User talk:Alai/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re:Moth stubs[edit]

*slaps self with trout* All of the ones in the Lycaenidae family, it seems?   jj137 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for giving me a heads up about that. I'll go back sometime in the next couple of days (whenever I have some free time to get it done) and fix all of those.   jj137 (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're able to tweak the text while you're changing the stub types, that would be great. I can still go back and change them all, but yes, that would be easier.   jj137 (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Since it looks like your bot has updated the stubs by now, thanks a lot. I really do appreciate it, as it seems like my time I can spend on here is decreasing by the day.   jj137 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello, Alai. You have new messages at O'delanca's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Redirect wiggling[edit]

I have an excuse :)

I'm working with a slightly glitchy copy of Safari - I can't type anything into the menu bar vwithout it crashiong, so i have to swing from article to article via blue-links, like Tarzan going from vine to vine. If I wanted to make a redirect the normal way, I'd have to open up my sandbox, make a redlink to the desired redirect, preview, click on the redlink, then make the redirect from there. "Redirect wiggling" is quicker :) Grutness...wha? 04:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I'm trying to improve this article by adding tags, because the article's sources are non neutral and some of them not verifiable. There is also a discussion going on in the talk page. However, the discussion is still open and some users are reverting my changes, without waiting for it to be over. One of them is also accusing me of vandalism for nationality/racism reasons, which is completely untrue.--EmpD++ (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Some edits from the above editor's previous account (is he trying to evade a ban?):

85.74.231.166 (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's not the editor's previous account? I don't understand why are you confusing me with that user. I have nothing to do with him, and with his vandalism.--EmpD++ (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 2p[edit]

I would like to modestly call attention to an essay I just wrote called "The nature of stub sorters." I am inviting a select few to peruse it at leisure and offer comments or changes if desired. I don't know what purpose it will serve, although I may cite it on occasions when we moppers are more than usually misunderstood. Thank you for reading. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chile[edit]

Hi Alai. I've recently been a bit bogged down with work so haven't had much time for stub sorting. Could you help me out by using AlaiBot to sort Chile, seems as you did a great job with Peru. I'll try to get Finland geo stubs and the rest of asian buildings done manually but its hard going! Count Blofeld 15:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll tackle Finland in an hour or so. Best Count Blofeld 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.[edit]

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 42 8 November 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 43 10 November 2008 About the Signpost
Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week ArbCom elections: Nominations open 
Book review: How Wikipedia Works MediaWiki search engine improved 
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day 
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 44 17 November 2008 About the Signpost
Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license 
Wikimedia Events Roundup News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 10:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean region category[edit]

The name of the Category should not determine the name of the article. In any case, it should be the other way around. And, as far as I know, there is no policy that a concensus reached to determine the name of a Category should automatically serve to settle a dispute over the name of the article. ☆ CieloEstrellado 13:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why the category was moved to Category:Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region. There was no concensus reached at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 29#Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region categories. You, "Peterkingiron" and "Alansohn" voted in favor. "Dentren" and me voted against it. That is hardly a concensus. I'm notifying the administrator "Kbdankbot" who made the move. ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your only aim was "consistency" then you should have just followed what the name of the article was back then and create a new category with that name. There was no reason to rename the category and for that to have an automatic effect on the naming of the article. That is not a proper way to handle a controversial matter such as this one. If you are going to rename an article, you should follow the usual path of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Your argument of "pure consistency no matter what the titles are" is, I'm afraid, not believable. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub categories in userspace[edit]

Hi Alai -i seem to be fighting a one-person battle here. I could do with more opinions from senior stubbers, either for or against. Any chance you could take a look? Grutness...wha? 22:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub category names[edit]

Hi Alai - I know we don't see eye to eye on stub category names (Foo stubs vs Fooian stubs), but we do more or less have some form of pattern which corresponds as much as it can with permcat naming. If we start changing all the "Foo stubs" types to their adjectival form, we're going to require hundreds, if not thousands, of category renames which will tie up resources better used elsewhere and may cause considerable confusion in those cases where adjectives have deliberately not been used for permcats. Unless we want to go the whole hog and rename things strictly according to permcats (e.g., "Universities and colleges in France stubs", which IMO is far worse than anything we currently use), surely it's better to concentrate on the few categories which don't follow the pattern we've been using up to now rather than trying to make a wholesale change to all the categories which don't use adjectives? Grutness...wha? 23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, but it flies in the face of facts on the ground in a large number of cases, and especially of all recent trends at SFR and /P. In fact, if I recall correctly, you seemed perfectly happy with a number of such renames yourself - if that's the case, it's only on those cases where I haven't checked the permcat names, because I've never changed my stance on this. It definitely doesn't fly in the face of the facts on the ground, or of recent trends at SFR and /P, in both of which the adjectival usage has only generally been where the permcats are adjectival. And iut certainly has nothing to do with geo-stubs... unless you think that the most recent example of university-stub is a type of geo-stub?
Those aside, the number of cat names that aren't reasonable attributive usages... are not, I don't believe, as daunting as all that.... which suggests you'd like a mix of adjectival and attributive, where we have to guess which one is appropriate in each case? How do we decide which cases to use an adjectival and which to use an attributive, and which neither can easily be used for and we have to fall back on noun? Do we have to regularly refer to a chart in order to discover which one we use in which case? Or is sticking with the sceme used by permcats preferable, which is what I've been arguing for, and which we currently predominantly use?
What is completely demoralising is to get part-way, and then to discover someone insisting that the old way was best, let's go back to that. Oh, I completely agree, which is why I'd far prefer we didn't get any way towards the changes before they were nixed. Having to change some back because they've been changed contrary to earlier usage simply wastes everyone's time. As it is, the number of categories we'd have to change if we were to go to a firm muddled mix of adjectival and attributive usages (with regular arguments as to which to use in each case which we use for each country) is in the thousands. Personally I'd far rather we had a system where we know exactly what the stubcat name is going nto be based on the permcat name ("Fooian X" becoming "Fooian X" stubs; "X of/in Foo" becoming "Foo X stubs") than having to work out in each case whether we use "Fooian" in all its weird and wonderful varieties or some attributive usage such as "Fooent" in each individual case, and still have problems in cases where an adjectival or attributive case becomes ambiguous (e.g., cases involving American football). It would make far more sense to follow the lead of the permcats. Grutness...wha? 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It definitely doesn't fly in the face of the facts on the ground..." That's simply counter-factual. See the examples I've already cited. - I'd say your suggestion that it's counterfactual is counterfactual. I certainly still see considerable numbers of Noun X stubs proposals, and haven't seen you objecting to them.
On "where we have to guess which one is appropriate in each case": if you think whether "France university" is normal English usage or not is "guesswork", then sure, use a chart. Certainly it's not guesswork, it exactly parallels a system used by permcats. As I've pointed out, the permcat is at X of France, therefore the stub cat is automatically France X stubs. No guesswork whatsoever. if you start mixing adjectival and attributive, as you suggest, then we've got the mess with needing a chart., The current scheme doesn't have that at all - or at least wouldn't if it was consistent across all cases rather than across 95% as it currently is.
Your preference that "we didn't get anywhere towards the changes" is a) itself thoroughly demoralising, and b) in the wrong tense. How long is it that we "de-nouned" and "de-double-pluralised" the B&S stubs? Many, many months, if not years. De double-pluralising has absolutely nothing to do with this argument whatsoever, and suggesting it does have is faintly ridiculous. As to "how long since we've stopped using the noun form for them", that's a very good question. I too would like to know that since they should IMO be in the noun form, same as universities, roads, schools, broadcasting, television, government, and all the other ones which understandably use the noun form. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the examples that I explicitly cited that follow normal-English-usage, and not your alleged standard. I have. Have you looked at the ones which follow the standard and not the version which you prefer, one which might have us listing such things as "American American footballer stubs" or "Haitian Dominican nun stubs"?
"Guesswork"; this reply is entirely misdirected. You are the person who made that characterisation of my position, hence my reply. And that chatracterisation still stands. There is no guesswork involved if you know a standard situation in permcats is reflected in a standard way with stubcats. if there is no one-to-one mapping, which there wouldn't be with the naming you suggest, then yes it would have to be guesswork. The point is that there would need to be guesswork under the system you suggest, whereas there wouldn't be under the system we've used up until now.
I see no fundamental difference between de-nouning, de-pluralising, and indeed de-prepositioning. They're all motivated by generating names that keep the sense of the parent, whilst managing to sound vaguely like something some sort of actual English speaker might say. yes and no. Everything can be de-pluralised without losing its sense. Not everything can be turned into an adjectival form without losing its sense, but if you do it with some you should - if you weant to be in any way consistent - do it with the lot. Problem is, that leads to confusion in those cases where the permcats deliberately steer clear of adjectival forms to avoid confusion. Even if we were to attempt to adjectivalise everything, as you've pointed out we would need to fudge the rule to allow some attributive cases to reduce confusion. Your average punter is unlikely to sport the subtlety of the difference between Nigerian and Nigerien, let alone between Congolese and Congolese, Chinese and Chinese, or Dominican and Dominican. We're doomed to have those six, plus any others which may or may not be too hard for some (is Burkinabé too hard? Maybe... what about Kittitian-Nevisian? Perhaps... where do you draw your arbitrary line?). The system can never be uniform and will always have arbitrary changes between adjectives and attributives. If we use nouns where permcats use nouns, and use the same boundaries for adjectives and attributives as permcats when they use them, then we do not have a system that is in any way arbitrary - it is based entirely on that for permcats.
If we're going to alter the form of the permcat in the name of "following" it, the question is, how much. well, that is already explained purely and simply by the standard rule I've already mentioned several times above, but which you seem to think is in some way unlikely.
However, I mentioned them together here because both were done for the B&Ss: And to answer my own earlier question: for the B&Ss, we did the first and the second (not needing to do the third, since such forms have rarely, if ever, been in use) over two years ago. In that period, I don't recall ever hearing anyone comment on how lamentable it is that we no longer have "France building" categories: not even you. Quite possibly because I rarely have anything to do with Building and structure stub categories.
You've yet to address what I see as the fundamental disconnect: do you ever imagine that names of such a form would be acceptable in the permcat space? That one would ever have "France geographical Xs" or "Germany building Ys", if some such compound were required? Certainly not. Neither do I think that one would ever have a permcat for "French books" or "Indian settlements", or "Dominican religion" , since they are too ambiguous. If a permcat is in the form "X of France", then there's certain to be a damn good reason why it isn't at "French X", and it would make perfect sense for us to use a noun form, too. if we make the stub cat "French X stubs", then we'll hit that problem sooner or later and have to live with it. Given the tortuousness of such stub category names as "Geography of France stubs" or "Roads in Rome stubs" (do you, perhaps think this would be the same as "Roman road stubs"?), we do the best we can by avoiding both such forms and adjectives but still using something which has a clear one-to-one mapping with the permcats.
Ah, it doesn't matter in the long run anyway, I suppose, especially since I'm getting so sick of Wikipedia overall that I'm not sure how much longer I'll be sticking with it. It's all too much of a hassle and no fun at all these days. I certainly won't want to be around once you realise just what a mess thiswill become if you use adjectives for everything (well, everything except the random assortment of attributives applied when the adjectives are confusing or two hard, or maybe not too hard, or maybe...who knows?...) Grutness...wha? 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template for asteroids[edit]

Just trying to chip away at the overrun Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs and wondering if Category:Mid and Outer Solar System asteroid stubs would help; it was approved, but I have found no definition of Mid and Outer Solar System asteroids in the articles, nor do I know how the template would be formed. Any ideas? cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal greetings![edit]

Grutness...wha? is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I know we don't always see eye to eye on stub matters, but your work on them is greatly appreciated. I hope you have a great holiday period - try to spend at least some time offline :) Grutness...wha? 00:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?[edit]

Alai? You OK? You don't seem to have edited more than a couple oif times in the last two weeks - hope everything's all right and you're just taking a Christmas break... Grutness...wha? 12:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, everything allright mate? I asked at the stub sorting where you were as I haven't seen you around for a few weeks. Probably got flue! Take care and have a good Christmas and return as soon as you can. We miss you at stub sorting! The Bald One White cat 18:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's taking G's advice (see Dec 17). Maybe he's {{bonked}}. Either way, we miss you A! Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Hello Alai! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One White cat 11:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and a happy new year![edit]

Her Pegship (tis herself) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009[edit]

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


The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: 200th issue 
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones 
Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost
ArbCom elections: Elections open Wikipedia in the news 
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System Features and admins 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost
From the editor: Getting back on track 
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK 
Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting 
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers 
Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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)[reply]

Shut up[edit]

Explain how a disambiguation page shouldn't be classified as a disambiguation page. Or shut up. Woodshed (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: December themed Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 18:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion[edit]

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [7]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost
Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices 
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet 
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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)[reply]

Delivered by 03:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)

Proposal to delete[edit]

Please give us a thumbs up or down whether we should delete Global city in Talk:Global_city#Proposal_to_delete_references_to_.22Global_City.22_in_city_articles Kransky (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009[edit]

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 05:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009[edit]

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

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 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#main belt asteroids[edit]

Hi, You seem to be inactive lately, but the Great Asteroid Stub debate has started again here, and input from someone with awareness of the administrative problems of swarms of minimal stubs might be helpful. Thought you might like to comment. Thanks Wwheaton (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009[edit]

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

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 07:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Bazéga Province geography stubs[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Bazéga Province geography stubs, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Bazéga Province geography stubs has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Bazéga Province geography stubs, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009[edit]

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

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back?[edit]

Hello Alai, I see that you've briefly edited a couple of days ago so I'm hopeful that you'll eventually read this note! I don't know how much sense this makes technically but if you're considering retiring from Wikipedia (I sure hope that's not the case), could you give part of the Alaibot code to some other operator? It does a lot of great work which is sorely missed. In particular, the uncategorized articles team is sitting there, just waiting for articles to arrive. :-)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI[edit]

HIFireFoxUser2343 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alai/Archive_25&oldid=1166319401"