User talk:Michael Snow/Archive (May-Jul 2006)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Indulge. :)

Dear Michael Snow/Archive (May-Jul 2006),

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Robert Nash

I'm working to expand the Jay Robert Nash article (having been inspired by your Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-04-24/Jay_Robert_Nash article) but I'm unable to confirm the info about Nash threatening to sue Wikipedia. Could you provide a reference to this? Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 15:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I'll reference your article in Signpost. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime copyvios

I've noticed that you've taken a whack at cleaning out the massive copyright violations by Primetime (talk · contribs). Well, I did a trawl through the list of articles he took credit for on his user page and listed what seemed to be obvious violations on his talk page, in order to give him the chance to come clean and list the exact sources -- and others that haven't been uncovered yet. Call it a test of his sincerity and, hopefully, a time-saver for the clean-up crew. If he obfuscates or the info doesn't check out, I'll probably have to start digging deeper and you might have to go in and decide whether to assume copyright violation for suspect stuff probably scanned from print sources. I'll keep you apprised. --Calton | Talk 06:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop! Those aren't copyvios! I wasn't admitting to anything new! Please!--Primetime 05:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, go ahead and delete away. I neglected to copy the text Primetime introduced, but I just snagged Salvatore Quasimodo and Ramón Menéndez Pidal while I had the chance, so that should be a good start. If it's not too much trouble, could you send me other deleted bits if I need them? --Calton | Talk 06:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did you delete "History of the Spanish Language." That's from a paper I wrote! I'm telling you "Second Spanish Republic" isn't a copyvio, either! It wasn't a practice of mine to add spelling errors to articles. There's no need to assume anything, either. You're not accomplishing anything by deleting these. You are hurting me, though. You're also deleting my public-domain images and pronunciation aids I added to the articles as well as the additions of other users. You also deleted an article someone else wrote about my family--the Maxwells. I'm going to kill myself.--Primetime 23:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-05-15/Baidu

Thank you for what read to me as a level-headed, NPOV and informative article. You say on your page that you have – now "had"? – no particular experience in journalism; perhaps, then, that's what all folk known as journalists need to maintain as far as possible for as long as possible!  Best wishes, David Kernow 13:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Agnelli

What Calton meant by unsafe is that we're dealing with an editor who made substantial and widespread additions of copyright-infringing materials. Feel free to improve the affected articles as you think best once the problems are cleaned out. --Michael Snow 16:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I suspected as much and will try my hand at rewording the information. Just wish he had left the facts added, while rv the copy violation. Doc 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question - I now find that the rv history has been removed. Why? It could have been an easy edit to remove the copy violation, but to strip everything including a correct category and facts seems overkill and to remove the history makes it that much harder for another editor to rework the facts. Doc 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background. I'd just never seen the history lost before and thought I could do an easy rewrite. I'll put the categories back and do a bit of research later. Thanks again, still learning. Doc 12:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails. Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales. If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate. For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate! ♫Bucketsofg✐♪

My RFA

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA, regardless of how you voted. I appreciate all votes. I am going to wait until I have more edits in all namespaces. (And also improve answering impossible questions ;). Hopefully one day I will be more sucessful than it was looking, once I meet most user's voting standards. Again, thanks for your time! ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Wikipedia milestone

I don't know the right place to write this, but I'd like the next Wikipedia Signpost to report on the 18 000 articles milestone on the Estonian Wikipedia. I think the 17 000 milestone went unnoticed, since no one wrote in about it? PeepP 18:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at the statistics now, it also appears we're soon about to hit 1400 registered users and 270 000 total edits. PeepP 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime again?

I noticed that you deleted Maxwell (surname) as a Primetime (talk · contribs) copyright violation. Looks like it's back (the sole contributions of Jyurjf (talk · contribs)), though you'd have to check it against the original to be sure. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...aaand, while you're already up, I notice, poking about further, that Hgfdf (talk · contribs) has added back what you reverted on Second Spanish Republic. --Calton | Talk 04:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletions of User:[e-mail]'s articles

Hi Michael. I was a bit perplexed by your recent deletion of Optimal Classification and Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction. You seem to be invoking CSD G7, Author requests deletion, but this only applies if the article "...was mistakenly created", which is evidently not the case here. I'm not in a position to judge the merits of these articles, but they seemed to be well-referenced and the user only requested deletion due to a recent conflict over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid sort. Even in the past 24 hours, this user has issued some very serious legal threats to take down these articles, not realizing that they've already been deleted. Given that past discussion on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion has demonstrated a strong lack of consensus on deleting articles solely on the basis of author request, I would like to request that you undelete these articles. Thanks. Deco 09:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, why that article has been deleted?Brian W 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say It was deleted because it was effectively original research, among other reasons

But I've found that its source was the book " Digital/Logic electronics Handbook ", a published book, not a private paper. Maybe some further work on the article was necessary, instead of deleting it. Brian W 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to Garfield High School!

float

Tomorrow, Saturday June 10, there will be a huge party/all class reunion at Garfield. This is being called the Bash Before the Smash as the building will be hollowed out like the shell of an undercooked marshmallow very shortly. The lower gym, portables, parking lot and football field are being completely razed. The event starts at 10am and is scheduled to run until 3pm. Live music of all kinds by current and former bulldogs will be going on in the Quincy Jones Auditorium starting at 11am. I hope to see you there. (Sorry for sending this out late and if you are no longer in the Seattle area, I apologize for spamming you.) —WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on summer

For the next two months, I'm going to spend a good amount of time away from my computer. I should be able to publish on Monday during most weeks. However, there's a possibility that I might be unable to get into town on some Mondays. If this happens, would you be able to publish? Ral315 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamestown image source

I've added the source to the image file (Image:Jamestownzuniga.jpg) on the commons. Sorry, usually I do put the source of images I upload. I must have forgotten. (Reply also on my talk page).--Bkwillwm 13:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetups, events, local chapters

Hi Mike,

There's been some recent discussion about whether and how to set up [a] US wikimedia chapter[s] - Alex R is interested in looking into the legal aspects. Among other things this could help better organize meetups, gatherings at large events and cons, and local outreach. See the mailing-list and meta-page on the topic... both of which are pretty quiet. +sj + 17:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Adam Carr...

I noted your Signpost article about the Adam Carr thing.

Is it possible to make corrections or additions to the article after publication? I would suggest that the article should note that, as well as myself, a number of other Australian Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, and indeed several others at the tip line, have stated that they have found Adam to be a scrupulously fair Wikipedia editor. Thanks. --Robert Merkel 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-19/Times semi-protection

Hi! I like your writing for the Signpost but I was wondering if you'd consider revising the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-19/Times semi-protection a bit? I don't think the recent activity on Template:Sprotected was really so much the result of the NYT article, there had been quite a lot of activity before that. And I do think that there is quite a bit of opposition to having a lock icon there, some of us still prefer a banner, even if we may be in a minority. Finally, people have been playing with a key icon on the talk page and I've now taken that out for a spin in the template itself.

I've sometimes made changes to Signpost articles in the past but I don't feel comfortable making major changes while the article is attributed to a particular author. Haukur 08:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not inclined to make significant changes to the story, I was careful to make sure it was accurate. This round of editing was quite definitely prompted by the Times article, Zanimum's edit summary says so. Sure, there has been earlier activity on the template too, but there's a definite lull before it started up again. I realized that the icon might change, which is why I made a point of saying only what it was when last I checked, and it was correct at press time. I can update that information, but it doesn't change the substance of the story. Finally, this is the first I've heard of people who still prefer a banner; all of the discussion on the talk page until today was about what image to use and layout problems in various skins. --Michael Snow 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, but that last part is not accurate, I objected to the change from text to padlock immediately [1] and Jtdirl did as well, in no uncertain terms [2] Haukur 18:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

I don't know why you insist on editing my posts all the time. You keep taking away links to cardpricer which has a TON of images of baseball cards and then you keep taking links from blacksoxfan.com which provides a useful resource for people who are interested in the cards and is completely okay according to the wiki concept. Thank you.blacksoxfan 08:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Rockwell

Thanks for catching that incorrect attribution. I read that insertion and knew that the article had been on LRC, but I didn't follow the link to verify that Rockwell had written it. Cheers, Dick Clark 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania Image

Michael, sorry by the delay. I changed the license to GFDL-self in Image:Eloquence and Danny.jpg. --Zuirdj 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in the news

Open Source (radio show) just did a full hour show on The Limit of Crowds, which used as a springboard and focused heavily on Wikipedia. This certainly deserves a mention in the sign post. It aired on KUOW2 at 7 and KUOW at 9pm Monday night. The format of the show has users discuss the topic in a blog thread which opens the day the show airs. The threads remain open for a long time afterwards. The thread for this topic can be found at the link above. They have a podcast of their show and posted the mp3 for this episode here (note that this link is .mp3). —WAvegetarian•(talk) 05:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Two of the founders of Wikipedia..." (Wales, Jimbo) http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/07/spawn_of_wikipe.html —WAvegetarian•(talk) 18:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing...

Would you be able to publish Monday? With the 4th of July, I wouldn't be able to publish until Wednesday. Ral315 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for covering it. I should be able to cover next week, but I will also be unable to publish in two weeks (July 17th) Would you be able to cover this as well? Ral315 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the 24th may also be in question, but beyond that, I should be able to publish the rest of the summer, I think. Why can't vacations and business trips be scheduled around the Signpost? Ral315 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

I think a potentially very disruptive template is on verge of being kept. If you have time, please take a look at this TfD discussion and let me know if I'm wrong. [3] Best regards. 172 | Talk 22:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list post

Hi Michael,

I'm not sure if you are the Michael from the Wikipedia mailing list but if you are I noticed in your posting to the list you wrote:

"That's only if you assume that all of these users, who previously haven't been required to have a confirmed email, would obstinately refuse to do so once it becomes a requirement for uploading images."

I would probably consider myself in that category and I'm sure many other valuable contributors to Wikipedia would consider themselves in that category too. Though my actual identity is probably easily discernable from my contributions and my e-mail address is publicly available on the Internet, I hate providing my e-mail address to any service. This move is really another move away from the openess of the Wiki. Not everyone is as dedicated to this project as the people on the mailing list. I'm sure the majority of people on the mailing list with their publicly displayed e-mail address would not have a problem with entering their e-mail address to upload images but that does not mean that can be extrapolated to the general population. Without any ability to upload through an alternative mechanism, this move is certainly going to cost Wikipedia valuable contributions. Please consider this before further advocating this proposal.

If you're not the Michael from the mailing list my sincerest apologies for bothering you.

Cedars 02:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lovely edits on OSINT page, citations

I like your edits of the citation page. I have informally promised to stand back for a bit, but I notice that two citations are needed.

For East View Cartographic (as well as the others), an account of what they produced is at this Federation of American Scientists URL: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/cyberwar-chapter.htm INFORMATION PEACKEEPING: The Purest Form of War by Robert D. Steele (Editor's Final Draft 3.9 dated 11 March 1998) later published in Dearth and Campen, CYBERWAR 2.0: Myths, Mysteries, and Realities

NOTE: East View Cartographic line has an error of my recollection: should be 1:100,000 vice 1:50,000.

For the citation on spending all that money on the 5% and nothing on the 90%, that has appeared in many places, but the best depiction appears at http://www.oss.net/WAC, in slide number 13, "Searching for Bin Laden:��The Use of Intelligence in the War on Terror��or��How NOT to Spend the Taxpayers’ Treasure" Presentation to the World Affairs Council, 14 June 2006.

Sushi on me in Boston! 68.100.27.210 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sushi two

delete this because it is original, I don't think I have ever actually written it anywhere

It is a little known fact that the CIA refused to attend unless the conference was SECRET and open only to U.S. Citizens. Admiral Bill Studeman, then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, had to order them to attend.[citation needed] They have fought the idea of relying on foreign external sources of open information ever since, and continue to believe that in-house exploitation of the Internet is all they need to do.

consider adding this as a reference if you think it worthy:

http://www.oss.net/extra/news/?id=2370 "The OSINT Story" by Robert Steele

On balance, I think the article should be locked down for 30 days and is really much much better now than it was before the delete nomination process began. THank you for all you have done. 68.100.27.210 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael

Hello, Ral315, got called into work. If he hasn't run the spamlist and the e-mails by 03:00 (UTC) can you do it? I know this is on short notice-I was going to do it. I don't know if I'll be able to. I'll try to make an effort, but I can't promise anything. Treebark (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to cover. In fact, I might start a bit early sunch as in 15 minutes. Treebark (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got everything covered; though I expect some users were wondering where the signpost was. Are you publishing this upcoming week? The 17th? And are you publishing the 24th? I happend to notice that Ral had asked you to publish. Just wanted to know. Erm...we might still need you to e-mail out the other users the signpost. I'll make sure everybody has it now. If you need any help next week if your publishing or the week after if your publishing just ask me. I can do whatever you want-even if it is runnning the spamlist and the e-mails which is boring if you don't have a bot. Thanks! Treebark (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article

Thank you for the great article (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-07-10/Reuters), very well written. -Ravedave 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report on Lengthy Litigation

This is an indispensible part of Signpost, IMO. I'm bothered by the use of the term "Litigation," however. I've commented on the talk page. Thanks for your great work. Sunray 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too cute! No, I really mean that. It isn't worth the bastardization of the language and the distortion of what arbitration is all about, IMO. Sunray 08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it "bastardization... and... distortion" is, in itself a rhetorical device (i.e., hyperbole) and I can see that it was not effective. At the time I was mulling over an array of responses and that seemed the least offensive. "Sophomoric" was another one that came to mind and it seems more apt, though less kind. In any case, that is my feedback to you. I don't know if it would make any difference to you, but I used to edit a weekly publication. Sunray 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remain concerned about the use of the term "litigation," and it is my view that the humor is of the kind that goes a long way round to get a chuckle (and at the expense of language). I trust that's clear. I should like to add that I appreciate the way you communicate. You go out of your way to be clear and remain civil, even though I sense that you are more than a little bugged. Since we have both pursued this conversation this far, I would like to approach it from a different angle and ask a technical question: Who's the TROLL? Sunray 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Who's the TROLL" question is not a trivial one. There are two main possibilities: one or both of the "litigants," or the writer. In either case the reader is the one "trolled," I believe. Perhaps a better joke would be one that is more of a universal nature; one that delights in language, or challenges the reader in some way. I appreciate your comments about inertia. What about a contest to rename the piece? Sunray 17:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of Electron's identity

Hi Michael,

Just wondering if you'd seen the quote from Apro/Hammond I reproduced on Electron's article's talk page. I'd like to know if you consider that sufficient verification, and if not, what would you consider sufficient?

--Thedangerouskitchen 10:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Thanks for showing me the draft. You might want to add the last point I made on my talk page[4] since it further clarifies why I thought my resignation would change the outcome of the AfD listing. Also, I wrote about it on my blog a couple of days ago. Angela. 08:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hi, Michael. What do I have to do to write the Signpost? I've asked Ral315 but he hasn't responded and I was directed to ethier your page or Ral's page. I don't care what topic I cover, but I'd like to cover something, like the Technology Report, or the Arbatration Report. If there's anything else you would like me to do, I'll do it. Reply on my talk page. Kindly, Carmelapple 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer the above question? Carmelapple 02:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

I really think the signpost was a good idea, well done for writing it. I am here to ask if I can write something for the signpost, like a few people wrote articles in the newsroom. Please reply on my talk page, cheers —M inun ^Spiderman 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an idea, how about a "User of the week" or something like that, cheers —M inun ^Spiderman 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost RSS woes

I see you just updated the Signpost a few days ago. Could you please see these two messages I've posted about not being able to use the Signpost's RSS feed (which seems to be stuck on Issue 27, by the way) and respond on the Signpost's talk page (or my talk page)? Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balance?

I am flabbergasted that you focus your recent article on Angela Beesley but fail to mention Daniel Brandt. What you give the reader is the softball version of the story. My advice: do not be afraid to make the Community feel the internal conflicts inherent in it's own past unfairness. You need that ying-yang. The Community likes Angela and does not like Daniel. Of course, neighter should matter — but in practice, it does. Lay it on the line. Also: Keep an eye on the articles in Category:Semi-protected from banned users and do your own review of what information is being suppressed. That is, if the outside world has a useful perspective. You will quickly see who the reverters are and then go the version before that. -- 69.104.88.182 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also fail to point out that the Wikimedia's new executive director Brad, and one of the other two Board memobers, Michael, who, together with Jimbo and Tim hold most of the authority within the foundation, are also being blocked from having their Wikipedia biographies written. -- 75.24.208.110 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost: In the News

Is that the Google results for Wikipedia that your talking about? I'll do that. Carmelapple 03:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Can I write something little, just a small story for it? GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 14:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New regular feature

I think a new regular feature was recently past for the Wikipedia Signpost of exclusive news in Wikipedia in other languages. A couple people will be writing it, including me. Just wanted to know your thought about it. You can say your thoughts on my talkpage. Treebark (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an account on the Foundation wiki

Hi. I have contacted Anthere about my problem, and she refered me to you. Sorry to be bothering you on your Wikipedia userpage.
There has been a small problem with registering me as a user on the Foundation wiki. I have already been approved, but the system didn't register me. Here is my approval. Hope you can help me! Kind regards, – (empoor) 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Are we including this? The article would be included in this week's signpost, the 24th. Hopefully we can; as it is already finished and a well written article. Treebark (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea

I have noticed the spamlist, so how about I help you deliver the signpost to the users next week? —Min un ^Spiderman 10:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I write stuff but I don't know if they would want it

Thanks for the kind note, Michael. Trouble is, I'd be too tempted to do jokes instead of journalism. I'd start writing stuff about Skutt-work and go-Skutt-yourself and pretty soon the school would be suing us. Also, I really am a little too exo. If I started writing for the Signpost, it would cut into my time actually working on articles. Which is why I come to Wikipedia in the first place.

Anyway, keep up the terrific work on the newspaper. (Gawd, what an oldie term.) And it's nice to know somebody has seen my comments. Casey Abell 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A privacy matter

Hi Michael, there is an administrator that is currently taking liberties with the privacy policy regarding our home IP address. The specific mention in the policy is that "When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the public except in cases of abuse, including vandalism of a wiki page by you or by another user with the same IP address." The administrator has opened an RfC regarding his opinion of my behavior connected with Wikipedia. He is using the IP address in order to try and prove some allegations. Our privacy in this regard, is far more important than is opinions about behavior. It has already been stated that our entire family uses computers in our home. He was asked politely on his talk page to do something about it, is aware, and has not been forthcoming. Please see the following talk page message to him in this regard here and the display of our address here.

Thank you.

Ste4k 22:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I don't see why the privacy policy is applicable here. It refers simply to the fact that when logged in, your edits are attributed to your pseudonym instead of an IP address. This is done automatically by the software, and you can see how this works in page histories and contribution logs. The section you quoted goes on to explain that the associated IP address is only visible to those with direct access to the server logs or to the Checkuser function. Will Beback does not have Checkuser access, so I have to assume nobody has actually provided technical evidence of your IP address. If people are inclined to draw conclusions from circumstantial evidence, however weak or strong it may be, that's not really something that can be addressed. --Michael Snow 23:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your interpretation. What in your opinion would be the proper procedure for when editors make accusations as these? According to the WP:RfC itself, the entire RfC is invalid (for other reasons). The admin that submitted it, Will, has also admitted submitting it in bad faith. Being a rather new user and learning the ropes, is this a normal affair at WP? Because if it is then I am learning fast and supposedly the RfC was to "adjust" my behavior. Please advise. About how this relates to you, your name is listed associated with the legal team pertaining to the privacy policy. Ste4k 23:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Michael, your interpetation of the privacy policy was a great help.Ste4k 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in the news

Just thougth I would make you aware of a reference to Wikipedia on The 9 on Yahoo. -- Psy guy ^Talk 17:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Manuel López Obrador

Hi Michael. I'm from spanish Wikipedia and a STM at OTRS. This week, Wikipedia has been mentioned in mexican media, because presidential candidate Manuel López Obrador, who preliminary lost the election by 0.58 percent, has made a statement about why the election was irregular. López Obrador and his party send an opposition to the Federal Electoral Tribunal and mexican media said that Obrador's document "copy and paste textual phrases from online encyclopedia Wikipedia to support the invalidity of the election". More, in spanish, [5], [6], [7], [8]. Maybe it's a good note for Signpost or for the archives of Comcom. Cheers! --Zuirdj 06:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the article about Wikipedia in The Onion?

You need to write about it in the Signpost.

Ksnow 15:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

Your recent Signpost article

I have inserted the following comment on that article's Talk page:

From Schiff's article: "There is also a page on the site dedicated to 'Errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia' ". I have attempted without success to find such a page (article?). Is there, or has there been, such an article? Possibly now deleted?

Too Old 17:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there any way to search for, or to see a list of, such pages? Too Old 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I frequently display my ignorance, but I also learn thereby. Too Old 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost -- Report from the Polish Wikipedia

Hi,

After contacting Treebark I've written a feature for The Signpost section (it's going to be named Interwiki Report, I think)

This is a working version:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-31/Interwiki report

When will it go live ? I'm a bit confused. At first I thought it was August 7th and now it seems to be scheduled for July 31st. In case it's going to be published tomorrow and Treebark is not available (wikibreak) could you please review, copyedit it ?

Regards,
Kpjas 10:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost - Vaughan

• Thanks for the head's up Michael, the article does seem to be more or less accurate. Just to clarify though, while the immediate focus of the edit war may have been the inclusion of corporate donations, the actual dispute centred less around the donation issue and more around the PoV pushing and political campaigning being done by the "other side" of the dispute (ED209, VaughanWatch, etc), which has been ongoing since the RfC and RCU. Let me know if you have any other questions! -- pm_shef 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]