User talk:BigHaz/Archive 14

STEALTH RANGER
I admit, I am at a loss to understand your editorial policy; In all honesty it seems to be based on "Because I can". To wit, an in depth, researched article with additional information and several links, was wiped out by yourself for reasons I still fail to understand ;And is now 'replaced' by a rather bland, sedentary 'list'. In other words, what you destroyed still exists in a lesser format. It seems to make no sense whatsoever. (see List of Superhero Captains) STEALTH RANGER 09:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're referring to here. As nearly as I can work out, your complaint stems from the fact that I closed this AfD roughly 3 months ago in a manner which was supported by policy (rather than some kind of "because I can" idea). The article has since been re-created by someone else - who is not me, and not you either. The fact that the article has been re-created "in a lesser format" isn't anything to do with me. Looking at the history of the new article, it seems that Crablogger is the person you want to ask about the new article. If I've misunderstood, please feel free to correct me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC

An important unblock
Could you please unblock the IP address 202.76.162.34? I need that address. I use it at school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc iindyysgvxc (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Is there a reason you can't log into the account you've contacted me with? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to use that IP address at school. It's my school address, so there! Jc iindyysgvxc 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't quite answer my question. As far as I can tell, the block on that IP at the moment would allow you to log in using your account and continue to edit Wikipedia. The only thing you can't do at the moment is edit without logging in. Is there a reason why you can't log in from school? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can, but I don't want to. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's not a good reason to unblock the IP. It takes about 10 seconds to log in with an account, so it really isn't a major disability to you to do so. The IP in question has been blocked since it was being used repeatedly for vandalism, and unblocking it risks precisely the same thing happening again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why am I even supposed to log in? I can do things that only accounts can do - and I don't really wanna do those things. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This page sums it up better than I can. Among other things, you're able to start new articles and generally join the community if you log in. I note, for example, that you can't be an administrator unless you're logged in. Also, if you're logged in then you won't suffer any "collateral damage" when your school's IP is blocked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We might as well just shorten the block, then. 124.180.16.217 08:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Again, there's nothing to stop you registering an account, logging in and editing. Laziness is not a reason to lift or shorten a block. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But the year 12's at my school leave early. I need that block to be lifted before they leave. If they leave before the block runs out, something bad will happen to me. And now I hardly have anywhere to edit Wikipedia, because a few weeks ago, my computer broke down. 124.176.191.127 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that. Firstly, "something bad will happen to me" isn't a reason to lift a ban. What precisely will happen to you if the block isn't lifted before the 12s leave? More importantly, the fact that your computer broke down doesn't matter at all. See the thing at the top right corner of the screen which says "Log in"? Click on that and you'll be able to log in from whichever computer you happen to be at. The only circumstances under which you won't be able to edit is if you aren't logged in. Given that it takes about 2 seconds to log in, I don't see why we're having such a major issue about this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All right! But it's your fault - and the fault of every other administrator on Wikipedia - if that bullet that was shot into my head and will kill me in five months does so! Besides, it's my birthday in ten days, and you shouldn't be mean to someone on their birthday! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.132.145 (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
 * For the umpteenth time, why can you (or anyone else at your school) not take the two seconds required to create an account or log in with one you already have? I do it every time I come to this site and it's not an inconvenience at all. If you expect me to believe that one of the year 12s at your school shot you in a way that will kill you in five months, I don't in the slightest. I also have no intention of "being mean to someone on their birthday", but likewise neither does the fact that it's your birthday entitle you to take illegal drugs, commit murder, rob someone or break the speed limit. In much the same way, the fact that it's allegedly your birthday on a given date doesn't mean that an IP will be unblocked when that block was done entirely in a manner supported by policy. If you can come up with a single reason grounded in policy for the block to be lifted, I'll consider it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't think of one, though. Could you give me a couple of policy-related reasons for unblocking? 124.180.75.102 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (resetting indent) Per the blocking policy, we see the following. Accounts/IPs can be blocked when there is persistent vandalism. That's shown clearly in the case of the IP you want unblocked. The only circumstances under which a block should be lifted are: (1) It shouldn't have been applied in the first place or (2) In order to change the manner of the block being implemented. We can dispense with the second option, since I have no intention of changing the nature of your block and neither should I without checking with the person who blocked you in the first place. In relation to the first reason, there was a clear pattern of vandalism from that IP, and the block was entirely justified. Given that you can edit from home and also are able to log into an account whenever you wish, you don't have a leg to stand on. Additionally, bear in mind that the account you have used has been warned on a number of occasions regarding its behaviour, so I would suggest that there is not only no evidence to assume that you wouldn't vandalise, but there is also evidence to assume that you would. Any questions? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Baseless accusations"
You need to explain what this PA warning refers to, with a set of diffs to substantiate your claim. If you fail to do so, I will move discussion to WP:ANI. I am tired of baseless accusations, judgmental tone, and confrontational messages on your part. Best, Ghirla-трёп- 08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I only need the one diff to explain that particular warning, although I can provide extras to back up the fact that you've been warned before. In relation to this one particular diff, I would refer you to the following phrases:

--Ghirla-трёп- 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "...carefully planned attempt at character assassination." There is no proof provided that the RfC is an attempt at that, and (on a purely semantic level) nor is there any that it was carefully planned on the part of any of the users criticising Petri Krohn's activities.
 * There is no proof that their edits were made in good faith. What I (and most other non-involved commentators) see here is deliberate attempt at character assassination. I have been through a lot of them, so I know what I talk about. Our opinions on the subject of this RfC differ, but difference of opinion does not constitute a "personal attack".
 * There is the world of difference between bad faith editing and character assassination. Indeed, I'd say that there's the world of difference between accusing someone of bad faith editing and trying to assassinate their character. It would appear that there is a very real dispute between Digwuren (et al) and Petri Krohn, and I don't see where the "character assassination" part comes in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "...it was fun to prepare this attack in the cool of the Tartu classrooms..." While a number of the users with whom Petri has had adverse interactions have attended the university in that city, there has been no proof provided that this was some kind of planned attack from there. Additionally, characterising what at least appears to be a serious activity as being "fun" might not have been the best choice of words, but we'll leave that one for the moment.
 * There is no personal attack in saying that something was prepared in the cool of the Tartu classrooms. I fail to see why education in the Tartu university should be considered shameful. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no personal attack in saying that if it's true. There is, however, no evidence that it is true. This may be one of those places where two users simply have different opinions regarding choices of words, but to me you seem to be saying that this was some undergraduate prank, which to me seems like an attempt to marginalise it. I am, however, prepared to concede that you didn't mean for it to be taken that way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "...so as to launch it on June 22, the day when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union." The RfC was created on June 19. The attempt to link this to an important event in world history is misguided at best. There is also a slight implication of a link between actions by Estonians in 2007 and actions of Nazi Germany in the 1940s, which is a long rhetorical bow to draw.
 * The request was properly certified and became valid on June 22. See Bishonen's lengthy comments all over the place. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, you're still attempting to link a dispute over the manner in which Estonian history (most of it post-war, as far as I can tell) is portrayed with Nazism, the Holocaust and all things diabolical. There is most definitely no evidence that the date was anything but a coincidence. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also a number of accusations of trolling, none of which are substantiated by evidence. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This page was the best specimen of trolling that I have seen in a while. No amount of pontification on you part may turn trolling into good-faith edits. I consider myself an expert on trolling and I assure you that I can tell trolling from good-faith edits better than most editors in the project. I was once blocked for calling User:Bonaparte (now permabanned) a troll. You may block me for calling Digwuren a troll. That would be an honour. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that as a good point. No dispute there. You do, however, have a tendency to scream "troll" remarkably loudly. For the record, following the comments made by Bishonen, I have little or no intention of taking serious action over this incident. I would suggest, however, that you would probably do well to tone down the rhetoric in relation to Estonian-Russian affairs in particular. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Der Giftpilz
Although your latest edit was bit more neutral, it is bit false and can be considered OR. Estonian security police said "the US laws on extremist websites are quite liberal". This is citation. They said nothing about first amendnment. AFAIK Digwuren added this there as an explanation. Just for information. Thanks. Suva 10:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger that. I don't read Estonian, so I didn't know whether it was a direct quote from the source or not. Thanks for the tip, though. I'll keep an eye on things when next I check that article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack warning
Hi, BigHaz. I agree that some of Ghirlandajo's statements in the RFC are, as Alex Bakharev suggests, overemotional. But I'm nevertheless a little concerned to see you handing out "final warnings" about supposed personal attacks in an Outside view in an RFC. It seems to me that if users request comments from the community, they have to take the rough with the smooth in the comments they get, except perhaps in cases of very extreme incivility. The famous PA principle "Comment on content, not on the contributor" can't very well be applied to a request for comments on a user. Of course you're aware that it's equally appropriate to comment, in those Outside views, on the nominators as on the putative subject: ""An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors". In fact, just from a common sense viewpoint, I'd be more inclined to warn Digwuren about the way he talks about Petri Krohn in the RFC ("Various peculiar, but invariably nasty theories", etc), as those are gratuitously insulting remarks which  nobody requested.

My second worry is that you write, above, as if you see criticism offered without evidence as being a personal attack per se. There's something in that, in a way; but surely not something that can be applied to an RFC. Most of the Outside views offered in that RFC, positive and negative, are simply a person's opinion, there's no evidence. (Including the one that calls Petri Krohn "the most obsessive user on Wikipedia.") And I do believe that's OK in an RFC. It looks like you agree, in general, I guess, since you haven't warned anybody other than Ghirlandajo about of those views. Well, these are my thoughts on the matter. I hope I haven't offended you. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I take your points, but at the same time I don't quite agree with them. Firstly, I don't see that just because it's an RfC, one should be able to throw around whatever one wants in terms of vitriol. In fact, I can safely say that if there were ever an RfC or worse opened which involved me to the extent that I needed to have a view, I'd be even more cautious not to call people names etc. The fact that Ghirla was given a "final warning" was as a result of the fact that he'd overstepped the mark on multiple occasions beforehand. Not that he made a series of inflammatory comments all at once in his view. There are a great many ways to comment on the contributor without saying "The contributor is a troll" or "The contributor is out of his mind", and in something as heated as an RfC, that's surely what everyone should be trying to do. In relation to Digwuren's comments, my feeling was that since the RfC was de facto about him and Petri, those involved in actually hammering out a solution (such as you) would be better placed to deal with his excesses, and those of Petri, for that matter. If that was a false impression, then I'll step back from it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pete
Hi BigHaz, could you please check out Pete for three revert rule and personal attack violations at Children Overboard Affair this user is a constant protagonist who messes with people for his own amusement. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what's what. 3RR is a nice easy thing to police, thankfully. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check both of us, please. I also regard Alec's description above as a personal attack, one of many aimed directly at me. See also a fresh attack. This sort of poison has got to stop. --Pete 03:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Checking the History of the page and the relevant diffs shows, to my count, that both of you reverted each other 3 times within a 24 hour period. Not all of these were explicitly reverts, one or two were edits which were effectively reverts. As far as 3RR itself goes there, you both squeak in just under the bar, since neither of you made that 4th revert within the 24 hours - at least, not there and on that article. Personal attacks and the like I'll have a look at now, and I'll look at both of you for that as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Pete's comments on the Talk page were personal attacks. They mightn't have been collegial or the best way to produce a happy collaborative environment, but neither were they entirely personal attacks. The two of you clearly don't see eye to eye on several pages, and with a federal election around the corner it's probably going to get worse rather than better. As an interim measure, can I suggest that if there's a contentious claim that either of you have made in an article, you run it by me rather than reverting each other and duking it out on the Talk page? There are other dispute resolution methods available, but I don't think anyone wants to go down that path right at the moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to those terms, and it is not this particular edit which is offensive to me, it is Pete's style of confrontation for the sake of it. He has a modus operandi of manipulating the policies of wikipedia and trying to constantly divert people's attention from real issues of discussion (such as this nonsense) in order to create legalistic debates where they are not necessary, I consider myself to get along famously with editors on the whole and I believe that my edits are fairly a-political, as much as they can be when writing on political topics.  But I don't want to engage on these issues because that is just playing Pete's games and frankly I couldn't be bothered because I know it gets no where. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was coming to the conclusion that it was more of a stylistic thing than a really deep-seated debate between the two of you. Looking at both your contributions and his, there's some great work there and I'm sure that you've both got the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

personal attack by Alec
This is a personal attack. I know that you and Pete have butted heads on a number of pages, but calling him a "bully" and so forth is not the right policy to adopt. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When calling him a bully I was referring to this behaviour. Wikipedia is about content not about mounting arguments and evidence in order to attack other editors, whether it is within policy or not.  I do however apologise for making what is a personal attack, it was wrong and in the heat of the moment. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 04:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
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 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Zazaki
Hiya! I don't know if you'd be interested in helping out, but in May, I requested that this article be translated from the German version, but no one has started it yet. Lest it be relegated to some dusty nook somewhere, I've decided to start translating it myself (and to try, probably futilely, recruit people who actual know a decent amount of German to help out), but I'm concerned about quality. So, would you be willing to help out once you get back from your wikibreak? Thanks :) -Yupik 23:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. Looking at it, there's a fair amount of technical material (as well there should be, for a language). Between us we should be able to get most of it worked out, but if there are any linguists out there with native German, I'd suggest they should be a port of call to make dead sure we're right. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I'll start trying to scare up a native German linguist :) -Yupik 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Some remarks about wikiHacking
You speedy deleted the article about Wikipedia hacking containing some political reasons. Is this fiction too?

About wiki hacking. Hacking Wikipedia? March 28, 2005 | 14 Comments

''This is more of a question than a post. I’ve been thinking about the Wikipedia quite a bit lately and I wanted to know if anyone out there knows of any APIs for hooking into or querying it. I realize that you can download the Wikipedia database, but I’m curious to know if it’s possible to run queries or extract data from it in some way.

Any ideas or examples would be greatly appreciated. As well, if you know of any applications or sites that are using the Wikipedia in anyway, I’d love to see those as well.''

Comments 1. Jeremy Flint said: I have been using Trillian on my PC at work for instant messaging, and it will highlight words and show you definitions.

Starting with 3.0, those terms are pulled from Wikipedia.

Posted on March 28, 2005 11:37 AM | #

2. David Barrett said: What exactly are you looking to do with the Wikipedia, Keith? Ultimately, you’re looking for something to fulfil certain needs, and before we can track down something that’s useful we’ll need to have a better idea of what you’re trying to do.

There is at least one API available for Perl, but WWW::Wikipedia at least is of very limited utility.

The Special:Export stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export) seems to be the what you would want to build an API off of. Take a look at the Special:Export stuff for the Train article

It looks promising… there’s plenty of stuff available to use. But as the Wikipedia site only contains a reference to one Perl API, I suspect one hasn’t been developed yet to meet your needs (unless all you’re looking for is the ability to search the site).

Posted on March 28, 2005 12:16 PM | #

3. Keith said: David – I wish I had a better answer for you, but really I’m not 100% sure what I’m trying to do–if anything really. I’m just curious.

I guess what I’m thinking about is a way to pull Wikipedia information into another Web application or site. Like how I can pull RSS or Amazon information into Asterisk.

Say, for example, I wanted to create an online bookstore and in addition to the information I pulled from Amazon, my own information, or whatever, I wanted to also pull info from the Wikipedia for the author, etc. and have that info displayed within my application.

Something like that…

Posted on March 28, 2005 12:40 PM | #

4. Thomas Baekdal said: You could use the server side variation of XMLhttprequest (…or even client side) to retrieve pages - and the modify/strip the parts you need.

Retrieve the data, and take out the innerHTML of the “content” div, then placed it somewhere on your site.

Posted on March 28, 2005 12:50 PM | #

5. Chris Vincent said: I’m not sure about an API or anything, but http://www.answers.com/ pulls information from Wikipedia when applicable. It’s actually a pretty brilliant idea; I wish I would have come up with it first.

Answers.com is also the new definitions site used by Google. I like it much better than dictionary.com.

Posted on March 28, 2005 01:29 PM | #

6. Keith said: Chris – Ok, yeah, just like that! So, anyone know how they do that??

Posted on March 28, 2005 01:35 PM | #

7. David Barrett said: Keith: Well, WWW::Wikipedia should be able to do that for you. The problem, of course, is making sure that the entry in the Wikipedia for that name is actually an entry for that author. It could refer to someone else entirely.

Still, it could be what you’re looking for.

Posted on March 28, 2005 01:38 PM | #

8. Simon Willison said: I’ve used Special:Export and it works pretty well. You have to be very careful with automated queries of Wikipedia though, as they already have pretty bad performance and scaling problems and you wouldn’t want to do anything that impacted the performance of the site.

Posted on March 28, 2005 01:41 PM | #

9. Daniel said: I’ve been thinking about something like this, too, given how many times in the past few weeks I’ve referred directly to Wikipedia material. I had in mind the idea that I could as an SOP earmark terms which I thought potentially needed some further explanation I wasn’t intending to provide, and have the appropriate Wikipedia article linked. I even considered an experiment wherein every single word of a post was linked to Wikipedia, which may or may not be useful or engaging, but it might be interesting nonetheless.

However, being of meager technical skill, and with too little time to write let alone explore this sort of thing, I left it to die like so many other pipe dreams. Wouldn’t it be nifty if there were some plugin developed with some simple markup syntax that would take something like “wp:Godel:wp” and turn it into a link to the Kurt Godel entry?

Good luck.

Posted on March 28, 2005 08:15 PM | #

10. dan hartung said: Well, you probably want to start with Wikipedia:Tools, although it chiefly lists browser-side thingamabobs for the ease of editing and tracking. There’s an apparently moribund Wikipedia API for Python project. For Firefox, it would be trivial to write a greasemonkey script to mimic Google’s AutoLink (or M$ Smart Tags), as Mark Pilgrim did with his “Butler” script, only directing to Wikipedia. Getting correct results would be tricky – I wrote in my blog about a site, upto11, that pulls in band articles, except there are often errors – such as Manitoba (Caribou) displaying the article for the province!

Posted on March 28, 2005 09:26 PM | #

11. Keith said: Daniel – This stuff went quickly over my head also! But at least I know it can be done…

dan – That Upto11 site is very close to what I was thinking as far as Wikipedia use. It was the great entries on music, movies, and books that got me thinking…and I can’t help but think that the Wikipedia could be doing much more…combine it with something like Ourmedia and, well….

Anyway, Upto11 has an interesting take on an similar idea I was tossing about the other day. Not the same, but close. For one thing it seems almost too automated…I like my recommendations with more of a personal touch. But the use of Wikipedia is almost exactly what I was thinking. I can see how it’d need a good editor (or three) to avoid errors like you mention.

I wonder if they’d tell me how they did it? ;0)

Posted on March 28, 2005 11:32 PM | #

12. Anil said: Gina’s made some great progress with her WikipedizeText web service.

Posted on March 29, 2005 01:33 AM | #

13. Jonathan Fenocchi said: Answers.com queries the Wikipedia site, or so it seems. I’m working on a JavaScript artificial intelligence robot which will basically respond to any text you put into a box, and I had planned on using Ajax to retrieve related information on specific topics to make the robot smarter. Unfortunately, neither Answers.com nor Wikipedia offers an XML query service, so I emailed them and surprisingly got a response. As far as I know, however, they haven’t implemented such a thing. As a result, my JavaScript artifical intelligence robot has been consolidating in the empty virtual reality that is cyberspace.

Posted on March 29, 2005 05:03 PM | #

14. Gina said: I love WikiWax typeahead search, like Google Suggest for Wikipedia.

Posted on March 31, 2005 06:51 AM | #

Ttturbo 11:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, the article I deleted was utterly incomprehensible. At best (and reading it in a certain way), the author was arguing that Wikipedia had been hacked. As I read this evidence presented above, what emerges is that people are discussing the possibility that it had occurred and - if it had - how it could have been achieved. Importantly, however, this reads like a collection of posts in a forum, which is not a reliable source. The claim made in this post that there was some kind of political agenda in the whole thing is nonsensical. Note further that the user in question has been indefinitely blocked due to his disruptive practices here, and has also been blocked for a year at the Lithuanian Wikipedia for the same reason. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a closer reading of this collection of posts suggests that all that is under discussion is the extraction of data from the database at this site. The article I deleted seemed to make claims of malicious activities. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
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 07:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet universities
"not really saying much that isn't said elsewhere" - where exatly is this elsewhere? I would like to read about universities in Eastern Block.Xx236 11:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Education in [Country]" should do it. If it doesn't, it doesn't necessarily follow that the article I advocated deletion of needs to be kept, since it was poorly-written, hardly sourced and irreparably biased. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
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 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)