Previous · Next

Hi Rich. 88.108.227.2 has twice removed relevant material from the article on Jane Gazzo --- which I continue to put back. Any ideas what can be done ? Bests --- Bob Wikiklrsc 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rich, for your excellent suggestions and reply. Will do as you recommended. Bests Ever. --- Bob Wikiklrsc 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, the anonymous contributor User:88.108.227.2 has done it again for a third time. I have done as you suggested, left a message on the anon's discussion page User_talk:88.108.227.2, and on Jane Gazzo's article discussion Talk:Jane_Gazzo, but I fear it will happen incessantly. Unfortunately, I have limited access to the internet in the next while, so it will be terribly difficult for me to guard against it or discuss or revert it. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. Thanks for your kind reply. Okay, I will follow your advice. But some administrative action might need to be taken sometime soon, as you and the community deem necessary and appropriate. Bests ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Rich. Many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. Hmm. Point taken. It is a fan page of Jane's and keeps track of what she is doing in the music and entertainment business, albeit esconced in Tony's blog. "Occasionally acceptable links ... fan sites" in WP:EL might qualify ? Please let me know what you recommend and I will remove the link if it is objectionable by WP guidelines. Or you can remove it yourself if you think it is in violation as I am about to lose my access for the day or next few days possibly. I mean it is a fan page, but informative as to her doings around and it is the only way we currently have to know what Jane Gazzo might be up to. The anon contributor made no such cogent explanation as you did. Many Thanks as ever for you help and kindness. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. Anon editor User:88.108.227.2 continues to remove it without explanation. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help as ever, Rich. We'll see how it emerges. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. Anonymous contributor 88.108.227.2 has seemingly morphed into 88.108.130.43 and is adding seemingly spurious information to Jane Gazzo's article. At least, I can't verify that Jane Gazzo has an in-flight radio show on Emirates Airlines (88.108.130.43 mis-spelled this as "Emiritz"), quoting the contributor: " ... as well as the 'Download' in-flight radio show on Emiritz Airlines." I think this is spurious, but I have heard nothing about it, even though it is conceptually possible. I googled and tried to find any mention of it and failed to do so. Also, the airline is Emirates Airline, not as presented by the anonymous editor. I will edit it out and leave it for discussion again. I hope that's the right approach. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. Thanks for your kind help in fixing this matter and verifying that Jane Gazzo is doing the in-flight show on Emirates Airline. Bests as always. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich,
I reverted your edits to Template:Infobox country. It seems to have messed up the census fields. I did not see what the error could have been. I'd try again in a sandbox. Also, please see Template_talk:Infobox_Country#Census for more details. Regards,—MJCdetroit 21:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

For your reversion of my mistake on that template. Rich Farmbrough 22:07 23 June 2006 (GMT).

Hi, just a question about SmackBot's edits to List of people by name: Taa-Taj [1]:

You're editing away links inside comments - those are quites taken from other pages via a script, and left here just for reference, not intended to be uncommented ever. Don't know if it's worth it spending even bot cycles on removing them. Your thought? --Alvestrand 21:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your right that it's not worth editing these pieces of text, and in fact they should be avoided, like quotes, template names, image names URLs etc.. The difficulty in doing this is one of the reasons that there are not more bot edits. However I am working on code to avoid these edits, and I believe others may be too, so this should be a thing of the past in due course. Rich Farmbrough 21:16 25 June 2006 (GMT).

Hi. Per Robchurch's approval [2], I have granted your bot a bot flag. Regards, Redux 13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Quicker deletion of non-compliant images proposed	News and Notes: 100 x 1,000, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP changing Trivia to Miscallania. There was a format that you had to follow. Please stop changing it. Lil Flip246 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. I like "Miscellania" better. "Trivia" is something trivial. `'mikka (t) 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Flip246:

1. Please don't SHOUT.
2. Those edits were a fortnight ago, you're acting as if I'm changing them as you change them back.
3. What "format" do I "have to follow"?
4. See Mikka's comment on my talk page. Also see WP:Trivia.

Rich Farmbrough 18:23 27 June 2006 (GMT).

Sorry about that. I was just shocked how everything changed. Lil Flip246 22:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you editing a lot of the dates in these articles. I'm not sure if you're interested in such a cleanup task, but nearly all of the dates on these lists are exactly one month off from the dates in the national register listing database at NPS. The dates there are in numeric form and I suspect that whomever imported the data applied an incorrect algorithm to convert the dates into text. This is why there were dates such as February 31 -- which should have been January 31. Anyhow, ensuring that the actual dates are correct would involve either reimporting the data or massively tedious manual verification and correction. I think it might be best if the incorrect date information were simply removed from these articles. A very very few have been manually corrected, but in my estimation, the loss of such a detail would be negligible. I think removing the month, day portion and leaving only the year would be more than adequate and certainly bettern than incorrect information. Anyhow, I know that you're proficient either using AWB or with a bot to handle such mass edits, so I just wanted to suggest this as a possible project. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 13:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rich, I noticed that you edited out the date links but didn't comment on whether the article should be removed. If you have time, I would appreciate any suggestions in order to keep the article. Thanks for your time. Thinkjose 00:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thinkjose 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemoose is using AWB to change back the [[{{PAGENAME}}]] feature you added to the date articles. When I asked him about it he claimed that this "notice" (his words) was no longer necessary, and he reverted my corrections. Whether Bluemoose is correct or not, I do not know, so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. I'd appreciate it if you would let each of us know how the 367 date articles should be formatted. See April 30 for an example. Cheers, Rklawton 15:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article (or most of it) is a copyvio of the Jewish Virtual Library biography. We need to use the information, but rewrite it. It's almost obvious that it was derived from that web site. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sorry, but I was confused over this, because it's very difficult to discern if there is a copyvio in play or if ours is the original, sometimes. So should I just reinstate the intro text? I'm not real sure. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Sannita, an it.wiki user.

I've seen you're admin on Sep11.wiki. Just a question: is it possible to find a "downloadble" version of the Memorial?

Just asking you 'cause I'm concerning on creating new articles on 9/11 and I've seen that the Wiki-Memorial is about to close.

I've already copied some infos, but I fear not to manage to finish my task "in time", you know.

So, may you help me? Please contact me on my talk page.

See ya. -- Sannita 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful here. Sometimes you must disambiguate, not delink, as in the case of march. (seePasodoble). `'mikka (t) 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Yes, I saw that a very few uses were of a different sort of march (and indeed there is a film called May, among other things). But they don't have to be linked, and being unlinked is better than being linked to the wrong place. Still I am pleased to have achieved edits like this one. Rich Farmbrough 18:16 27 June 2006 (GMT).

Just wondering, but why are you delinking dates to begin with? I personaly don't see how Wikipedia gains anything from having less links to other articles, so is there some style guide or convention I'm not aware of? --Aknorals 09:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's only worth linking date like entities in a very few contexts.

1. Where the date is itself important - so that there is value in following the link - decreasingly often as WP grows.
2. When the text is about the entity e.g. a link to 2000 or 2001 in The Millennium.
3. When a date includes a day and month, and formatting preferences will be invoked by linking it, e.g. 10 April 1962.
4. There is also the process of linking to "[Year] [month] in <subject>" via a piped link, e.g. 1999 in television as 1999 - this eventually can suffer the same problem as the first point, and is seen by some as an undesireable Easter egg - i.e. taking te user to a difernt plce than expected..

See WP:DATE for details, and the talk page for 48 archived pages of wrangling over the exact meaning of "links valuable in context" and "the correct use of the non-breaking space" or "the endash". Rich Farmbrough 13:19 1 July 2006 (GMT).

Hey, I see that you have an automated archival service. Is there a way that I can have it too? bobblewik 12:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. I ran into this on the IBM Research site. An analysis of some of Wikipedia, what they call a "history flow", to some extent, visually. FYI. [3] Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. Thanks for your kind reply as ever. I thought it was indeed fascinating, too. BTW, I tried to put a link and some text to it in the article on History_Flow but it dis-allowed it because the domain alphaworks\.ibm\.com is on the spam blacklist ??? What to do ? One can't update the article !

Spam protection filter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The page you tried to save was blocked by the spam filter because it contained a link to a blacklisted website. If you didn't add the link (see below), it was probably already in the current version of the page. Alternately, it might have been added by spyware on your computer.

You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.

If you believe that the link should not be listed on the spam blacklist, or that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, please leave a request on the spam blacklist talk page. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http:(slash slash)www.alphaworks.ibm.com

Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rich for changing the IBM History Flow tool article so it can be saved and updated. I am not sure, besides the obvious, why the IBM Alphaworks URL is in the Wikipedia Spam Blacklist. (?) [4]. Is there no way of finessing it besides chopping up the URL ... Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. Thanks for the information. I guess we'll leave it as it is until further action. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 12:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rich, for the information about the software pointed at in the external links. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 12:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting rid of these unnecessary date links. Your work is appreciated. Regards, Jogers (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Angela Beesley resigns as Wikimedia Foundation trustee	Requiring confirmed email suggested for uploads
Wikipedia cited by the England and Wales High Court	Unblock requests directed to new mailing list
News and Notes: Wiktionary milestone, privacy policy update	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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. 10:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you use a regular expression to place songs in quotation marks like this and this or do you just fix it by hand? Jogers (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I guess it will take me some time before I figure out how it works. Take a look at the regexes I use to clean up album articles (User:Jogers/AWB). You may find something useful there. Jogers (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't work properly here. I hope that helps. Jogers (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another mistake. And my XML file: settings.xml. I'm afraid that most of these settings shouldn't be used in an automated bot, though. They are far from perfect yet and I still fix many things by hand. Jogers (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another problem [5]. "(Die Elektrik)" is a part of the title in this case. I have no idea how such thing could automatically be distinguished from information about composers. Jogers (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! This is very convenient, I used to line them up by hand. By the way, when I make an edit like this I usually remove any remaining characters from the "Reviews" field so the professional reviews section of the infobox doesn't show up. Do you have any idea how to automatize this? Jogers (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try this out. Thank you for everything. If you improved any of these settings I would be very glad to know. My improvements and additions are usually reflected here. Regards, Jogers (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't have any problems with "this album" stuff. Some very unusual string of characters must have appeared in the text you tried to edit. The WikiProject Albums discourage from using piped links to "years in music" (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Style (Dating)) so this is why I remove them. Please be more careful with your edits. Here I don't know what happened, it must have something to do with your settings. Here the term "Album EP" doesn't make much sense. Here the list of reviews got screwed. Jogers (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the year links on the University of Richmond page. But you also deleted underscores in links to the movie "Cry_Wolf." The proper title of the film does include the underscores. I've restored them, but wanted to let you know for future reference. WildCowboy 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds are you killing all of these on sight? Rebecca 23:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you said you'd clean up articles and preotect pages. You can do the one now, and the other is (should be) extremely rare. Rich Farmbrough 14:58 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Saw on my talk page you'd like some help protecting a page and cleaning it up just tell me what it is and I'll check it out Thanks, Mahogany

What I meant was, you don't need to be an admin to clean up pages, although it helps if you have lots of vandalism to roll back. I was referring to your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xchrisblackx 2.Rich Farmbrough 16:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

about 12:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

forwenednes f. insolence, ANS 79-89.

forweoren == forworen

forweornan == forwiernan

forweornian to dry up, wither, fade, grow old,

 rot, decay, Æ.

forweorpan³ to throw, cast out, cast down,

 drive off, reject, throw away, squander, B.

 ['forwerpe']

forweorpnes f. migration, MtLl-7.

forweorðan³ (y) To perish, pass away, vanish,

 Mt; AO,CP,Æ.  f. on mōde be grieved.

 ['forworth']

forweorðenes == forwordenes

forweorðfullic excellent, Bo65¹⁵.

forweosnian == forwisnian

forwercan == forwyrcan; forwerd == foreweard

forwered == forwerod

forwerednes f. old age, SPs70¹⁸.

*forweren (WW217¹⁵) == forworen

forwerennes (RPs70¹⁸) == forwerednes

forwernedlice continently, W284⁸. [forwiernan]

forwerod worn out, very old, Æ. [werian]

forwesing f. destroying.

forwest == forewost

forwiernan (e, eo, i, y) to hinder, prohibit, prevent, repel, refuse, repudiate, deny, withhold, oppose, AO,B(y); CP.

for-wird, -wirn- == for-wyrd, -wiern-

forwisnian (eo) to wither away, dry up, decay, rot.

forwitan == forewitan

forwltolnes f. intelligence, diligence. [== fore-]

forwlencan to fill with pride, puff up, CP. ['forwlench']

forword I. n. iota, MtL¹⁸. II. == foreweard

forwordenes f. destruction, failure.

forwordenlic perishable, W263¹³.

forworen (pp. of *forweosan) decrepit, decayed

 OEG2109.

forworhta == forwyrhta

forwracned banished, RB82².

forwrecan⁵ to drive forth, carry away : expel,

 banish. 

forwrēgan to accuse, calumniate, Chr.

 ['forwray']

forwrēon¹ to cover over, LkR23⁴⁵.

forwrītan¹ to cut in two, B2705.

forwrīðan¹ to bind up, LCD 122a.

forwundian to wound, Chr, ['forwound']

forwundorlic very wonderful, GD, adv.

-līce.

forwurðan == forweorðan

forwyrcan (e) to do wrong, sin, Æ,CP. forworht

 mann criminal, CP : ruin, undo,
 destroy, Cr; Æ.AO.CP : condemn, convict,
 curse : forfeit : barricade, obstruct, close up.

forwyrd fn. destruction, ruin, fall, death,

 Æ.CP. [forweorðan]

*forwyrdan to perish, ANDR.

forwyrdendlic perishable.

forwyrht n. misdeed, MF 160.

forwyrhta m. agent, deputy : evil-doer, malefactor,

 ruined person.  [fore-]

forwyrnan (Æ) == forwiernan

forwyrnednes f. restraint, self-denial, continence,

 BH160¹⁰.

forwyrpnes f. casting out, LPs21⁷.

foryld == foreald; foryldan == forieldan

foryrman to reduce to poverty, bring low,

BH.W. [earm]

fossere m. spade. [L. fossorium]

*fōster == fōstor

fōstor n. sustenance, maintenance, food,

 nourishment, Lcd;Æ. ['foster']

fōstorbearn n. foster-child.

fōstorbrōðor m. 'foster-brother,' WW.

fōstorcild (e²) n. foster-child, ÆL.

fōstorfæder m. 'foster-father,' MH,

fōstorland n. land granted for the support of

 the recipients, Ct.  ['fosterland']

fōstorlēan n. payment for maintenance, LL

 442[2];MEN* [**EN small caps] 152.

fōstorling m. foster-child, nursling, WW.

 ['fosterling']

fōstormann m. bondsman, security.

fōstormōdor f. 'foster-mother,' MH.

*fōstornōð m. pasture, sustenance, EPs 22².

fōstorsweostor f. foster-sister.

fōstrað (e²) m. food : manna.

fōstrian to 'foster,' nourish, Sc(ē).

fōstring m. disciple, NG.

fōstur =- fōstor

fōt m. ds. fēt, fōte, nap. fēfc, fōtas foot (as

 limb and as measure), B,LL,NG; Æ,AO,
 CP.

fōtādl fn. gout in the feet.

fōtādlig having gout in the feet.

fōtbred n. foot-board, stirrup, WW107⁶.

fōtclātð m. 'commissura'? MtL9¹⁶.

±fōtcopsian, ±fōtcypsan to fetter, Pss.

fōt-cosp, -cops m. foot-fetter, Æ.

fōtcoðu f. gout in the feet, OEG.

fōtece m. gout in the feet, LCD*[**CD in small caps].

fōter n. darnel, tares, MtL13²⁷.

fōtfeter f. fetter for the feet, WW 1168. :

fōtgangende going on foot, OEG5254.

fōtgemearc n. foot-measurement, space of a

 foot, B3043.

fōtgemet n. foot-fetter, EPsl04¹⁸.

fōtgewǣde fn? covering for the feet, RB88¹⁴.

+fōtian to hasten up, MkL15⁴⁴.

fōt-lāst (Æ), -lǣst mf. footprint, spoor.

fōtlic on foot, pedestrian.

fōtmǣl n. foot-measure.

fōtmælum adv. step by step, by degrees,

 CM 883.

fōtrāp m. the loose part of the sheet by which

a sail is trimmed to the wind, 'propes,' WW
167¹¹.

fōtsceamol (e², e³, u³) m. footstool, Æ.

fōtsceanea m. foreleg, Lcd 1·*362. [v. 'shank']

fōtsetl n. footstool, CHE 1053C.

fōtsid reaching to the feet, NC289.

fōtspor n. footprints, spoor, LCD.*[**CD small caps]

fōtspure n.foot-rest,foot-support, CHR 1070E*[**small caps].

fōtstān m. base, pedestal, Æ.

fōtstapol m. footstep, LPsl7³⁷. Rich Farmbrough 14:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I uploaded a scan of the back cover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Music_From_Disney%27s_California_Adventure_%282001_CD%29 before 02:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot seems to automatically replace <i> and </i> with ''. This is correct in many cases, where the italics are used for emphasis, but the two expressions are not always equivalent. For instance, Smackbot edited the article Embassy of the United States in Baghdad to remove italics tags around "The Times". In my opinion, this is not semantically correct, because the italics do not indicate emphasis, but instead designate The Times as a publication. Twinxor t 02:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 2, Issue 28	10 July 2006	About the Signpost

Reuters tracks evolution of Ken Lay's death on Wikipedia	Creating stable versions using existing software proposed
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, privacy policy update
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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. before 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked to be unblocked, but David Levy won't budge. I promise not to commit any blockable offenses. CoolKatt number 99999 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth considering an early unblock if you think the user is unlikely to repeat offend. Bear in mind, of course, a block is not a punishment but a means of protecting the wiki. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 20:32 11 July 2006 (GMT).

Immediately upon blocking, I offered to lift the block on the condition that CoolKatt discuss the disputed matter in good faith on the article's talk page and not revert again for at least 24 hours. CoolKatt then proceeded to post a message there, threatening to nominate the article for deletion if other editors refused to comply with his/her demands. Since that point, he/she has continually evaded the block (made possible by a bug that's currently being fixed) and threatened other users.

FYI, I reverted the addition of CoolKatt's message because of the aforementioned block evasion. (He/she shouldn't have been able to edit this page.) —David Levy 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought years were supposed to be linked from that article, just as if it were a real "century" or "millennium" article. You recently removed the year links (and eliminated a number of dateth, which is good.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I debated putting the years back in, and can do quickly if you think it's a good idea (I was there primarily to deal with the month links). However for the 20th/21st C there will be eventually entries for almost every year, so the value of the links seem limited. Post about 2050 (?) the years redirect to centuries an millenia anyway. Let me know what you think. Rich Farmbrough 16:01 15 July 2006 (GMT).

Hi there: I guess I'm wrong, but I thought it was a Wiki convention if a year number was included in an article to make a link of it? Your bot has delinked a number in articles on my watch-list. No problem, just asking.--Anthony.bradbury 21:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most helpful; thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 22:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, I've always adnired your stance on this controversial topic and I wondered if you might be interested in [6]

Apologies if you are not. --Guinnog 22:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Just to let you know that those who are familiar with this saga know that Bobblewik isn't using a bot." Is there anywhere were I can read about that? And were did he offer to talk to his detractors? (I guess that last one is his talk page). If you can get Bobblewik to explain why he removed the links he removed on related talk pages or in his edit summaries, feel free to use your administrator powers to unblock him yourself. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. I am going to be out of town some this week, and probably working on some personal side projects. I don't really have the time to track down what User:Ori Redler is doing, but today I had a quick look. I noticed on his talk page that you had asked him to follow procedure in the past, would you mind having a look at his edit history (no comments, natch) and/or helping him out so that we can get the copyvios tagged properly and those tagged improperly removed. I'm starting to think we're losing content to the big black copyvio banner. ... aa:talk 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 2, Issue 29	17 July 2006	About the Signpost

Library of Congress, Holocaust Museum negotiate with Wikimedia	Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, single login
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	RSS 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. Treebark (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you a question? I often see SmackBot "[d]elink months and days of week &/or general fixes using AWB". Why would the bot delink months and days of the week? I had always been under the impression that it was good to hyperlink dates so that they would show up in the person's native date format -- e.g., June 26, 2006 is going to appear for me, when I save this and look back at it, like "June 26, 2006" -- but someone might see it as "26 June 2006" if that's how they have it set in Special:Preferences (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)). Can you fill me in on the rationale behind this? — Mike 01:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right (I do quite alot of date linking for these format reasons), but not as far as things like linking just "Thursday" or "November" are concerned. Rich Farmbrough 08:49 24 July 2006 (GMT).