User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Timotheus Canens. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 28 February 2011
- News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news
- Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times
- WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases
- Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news
Persistant IP
Back in Novemeber 2010 you range blocked 166.216.130.0/24 based on this note. The rangeblock expired yesterday and 166.216.130.83 immediately returned to their disruptive editing and have already received a final warning. Would it be possible to re-instate the range block? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- 1 year. T. Canens (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fantastic. Hopefully by then I will have learned how to apply the range blocks myself...Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Socks & Ducks
Hi, I have some socks following me but I don't know who the master would be, I was wondering if there is a place to report lone ducks or should I use an SPI and just not fill in the master name part and ask for blocking under WP:DUCK? I ask you because you did block one of my followers-User:Why Me Why U, and users User:Rym torch and User:The Sham are quite similar to that duck. Also The Sham just broke 1RR and refused to revert and Torch re-added OR again to an article I can't revert on, so I can't put up with them any longer. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well I went ahead and started an SPI...Anyways I had another question, does rejecting someone's edit through my reviewer rights count as a revert? and am I allowed to revert IPs unlimited, as I know 1RR did not include reverts of an IP's edits? Thanks for clarifying, Passionless -Talk 04:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- (1)Yes, unless it is blatant vandalism. (2) No. T. Canens (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have one last question, I made this edit a few days ago, but today I saw that this edit had been made a week and some 50 edits before mine, so does that make my edit into a revert, even though I did not see the other edit first and it happened over 50 edits before. I ask because I was about to revert a meatpuppet attack, but can't if my edit counted as a revert. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 19:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a revert. T. Canens (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have one last question, I made this edit a few days ago, but today I saw that this edit had been made a week and some 50 edits before mine, so does that make my edit into a revert, even though I did not see the other edit first and it happened over 50 edits before. I ask because I was about to revert a meatpuppet attack, but can't if my edit counted as a revert. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 19:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- (1)Yes, unless it is blatant vandalism. (2) No. T. Canens (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Possible socking
In 2009 User:A10M6 and User:Amonnar92 were used to create an article on Alberto monnar. Recently User:Amonnarsax has appeared to reinstate the page. Would CU work and is there an SPI case here? Hamtechperson 03:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted. I don't think it's worth the trouble esp. since there's no temporal overlap. CU here is useless. T. Canens (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleteing comments
I don't know what your talking about deleting comments and such. Maybe you could elaborate? 03/03/11 - scubanator87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubanator87 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Topic ban
Hello Tim. A few users are continually bringing my username up in a venue (AE) that I cannot respond in due to my current topic ban. Can you either permit me to respond or see to it that users refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations that cannot be responded to? Thank you. nableezy - 14:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it'd be best if you stay away from this area for a while and stop watching AE. Since as far as I can tell no one is asking that you be sanctioned, and since as far as I can tell two unfavorable mentions is not "continual", I'm not inclined to take any action at the moment. T. Canens (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- All right. I now ask that my topic ban be lifted at this time. It's been just short of 3 months since it was applied. For what its worth, I have no intention of going to AE about the current threads or even any reason that I know of now. I acknowledge that in the past my editing behavior has not always been superb, and I promise to refrain both from edit-warring and from making the somewhat acerbic comments I have directed at others. Further, I promise to avoid even the appearance of "gaming" any revert restriction or any other editing rule [though I must say that at the time I believed I was doing exactly the opposite of "gaming" as I was completely transparent about it]. Over the past months my activity has dropped substantially, and while that is certainly partially due to the fact that I am restricted from editing a topic that I have knowledge of, it is also due to lowering of Wikipedia on my priorities. I do not intend to go back to refreshing my watchlist every few minutes and I hope to deal with the problems plaguing the topic with a calmer, less immediate result-oriented, approach. I think I have a lot to offer this place, and I would appreciate being given the opportunity to try to do so once more. Thank you for your time, either way. (Oh, and I have a few trips coming up in the next month, so I wont be terribly active anyway, so no worries on my end if you would rather let the ban run its full length. Also, full disclosure, while I do not intend to edit AE anytime soon, I do intend to edit a certain SPI page if the ban is lifted soon) nableezy - 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that, given the current rather volatile climate in the topic area (just look at the number of ARBPIA threads currently at AE), it is probably not a good idea to end the ban early. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- All right. I now ask that my topic ban be lifted at this time. It's been just short of 3 months since it was applied. For what its worth, I have no intention of going to AE about the current threads or even any reason that I know of now. I acknowledge that in the past my editing behavior has not always been superb, and I promise to refrain both from edit-warring and from making the somewhat acerbic comments I have directed at others. Further, I promise to avoid even the appearance of "gaming" any revert restriction or any other editing rule [though I must say that at the time I believed I was doing exactly the opposite of "gaming" as I was completely transparent about it]. Over the past months my activity has dropped substantially, and while that is certainly partially due to the fact that I am restricted from editing a topic that I have knowledge of, it is also due to lowering of Wikipedia on my priorities. I do not intend to go back to refreshing my watchlist every few minutes and I hope to deal with the problems plaguing the topic with a calmer, less immediate result-oriented, approach. I think I have a lot to offer this place, and I would appreciate being given the opportunity to try to do so once more. Thank you for your time, either way. (Oh, and I have a few trips coming up in the next month, so I wont be terribly active anyway, so no worries on my end if you would rather let the ban run its full length. Also, full disclosure, while I do not intend to edit AE anytime soon, I do intend to edit a certain SPI page if the ban is lifted soon) nableezy - 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
ANI notice
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Highspeedrailguy. Regards, Frank | talk 22:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
{{Expand}} "deleted"
There was a discussion about the template, and as such it is now obsolete. It may be a good idea to remove it from Kissle :p demize (t · c) 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please do remove it, as the continued use of the Expand template is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Expand template yet again. Someone there was wondering if any automated tools were still using the template, and others seemed to think not.... First Light (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Later - I'm disinclined to publish a new version just to remove a single template. I'll probably find some time to restructure some parts of Kissle in the next few weeks (have it read configuration from wiki rather than hard code it in the program) - once that is done it will be much easier to make modifications to templates. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi again
I was asked to update articles regarding the raids of SSI buildings in Egypt for an ITN, but than thought that these updates could be seen as related to Al-Gammal, through his employer's(EGID) link to the the SSI even though the content is unrelated to Gammal, and Gammal died many decades ago. So can I make the updates I wrote out here? Passionless -Talk 03:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. T. Canens (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks, Passionless -Talk 03:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I do hate bugging you, but can I revert/strike the edits made by banned users without it adding to the 1rr/week rule? Thanks, Passionless -Talk 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- No you can't, because you want to revert again correct information backed by a source, which was added again by a legitimate user, i.e. me. Next time don't delete sourced information, and don't try to bypass the 1rr. HOOTmag (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Revert of edits by banned users are exempt from xRR rules, including your 1RR/week. And, HOOTmag, did you just call one of such reverts vandalism? T. Canens (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I called this revert vandalism. Anyways, I'm a legitimate user, and I can't see how reverting my edit is exempt from xRR rules. HOOTmag (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- And calling a legitimate edit - that revert - vandalism is disruptive. T. Canens (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- And calling my legitimate calling "disruptive" - is disruptive. HOOTmag (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally, note that your notice on my talk page is redundant, because you know I'm aware of 1rr (since I'd been talking about it on your talk page), and you know I've made only one revert, so next time don't fill talk pages of other users - with a redundant message, just in order to add their names to this list, ok? HOOTmag (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- And calling a legitimate edit - that revert - vandalism is disruptive. T. Canens (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I called this revert vandalism. Anyways, I'm a legitimate user, and I can't see how reverting my edit is exempt from xRR rules. HOOTmag (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm currently inclined to take Template:Uw-mos4, that you deleted, to DRV. While consensus was clear, I think the template's purpose is indeed in compliance with the blocking policy, since any editor who ignores four such warnings without being willing to talk is by definition disruptive and thus can be blocked. But before I take it to DRV, I like to have your input. On a side note, in future, if you do delete such templates, make sure to notify the WP:TW / WP:FRIENDLY guys, since it affects those scripts. Regards SoWhy 16:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm firmly in the "meh" camp here. I don't really feel strongly about this either way, and the discussion may well be not as well-attended as it should be - and you have a reasonable argument; so, feel free to take it to DRV. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news
- Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Question on my topic ban
Does voting on this could violate a ban [1] because I have removed my vote after 20 minutes after I have thought about that--Shrike (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- It could. T. Canens (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You may remember closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gregory. Unfortunately the SPA editor involved, Lost Josephine Minor has twice revised the archived discussion. I've reverted him once but don't want to participate in an edit war. (An IP also tried to blank the page.) --Kleinzach 05:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I added a comment suggesting that relisting isnt necessary. --Penbat (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- We've had 6 Keeps in a row and nothing else since my comment: "COMMENT: Thanks to User:Novickas we now have 4 text sections and 9 dfferent inline references.--Penbat (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)". Seems no point to me in dragging this on any longer. The AFD is already on its 11th day.--Penbat (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem
- Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news
requesting history restore on redirect
Team Venture closed as a redirect in the AFD. You erased all the history though. Could you restore the history please? I want to export the entire history so I can import it to the wikia as I have done with other deleted articles from this series. Dream Focus 22:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
ANI discussion
I am informing you of this [2] discussion because of your involvement in this [3] previous ANI. Onthegogo (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion review for International Bolshevik Tendency
An editor has asked for a deletion review of International Bolshevik Tendency. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I believe this was closed incorrectly, with the content of the actual debate ignored and a false "consensus" inserted. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI
Hello Timotheus Canens,
This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thia Megia
Hi Tim, I see you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thia Megia (3rd nomination) as "keep". Would you be kind enough to explain to me the judgement you used in determining the consensus there? Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have just taken another look, and think that no consensus is the better description here. Most of the discussion is a back-and-forth between you and Hzh, and I don't see a consensus there either way on the BLP1E question; much of the rest focuses more on MUSICBIO than BLP1E, so they get less weight. T. Canens (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Tim. That was my first nomination for deletion, and I'm learning the practicalities of the process. I still think I was right to nominate for BLP1E of course <grin>, but I agree with your assessment that 'no consensus' is a good description of the debate. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Abolition of Prostitution deletion
Would you mind amending the deletion closure to indicate a merge to Feminist views on prostitution as well as Prostitution and the law? Several of us indicated this was a closer match in the deletion discussion and would avoid deleting quite as much material.--Carwil (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Merge it wherever you want. AfD merge closes are generally not binding as to the merge target. T. Canens (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
KSL Bug
I have just discovered a bug when using KSL to report usernames at WP:UAA. In this diff I reported a user via KSL and the application created 3 duplicate entries. Pol430 talk to me 14:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Did they update the bot to have the "<!-- Marked -->" comment? Anyway, fixed in r41. Download the new version. T. Canens (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure about the "<!-- Marked -->" comment. Thanks for the fix though Pol430 talk to me 16:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 March 2011
- WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine
- Features and admins: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases
- Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief
Deletion of an article which was decided as "keep"
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello Timotheus, This is regarding the article "Janos Boros" who is a Hungarian Politician. In 2009 there was some move by Romanian users of Wikipedia to have this article deleted. The deletion request was rejected and the Article was kept based on the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janos_BOROS . A re-nomination for deletion by User:P199, User:Biruitorul and User:Iaaasi seems ill-motivated in total ignorance of the discussion and conclusions that have happened already in 2009. This way all articles on Wikipedia can be endlessly nominated for deletion after each decision to keep. Please do consider all the discussion that have taken place for the article, not just the ones by the three users who re-nominated for delete. In the light of facts and fairness towards the article, we request you to un-delete the article. Regards.--Hangakiran (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Timotheus, Thank you very much for relisting and opening up the debate. appreciate the fairness. Regards. Hangakiran (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Timotheus, The problem is that the discussion has started to become lopsided with hardly any representation from Hungarian users as well. Another aspect of concern is that when the article was nominated a second time for deletion, we came to know about it by accident when we tried to view the page. Under the circumstances, I thought it pertinent to intimate other users about the discussion, as otherwise they might never know about the discussion until it is concluded. If you look at the body of the message posted in the concerned User Talks pages, I clearly ask them to contribute with their views - that is the help I was asking for. Nowhere am I asking them to post a certain opinion favourable to my point of view. Warm regards, Hangakiran (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Timotheus, It is quite difficult to ascertain from Hobartimus's page if he Hungarian. And he has not made a conclusive decision either for Keep or Delete. Hangakiran (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
Enough. I consider using the nationality of editors as an argument prima facie evidence of sanctionable misconduct under WP:DIGWUREN, and I'm tired of my talk page being used as a battleground and the constant orange bars showing up. The two of you should stop. Immediately. And Hangakiran, if I see one more instance of canvassing from you I'll block you myself. T. Canens (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Timotheus, Apologies for bothering you. This will be my last post on your talk page regarding the Article under discussion. Will have to read up on the rules on Wiki I guess. Hangakiran (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A premature decision?
Hi Timotheus. On February 21 user:passionless was topic banned on I/P related articles. Apparently you replaced user:Passionless's topic ban on I/P related articles with 1 R/R per week restriction. It could have been a premature decision. The user demonstrates rather tendentious editing pattern in the topic area. Please see this report. The user was only warned for it, but as user:CIreland said: "I would have blocked if I had seen this first"
In this revert #3 (made 17 minutes after the first two reverts) user:Passionless removed well sourced information. Of course that edit was reverted at once (not by me). Before that the user nominated the article on deletion. The user claimed it to be WP:Event and told me at my talk page that "Really, hundreds of people are murdered everyday, with most of them getting some air time in their nation's newspapers". IN AFD the user calls this "merely a non significant double murder". Timotheus, it was said about two 13 and 14 years old boys, who were stoned to death. It was said about the boy, whose story prompted US Congress to adopt the Act of Koby Mandell.
In this comment the user calls Jerusalem Post "a local paper", and claims that "US congress which many of the keep voters mentioned was never passed". I understand that the latest claim was brought up by confusion expressed by another user, but when the confusion was cleared up, that claim should have been stricken out, but it never have. If you to add to all of the above filing an not actionable AE on user:B, and user:passionless behavior on a not the same but a very related topic it really looks the topic will benefit with user:passionless taking a break.
Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies about the delay. I'd prefer that this be taken to AE so that we can get more eyes on it (and give Passionless an opportunity to respond) before any action is taken. T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hello. Sorry for disturbing you, but I don't understand why you have restored the article about Janos Boros. In the previous AfD discussion there were 3 participants, and all of them supported the deletion. I thought it is clear that it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Can you please give me some details? Thanks in advance (Iaaasi (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
- The first AfD closed as no consensus after a vigorous debate and someone brought up sources (which may or may not withstand scrutiny). Then in the second AfD the three people who commented didn't bother to address the keeps from the first AfD at all. You can't deny that there's the appearance that the second AfD sneaked through - and appearance is just as important in those cases. T. Canens (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Reply at AE
You wrote that "The idea that one edit cannot be edit warring, while perhaps superficiality appealing, does not hold up under scrutiny.". This is not what I (or others) were saying. Yes, under extreme circumstances, such as coordinated edit warring, socking and so on, one edit can be edit warring. But those are not the circumstances here. Making a single edit in an ongoing edit war should not make one an edit warrior, one revert is permissible. It is the second revert that makes one into an edit warrior, and that condition was not met by VM (who generally made talk comments, and reverted once only after days passed with nobody replying to him). I believe that VM was acting within BRD, that one of his reverts ended up being in the middle of a (slow) edit war should not be seen as a problem. If there is an edit war going somewhere, I go, I post at talk, I get no replies and and then make a single revert to the article (with an informative edit summary, explaining my rationale and asking editors to join me at talk) am I edit warring? I very much think no (and this is what VM did). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's a hypothetical in response to someone's claim that "no reasonable person should consider a single edit to be edit warring"; a general comment only. I thought I was quite clear that I didn't have an opinion on VM's conduct - largely since I haven't yet reviewed the history myself in detail. T. Canens (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
As you imposed my original topic ban, it is probably fair of me to forward this to you. I'm not sure if you frequent AE on a regular basis. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The original article was certainly not worthy of Wikipedia, but I'd like you to look at the version now in Incubation. With its debut on the March 18, and with the additional critical commentary that became available in numerous reliable sources, I have addressed the style, tone, content, and sourcing, and believe it is now encyclopedic, properly neutral, and meets the criteria of WP:NF. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see that SilkTork already moved it to mainspace. At a quick glance I see no obvious problems. Well done. T. Canens (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Token of appreciation
 |
Timotheus Canens has been inducted into the Order of the Mop, |
 |
| For a userbox version go here. You are member number: 39 |
For all your fantastic scripts, dedicated work at SPI as a clerk and for being an awesome admin! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:15pm • 10:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21
Hi. Thanks for closing the two DRVs at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21. If there's anything of value on the articles' talk pages, would you restore them also? I'll add the AfD, DRV, and {{Copied}} templates. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for comment on the edit war page
I am really in a place where I am uncertain of what venue will be the most helpful in encouraging RAN to act with more community spirit. My first notice of RAN was after putting the Wikipedia etiquette page on my watchlist and seeing a discussion on diasporas that had spun out of control. My second (and personal) encounter with RAN was after I had nominated an article for deletion and RAN called me a troll. Since those 2 times (just about 2 months ago maybe), I've occasionally seen edits roll by on my watchlist and glanced at them in passing. The general attitude I have seen is a pattern of namecalling, trivializing, and general disdain for those who have opinions that are contrary to RAN. RAN makes probably dozens to hundreds of edits a day, and seems to spend very little time in community type discussions to see if there is consensus for these changes. My problem at the edit war page is simply that I didn't want to write a book, I just want to be able to have editors who value the community spirit here on Wikipedia. So I'm at a loss really for how to do that, or even if it is worth my time to pursue it. -- Avanu (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 March 2011
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?