User talk:Saturday/Archive 3

Archive 3 | Archive &rarr;

FYI, you may be interested in this result
Requests for checkuser/Case/AZJustice. The various socks of this individual have been blocked. I'm sorry for the mess you've had to put up with ... if he returns, please let me know or contact (who performed the checkuser) so that future socks can be blocked. --BigDT 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah don't worry abut it. He is really not a bother. Thanks for doing the Checkuser report by the way, I have had a suspicion that AZJustice/Mr. Murphy was involved. I can assume he will return soon enough, so I will probably contact you shortly. Thanks for all the help. Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 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 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers
Cheers Phil, your a good guy. I was planning to do most of my Rfa thanks tomorrow, but you deserve better! So thanks for supporting me. When are you planning to run? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the honour lol. Studies are killing me right now but I finally caught up and will be doing more editing, so maybe I will run in a month or two. Good luck editing.  Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The phantom block
Thank you Phil, the "block" dissappeared as mysteriously as it came...a glitch I guess.

Thank you for checking on it tho! Sue Rangell 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep not a problem, if you have any other issues feel free to ask me. Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  01:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 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 05:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:CIVIL in your edit summaries
Reference edit summary to Veronica Castro; please tone it down. Ronbo76 23:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like to make jokes, see Snakes on a Plane. I see nothing wrong with an edit summary that adequately explains my position, and explains it with humour. Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  04:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You call this edit summary humor? Ronbo76 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, you need to see Snakes on a Plane. Very funny movie, very popular phrase.  Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am asking you to acknowledge what you did on one of my Watchpages. Ronbo76 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Acknowledge that I made a joke? I made a joke in an edit summary. If you really have a huge problem with this, file a report somewhere. Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  15:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite obvious that you have an attitude problem, Phil. I'm not the only one who thinks so! 172.135.41.206 09:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikihalo Award

 * Jeez, thanks. I was starting to dislike coming to Wikipedia because of all the spammers and vandals, but this made me think again. It is really nice to know that someone appreciates simple vandal patrol. Thank you so much. Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ask: Is it groovy with you if I chuck this on my userpage? Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol
You had me wondering there for a minute. Thanks,  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 06:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User page
Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And again. It's so much fun being so popular. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no problem, and I know how you feel. Ever hear of a guy named Don Murphy? Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  01:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Murphy
I tried to explain the BLP violation on the page- there was a reason. PanFordThunder 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Responded on your talk page. Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 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 07:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

North Korea
This is my reply to someone else who edited off my addition.. He gave me his reasons.. (what is POV anyway?) If you knew that everything I say about the subject is the truth, would you call it "social commentary"? talk is cheap, is true cheap as well? If the average hight of boys in north korea is 7" shorter than that of same age boys in south korea because of malnutrition, If thousands die in concentration camps because of a comment they might have uttered against the government, If on the other hand the "president" had 200 imported limousines and a 22000 titles movie library... and finally if after all the countries you have been to you couldn't step into North Korea because it's the closest country on earth and because they don't want you to see that what I say, which in any case is well documented, is true.. What would you say to an old women who is dying by giving whatever food she has to her grand child so at least he can live?


 * Sorry, I should have explained. POV is short for Point of View, the way a person looks at and describes things. It must be followed in all Wikipedia articles because, as an encyclopedia, we must be neutral. While I whole-heartedly agree that North Korea is a prime example of totalitarianism, some of your statements are a personal view and are not neutral. These kind of statements are not allowed in articles. While your statements are incredibly true, they are not neutral and not cited. Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If what I say is true then it is unjust to talk about a country like North Korea and it's government as if they are normal. ok, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. How can truth be unnatural? .. just read your reply, thank you, can you help make it better for wiki? 

More food for thought..If the people of the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" had a chance to pick into Wikipedia, and sow how normally and objectively their country was presented to the world, they would say that Wikipedia had no heart and you might answer that it shouldn't, unless you were willing to put yourself in their shoes.. If all Wikipedia needs "to have a heart" is telling it like it is and not like just another system of "government" than is it too much to ask? Is it really governing and not torturing and killing that is happening today in North Korea? If there was a wikipedia during world war two. would wikipedia have tried to be so neutral in describing the government system of Adolf Hitler? Where would have the railroad tracks find place within that government. (yes, I am upset) 


 * Well your addition:

"North Korea, is ultimately the worst example of totalitarianism in the human history with the worst human rights violations, see Human rights in North Korea. To attempt to describe it's government and politics in normal terms is to give it a legitimacy that, to say the least, it does not deserve, and to do injustice to the people who suffer under it's yoke. It can be said that what is happening in North Korea today is George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four nightmare come true."


 * Pretty much this entire paragraph cannot be used. Saying that "North Korea, is ultimately the worst example of totalitarianism" is POV, as is saying that (paraphrased) "attempting to describe its government and politics (...) does injustice to the people who suffer under its yoke". The statement about George Orwell's 1984 is not encyclopedic in tone. If a few reputable scholars or societies/journals wrote something like that then it has a small possibility of being added in and cited, but it is a pretty small possibility. One things that may be salvaged from the paragraph completely is the statement about North Korea having the worst human rights violations, but again, it must be put in the proper spot and have multiple references (ie. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). But if you look at this section you can already see that those words are already there. Also, the edition of Big Brother next to cult of personality is not appropriate. The sentence it was added to is also going to be removed by me shortly, as it is not referenced.


 * If you have any other questions or comments, feel free to ask, but I will only be able to respond tomorrow, I really need to go to bed. Goodnight, Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  06:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In my personal opinion, totalitarianism is not government, just order imposed by fear. Government is order imposed by law and the people. Anyway, Wikipedia is not trying to make a point, it is trying to be neutral. While neutral mens that you cannot put in your own point of view about the government, you can certainly put in all the rotten stuff the government has done if it is all accurately referenced. The decision is left up to the reader how to analyze the content. And yes, asking an encyclopedia to take sides is too much to ask, because encyclopedias don't take sides. Wikipedia would have profiled Adolf Hitler's "government" in a neutral tone; but they wouldn't censor anything either. They would say that there were 12 million people massacred in concentration camps. They would say that Jews were discriminated against. But they would not say if it was right or wrong, they would present the information as accurately and neutrally as possible. They leave the reader with the facts to make up their own opinion. Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I am curious if you read 1984, because if you did, it might help you at least understand what motivates me. I read the book when I was very young and I felt happy because I didn't have to live in the world it depicted. After 1984 passed I was happy the prophecy didn't come true, and the memory of the book only served as a reminder to me of what we all take for granted and as a warning. Then I saw the documentary on North Korea and was shocked into realizing that 1984 is a reality for millions of people. If you didn't see this documentary, than I think you should, and I would gladly get it for you. There are many people who know but don't care, many who know but feel helpless, like me, to do anything about it, and then there are many who don't know about it at all. From what I see in your page I get the impression that you would have been a lot better than I am if you picked up any cause. It looks like you do have at least one, and it's to educate, otherwise why volunteer in Wikipedia. I don't know if I should go on since I am not sure exactly how interested you are in this. Just think about this - there is no such thing as a "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" <Yoradler5 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)>


 * Sorry that I couldn't get back to you on time, I was kinda busy on another page. I'm kinda stressed out right now, so sorry in advance if I make mistake in this response or sound angry or something. Yes, I tried reading 1984, but I really didn't like it. While some say, you and others, that North Korea is a living 1984 (which I completely agree with, being familiar with the subject matter of 1984) it is not appropriate to put such a thing in an article. It is not encyclopedic in tone and cannot be substantiated. If there were several major published papers dealing with NK is considered to be a living 1984 then it would still probably not be written in the article. An encyclopedia's purpose is to educate about things that are mostly based on solid fact. Saying that NK is comparable to George Orwell's 1984 is not based in solid fact. That is based on personal opinion and original research. It cannot be included at a place that is based on fact. It is a known fact that North Korea's human right record is horrible. It is known fact that it is a totalitarian regime. But it is not known fact that it is 1984 in real life. I really don't know how else to explain it. Continue trying to get your point to me. I will gladly listen and will try to help you out. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  05:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, don't worry about not answering right a way, feel free to answer at your leisure. As far as sounding angry, I guess what I am trying to do is stir up any emotion about the subject since it seems to be a non issue for everybody around me, so maybe it's not so bad. I do understand how facts have to be the sole consideration for Wikipedia but I have to ask you this, if as you say it is a known fact that NK has a totalitarian regime, why then do the words/phrases "President", "Supreme People's Assembly", "Socialist Republic", "Workers Party of Korea", and "Korean Social Democratic Party", all empty of meaning in a totalitarian system, take a comfortable place in the section "Government and politics" while the word "totalitarian" doesn't appear there even once? Why doesn't it appear in the section "Culture" where there is a mention of a popular event called the "mass games" where thousands of people glorify their leader and help him to deceive the rest of us? And then, I don't know if you just didn't like the writing in 1984 or it was too depressing that made you give it up, but the though occurred to me that you have the luxury of not reading about the misery that others are forced to live. It is not the first time or the first subject that I feel this way about when it comes to not reading. Hope I don't bother you too much. <Yoradler5 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)>

You answered within 1 hour before so to take the pressure off i said answer at your leisure, can I still hope for an answer? <68.175.62.206 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)>


 * I left wikipedia. Do what you wish, I won't respond anymore. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

IP harassment
The IPs that have been harassing you on this page have been temporarily blocked. Please feel free to let me know if this problem continues. Newyorkbrad 17:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I will. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007
Hello, ! Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia, which you did in Rossville, Staten Island. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. — zero » 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is ongoing harassment by the same serial vandal/troll on a dynamic IP, so the usual escalation of warnings is not necessary. Please advise if semiprotection is required for this article. Newyorkbrad 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, semi-protection would be nice. I filed a report at Requests for page protection but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere right now. Cheers, Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll semi the article and it's talkpage. Should I do the same with this page? Newyorkbrad 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No thank you, I think he has stopped already. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How can someone like you, who commits vandalism and antagonizes other wikipedians, ever think that he could possibly become an Wikipedia administrator? I suggest that you voluntarily withdraw your acceptance of your nomination by Z.E.R.O. to avoid the humiliation of rejection. 172.135.41.206 09:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA nomination ready
Hello. It seems that I would like to nominate you for administrator on this day. Will you accept this RfA nomination? — zero » 18:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="afd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFAEF; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;"> Z.E.R.O. would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Z.E.R.O. to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. This message was sent by Wikipedian, — zero » 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest if this is going to be accepted that Z.E.R.O. writes a better nom, it really needs to fully reflect Phils work on the wiki and go into details of how he opperates, that can't quite be done in 1 line! Anyway, best of luck to you both Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you would like to co-nom Ryan? Fix up the nom a bit and I will accept it. For now though, I will wait. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly will do, just about to nip out, but I'll have a look at it when i get back in about an hour Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just not good at making descriptions to other contributors when it comes to RfAs (I usually focus on anti-vandalism). You may fix the nom info if necessary. — zero » 19:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Co-nom is now complete, proceed when ready! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you ready to roll? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, about to add it to the page, just wondering what they meant by change the time on the page... Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Change the time ending to time that the request was added to WP:RFA, leave it to me if you want Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, can you do that for me? I'm just going to add it to the top of the page now?
 * I'm ready when you add it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks a bunch. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rfa
Good luck on your Rfa!:) Have a nice week:) --James, La gloria è a dio 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) <div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your RFA
Hi! I have withdrawn your RFA as it does not have the support of the community at this moment. Please take a look at why the nom failed. Regards, 15:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Phil, don't leave because of this, incivility issues can easily be sorted, your a great wikipedian and you will make a very good admin in the future, all the problems with this Rfa will be forgottern in the future Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See, I don't think I was uncivil in anyway during that edit summary. Thanks for the well wishes, I may come back in a year or so. Maybe. I will maintain my position that such an edit summary, while using language some people don't like, was not uncivil. If you have ever seen RickK's page you will know how I feel about how people also look at vandal fighters who get cynical/sarcastic. If you wish to further contact me, use the e-mail in my history. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 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 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 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 05:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

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 08:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography
The following RfC was posted earlier today in order to end this dispute once and for all. I trust that you will do the same, Phil. 172.135.184.176 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk:Rossville, Staten Island - As part of an ongoing edit war, Philip Gronowski has been arbitrarily reverting all additions of external links to the article as "removal of spam". These external links, which had been part of the article since it's creation, are not spam, and were unjustifiably removed. One external link links to an article about the 150th anniversary of the oldest Roman Catholic Church in Staten Island, which is located in the neighborhood. Another external link links to a website created by a former resident who describes what it was like to grow up in the area before it was built up. It seems to me that this Philip Gronowski character, who has recently been resoundingly rejected in his candidacy for RfA, is not making legitimate revisions based on the rules of Wikipedia, but on his own interpretation of what is "spam". I'd like to request that this article be submitted for third party arbitration, as I have exhausted all attempts at a compromise with Mr. Gronowski. I will abide by any decision made by an impartial administrator concerning this dispute. Thank you very much for your consideration. 172.135.184.176 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Groovy, but the RFA does not matter whatsoever in this dispute. You should also note that I did allow the inclusion of the Church article after discussion. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your RfA matters in respect the fact that it can be interpreted as an indication of your temprament in dealing with vandals and edit disputes. It takes two to tango, and there wouldn't have been an edit war on the the Rossville, Staten Island article if you had better discretion. Anyone who reads the discussion of your RfA candidacy might come to the conclusion that you are being unreasonable in your continued and persistant revisions to that, and many other, articles. Sometimes people get a little upset when articles, which they worked hard to create, are arbitrarily edited and/or deleted by overzealous editors. As far as the inclusion of external links in the article, you need to be more objective and not dismiss the opinions of other editors such as myself. All I ask is that the two links mentioned above (The St. Joseph's Church link, and the "My Father's House" link) remain as part of the article. They do not violate WP:EL, and they are contructive to the article. 172.135.184.176 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No I believe that the RFA does not matter. A person does not look at RFAs to determine personal character and edit history, they look at the edit history of the user. I have left the St. Joesph's article in, but I removed the other one because it is not an apporpriate link, per WP:EL. Look under links normally to be avoided and then at point 11. It states that personal webpages written by a non-recognized authority should be removed. Also, external links which only vaguely relate to the subject matter are also removed. I'm going somewhere and won't be back untill around 9:30 or so, so expect responses around then.  Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  21:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page. Some vandal with multiple socks seems to be enjoying himself. Meh. :-P Regards, Hús  ö  nd  02:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 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 06:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy
Hi Philip...I've asked Mr. Murphy to remove your name from his website. In that respect, I'm also suggesting you avoid any contact with the article about him.

Thanks!

Cary Bass 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully join in this recommendation. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I'll still be watching it for vandalism or Portrait of a Sad Young Man thing to come up again. I think I said it yesterday too at ANI, which also gives my reasons for the Tarantino thing. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * oh, and as a favour, could you tell him I say thanks and wish him the best? You know, I never had anything against the guy personally, just some of the stuff he did. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And just to add on, there are two threads that I think he missed, being Shitapedia Frolics and Shitapedia Frolics Sunday. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks for the award. Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 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 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: 31 CER
Hey, thanks alot for your contributions to 31 CER, it is much appreciated. What is the name of the fellow you are getting your information from? Just curious. Don't be afraid to ask me any questions. Thank you again. -- Reaper  X  16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of the guys, all of them from Woodstock. So that would be Cliche, Leistra, Sword, Afonso. I referenced only one because I am almost positive that Cliche would be the only one to give me info. Am I assuming you are Mittleholtz (sorry if spelled wrong)? Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Heywood. Hah, yea I would have put my bets on Cliche as well. And by the way, could I ask that you respond on my talk page in the future? Thanks, cheers. -- Reaper  X  16:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 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 06:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 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 06:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 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 09:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 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 05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)