User talk:Paleorthid/Archive 4

; Archives
	2004; 2005; 2006a; 2006b; 2007; ;

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

edit to article yasmin

hi you reverted my edit to the article yasmin I wanted to contact you to say that this edit was legitimate

wpcd

If you want me to host the wpcd torrent please contact me on my work email jpp at bittorrent.com and I'll put it on one of our high speed seeders. Trapper 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Septic tank fact

I am wholly in agreement (and apologies for the incorrect mark-up - it was done huriedly and I was called away). Practical work that I did some 40 years ago and showed clear evidence of very substantial drops in pathogenicity as measured by survical rates of some chosen indicator species . Not alway a good test but it is reasonable to believe that by using well selected inidcator species others will follow the same pattern. The (unpublshed ) conclusions was that a major force was active bacterial competition with saprobic bacteria actively predating on bacteria of fecal origin. This would crtainly be aided by the reductive and oxidative environents. What I don't know about is how encysting species such as Cryptosporidium might behave. Velela 21:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Union of Microbiological Societies

I took your draft from Talk:IUMS (that page is now a disambiguation page) and created International Union of Microbiological Societies. TimBentley (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soil assessments

Hi,

Just checking in with you, I think I missed seeing your post on my talk page at the time (I was probably away or something) - sorry about that! How are things going? I used to have an office next door to a soil scientist, so I appreciate the importance of the topic. If you can get the Soil article up to a good standard, we'd love to include it in one of the early release versions for Wikipedia 1.0. Let me know if I or other 1.0 folks can help. Walkerma 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update on soil - it looks great now! It's easy to nominate for V0.5, much harder to get an article up to A-Class, so thanks for that. It's always nice for a WikiProject to have an FA as its topmost article. I hope you didn't mind, I moved the "overview" section up to be the lead section and removed the tag - I used to get told off for writing "Overview" as a subtitle myself! - the intro section is supposed to be the overview, see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section. This says, "Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow." I also saw the way things for going with its FAC, and rather than complain there I just thought {{sofixit}}. You may want to clean it up a little so the paragraphs flow better together, I think that needs to be done by you, by all means revert me if you have something better in mind. Hopefully I'll put in a "support" in a day or two once you have a chance to clean things up a little. Thanks for all that work! Walkerma 05:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more thoughts on the article:

In the section on odor, it reads, "The suphuric odor that anaerobic microbial processes produce" - should that be "sulfurous" or "sulphurous"? If not, can you explain what suphuric means?
There are some comments inside the article in the environment section such as . Were those to help you write the article? If so, can they be removed? (If not, shouldn't they be visible to the reader after expansion?)
Now I've removed "Overview" as a section, I notice there are really only two sections in the main article - "Introduction" and "Soil and its environment". This seems weak to me - I think it might be better to break the intro into 2 or 3 sections (perhaps "Soil Science", "Classification" and "Characteristics", what do you think? The problem is, that might need some rewriting, maybe slight expansion. The trouble is - if it needs a lot, you don't really want major rewrites while an FAC is under review, unless the reviewers require it.

Hope these thoughts are helpful, good luck. Walkerma 06:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY WHATS UP IF YOU PLAY SAN ANDREAS THOOSE GANGS INDEED LISTEN TO THOOSE STATIONS . THANKS FOR READING SEE YA

Soil and waste treatment

Noting your efforts initiating Category:Soil improvers, I am hoping you might have some time to help out with the soil article improvement project. I am trying to pull together some concise and coherent content on the theme of Soil#Waste_treatment but without much success. Wicked writers block, which is ironic because soil science as applied to waste treatment is what I do professionally. Maybe you have some bits handy related to that you could start in with, and then I could build on it based on my industrial and agricultural wastewater treatment, biosolids, septic drain field, and soil contamination perspective? Just a thought... -- Paleorthid 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help out where I can. I have some knowledge of soil science from my background in biology, the environment and from a personal enjoyment in gardening. I also have friends who work in contaminated land and remediation.--Alex 07:58, 30 August 2006(UTC)

Looking at the article Soil#Waste_treatment it is not clear to me if you refer to the remediation of waste soils or contaminated soils from construction projects or the relevance of soils to waste management and processes producing composts and digestates such as anaerobic digestion. Both are big issues in their own right and I have more knowledge of the latter. --Alex 08:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Describing how (healthy) soil processes contribute to waste treatment fits better here. Content on dealing with remediating waste soil would go above under Soil#Soil_degradation and Soil#Soil_contamination. -- Paleorthid 16:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another article finished in WikiProject Science

Thanks! If an other is ready, please let us know. We'll start soon V0.7 or 1.0. NCurse _work 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Paleorthid,

I just wanted to apologize to you for changing something on methane. I just thought I could try to make it accurate, and, like I said on the message you sent me, I was just thinking that methane had an atomic mass of 16.01, because I thought hydrogen had an atomic mass of 1.00. Anthony P.

Version 0.5

Sure. Here's the two categories: A-Class Version 0.5 articles and Natural sciences Version 0.5 articles. Tito xd^(?!?) 18:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

swindon town fc

My edits in the Swindon Town FC article were factuel and are common knowledge.

chakri

what the hell is a chakri? i have a bag of chakkli next to me that i am eating now.

You wanker

kimveer gill doesnt deserve respect

Petrobras P36 and your messages

Hi Paleorthid

Sorry if I have offended or cause any upset. However, I was absolutely frustrated at the dissemination of appallingly inaccurate information about the P36 which pervades the internet. I guess I will need to be more patient!

I am impressed with the site, and the fact that it is interactive. I will take the time to acquaint myself with the Wikipedia protocol prior to any further forays.

Thanks for the fix that you have done to the P36 article.

Aus0408 11:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you catch the bug and stick around. -- Paleorthid 13:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template subst-ing

Hi. No one has ever actually explained subst: to me before... but the links you provided were most explanitive. I thank thee profusely! The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 11:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User you blocked vandalizes again

[1] is the revision. I have reverted the change. Also [2] is another shared IP vandalizing.

Thanks. --216.223.142.1 18:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dark earth

The page on southwark which mentions the archaeological term dark earth points to a soil project page called

Terra preta

terra preta is completely differnt to what archaeologists call Dark Earth which I describe below.

The point I am making to you as a member of the soil project is that the term DARK EARth has several meanings and it should not be redirected to terra preta

but I cannot find how to stop it being redirected - can you help?

My second point would be that I could not see how i could enter into discussion on this on the terra preta page as this links you to a soil project page - it is as if the soil project have taken over! and are not allowing discussion.

This is what I wanted to say about dark earth

kevin flude

if you are the wrong person to contact can you email this on to someone in the project who is?

Dark Earth is a horizon often as much as 2 - 3 ft thick which covers Roman remains in London and other Roman Cities. The strata underlying the dark earth is often of a date varying from the 2nd to the 5th Century, and the strata overlying is often, in the city of London, 9th Century. The Dark Earth has little evidence of any structural activity in it or even of horizons, although tip lines of sometimes seen.

The material is not particularly organic, it has bits of brick and tile in it. It probably represents vacant lots on the edge of urban centres and in London is evidence of the decline of Londinium's population.

However, some people, the minority I believe, think it is reworked urban stratigraphy, maybe timber and earth floors reworked by worm action. They would argue that Cemetaries around London do not show a population decline compared with early London.

A  bibliography  on the subject was compiled by Pete Clark  and circulated on Britarch  on the 13 October 2006.

It can be seen here

<a href="http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0610&L=britarch&D=1&T=0&O=D&F=P&P=41976">http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0610&L=britarch&D=1&T=0&O=D&F=P&P=41976</a> -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kpflude (talk • contribs) 04:54, 13 October 2006.

re dark earth

sorry to bother you with that all

I found out how to do the redirection!

kevin flude -- -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kpflude (talk • contribs) 05:08, 13 October 2006.

October 4

I recived your warning re: October 4 sorry about that one not sure what happened, I was on recent change patrol and was removing the god birth in 1990 entry. Some how got things messed up int the process. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRanger (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 October 2006.

That was completely my fault - I hit the wrong WP:VP2 button -- Paleorthid 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting

Thanks! I'm flattered at your kind words and please that my own have more than a passing usefullness.

Aside, I think that was a very diplomatic and welcoming way of interacting with someone adding external links. I've filed that away as a good example to refer to for myself.

eMule

I think, i think...well if you open up eMule, click on the 'Shared Files' button and scrolled to the transfered data column, it tells you how much, in total, you've uploaded. So divide that by the file size and you should get around how many copies of the file you've dished out. Like I said I think its the total lifetime you've uploaded, but it may also be only a segment of your history on eMule.

Azureus, tells you the same thing, the total amount of uploaded data. Its in one of the columns. Hope this helps.

I was looking right at it and didn't understand it like that until I heard it from you. Thanks! -- Paleorthid 21:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Paleorthid, Thanks for the note about WPCD, also for help with distribution. Happy to have my user id there (even though I am totally tracable: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=DVXB,DVXB:2005-05,DVXB:en&q=bozmo gives my homepage) I am glad these are taking a bit of pressure off our server (8000 downloads a month at 200M and I start getting problems). I hope when we get the next version off the ground end year (with be 400M) we can get it on emule etc quicker!--BozMo talk 06:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. The file has been available (and actively) on ed2k for some time (as wpcd.zip), this is just the first time info was posted to the ed2k forum, and it should increase traffic. As you say, we are definitely going to post WPCD2 to the forum sooner. Got a catchy file name picked out yet? WPCD2 = 2006OCT Wikipedia CD Selection.zip? -- Paleorthid 14:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or WPCD2.zip = 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection (2006-10-31 Release).zip - Paleorthid 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as traffic issues, hopefully the combination of ed2k, LimeWire, and BitTorrent will simultaneously increase traffic and act as a pressure relief valve for your upload site. Demand for WPCD1 has been below the traffic threshhold where these technologies really come into their own. Direct download from your site has substantial speed and availability advantages to the downloader at this juncture. On your end, distributing the load to individual PCs with DSL/Cable or faster educational networks makes tremendous sense. Individual server upload capacity costs money and is limited. Distributed PCs have all the available upload capacity you will ever need. For free. The challenge is building up the (fairly) static core of seeder machines for the constantly changing swarm of demand to precipitate upon. The larger the seeder core, the faster the average download speed. Currently our core seeder group is very small - often only one of us is seeding at any given point in time. The seeder population has been far larger a day or two into initial seeding, but after a month or so, it hangs on by a thread. The next two or three dedicated seeders we attract to the project will make a big difference. The info posts to the ed2k forum and elsewhere will help to attract project participants. BozMo, if you know anyone with a connected PC they can leave on 24/7, send them along. -- Paleorthid 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentine soils

I see by your comment on Talk:Geology that you're a soil scientist and just tagged the serpentine soils as a stub. I am doing a review of serpentine ecology and would like to expand this. If you get a chance, I would appreciate if you would review and edit the soil parts. KP Botany 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. -- Paleorthid 00:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit to Fan fiction

You wrote as one of your edit summaries: "(rv unlikely/unexplained edit w/o edit summary. pls explain on talk page.)"

Actually, it WAS explained - on the talk page, by me. I realize the talk page is long, but it's certainly there. However, because it IS a long talk page (and even longer than it looks actually, considering some of it's been archived already), I'll cut you more than a little slack, as I'm pretty sure I've done that same thing before myself. ;)

It was not all that "unlikely", either, though. People are constantly putting out cheap knockoffs of popular things and stories (if you Google "unauthorized Chinese Harry Potter sequel" you may actually come across some of the more recent ones, or at least, articles about them) - why should a few hundred years ago be that much different, aside from the dissemination being quite a bit more difficult and expensive at the time than it is now due to the internet and cheaper printing and binding methods that we have today? Greed is a marvelously repetitive thing. ;) The simple fact that it wasn't called "fan fiction" back then nonetheless does not stop it from fitting some people's definition of the term, nor does it mean such "sequels" did not exist. ;)

Now, my explanation for the edit was on the Talk page in a few places but here it is, since obviously, you just managed to miss it (which does not surprise me, really, considering how wordy I know I am. It probably got a bit buried!): I had run across an academic paper (throughly-sourced, by the way) written by a law professor out in the midwest I believe (IIRC off the top of my head, her name was Dr. Elizabeth Judge) that literally had the phrase "Eighteenth-Century Fan Fiction" within the title. It examined early copyright infringement cases from the 18th century, including some based on some very notable classics - an unauthorized sequel to Robinson Crusoe was indeed mentioned explicitly, with full citation to the original court case surrounding it.

Unfortunately - and frustratingly - she advised me to wait until the final draft of the paper was available on stable link. She said she'd get back to me through email when it was, but she hasn't yet. :\ So I was unable to really cite it, even though it was a fairly excellent source (I'm still hoping for it to become available soon for use with the Legal issues with fan fiction sub-page).

However, problem happily solved and to my delight, I learned something today. Another user (blessed little Anoymouse though he/she may be) wrote for their edit summary:

"(Don Quixote was the first notable, although it was common practice at the time)"

THAT user managed to add a SEVENTEENTH-century case (an unauthorized sequel to Don Quixote of course)... WITH CITATION! :D Yay!

So, we come to a happy ending. Oh, and THANK YOU for asking the user (in this case me) who made an edit you didn't agree with or find plausible to explain their edit on the Talk page. Too few people bother with that, really. :D

Have you considered joining WikiProject Fan Fiction? I know the page says it's inactive at the moment (it was tagged that way by another user because I was kind of the only active editor who actually had signed up for the Project for the past few months), but I'm basically getting ready to take over from inactive founder and I've been beefing up the list of articles involved and such and I was hoping some good editors would be willing to join up. :) I'd like very much for you to join in, considering you clearly know your Wikiettiquete and it's always a pleasure to work with someone like that. Runa27 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for forgiving me. I see our edits were only 3 minutes apart, so that's a little close on my part. I just thought the combo of Don Quixote, not discussed on the talk page, editing as an anon (Firefox? I find my own self dropped at weird times while editing), no edit summary, not referenced (at the time), well I thought I was on pretty solid ground even though I don't know much about the subject. Wrong! Good luck with the project. -- Paleorthid 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oberlehrer

Sie sind ein Oberlehrer !

I'll take that as a compliment, or at least encouragement to continue teaching by doing. -- Paleorthid 16:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not work like in Irak !

Agreed. -- Paleorthid 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber In Concrete

A US Patent is certainly not spam. I suggest you replace the link to my patent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulbracegirdle (talk • contribs) 11:11, 6 November 2006.

Yes it is, if it only serves to advertise your product. I re-re-removed the link from Biosolids and Fiber reinforced concrete, as this wretched spammer had added them again. Best, Moreschi 20:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is the US Patent and Trademark Office "spam"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulbracegirdle (talk • contribs) 13:54, 6 November 2006.

Your question relies on the straw man fallacy: that the standing of the USPO somehow erases the significance of the context in which it was applied, and trumps the stated intent of this community to reject links with a context of narrow self-advancement. So allow me to respond in kind with a more persuasive logical fallacy, that of the slippery slope: if we good editors let your USPO patent link stand then, as a direct consequence, the floodgates will open and every patent in existence will eventually be linked to the various articles applicable to it. The consequential damage to Wikipedia, and even unto the Internet itself, is unimaginable, so of course we can't allow your link. Sorry. The best way to further your position is to address the core issue raised on your talk page. -- Paleorthid 00:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"When links from what should be useful sites are used to spam Wikipedia" is a subject of several discussions. I am particularly fond of this insight:

Having external links at all is actually a pretty low priority at Wikipedia, since (non-reference) links don't really have anything to do with having a quality encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also not a Google replacement, so the argument that it should be there for the users holds no water. A link, ideally, is only included when it offers something that could never be in the encyclopedia itself.... Stated here by Saxifrage 14:30, 9 October 2006 about something else.

-- Paleorthid 00:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It is generally understood that an "encyclopedia" exists to provide all the information about a subject - rather than just some writings or ramblings. .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.22.121 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 November 2006.

Wikipedia has agreed upon limits to the information that can reasonably be included. These limits were arrived at by a due and deliberative process. They are not perfect or permanent, but they are material. -- Paleorthid 06:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, all the information needs to be proper, correct and include a reference to any intellectual propery rights that exist. This prevents the reader from being mislead into a false sense of security about the technology that is presented. An uninformed reader could attempt to copy such a technology - only to be surprised when sued for infringement. .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.22.121 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 November 2006.

I have a difficult time seeing how this rationale plays out at a practical level, but I sense that it applies to a level of article detail that Wikipedia has yet to achieve. -- Paleorthid 07:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the solution is to note the US Patent Number and name for a particular technology - as text - rather than an external link. FYI - it's USPTO not USPO (that's the post office). Advise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.22.121 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 November 2006.

I think that WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE would discourage your solution. Perhaps I don't understand the level of significance and notability of the patent you hold. If you feel your case is pretty strong, I encourage you to initiate discussion along these lines on the article talk page. -- Paleorthid 07:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i get messages...

telling me that i vandalized , I don't understand why because i've never edited content on the site, just wondering —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.52.194.50 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 November 2006.

Welcome to Wikipedia! See Special:Contribution/67.52.194.50 for the history of edits contributed from your IP. You, personally, did not contribute those prior edits but the IP address you share with others was used. Consider registering a Wikipedia account to avoid fretting over similar vandal warning messages meant for others. -- Paleorthid 20:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

listen chubs... someone else had vandalized the cellular respiration entry. I deleted their entry. thanks for calling me out on helping the wiki community....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.56.128 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 14 November 2006.

Well then, thank you for reverting "someone else identical to you" 's vandalism 24 seconds after it was placed. Keep up the good work? -- Paleorthid 21:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with two new episodes!

Special Episode 5 - Viruses in Wikipedia, ArbCom, Wikipedia in China, Wikipedia 0.5 and more!

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 06:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

i hope u werent talkin to me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.77.90.62 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Not if you didn't edit Engineering. I was talking to the person at 216.77.90.62 who did this but that was 25 minutes before you left your message for me. Make sense? -- Paleorthid

We need more legit specialists in obscure areas.

Soil science? 68.39.174.238 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and thanks for the barnstar. - Paleorthid 22:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

This week's topics include - China’s re-block of Wikipedia, better searching, wiki markup parsing, Wikimedia board and executive level decisions, bylaws, committees, trademark, and fundraising + a cat w/ an MBA!

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 08:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

This week's topics include - 1.5 million articles, an exclusive of Danny's latest contest and more!

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Permission for San Joaquin (soil)

Confirmation of permission for using this text under the terms of the GFDL has been received by the Open Ticket Request System. I have tagged the article appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 00:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

little question/advice

Can I ask you something since I noticed you have editted the article in a minor way. I have just noticed that someone who appears to be mainly an article mover has moved 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection to Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. I can kind of see why (be interested in discussing) but I think doing this without even raising a discussion somewhere is a bit off. Apart from asking him why do you think I should just revert it? I don't like fights but again I think that's something he might have raised on a talk page first...--BozMo talk 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have a go along the lines you suggest. I think I would rather do it now while the servers work well (they are stalling in the afternoons). I will leave another a note for Geejo and explain but I get the impression from his user log that we were just part of a long list of ideas --BozMo talk 09:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think I have done this (and added a couple of images) but if you can improve it please go ahead --BozMo talk 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geejo has been around but hasn't replied. However, now the article is AfD which I welcome since I think the debate is quite legit. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_Wikipedia_CD_Selection --BozMo talk 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt remove any text

I don't know what you are talking about, I've never even visited the web page you specified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.230.188.58 (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do you remember where you were 01:23, 3 October 2006 ? -- Paleorthid 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(bursts out laughing) Oh, that's hilarious.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For using both civility and hilarity in putting a page-blanking vandal in his place, I award Paleorthid a Good Humor Barnstar. Elar a girl^Talk\|Count 21:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Warhol

How come you changed you're mind?

Can you talk about it on the Discussion page?

What better way to honor Andy than to have a double image of him?

Isn't he the inventor of this technoque??

Why must this Wikipedia be so CONSERVATIVE in its format?

Yours truly,Ludvikus 04:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

Actually, it's a couple of new episodes. I've been moving to an place closer to campus (my commute was getting to me) and hence, the reminder message was a little slow in coming out. So slow we put out 2 where before we had 1.

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Louise Glover

Hi there! The guy you had warned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.35.89.51&action=history has just come back (I've just revert his changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Glover&diff=94276658&oldid=93987428 --Vlad|-> 13:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

Episode 10, lots of new stuff, read about it online and not in this talkpage spam message :)

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 07:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.