User talk:KyraVixen

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noroton (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 22 March 2007 (thanks!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive Index (updates daily)

Welcome to my talk page!

  • If you leave a message here, I will usually reply here.
  • If I leave a message on your talk page, feel free to answer there.
  • If you remember making a post, but cannot find it, please check the archives.
Kyra 19:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


St Catherine's

That link has way better pictures of the highly important icon collection than the others, or Commons. It is in line with the policy. Please restore. I don't mind it coming off Christ Pantocrater, which is how I saw it, as the article covers that particular icon much better.

Johnbod 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also please leave the European Library ones also - this is an official EU National Libraries site. I have raised this blacklisting on Meta-Wiki. Do you remove the Library of Congress also? How many links do we have to that? Johnbod 04:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS-when blacklisting are lifted, do you put all the links back, I wonder?? Johnbod 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your initial message, I am sorry, but the link in question <*.touregypt.net> is primarily a commercial website. Alternative sources for pictures do exist somewhere; while the pictures may be of higher quality than ones available at the Wikimedia Commons, point number four of the links normally to be avoided section in the external links guideline, recommends avoiding "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." As the primary nature of TourEgypt.net is commercial, the links should generally be avoided.
As for the second message, the removal to that particular domain was purely because the editor who added the links in question had a conflict of interest. You are free to re-add them, and I assure you I will not remove them; I believe the issue has been rectified with the editor in question. And no, I would not remove any LoC links, nor have I in the past. I am sorry for any confusion I may have caused you, and I hope you have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will have noticed I'm sure that the various phrasings of the policy, and yours above, stop well short of saying they cannot be used. I certainly don't use links to commercial sites when other pictures are available, and even disapprove of the hundreds of links we have to wwga.com, but in this case other versions of the pictures are not available. It seems from the many messages below that this is not the only article where this is the case. How are your promised (below) efforts to find replacements for the scores or hundreds of references you have deleted going?
As far as I am aware, I am not able to restore the European Libraries site because it is still blacklisted, which is astonishing for an official EU site. I can't imagine for a second this happening with an UN or US equivalent. I raised the matter at Metawiki as soon as I became aware of it, but have not had a sensible response yet. Johnbod 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have noticed that the policies and guidelines stop short of saying what cannot be linked; rather, they say what should not be linked, and I fully understand that. About the art gallery link, I am not sure, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that taking an image of an artwork that is two-dimensional does not automatically create a new copyright; as such, you might be able to upload the image to Wikipedia using {{PD-art}} or the Commons (not sure what tag they use for art there), however I am not a lawyer, so don't take my word on that.
The hunt for replacement references is coming along rather well. Out of 63 articles that I have removed *.touregypt.net links from, only 9 of such articles had references, and those references have been replaced. As for the TEL 'blacklist', the links can be added, but a bot will revert the edit, once. You are free to re-add them after that, and unless the bot is in 'angry' mode (which it rarely is) the subsequent edit will not be reverted. So while the bot will warn you, you are free to disregard it. I hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touregypt.net

I'd like to know why you've removed dozens of links fom the above site from Wikipedia. Touregypt is a highly-regarded tourism information site that contains invaluable, fully-referenced data on hundreds of subjects of broad historic interest to people accessing Wikipedia. It is an invaluable and frequently unique online data source concerning these subjects. It is fully compliant with Wikipedia's external links policy, and unless you can show good cause, I intend restoring the majority of the deleted links. --Gene_poole 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to speak up on this subject myself: how did a website, though it is commercial and sounds ("touregypt") like one of those villas-for-rent spamlinks, become "blacklisted"? What is the process for "blacklisting' websites? What are the criteria? And, most importantly, since you say "I will make other edits if needed, such as... finding references if they are needed", what references will you be competent to find, to replace the articles you've deleted, many of which furnish information that is used in the relative Wikipedia article? --Wetman 05:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The webpage you removed from Toureqypt that was being used as a reference on Timeline of chemistry was not spam. It did not advertise ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE and was a link to an honest-to-god scholarly work that contained honest-to-god academic information relevent to facts in that article. Please remove the website from the spam blacklist, since it is not actually spam, and please allow me to retore the page, since it contained a reference vital to the article in question. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 08:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(To Gene_poole) I removed them because an administrator within the IRC spam channel mentioned that they found a domain that was spammed; I was free, and felt like helping out at the time, as I had time to burn, so I did. Had I not done it, another user would most likely have done so, if not the admin themselves. I was just trying to help out the project by removing the spammed links. At the time, that domain was prolific within the other language Wikipedias. Also, the site is commercially oriented, and it would seem to be a tertiary source for information; in other words, that website would have taken secondary sources and reworded the information within them. As the policy on attribution says, Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.
Also, as the website is currently on the spam blacklist, the links cannot be readded; an error message appears when trying to save the page. If the domain name is removed, then the links can be added once again.
--
(To Wetman) To get a page blacklisted, you would need to head over to Meta-wiki, and request protection on the talk page of the spam blacklist. The requirements for a site to be added to a blacklist require proof, using diffs, that demonstrates widespread spamming by multiple users. Eagle 101, the admin on meta who blacklisted the website, did so on his/her own accord; perhaps s/he saw that the site was spamming multiple wikis, when the information was only written in English (as this edit summary seems to suggest), or perhaps for some other reason. I am not Eagle 101, so I do not know why s/he decided to blacklist it. You will need to ask him/her.
And yes, I will try to find references to the material that is now no longer referenced if the website stays blacklisted. I will admit however, that my knowledge of Egyptians is extremely limited. However, if the domain is removed from the blacklist, I will be more than happy to revert the removal of the links should consensus dictate that, as I believe one should clean up after one's own mistakes. We are human, we make mistakes; we deal with them. Happened with my bot once, I never complained about it.
--
(To Jayron32) Yes, it did not advertise any product or service; that was not the reason it was removed, nor did I ever mention that in my edit summary. The information available to me at the time labled *.touregypt.com as a domain that was being spammed, so I removed the offending links. I am sorry if I have caused you any turmoil with the removal, but I have supplied a journal article to reference that material to replace the old reference. Granted, the database needs a subscription to view the journal article in its entirety, but I do believe it fits the information that is conveyed within the article.
Also, since I am not an administrator on meta, I cannot remove the blacklist status myself. You will need to go here to request that the blacklisting be removed.
Again, I am sorry if I have caused any confusion with the removal of these links, however with the information I had at the time it seemed like the domain was being spammed. As I said to Wetman, I would be willing to restore the links if the domain is unblacklisted and consensus determines that they should be re-added. I hope you all have a wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so nice about it. Deletions from Wikipedia should be made perhaps even more cautiously than additions: I have made many mistakes in my vandal-deleting. But we fix it up in the end. The blacklisting process is faulty. we can express our reasons to remove an article from the blacklist here. --Wetman 11:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - and (for pictures in particular) we could comment on the blocking of libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org - the EU's official National Libraries site - three sections above touregypt. Johnbod 12:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been opened more publicly at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), with KyraVixen's name very carefully left out. But KyraVixen must understand that she is at fault for executing mass deletions without carefully vetting the situation. IRC chatters are not, as a group, among the more knowledgable segment of Wikipedia editors. It would ordinarily be unwise to take a tip from an IRC chatter and run with it, in areas where one has no personal expertise. --Wetman 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to revert Statue of Ramesses II (Mit Rahina) to its pre-touregypt-deletion version. Can the prior version be restored? Ekem 03:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kyra, thank you for finding a new reference. The reference you gave is more than adequate, and I appreciate the work you have done in replacing the references for the one you removed. Do not take this next statement personally; I mean it as a systemic criticism, not a personal one. I understand that you removed the link in good faith, and I appreciate the work you do in keeping wikipedia spam-free... Now my criticism: If the spam-removal-and-blacklisting process is blocking pages like the one you removed, then the process has some flaws that SERIOUSLY need to be reevaluated. Sometimes, if a domain appears in MANY wikipedia articles, it isn't because it is spammed, it is because it contains a wealth of information that is being used in many places in wikipedia. Also, some domains are much "larger" in the pages they contain. It is quite possible that some pages found at a domain are indeed "spam" and others are perfectly legitimate scholarly work, or otherwise useful and valid resources for wikipedia. There should be no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and there is a real potential here for problems. For one, and this may be a WP:BEANS kind of issue, it could be quite possible, understanding how the spam blacklisting system works, to make a non-spam website appear to be spam, get it blacklisted, and then massively disrupt all of wikipedia as valid references are removed and links are disrupted all over the place. If the spam-blacklisting system allows this, it is a huge system vulnerability and needs to be carefully fixed. Again, please indulge me my rant, and it is not personal. I want to validate the work that you do here, and wish you the best. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(To Ekem) I have added a different reference to replace the one I have removed. I hope it is satisfactory, and I wish you a pleasant day! Kyra~(talk) 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--
(To Jayron32) Don't worry, I did not take anything you said personally, and I understand your concern. Beans aside, normally the blacklisting process is discussed on Meta first with diffs of the spamming supplied as evidence. The reason it was not discussed on Meta first is beyond me; you'd have to ask the admin who did it for their reason. I do understand that a few users could possibly take advantage of that by spamming a single domain on a widespread scale, which could possibly result in a legitimate domain being blacklisted. As of right now, I cannot come up with any good ideas on how to fix loophole, but I will agree, it is an issue. I would imagine that the majority of such cases would be caught, but I can certainly understand where you are coming from.
On a better note, I have been working to replace the references that have been removed. Out of 63 articles I have checked so far, only 9 of them actually had references; the rest were just links. I hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar!

The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for helping us with cleaning up after spammers and removing all those external links that are blacklisted on meta! You are doing a valuable task. Keep up the good work, and again, thank you! Dirk Beetstra T C 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link removal question...

For my own edification, why did you remove the following link:

http://www.tour egypt.net/featurestories/pyramidinch.htm [N.B. In trying to save this note, I noticed that TourEgypt is on a blacklist as a spam site. (Thus the space in the url above.) How is this site on a blacklist for spam?]

from the Charles Piazzi Smyth page? I added the link when I did a major overhaul of the page back in September. Is it because TourEgypt is a commercial site or there are ads on the page? I really feel that the article attached to the page is informative and I'd like to put the link back up.

TuckerResearch 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link because I was informed by an administrator in the IRC spam channel that the *.touregypt.net domain was being spammed throughout the different language Wikipedias, despite being only in the English language, and I was free and wanted to assist; also, about a third of the links (a rough guess) I removed was after the blacklisting on meta, so I also wished to prevent other editors from encountering the spam filter. So that is what I did. The administrator who added the link to the blacklist mentioned the fact that it was cross-wiki and only in English in their edit summary when the link was added. If I had passed over the individual page, any editor who attempted to edit the page after it was added would be presented with an error message saying what link triggered the spam filter.
And yes, the website is commercially oriented. In the discussion on meta which is proposing the domain's removal, one editor chose a page and determined that 49.503% of that page was either advertising or navigation. As the external links guideline says, links to websites which exist to primarily sell a product or service should generally be avoided. I am sorry if the removal of that link caused you any confusion, and I hope that this explanation helps to alleviate your concerns. I hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare

Don't you dare revert any of those edits to train station articles without discussing it with me first. I have excellent, well-thought-out reasons for these additions, and they are absolutely pertinent to each and every article. Revert back any edits you have already made. If you do not discuss this with me first, I will start a formal complaint. Noroton 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion, in which I gave the reasons why I wanted to add links to the council's main web page. When it was suggested to me that a better alternative would be to create the article on the commuter council, I decided that was best and that I could accomplish the purpose of informing people about where to go with complaints about each station by adding a sentence with a link to the Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia Talk:External links#talkAdding links to organizations to articles about related things Noroton 21:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this extensive discussion, and if you scroll down to the last paragraph of the discussion, you'll see that I took up the other editor's suggestion by linking the station articles to the commuter council. But look at my arguments for the usefulness of the commuter council to the station articles. It is essentially the official Ombudsman for each individual station in the New Haven and Shore Line East lines. My argument in a nutshell is that anyone interested in reading about the station is extremely likely to be interested in knowing that the commuter council exists since it's the agency to go to if there are complaints, and there are many, many problems with stations along the lines.

User talk:Noroton#Trainweb.org Noroton 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the user's talk page. Kyra~(talk) 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Rather than cross posting, would you rather discuss this on your page or mine? That way everything would be in one place. I'm happy with either page, but I'd rather not have to look back from one to the other to follow the thread.
The only reason I asked you to go to the External links discussion was that I gave many of the reasons there that I would give you here about the usefulness of some information about the commuter council on the station articles. I've given up on trying to put links directly on the External links sections of those articles. That's what the EL discussion was all about. As an alternative I took Beetsra's suggestion (quoted above) to instead create the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article and put in the sentences at each individual station's article that you have been deleting. This way I don't violate a Wikipedia policy and still accomplish my goal of adding that information to the articles. I thought about a "See also" link to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article, but I thought it would be better to provide a little information about the connection between the council and the station, so I did it in the form of a sentence. I thought a "See also" section was a bit much in such tiny articles that hardly have any text anyway, and it would be the only item in that section.
The Commuter Council, as I explain near the bottom of the External links talk page discussion, takes up nitty gritty details about problems at each of the stations. You can see the long list of small items I found from the council's minutes. I don't think those details are usually worth including in the station articles, but they demonstrate how the council acts in an ombudsman role. I don't think anyone can really understand the individual train stations without knowing that the council has something to do with them, which makes some mention of the council necessary in each of the articles. And I footnoted the sentences I added, per very strong Wikipedia policy. That's my reasoning, and I'm ready to answer any questions you have about it and consider any objections. Noroton 22:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn't quote it. Here's the quote from the last paragraph of the discussion here -- User talk:Noroton#Trainweb.org:
Let me try and provide a solution (though I have not reviewed if it is really possible). I would suggest to write an article about the Connecticut Railway Commuter Council (here is the caveat; I hope the page would pass wikipedias notability rules). The external link would be directly and symmetrically linked to that page, and you would only add it once. The addition of a sentence linking to the Council-page might be considered canvassing when performed on a set of articles, but you could do that in a consideration of really adding more content to the article. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is fine, I'll merge the discussion from your page in here in a bit to keep everything in one spot.
The alternative that Beetstra suggested was a rather good one, and I agree with that. I still think that a see also section would be best, perhaps with a few words next to it, eg, "Connecticut Rail Commuter Council - Represents commuter interests" (or something to that effect). Even though it may seem a bit much in practice, it is a way to keep the information located in a central place so that it can be updated as needed. In addition, this would let the readers know that the council represents the commuters concerns, as well as providing a link to an article with more information on the council without conveying tangentially related information within the article.
With regard to how you mention that you believe the article cannot be understood without the mention of the council that acts in the ombudsman role, do you think that the small mention next to the see also entry I mentioned above would satisfy the issue? To be honest, I have no strong feeling as to what outcome we decide upon, however the see also section appears to be the most logical solution, to me at least. I hope this makes sense, however if it doesn't, I will try to expand on it if you wish. Kyra~(talk) 23:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you change each article that you edited by adding a "See also" section with the link to the commuter council and the phrase (no hyphen needed) "is a state board representing commuter interests", I'd be satisfied. Noroton 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion now comes up on several pages (WT:EL, WT:WPSPAM etc.). I am going to disagree with the addition of see-also sections only and reiterate my suggestion, add content to the articles. As I have earlier suggested: when was the station built, a picture, passenger numbers per year, interesting facts about the building, what interesting sightings would there be in the vicinity of the station. That is more the information that wikipedia readers might expect. That there is a council for the station is tangential information, and even unnecessery, since the commuters use the station and I am sure the council has a pamphlet mounted somewhere near or on the station. Commuters surely don't use wikipedia to find thát information. I hope this helps, see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I will wait until an overall consensus is reached before proceeding further; this seems to be the logical way to proceed, as this will eliminate the need to double the work made, and this way, hopefully the optimal outcome can be reached. Feel free to inquire further if needed, and I hope you both have a wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a consensus on adding links to the Connecticut railroad station "See also" sections. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎#Citation Spamming of http://www.trainweb.org. Although other editors involved in this have contributed to the WikiProject Spam talk page, they have refrained from saying anything further on this topic, and Dirk Beetstra has agreed as we have. My preferred addition would be:
That shows the connection between the train station and the commuter council, which I think makes the link more useful. (I've shown the strong link between the individual stations and the commuter council here: Wikipedia talk:External links#Adding links to organizations to articles about related things (scroll up from the bottom until you see the boldface blue link for "From minutes of the May 2006 meeting", the beginning of a bulleted list of numerous council discussions on individual train stations, taken from council minutes at its Web site). Thanks, Noroton 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section has been added to the articles that I have modified, and I have used your exact wording. I hope that this is satisfactory, and I wish you a most wonderful day, Noroton. Kyra~(talk) 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Noroton 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse Detective

Why did you remove my link <*.freewebs.com/greatmousedetective The Game's Afoot!> from The Great Mouse Detective, Basil of Baker Street, and Professor Ratigan pages? They related directly to all of these pages and is the most up-to-date, fresh source for this film and characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.69.224 (talk • contribs) 03:18, March 19, 2007 (UTC)

Good evening! The reason I removed the link is primarily because you were adding the link to multiple pages, which would seem to fall under the definition of spamming. Point number two under what links that should generally be avoided says that a site that misleads the user by providing factually inaccurate or unverifiable research should generally be avoided. Since you claim that it is a 'fresh' source, then this would seem to imply that the material is unreliable; at least that is my original impression by that term.
Also, as stated by the external links guideline, links to personal websites should be avoided, except those written by a recognized authority. This one point that the guideline gives complies with our policy on attribution, which along with neutral point of view, compose Wikipedia's core content policies. So in other words, since we have no direct method of knowing where the information on your webpage comes from, such a link should generally be avoided.
Finally, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. I hope this helps to alleviate any questions that may have surrounded my removal of the links; if you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. Thanks, and I hope you have a most wonderful day! Kyra~(talk) 05:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have actually checked out the website before just deleting it from the pages I added it to. When I say "fresh", I mean it's a *new* website. But it still complys with the Wikipedia guidelines. It is, infact, a reliable resource of information on both the film and its characters, which is why I added it to those Wikipedia pages. You have plenty of other "personal" websites listed on Wikipedia (including virtually all the provided Great Mouse Detective links, with the exception of IMDB), so your so-called guidelines/rules regarding this matter are both hypocritical and, well, unfounded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs) 02:12, March 21, 2007 (UTC)
Freewebs accounts/webpages are not reliable sources as we cannot confirm who created them. Anyone can register an account with freewebs, and as such, anything can be posted on them. As for your point as we have multiple fansite links on the pages, I cannot seem to locate anything in the external links guideline that mentions fansites, although I do recall (somewhere) that says there should only be one fansite link on a page, so I would suggest opening a discussion on the article's talk page to determine which should be kept. Of course, you could just supply a {{dmoz}} template and eliminate all of them; that would make the external link section much cleaner as well. I am not saying that your website isn't good, but per Wikipedia:External links, personal websites should normally be avoided, except those authored by a recognized authority. Also, a relevant paragraph frpm WP:EL is below (emphasis mine):
In other words, please mention your proposed inclusion of the link on the talk page of the pages in question to that other editors may form a consensus on whether your link should be included or not. If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. I hope you have an exceedingly wonderful day, and happy editing! Kyra~(talk) 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say "anyone can create/own a Freewebs account", well, that's interesting because anyone can also own a GeoCities account (which, by the way, makes up virtually all of your listed Great Mouse Detective sites!).Again, almost all of the sites you have listed on the pages I added my site to are ALSO fansites. How do you get off with a guideline that says links to fansites shouldn't be used, yet, there are LOTS of fansites listed on MANY Wikipedia pages?? Perhaps I'm a little slow, but it seems pretty unfair to include *some* fansite listings and not others. It also seems pretty biased that one Wikipedia user gets to decide what links are kept and what ones get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs) 14:25, March 21, 2007 (UTC)
If we have articles that have more than one fansite link, you are more than welcome to be bold and remove them until one fansite remains, discuss the fansite links on the talk pages so that others can weigh in on the decision, or attempt to find an entry on dmoz for the subject and replace the fansite links with a {{dmoz}} template. As for this issue, I have replaced the fansite links with a dmoz template.
Also, just because there are links to fansites located within articles, does not mean every such link needs to be included. It is better to link to web directories, such as dmoz, so Wikipedia does not become a web directory itself, or keep such links down to a minimum. I hope this issue has been resolved satisfactorily, and I do hope you have a wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NIAP CCEVS link changes

I'm not sure why you reverted all of the NIAP CCEVS link changes. The domain name was officially changed to niap-ccevs.org on January 31st, 2007 -- follow the convoluted trail from niap.nist.gov to nsa.gov to niap-ccevs.org and see for yourself. The existing links were updated to reflect the new domain name and provide a more direct route for our users. No new links were added. I'm not sure how providing a direct route to the sites falls under advertising, promotion, search engine ranking rules. NIAP CCEVS T

Initially I thought that a conflict of interest existed because your username matches the domain name, so I thought (now I realize, wrongly, and for that I am sorry) you were trying to promote the website in some way; also, the change of the link without any indication as to why you overwrote the link in the edit summary box struck me as slightly odd. I now realize that I was mistaken with my original thought, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. All of the links that I have reverted have been restored, and I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that my reversions have caused you. If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire, and I will be more than happy to assist you to the best of my ability. I do hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kyra, thanks for restoring the updated links. We don't typically fiddle with Wikipedia, but I ran across a few outdated links and took the opportunity to update them. Our users have had to jump through hoops to reach us for the past year due to hosting changes, so I wanted to provide current links. Things should be a bit more permanent now that we're not beholden to NIST and BAH for hosting. Thanks again. NIAP CCEVS T 15:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 12 20 March 2007 About the Signpost
WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" News and notes: Bad sin, 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 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KyraVixen&oldid=116918974"