User talk:Doopdoop

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 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you have moved the spreadsheet animation to the formula section of the article.

This seems to me to be missing the point of the animation, which I believe attempts to encapsulate almost the entire essence of a spreadsheet in one extremely simple demonstration. I took my "Q" from the animated GIF in internal combustion engine which is excellent. If you can do better, please feel free. I used a free web based tool that only allowed me to use a maximum of 10 images to produce the GIF. If I had been allowed say 30 images, I could have just as easily demonstrated many of the other components of a spreadsheet. There have been various previous attempts at showing a generic spreadsheet but all so far have either been too specific to a particular product or have had other weaknesses. I had hoped my new GIF would be both simple and generic.

Now, once again, there is no image at all to accompany the definition - too bad - please do better!Kdakin3420 (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

: The problem is that some users might not like blinking animations. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:: Then why don't you remove the "blinking" lot of them including the excellent animation on internal combustion engines? !!!Kdakin3420 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doopdoop&action=edit§ion=6

Editing User talk:Doopdoop (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just tried to revert my edit 3 times. Its pretty clear that you and Freedomwarrior are one and the same. You both seem to share an interest in right wing philosophy, and an interest in editing with POV articles on health care and Cuba! You clearly forgot to log out and log in again. I mentioned in December that in 2008 we can expect to see new WP editor accounts emerging to take up the job of adding bias to those health care articles. Well lo and behold, your account was created 31 Dec and you now edit alternately with your alter ego. This is a warning to you not to start edit warring like you at the end of last year and not to use "shell accounts" as you called them, to push your POV. And now Kborer has picked up again. Its amazing how all three of you have suddenly emerged again from a long edit break to start work pushing POV into the health care articles. At least be honest and just use the one account.--Tom (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

:Make sure you don't get mixed up in all the contra arguments you are having with yourself at Universal health care! Maybe you need more time in the Caribbean to recuperate!--Tom (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What can I say that you haven't already probably inferred, Tom is paranoid. He keeps on accusing me of creating shell accounts and the like, because I suggested that it'd be stupid to handle disputes through a democratic process. Now, if I was really using sock-puppets, why on earth would I object to a straw poll that I could easily win by creating sockpuppets? It really makes no sense, does it? But you see, Tom doesn't do that whole reason thing.

Tom has gone so far as to present a formal accusation against Kborer and me. Despite an administrator telling him that he was dead wrong, he nonetheless insists on accusing Kborer of being my sockpuppet. Give him time and he'll even make a formal accusation against us, lol

It's the classic argument by intimidation. Fortunately, Tom isn't all that intimidating...

Anyway, welcome to the back and forth that I've been enduring for months now. It's always good to have other editors who are willing to give reason a try. Cheers, Freedomwarrior (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:I think the legal response would be "not proven" not "wrong". WP recognizes that an IP check is not a proven way to demonstrate sock-puppetry and that behaviour of editors is often the way to prove this. I think I am building up a good record of a pattern of behaviour here. Especially the pattern of frantic and sudden changes that happened around Christmas. Although you can make it hard to undo edits I think there are enough editors now with enough determination to prevent overt or covert POV coming into these articles. Hopefully you are not about to engage in another bout of that. We have to try to present the subject matter fairly and without bias and representing all major shades of opinion and the facts that underlie those opinions. If we can edit in this way, we can all have an enjoyable edit experience. Otherwise it's just tedious back and forth and I don't suppose you enjoy that any more than I do. Its better to work out these issues on the talk page first. This constant denial that the term is principally used in the U.S. is already starting to become tedious. If you have evidence to the contraty please present it. --Tom (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

::In response to an issue I raised at Talk:Socialized medicine you said that "I have read quite many GMU sources and accordingly I tend to use them, however when Kborer returns he will be able to supply additional references from Mises Institute and other sources, so there is no WP:Undue problem". For someone who claims there is no connection between you and that other editor, it is a strange thing to say. Care to explain yourself?--Tom (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

::: :) I have noticed Kborer is a fan of Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell and others like them. I'm not a fan of these organizations, but I know their views. I hope that Kborer returns soon, but because there is no connection between me and him I don't know when it will happen. I this explanation OK? --Doopdoop (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

:::: I does not explain the statement "when Kborer returns HE WILL..." Although WP asks that we assume good faith I have to say that it is very difficult to believe what you say. Reading your edits of the past weeks it is very clear that you are as bent on using the same techniques that I have described before to twist this article towards giving a view of the subject that seems to reflect your personal beliefs and away from a neutral examination. Such techniques include

• focusing on CLAIMS rather than FACTS

This makes it easier for you to use WP policy on verifiabilty to make non-factual statements about socialized medicine. Anyone can CLAIM something but this does not make it true. The section on innovation is a classic example of this. One of the articles you quoted focused on statistics on investment, research, Nobel prizes and made relative comparisons between the European Union and the USA and argued that the USA is more active and more successful and that somehow the Europeans and others grab all the benefits of R&D without funding it. It is complete nonsense of course. If the same argument had compared Britain and the USA, the results would have been reversed. British inventors have been highly involved in innovative developments in medical technology and medical research, and given that the USA is five times bigger than Britain, the argument could equally have been how highly successful the UK has been in Medical technology and research and that the USA benefits from UK public and private investment in health.

• BIASED and SELECTIVE use of quotes

You also make claims from research papers that you think support your opinions but disregard those that put the other view. Greg Alton has recently gone on to check the references you gave and has shown that you do this, adding back the qualifications that were in the original papers that you omit.

• USE of POLITICALLY BIASED U.S. sources to discuss an international topic

You are also fond of using institutes such as Cato, CPA and others (which are biased pressure groups for a particular shaping of US national policy on health care) and presenting them as somehow something other than a source to be treated with great caution. It is also highly destructive and biased to keep using such one nation biased sources to discuss a topic which is really very international and not really practised in the U.S. much beyond the socialized medicine practiced by the military and veterans health care systems. I recognize of course the politically charged debate ongoing in the USA but there are other articles where those arguments can be aired such as health care politics, which really should be renamed health care politics (USA).

• Sequencing arguments and counter arguments in such a way that a lazy reader could read the "negative" claims about socialized medicine and completely miss the "contra" factually based claims and arguments (because you move them away from the original claims so the connection is less clear).

I could go on. The same techniques were used by Freedomwarrior and Kborer. Your edits in the past weeks have, in my opinion, been relatively destructive to the fabric of this article. You do not discuss your main edit ideas using TALK as should happen. It is tiresome to have to keep challenging you. I would be curious to know what other editors think about your actions and motives and what they think should be done about it. Sadly I suspect that nothing can be done other than for the rest of the community to be more vigilent. For various reasons I have not had the time of late to participate in this activity.--Tom (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

: I wrote "when Kborer returns he will BE ABLE...", not "when Kborer returns HE WILL...", please avoid distorting my quotes in the future. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see why you describe the reference to the ICI Works Records System (a fully interactive CICS transaction processing system) as "fake". I have no idea about the other quoted "Time sharing" systems (which were probably teletype based at that time), but the ICI System was certainly an IBM 3270 display terminal based, WYSIWYG spreadsheet, comparable to todays spreadsheets but combined with a database. Kdakin3420 (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:It was not a reference to a published source. Could you provide one? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:: Not having been published (yet) does not make it "Fake". Fake suggests a deliberate attempt to falsify (i.e. invent) facts. I do actually own one of the original "Works Records System" nanuals from 1974 and I have already reproduced 8 pages of it on the Editgrid web-based spreadsheet website - [http://www.editgrid.com/user/ken/HISTORY_OF_SPREADSHEETS]

::along with other interesting facts about the System, including photographs, technical information and a mock-up. Since I published it, the original critics have remained silent as I am sure they realize my original updates to the Spreadsheet article were completely genuine.

::The efforts being made to suppress this information are leading me to the decision to actually write a book (or E-book?) about it myself. Even if I do however, I understand it will still not be eligible for Wikipedia as it will then be self published material!Kdakin3420 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:::"Fake" suggests a reference that does not lead to a source. All efforts to scan original pre-PC era spreadsheet manuals and put them on the web are really appreciated. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: I already did!

::::Fake- Please check your Wiktionary dictionary definition

::::http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fake

Kdakin3420 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, aren't those who get the most money at greatest economic risk when the world ends? You can't lose what you don't have. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

: :) --Doopdoop (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Doopdoop, you have reverted the reference to pejorative usage in the lead of the article at least four times over the last three days. The discussion is ongoing, and you have not attempted to show evidence to counter the numerous references that support the pejorative characterization. I urge you to self-revert. I also urge you to re-read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Putting a comment on a talk page, by itself, does not achieve consensus and does not justify another revert. Nothing is resolved. If you insist on continuing this way, it can be perceived as disruptive editing even though it does not technically violate 3RR. I'm suggesting we all try to get out of the bad habit of slow-motion revert wars on this page and actually try to resolve things in talk. I'm open to suggestion on how we can work together more constructively. --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

:I'll be very happy to self-revert if you could explain why there is no left-wing bias. I urge you to re-read WP:NPOV. Politicised viewpoints do not belong to the lead, but of course they might be entirely appropriate somewhere below if they are counterbalanced by other POVs. And I don't believe any consensus exists about the lead, as there was a big edit war about it with many participants on both sides (date was Feb. 16-18, I didn't participate). --Doopdoop (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

::As they say, you can't prove a negative, so I have no intention of trying to prove that there is no left-wing bias. However, 80 references in Google Books to "socialized medicine and pejorative" and, without even looking at them, you accuse them all of sharing the same bias? How do you know that? And may I remind you, WP:NPOV states: "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". So, really, all you have to do is find a reliable source for your assertion that only left-wing commentators consider the term a pejorative. Without that, you really have little to stand on except your own belief, which is original research. --Sfmammamia (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"I think the whole history is no longer compulsory in the UK schools"

If this is true, I am truly shocked...--Molobo (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:I am sure you have learned about slavery at school (Egypt, Lincoln etc.), but many UK pupils haven't (at least until 2006 - see [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/17/schools.politics]) --Doopdoop (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel an article is unbalanced with new information, unless it is the case of WP:UNDUE, please expand it. We have space. Besides, the articles make it clear the numbers are cited for the city. Feel free to expand it or clarify it with numbers on the region itself (where indeed the numbers where somewhat different). But both articles - I just checked - state that, so I don't really see how anybody could be confused. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:I don't have statistics about the region myself, so I cannot follow your recomendation. --Doopdoop (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

::There are some statistics in the articles themselves (hence I think there is little danger of misunderstanding) and in the ethnography of the region article linked from them. If you don't want to expand the articles, don't worry - sooner or later somebody will do so. But please don't remove valid information; remember - many articles are like brick walls, we add brick by brick and eventually it will all be level (and neutral).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You removed several comments of mine to User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim's talk page with the edit summary cleanup. The removal of my comments wasn't massively appreciated - as I pointed out in my second comment to the user's talk page, my commentary was solely meant in a productive light. The editor in question has recently been appointed an admin, and the issue of his constructiveness when working with others on topics he feels passionately about, and in particular where he disagrees with others was specifically brought up at the RfA. (In point of fact, one object specifically made reference to an edit to an article I, too, have disagreed with Deacon regarding the editing of). If you dislike my commentary, or feel that it should be altered or made in a different way, you're more than welcome to come and talk to me about it, and try and work together with another editor in the same manner I believe Deacon should - but "cleaning up" other users comments which appear to be inconvenient, or which you dislike, is little more than censorship. Treating an "ip user"'s comments as somehow irrelevant, which I believe is the undertone of your (and Deacon's) edits is also an unfortunate commonality on wikipedia, and one which I believe needs to be changed; there are numerous and prolific examples of anonymous (solely IP-based) users whose contributions to wikipedia are substantial. Thanks for your time - please let me know next time you have concerns or commentary regarding my wikipedia contribution. 82.35.210.119 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doopdoop. I support your edits in article Russia because they are based on better sources. Unfortunately these edits met very strong objections to tell this politely [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biophys#Stalking]. In fact, most my edits about Russian politics are currently reverted by a group of users, no matter how well they are sourced. So, I would rather do something else at the moment. Thank you for enforcing WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability policies, but they are violated, and there is little we can do about that.Biophys (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

:When there are two groups of opposing editors, tagging articles and sections with NPOV tags can sometimes be a good solution. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure that you remembering me, but our contributions in certain articles overlap. I would like to thank you for the involvement in Simonas Daukantas article. As you witnessed in had problems. However this is not the only one article, identical situation is with Jonas Basanavičius, as multiply contributors on its talk expressed strong concern that certain info is not accepted there [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonas_Basanavi%C4%8Dius&diff=next&oldid=169726176]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonas_Basanavi%C4%8Dius&diff=next&oldid=169768855]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonas_Basanavi%C4%8Dius&diff=next&oldid=169824171]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonas_Basanavi%C4%8Dius&diff=next&oldid=169830250]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonas_Basanavi%C4%8Dius&diff=next&oldid=169847102]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonas_Basanavi%C4%8Dius&diff=next&oldid=170051845], but it seems that single contributor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonas_Basanavi%C4%8Dius&diff=198834084&oldid=197842598 insisting for keeping it] in contrast to consensus (see history for background). So i thought maybe you could help in this article too? M.K. (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, mentioning "Basanowich" in the lead also raises WP:UNDUE issues, so I'm adding this article to my watchlist.--Doopdoop (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doopdoop, I think the issues you raised at the Tel Aviv FAC have been addressed. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

:Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you removed seems to me to be almost entirely innocuous and although I didn't write it, would agree with its argument completely. I cannot see what OO has to do with it or for that matter "popularity" (as it is not a contest)!

In my humble opinion, you remove an awful lot of content without replacing it with anything else, thereby denuding the thoroughness of an article for no apparent reason other than "compactness" - which is of dubious merit on its own.Kdakin3420 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While I also agree with the argument, the specific version presented in the article is obsolete (e.g. modern OO systems do not have a single entry point). Also, Wikipedia requires to remove content that cannot be verified. --Doopdoop (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the 3RR breach. In my defense, it was by four minutes, I was aware that it was my second revert today, and that i'd made two yesterday, one quite late, however I was not aware that they over-lapped as they did. Further in my defense, it was in my continued attempts to maintain an NPOV opening paragraph, which was being obstructively reverted with no adequate explanation and no engagement on talk. Nwe (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We've restructured the land value tax article to eliminate inherently POV sections as you suggested - would you mind giving it another look and tagging any remaining problems when you get the chance? --Explodicle (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the source is used in both articles, and you agreed the other is of GA quality: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolution_in_the_Kingdom_of_Poland_%281905-1907%29&diff=206056616&oldid=205984474] and see Talk:Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905-1907).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'd appreciate if you could look at this article, and historical cost, which I think has degenerated into original research. I have a history with this editor - who is promoting his own research - and would like to avoid this getting personal (given the history).--Gregalton (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Doopdoop, I reviewed the discussion page for this article; and suggest that you do so as well. You continue to re-insert an edit, "Some opponents argue that increased bureaucracy costs more money" that has been in dispute on the talk page since April 17. I have attempted on a few occasions to propose alternate compromise wording for this sentence, but you have reverted any attempt to make this sentence acceptable to all involved editors. To refresh your memory, Here are the diffs of your ongoing revert war on this phrase:

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&oldid=206569827 April 18]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&oldid=206662084 April 19]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&oldid=206762186 April 19]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&oldid=207453041 April 22]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&oldid=213132092 May 17]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&oldid=215365049 May 27]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&oldid=215805324 May 29]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&oldid=216024357 May 30]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&oldid=216265525 May 31]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&oldid=217146181 June 4]

How can we break out of this repetitive edit dispute loop? I am open to suggestions, but I fail to see how reverting the same wording over and over gets us any closer to consensus. Once again, I would be happy to work with you toward consensus, but so far you have displayed little to no willingness to do so. May I suggest that we work toward a constructive compromise on the talk page? --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems someone beat me too it . . complaining about your editing that is.. I am tiring of your blatant failure to co-operate and your twisting of all the evidence. Of course we can say "opponents argue that" and repeat argument which may not be validated by facts or are supported by only very weak arguments but include them because the arguments are made and verifiable. But it tells nothing about the real situation. We should not be focussing at all on "opponents" or "supporters" but on factual data that is independently collated by people without an axe to grind. Supporters and Opponents may be appropriate in an article about health reform in the US but this is about socialized medicine... i.e. state funded and state managed health care. There is plenty of available data without reference to biased opinion one way or the other. I want you to prove that direct spending on the delivery of health care as a percentage of all health care spending is higher in non-socialized systems than in socialized systems. Because socialized systems have no advertising/promotion/invoicing/billing/claim scrutiny/ etc. etc., let alone no private investors to pay-off, I think you will be hard put to prove your case! I appeal to you to be more productive and less biased in your editing. --Tom (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

:WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, but you want to remove some viewpoints. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

::Again you are serially reversing the edits I made today. Some of the reasons you give are completely fallactious. Your editing is both destructive and biased. Please desist. The article you added about patients queuing outside British hospitals is typical of the type of bad news reporting that sometimes happens in the UK and the US. The article reported some statistics (about turnaround times) and then an allegation (by a trade union official) that this was due to a particular reason (hospitals trying to fix the statistics) which turned out not to be true (the BBC report quote of officials denied that it was possible to fix the stats in this way. Furthermore, the original observer report contained a lurid picture of the consequnces of such actions (if it were true) and some comments of medical people and politicans who were no doubt vox popped about this rather dubious story as if it WERE true. Undoubtedly, ambulances do sometimes have problems handing over to hospital staff, but we have no real data to tell us what the causes tend to be. I suspect they are multifarious and that statistics rigging is not one of them. You are just using WP to recount lurid stories based on little or no factual data and which not give the truer picture (which is what my edits did).

The issue of the appropriateness of government targets is a real contraversial issue in UK medicine and potential statistical fiddling is often talked about. It is thus a valid issue for discussion in this article. It is one of the many focusses that I feel should be addressed. Silly stories such as the one you quoted are not really taken very seriously, especially when the sources are individual trade union officials rather than offical medical bodies. The IPSOS-Mori polls show that the British public do not trust newspaper reporting about the Health Service, and for good reason. It is often inaccurate!--Tom (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war{{#if:Socialized Medicine| according to the reverts you have made on :Socialized Medicine}}. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. {{#if:This is not the first time I've had to warn you about multiple reverts to this article. The next time, I will be forced to report you to ANI.|This is not the first time I've had to warn you about multiple reverts to this article. The next time, I will be forced to report you to ANI.|}}--Sfmammamia (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You will eventually remove all references to everyting in this article by your deliberate deletion of anyting you dont want included.

What is your "raison d'etre" minimalism ? Are you suggesting it doesn't exist ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.253.51 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a reassessment of the good article status of the Milton Friedman article based on lack of neutrality, and have added a POV tag to the article. Please join the discussion, if you are interested. Thanks. Jdstany (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

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 (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header|{{#switch: 2

| 1 = 2009-02-16

| 2 = Volume 5, Issue 7

}}|[[{{#switch: 1

| 1 = 2009-02-16

| 2 = Volume 5, Issue 7

}}]]|Weekly Delivery}}

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

{{colbegin|2}}

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
• Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
• News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
• Dispatches: Valued pictures
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

{{colend}}

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 08:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
• Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
• Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
• News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
• Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

{{colend}}

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

{{colbegin|2}}

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

{{colend}}

{{colbegin|2}}

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

{{colend}}

{{colbegin|2}}

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

{{colend}}

{{colbegin|2}}

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

{{colend}}

Some time ago you moved small sabotage to minor sabotage. I've started a discussion on talk to discuss the proper name of that article, you may want to comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Russia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments Talk:Russia{{#if:1 . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Philipmj24 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)