I personally find a month long block excessive. I do see that Andyvphil's participation often turns up the heat, and that he is not the image of a collaborative and easygoing editor. On the other hand, his reasoning is often sound (even if I disagree) and he is not intractably stubborn on content issues as many other editors can be. I would be very strongly opposed to an indefinite block/ban. Avruch * 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, the issue is not his "reasoning." He isn't blocked for his political positions. He is blocked for disruption, and, specifically, for the kind of disruption that breaks down the core of how Misplaced Pages operates, he was blocked for incivility. The incivility was severe enough to warrant exactly the block that was given, he'd already been warned many times. He is, here, arguing against technicalities. Did he violate 3RR? But the substance is clear. Whether he violated 3RR or not, he was edit warring, which is a blockable offense. Edit warring can be a grey area. I sometimes use reverts and sometimes push the 3RR limit. If an administrator blocked me, unless I could show clear bias, and that was relevant, I'd not attack the administrator. Instead, I would either say, "Oops! My bad!" and move on, or I would argue that my edit warring was justificed under WP:IAR or other policy. And if no admin would unblock me, I'd say, "That's the consensus, get over it" and move on. Consensus is what this community runs on, and defiance of consensus (not merely in disagreeing with it, which is necessary, we don't have real consensus if disagreement is sanctioned) is the soul of disruption. Now, back to Andyvphil's prior response: --Abd (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What I'm blocked for is supposedly "ongoing disruptive editing, including incivility, personal attacks, altering other editors' posts, tendentiousness, and a fundamentally argumentative and uncollaborative approach to editing." What I'm actually being blocked for, in my view, is an unsparing response to a pattern of administrative abuse. You say you "sometimes use reverts and sometimes push the 3RR limit". Which is to say you edit war. Of course you do. It is impossible to get anything accomplished in controversial areas of Misplaced Pages without edit warring, as Norotron just demonstrated by counterexample at Barack Obama, where he assembled a majority of editors behind at least an anodyne mention of Bill Ayers in the text and watched helplessly as both mentions of Ayers were removed from the page because the resident clique of Obama hagiographers were willing to put reverts behind their arguments and he was not. He finally made good on his repeated promise to withdraw in a a huff, having accomplished less than nothing... and having learned nothing, since he blamed the result equally on the editors unwilling to join him in accepting less-than-adequate wording without noticing that that too could not be put on the page without winning an edit war with the hagiographers.

I support blocks for actual 3RR violations. That way a preponderance of editors can have their way on the page most of the time, which is what "rough consensus" really means. And, in principle, blocks for "edit warring" when no 3RR violation has taken place could, when "behavior is clearly disruptive"(WP:3RR), be justified. But in practice that loophole is in my experience licence for arbitrary and disruptive intervention by editors with an admin bit who cannot be trusted to make good decisions or even look closely into the facts of the cases the intervene in. And a consensus of admins in refusing to unblock you, in the example you gave, would IMHO merely be merely a consensus in favor of treating admin sanctions on peons as infallable if at all possible, not an actual consensus based on knowledge that you had in fact done anything deserving the block. Andyvphil (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you would stop acting like a complete WP:DICK, you'd have better results... 24.12.114.215 (talk)various times in revert war, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this really your first edit, or are you a WP:SOCKPUPPET? Andyvphil (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That you claim you "weren't asked" and yet accuse me of "wikilawyering" is absurd.

As is the assertion that I can pursue dispute resolution while blocked, though you admit you don't know how that might be done and you are preventing me from stating my case in any venue where it might be seen, or creating such a venue.

In what way is "Further responses by Andyvphil to AN/I section named, contrary to guideline, 'Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Andyvphil'" unduly tendentious? Whether or not the guideline is routinely ignored at AN/I, there is no exemption in the guideline for AN/I and as far as I can see you do not argue that the header does not violate the guideline absent such an exemption. My header would violate the guideline, of course, if anyone argues that the AN/I header does not violate the guideline, but if you don't object to guideline violation at AN/I and Talk:Barack_Obama it's in any case a bit late to object to it here. That individuals are blocked to stop debate is an interesting admission. That you would break your freely offered word in order to stop debate more interesting still. Andyvphil (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

...But I will nonetheless give you the opportunity to break your word again. You said you will RFCU if I request it. I hereby request it. Again. Andyvphil (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Andy, sit back and ask yourself if the wording of section headers on talkpages (not articles, even!) is really worth all of this. I'll foreshadow the expected conclusion - no, it isn't. What do you truly gain by refactoring the headers of others, or arguing about it on article talkpages, at AN/I and your own talkpage? Its not like we can't see and identify for ourselves when a section header is biased or leading. We can, and it isn't necessary to war over it. Avruch * 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What it was worth to change the header to reflect the guideline is not the issue. Shem reported me at AN/I for "tendentious editing" for changing a header at Talk:Barack_Obama in a way that I am contending was completely unobjectionable. The first step in unpacking the kitchen sink of un-diffed justifications Mastcell offers for blocking me is to establish that the original accusation was unjustified abuse of process. Since I fully expect that Mastcell will again ignore his obligation to provide transparency for his decisions as an admin (he has never justified his assertion that I had performed "5+" reverts in his first block of me), and will not be held accountable for that, there is little that I can expect to happen. But I plan to clarify the record insofar as possible and make unremittingly clear my contempt for the pattern of abuse that has taken place and appears to be SOP. Andyvphil (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this for wikilawyering: my offer to request checkuser is not binding, void for lack of consideration. Serious lack of consideration. It's a pain to do it, it's late, and I'm tired. I've been working on an actual article, you know, one of those things. I may file checkuser, I may not. So, we are even. I didn't break my promise about taking the comments to AN/I, I merely wanted the request to be clear. But you've already accused me of breaking my promise, so, hey, why not accommodate you? Maybe I will. But there are others who are more accustomed to filing RFCU. I did it once long ago. So if someone else does it before I get around to it, I certainly won't be offended. Got any friends? Anyone could do it, you know. I'm not an administrator, I have no special privileges. Just enough children and grandchildren, twelve and counting, not to be bullied by accusations of not keeping promises. --Abd (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To explain this a little further, I tell my neighbor that I will do something for him if he asks, something that anyone could do, and my telling him is an open suggestion. I also say that I reserve the right to not approve of what the neighbor provides me so that I can fulfill my promise. He doesn't ask, he simply provides the raw material for the task, which anyone could use. When I point out that I won't do it unless he asks, he accuses me of insincerity, of nitpicking details ("wikilawyering"). Now, I also said I'd do something else, something that is actually more work. He now, essentially, demands that I do it, daring me not to, since if I don't do it, I will be, presumably, breaking my promise.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Two inmates are in the same jail. One is confined to his cell, the other can roam the halls freely. The relatively free one says to the confined one, "I'll get you some water if you ask." The confined inmate insults the free one, then demands the water. I can tell you, as that free inmate ("Are the birds free from the chains of the skyway"), I'm in no hurry to provide the water. ("If you ask" includes an implied, "If you ask politely.") Anyone can do it. Anyone can file checkuser. Avruch, you could do it. I've only done it once. The suspected puppet master here would be Andyvphil, with the suspected puppets being the other named accounts and any IP edits that Andyvphil didn't acknowledge as his. Checkuser should probably be filed, anyway, just to make sure. (My opinion is, at this point, that there is probably no direct connection, that what was going on would be meat puppetry *at worst*. But I did not examine the details of the SSP report. The two newer accounts were not found to be connected, but Andyvphil wasn't in the picture when the orignal RfCU was filed. He'd like to be cleared, I'd like to see that aspect of this case cleared up. So I do support filing RfCU, and if it is done, and I'm informed, I'd comment in it.) --Abd (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The hand isn't feeding me and you're not a fellow inmate, except to the extent that Misplaced Pages is an asylum. And maybe I've escaped from that. I made a reasonable request that I be allowed to answer the accusations against me (including those made by you) in the places where they were being made, and you offered the bogus alternative of invisible or nearly invisible response. It serves my argument not to refuse the offer but rather to confirm by test how bogus it is, but I won't thank you for that opportunity to waste my time. Andyvphil (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Further responses by Andyvphil to bogus accusation of sockpuppetry

Further responses by Andyvphil to AN/I section named, contrary to guideline, "Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil"

I just noticed that the content of the tendentiously-titled AN/I section, "Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil", has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil. That no one has commented on the fact that Ncmvocalist apparently systematically sees pro-hagiographic edit warring as less objectionable than the opposition to it is interesting. When an admin doesn't edit an article it doesn't mean he is unbiased -- merely that you have to look to other evidence (e.g., which edits he finds objectionable) to see what his biases are. Scjessey saying he hasn't violated 3RR isn't even funny, though the fact that he's done it so often without corresponding reflection on his block log seems to be a result of that kind of bias. The evidence points to Misplaced Pages admins being a fairly pro-Obama demographic, with predictable results in their kangaroo courts. That said, I don't care whether Obama has 1RR or 3RR provided it is enforced as a rule and admins refrain from checking their biased guts for whether a violation of a penumbra of the rule has taken place. Of course, perhaps the worst atrocity that was committed in this sequence of events didn't involve reverts at all. Jossi's block of FoveanAuthor as a sockpuppet merely because he was on the same side as Kossack, and without any due diligence, takes that cake. Andyvphil (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I also want to direct a question at Noroton regarding his statement that, "In any event, since information on Ayers has been discussed and no consensus has been reached, it can't be restored to the page unless a consensus forms to do so. Edits that add Ayers material should be reverted at this point." Is it really his position that well cited non-tendentious material whose presence was supported by a majority at talk page discussion can be vetoed in this fashion? Andyvphil (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that you want your first comment posted on the AN/I subpage? I'm not sure that it will improve leniency towards you and your cause and may, in fact, negatively impact you and your cause. Would it be possible for you to rewrite your first comment to not include the personal attacks? --Bobblehead 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC) PS: The noincludes are so my comment won't be included if this section is transcluded.

I turned off the noincludes -- hope you don't mind. Feel free to restore them if you do. Put it around this comment and I'll refactor to restore the parts I want. Anyway, my "cause" isn't leniency. My cause is to be as clear as possible in my accusations of arrogant, biased and abusive admin behavior. It's clear that that's really what I was blocked for, not changing headers on my talk page, still less the ones at talk:B_O and AN/I. What Jossi did was both inexcusable and reflective of a larger problem, and I have no intention of pretending that the pissed upon and the pissers are happy comrades in arms in a joint endeavor. Andyvphil (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Andy, please calm down. There is a way to edit the article constructively. Please cooperate with me. You really need to control your anger or you will become completely ineffective. You will be indefinitely blocked if you keep this up. Control your anger and in a calm and rational manner, state your case in neutral terms against the admins. It will be addressed. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Andy, anything you want to say on the subpage of the noticeboard should be inside the onlyinclude tags. Anything you want to say here that you don't want on the board subpage should be said outside those tags, or inside separate noinclude tags. Avruch * 00:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And also for your kind words on my actual editing of maintext, etc. Andyvphil (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 06:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #6

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 6
	Date: Saturday, June 28th, 2008
	Time: ~1:00PM
	Place: Glen Park Branch Library
prev: Meetup 5 - next: Meetup 7

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 07:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 03:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 09:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bill Ayers election controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bill Ayers election controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Ayers election controversy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #7

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 7
	Date: September 6th, 2008
	Time: 3 PM
	Place: Freebase HQ, San Francisco
prev: Meetup 6 - next: Meetup 8

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai 06:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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) 05:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

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) 05:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to paerticipate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #8

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 8
	Date: November 8th, 2008
	Time: 2PM
	Place: Metacafe, Palo Alto, California
prev: Meetup 7 - next: Meetup 9

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai 18:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Birth Hospital

There are some reports that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital and some that he was born in Queen's Hospital. How do you reconcile these contradictory reports?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

Weekly Delivery

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) 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

Weekly Delivery

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)

Misplaced Pages Signpost, January 10, 2009

Weekly Delivery

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) 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost, January 17, 2009

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost, January 24, 2009

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by 03:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 7Weekly Delivery2009-02-16

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »   — 16 March 2009

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 11
	Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2010
	Time: 15:00 (3PM)
	Place: WMFoundation offices
prev: Meetup 10 - next: Meetup 12

This is posted to the groups by request. Please sign up on the Invite list for future announcements. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)