User talk:Clayoquot/Archive 3

Furry and feathery critters
I've left a list of substantial articles for folk at both WP mammals and WP birds to whet their teeth on to get to GA or FA. Feel free to add any other largish articles to it or get stuck into them..cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know :) Kla'quot 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC
Hi there, I wondered if you had any feedback on the article? The nomination page is Featured article candidates/Evolution. Thanks! TimVickers 05:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I probably won't have time to give it proper review, although I would have loved to. Thanks for letting me know. Kla'quot 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cougar
Anything left, or is it in keep territory? Thanks for all your input. Marskell 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 99% there. I'm in the process of reading the sources on evolutionary history and would like to work on that section a little bit. I think I can do this in the next 24 hours. You've done a terrific job on the article. Kla'quot 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On taxonomy, I'd rather say a little very securely than a lot with an even a little uncertainty. Jaguar says a lot, but it was rewritten by User:KimvdLinde who (her grumbling about Wikipedia aside) is a professional. If you really want to dig into the evolutionary history, we should do it on Felidae itself. Marskell 20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have reworked the section boldly but (I think) within the bounds of my limited expertise. If you could check my recent edits for accuracy, etc. that would be great. Kla'quot 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See here. We cannot securely make this statement so I have removed. In fact, your intuitive objections of the other day may have been most accurate. If something goes back in "effectively unresolved" will have to be the critical point. Marskell 13:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've actually copied this whole thread to the talk and responded more fully there. Cheers, Marskell 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
You beat me to the punch with the Barnstar today. This isn't (merely) returning the favour—I had planned to pass it along for your hard work. All the best.




 * Thanks Marskell, this is very nice :) By the way, I'm a woman - I wasn't thinking about "Clay" being a boy's name when I chose the name (which happens to be prime Cougar territory) so it confuses people. Ah well... Cheers! Kla'quot 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fin Whale picture
Hi, just dropping you a note that I was so impressed with the Fin Whale picture that I googled the photographer's name hoping to find more of her stuff, and uncovered the fact that it wasn't actually a NOAA image. I confirmed this with the photographer via email. She gave NOAA permission to use the image on their work, but didn't release it into the public domain. Apparently, NOAA improperly attributed the work. I removed the picture from the article and tagged the image on commons for speedy deletion. Neil916 (Talk) 21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage
If 3RR applies to Today's Featured Article, then TFA literally cannot work. But! Even in the midst of a TFA, established editors shouldn't be reverting one another. There's no clear exception written into policy for this, but it's clearly a matter of WP:SENSE. Don't mean to be abrupt; I'll reply more fully tomorrow. Marskell 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought 3RR wouldn't apply to blatant silly vandalism....would it?cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping by. No, 3RR doesn't apply to reverting simple vandalism. Ordinarily though, it applies to reverting good-faith poor edits such as addition of cruft, I-saw-it-on-the-Internet-so-it-must-be-true factoids, and POV edits. I agree that TFA maintenance would be a good time to ignore 3RR, but I wasn't sure if the community would share my view. Perhaps this is worth clarifying in the 3RR policy page... Kla'quot 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can revert graffiti as much as you need to. What I would suggest wouldn't apply is "undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time" wrt to POV factoids, internet memes etc. If I revert ten times good faith but wrong or tangential material from ten different users, then I think it's fine. You do have to do this on the TFA because a lot of anon edits are of this sort. We could have a clarification on the 3RR policy, but I'd like to see that there's an actual problem and that this gets brought up as such. Marskell 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the general idea that when experienced contributors are babysitting a high-traffic page, they should do what has to be done and not worry too much about 3RR. So what I think you're saying makes sense to me. I'm not entirely sure if the community sees it the same way as we do, which is a bit of a concern for me, but like you I'm willing to wait before proposing a change to the policy. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 02:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again...
Here we go again, though I am surprised this is here as I'd have thought there were FAs in worse shape. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My brain is too full to take on another article right now, but I'm totally cheering for you guys from the sidelines. Have fun! Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 05:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, no worries. not in too bad shape anyway. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Blue Whale at FAR
Thanks for your message mate. I hope that I can be of assistance. Lets try and make your week then eh? Kind regards and best wishes, Anonymous Dissident  Utter 07:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For the future
I like working on collabs so I've made a bit of a standing list here as a subpage of my userpage, just in case one comes up to collaborate on in the future if you think I'll like it too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Additonally, wanna put yer 2c in here? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments
Thanks for your comments on my Talk page about the Delta and Dawn article edits. I never even really paid attention to my own user pages before but now see value in them.

Funny thing about how that edit came to be is that I live in San Francisco and was talking about the whales at work when a question came up about what whales eat so I went to Google which sent me to the Wikipedia and I noticed that there was no mention of the two whales yet so I said offhand that I might add a section so of course that got some attention from co-workers who dared me to follow through, and when I went in to see if I could do that I found someone else had given me all the raw materials I needed. So it worked out great!

JSH 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere
(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SkyTrain
The article was promoted and I hope you feel responsible in the good sense (that your participation fleshed out some issues) and not in the bad way (regret). It's not perfect (no article is) but it is good enough, I suppose. I understand that you still have some reservations so I would like to work with you a little more. My intention was to go over the criticism section as seen on my userpage (provide a more comprehensive overview) but if there is a more-pressing aspect let me know and I will investigate. --maclean 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! There are a few outstanding things in my comments from the FAC which I'd like to see addressed, and the lead should be updated. I think you're on the right track, no pun intended. I might drop in later to help out. Cheers, Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"General protest"
Regarding this comment at BDJ's RFA, I suspect you were engaging in hyperbole to make your point. Unfortunately, you're too late for that party; allow me to present the block log of Donald Neilson for your entertainment, along with User:Doc glasgow's unapologetic subsequent stubbing once it was restored. It's all getting a little Pythonesque for me... --DeLarge 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Potts
Great to see the article being improved. I made the redirect as a temporary measure. I was unsure if the best way to approach her was a separate biography or a mention in the George Medal article. I'm always disturbed to see sub par articles about living people. This was not close to being a biography but instead a discussion of a single event in her life. Recently this article had vandalism on it for over 24 hours before it was removed. This made me feel that it was under watched and ripe for trouble. Until I could sort it out, I made the redirect out of caution. If editors are improving the article than likely there should be no problem. If later we find there is not enough material for a full biography, then we can still redirect/merge. Thanks for the query. Take care, FloNight 21:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. To be honest, I was hoping you would say that blanking this article without discussion and not moving even a single sentence of its contents elsewhere was a misstep on your part. I appreciate that many articles which we currently have under individuals' names should be retitled or merged, however you did neither in this case. If you think a BLP is of poor quality and underwatched, you can watch it, list on the BLP noticeboard, improve it, be bold and merge or move it, protect it, or prod it. I fail to see why this version of the article warranted the measure you took. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vulgar and offensive POV at a user talk page
I think that the reason for Jeff's vulgarity is irrelevant. It is not acceptable, and sets a poor precedent for the project, especially when this user's link is all over the place and new users are likely to find their way there. Per User page:
 * Inappropriate content (section)
 * ''There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself.  You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, ...  Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor. --Kevin Murray 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin. Your edit summary when you removed it was, "Removed propaganda from a talk page -- better off at a user page." This didn't indicate to me that you were removing it because it was offensive but because it was in the wrong place. Also, most of what you removed consisted of a list of articles that Jeff had worked on, which wouldn't offend anyone. If you choose to remove the part that you think violates the policy, I won't revert you. (Although should say that while I personally disagree with the language Jeff has chosen, I think he has a right to say it.) Please don't remove unobjectionable content though. Cheers, Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you are right I did two things at once and didn't clearly explain that which I found more egregious. The self promotion probably is more appropriate for the user page, but that is a minor nit.  I think that I'll pass on more action right now as I'm in vacation mode and going boating for 10 days.  Have a great weekend.  --Kevin Murray 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, 10 days off! I hope you had a great trip. Cheers, Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 02:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fin Whale photo

 * Aw, thanks! This is really nice. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lion season - one in all in
Marskell wants to get Lion to FA and reckons (prob'ly rightly) its a pretty tall order for one editor - I'm thinking ambitiously but it could be a cracker - say 50-60kb and 120 odd refs or so. I have laid it out as per Jaguar FA but it is pretty bare. One of us could do Lion-taming, one Lion-baiting, one conservation etc. Could be fun. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Cas. Hmmm, I don't think I'll be keen enough to work on the actual writing, but I'd like to lend a hand with copyediting. Can you give me a shout when it's ready for a copyedit? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems - should give you a hoy in a couple of weeks. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thx
Thank you for the note of support on sources. Some of the arguments are totally bewildering. I see you in the contrib history on the king of the beasts. A good one to get in shape, I think. Marskell 09:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought we'd try and get the whole capitalization issue sorted before we lionized further so I wanted to get everyone's feelings on it - can you please input into the capitalization debate on lion talk page.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FT
How 'bout a Featured topic ?

Ones I've thought most readily doable would be Monotremes, which has Short-beaked Echidna and Platypus as FAs already, but need work on Eastern Long-beaked Echidna, Sir David's Long-beaked Echidna and Western Long-beaked Echidna with sprucing up of the family and genus articles as well as Monotreme and the prehistoric Steropodontidae. Length would determine whether to shoot for FA or GA....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The other obvious one would be all the Baleen Whales....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Cas, Your energy is amazing! I'm super-busy for the next week at least, and right now can't even really think about what might come after Lion. One species-article which I think should be much better is Manatee. But right now I'm just looking forward to copyediting Lion with you guys. Cheers! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ...........or a lion FT! - lion as FA, all lion subarticles - cultural/heraldry/subsp./lionbaiting and liontaming all GA (or FA). Maybe good as a beacon for other pop cult articles too....(just got home - had a margerita while out - pardon the spelling..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about an Orca FT?! Lots to say about that one! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What would be the subpages...I'll looksee...but in the meantime theres..............(wait for it)

Yet another FT idea (well Marskell's actually but...)
OK in freudian free-association here:

FT - Wild Cats of North America - Jaguar (FA), Cougar (FA), Bobcat (FA)....and Canadian Lynx....I tidied it up and organized it like Bobcat...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I'm not that keen on lynxes though, so I think I'll pass on that one for now. I'm also in extra-busy mode for the next week at least, and it's summer here so there is real-life wildlife to go and see! Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(Not as easy as I thought anyway - I forgot Ocelot and Margay....)


 * The rorquals are very close to being a FT. We have Blue whale, Fin whale, Sei whale and Humpback whale in there. With a little work on the Minke and Bryde's species, we'd have it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd shied away from that one as the DNA suggests we should sling in Gray Whale too, but we can do that.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Google test"
I've reworked the page Search engine test and note you discussed its standing 6 months ago now.

Do you want to review its correct standing now, again? FT2 (Talk 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi FT2, I actually had very little to do with the development of the page, and I don't use the page much either. I think my only contribution was writing the nutshell version (which is now the first line of the longer nutshell), and I was actually a little surprised that it stuck. FWIW, I think your rewrite is clear, easy to read, and makes sense. Cheers! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of import?
Fancy adding something here? See first item. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Cas, I've been on a bit of a summer wiki-holiday for the past few days so I see I'm late to the party in that discussion. It's pretty clear to me that the reasoning behind a preference secondary sources is to avoid writing original research. It is also obvious that using scientific journals as sources does not usually constitute original research. I can't understand why these issues would be contentious, but if they are please let me know and I'll try to help sort things out. Best wishes! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification
Just a super quick note, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 21 is out and can be downloaded at the usual places (if you've forgotten, WikipediaWeekly.com works wonders. -- Tawkerbot 01:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD
Following your recent participation in Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your arbitration evidence
That was a very effective presentation on Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence‎. Thanks for contributing it; it's an angle I hadn't realised and is really very striking when you present it like that. Just one thing, though. Humus sapiens accused me of "one-sided activism on the page in question" (the American apartheid article). I'd never edited it, commented on it, participated in the AfD or had any other interaction with it prior to the AfD closure. Humus' accusation was factually wrong - I'd be grateful if you could make that clear in your evidence. -- ChrisO 08:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, thanks for the compliment. I have replaced the first instance of Humus's quote with one from Mantanmoreland which conveys the same opinion minus the factual error. As for pointing out the factual error, I'll leave it to you as it wouldn't make any difference for me to say it. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 16:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I wonder if I could ask you one further thing which occurred to me in the course of the day? You're quite right to compare the course of the two DRVs, but there is an important point which I feel needs to be mentioned - the DRV involving Jayjg resulted in his action being overturned, the one involving me endorsed my action in very strong terms ("it is consensus below that the decision was the only reasonable choice that might have been made" - Xoloz). I think the outcome of the two DRVs needs to be mentioned so that a balanced overview can be provided. -- ChrisO 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you plan to add any findings of fact or principles to the arbitration workshop based on this? If not, I'd like to mention it and link it to the very evident pattern of partisan voting identified in my evidence (see Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence). You'll note that all of the editors that you quote can be seen acting in a very similar partisan fashion in the AfDs. I've taken the liberty of citing your evidence in the workshop at Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop. Please feel free to add any comments as you see fit. -- ChrisO 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris, thanks for your note. I'm very busy and am travelling on and off these days, so unfortunately I can't give this case the amount of attention I would like. if there is something you think needs to be said, I encourage you to say it yourself. Saves time, and if ArbCom is working properly, it shouldn't make any difference whether a piece of evidence comes from me or you. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lion
Dear Clayoquot -I think this is more or less finished content-wise. I haven't any refs or info on some subspecies which is frustrating. Can you see any other blaring omissions or things we should leave out as well (as CE stuff)? All input much appreciated even just a little bit if you're flat out...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Cas, I'm just about to head out of town and off the grid for a week. I'm looking forward to helping out though when I come back. Thanks for asking! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm back! August in B.C. is so beautiful. I'm perusing the article bit by bit and will leave comments on the article talk page. Looks like you guys have done a ton of work. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick input needed
Given you've had a bit of a look...and the size of the Lion article - I'm wondering how big to make the communication section. It is as brief as i could be now, but could be a helluva lot bigger....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "maybe one in the other direction" edit
Hey there, it may look contradictory at first, but the actions of Jayjg that I was referring to were not analogous to ChrisO's AfD closure at all. What Jayjg did in the military aid to Israel debate was unilaterally reverse an Doc Glasgow's keep decision of the article, with the edit summary of "nonsense". That is what I was calling for action/sanction on, a very brazen and intentional usurpation of the AfD process. ChrisO's situation was that some felt since he was "involved" in the general sense of being involved in Middle Eastern articles that he should not have closed that AfD. Perhaps in future situations, yes, it would be better for him to get a non-involved admin (although ^demon, a non-involved admin, was savaged in his closure of the Chinese apartheid) to close, but using that as a reason to overturn his AfD at that present case was ludicrous.

So if you find that explanation acceptable, could you edit your Evidence section appropriately? Either by excising that entirely or putting some of my explanation above as an addendum, doesn't matter to me.

If not, then can you point out where in the Workshop page this tangent sprang from so that I can present it? That page is getting kinda lengthy, and I don't see where Mackensen asked that right off. Thanks, and hopefully this helped. Tarc 12:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tarc. I think the statement I gave is worded openly enough to be compatible with your explanation. It would be most effective if you gave your explanation yourself, in your own section, than if I gave it for you. Mackensen's request is here. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Tarc 12:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS changes
Thanks; I was always uncomfortable with that ArbComm thing stuck fiercely, right at the top. Tony 02:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 28
   Good news, everyone: Wikipedia  Weekly  Episode 28 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/09/04/wikipedia-weekly-28/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project!

For Wikipedia Weekly —  W ODU P  04:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Della Falls Image
Your images are well done and valuable. Thanks for doing them. -- KenWalker | Talk 05:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ken! After camping out in last Monday's rain (remember that?) taking the pictures was the fun part ;) Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do indeed remember that rain . . . and I was indoors. It looks like the weather broke for you photos.  At full resolution, they zoom in nicely.  There is something special about a place that is only 20 or so miles from here and yet almost no one gets to see it.  I flew over the falls a few weeks ago in a light aircraft and even though we poked around and knew where they were, we couldn't really pick them out from the air.  Elusive! -- KenWalker | Talk 07:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really
Nah, I am just in the margin back. Maybe when some POV-pushing editors finally piss off that I come back somewhat. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikignome Award

 * Thanks Cas, and congratulations on FA status! You did 20 times more work on this than I did and probably more than anyone. I still don't know how you keep it up :) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Never uppercase anywhere ever at all
Glad you had a giggle. I think entomologists should take up all lower case because their subject matter is so small. Marskell 09:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 31
   '''Oh, boy! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 31 has been released!'''

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/09/26/wikipedia-weekly-31-return-of-the-panel/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly. We're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project!

For Wikipedia Weekly —  W ODU P  02:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Image
Thanks for bringing that up; I've removed his name. Picaroon (t) 03:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 32
   '''Great news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 32 has been released!'''

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/09/episode-32-trust-me/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly —  W ODU P  08:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Wikipedia Weekly
A couple new episodes - we're posting the infobox to save duplicating info.



Onsite · Offsite Subscription · Feedback

For the podcast crew -- Tawkerbot 20:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)