Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. We're so glad you're here! szyslak (t, c) 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added the {{POV}} tag to the article Asperger syndrome. If you think this article violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, it's far more helpful to discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead of putting a tag on the article. The POV tag is for ongoing talk page disputes that cannot be resolved. I think this featured article does an excellent job addressing the view that AS is "not a disease". But if you have a different view, I'm looking forward to hearing it. Be sure to point out specific passages or terms you think violate NPOV, or ideas for additions to the article. szyslak (t, c) 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS!! Have I been so blatantly sticking to policy and not debating interminably AGAIN?? ;o) When I checked through the article I couldn't believe some of the narrative, POV and plain personal opinion that had crept in! Seems people weren't just using POV they were even "selling" it! --Zeraeph 10:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! This community and its goals are such an encouragement to me! It was especially discussions on the Aspergers talk page that helped me realize that my thinking style (set in utero) is metabolically related to my connective tissue disorder and my sister's MS; we now both have better understandings of our symptoms and are learning how to change our diets and relieve pain, and what's reasonable to expect from doctors. (That's a revelation! :> ) --Renice 11:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will be commenting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra phenomenon? I just decided to start it and see how it went. --Zeraeph 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you email, that article is unreal. You can't just go round creating your own disorders and blogging them into existance! --Zeraeph 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CC, I think perhaps you meant to add the edits you did in the Asperger's article to the Article Talk Page, because it references things like AfD, NPOV, etc, into the article itself, which is not the proper place for those kinds of comments. If you'd like to move those comments to the article's talk page, I'd encourage you to do that, but in the mean time, I reverted the changes, to the previous version. Please do not be offended by this, but it wasn't the appropriate place to put the comments into the encyclopedia article, so I hope you understand. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Not a problem at all, I figured as much . I just happened across it actually, and while I didn't want to overstep bounds by reverting it, was pretty sure it was meant for talk page, lol. (P.S. don't forget to sign with ~~~~ when you post it on the talk page. ~*Grin*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poindexter Propellerhead 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I very much enjoyed collaborating with you on the opening paragraphs, and am quite happy with how it came out. Shall we do something about that gawdawful list of social issues next? (After you take a break for your birthday, of course!) With all due respect to Attwood, it's an awkward fit, unnecessarily long, etc., and I know that your feelings about it are at least as strong as mine. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what happens next... Poindexter Propellerhead 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next is that I revert to the old version of the article. Please help me fit some small mention of diagnosis, history and treatment into it. What we wrote is technically more solid than any other version, but I think those are valid criticisms from the perspective of Wikipedia guidelines - it needs to touch on everything, and it doesn't do that, yet. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last step in a long process, have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes to get an idea of your options. All the best Tim Vickers 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to leave you twisting in the wind. I'm just as tired as you are of being personally attacked and accused of bad faith. Relax and let things take their course. Poindexter Propellerhead 23:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 08:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will save you a lot of work :-)

1. Click on any PMID I already posted, and that will take you to PubMed. You'll see a search line at the top.
2. Type in (paste in) the exact name of the journal article, and if it's on PubMed, that should get you there. Or, you can type in general terms for a general search.
3. Then just copy the PMID line at the bottom, and remove the colon (Wiki automatically links without the colon) when you post it to Wiki.

The rest is automatic. Even better, on the PMID page, they often indicate if there's free full-text avaiable. It will save you having to type out and format all the abstracts, because they're just one link away. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better; most of the time, when you're viewing an article in PubMed, there's a block to the right side of your screen where "Related Links" are listed, so you can easily click around and find similar articles on the same topic. And it's so much easier to just post the PMID to a talk page, since it's something instantly recognized as journal-published research, and often takes you to the full text when it's avaiable. Eubulides likes DOIs better, but I don't understand them very well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this change to Asperger syndrome. I vaguely recall that I introduced the problem by scanning the text of the Tsatsanis paper and mistakenly thinking I was in the Asperger section even though I was actually in the autism section. The extra pair of eyes is appreciated. Eubulides 23:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CC; rather than concern myself with new posters' possible misinterpretations on the talk page, I wanted to clarify the issue raised on Talk:Asperger syndrome directly here with you. You asked about consensus to tag the article NPOV.[1] I responded that tagging it right after FAR and without presenting a case for majority viewpoints that weren't expressed could be seen as pointy.[2] You responded that you weren't concerned about how it might seem,[3] which I interpreted as meaning you might not be aware of policies and guidelines in this area. If that was an incorrect assumption, I sincerely apologize to you for misunderstanding your post and responding with Too Much Information. After subsequent posts referred back to the B-C paper (which I thought we had already covered and understood several times) and suggestions of a new section (of content I thought we had already discussed), you indicated you would be back to add in content. If there is something we need to add in, I have really missed it—perhaps due to the exhaustion of such an unpleasant FAR, the editing pace I had to maintain during the FAR prior to my travel, and because Eubulides took over more of the actual writing since his knowledge of the subject and command of prose is far better than mine. All of the editors working on the article now seem very reasonable, and if we still have missing content, I'm unsure why you don't just explain clearly what text you mean on the talk page, so we can all discuss it? I often feel like, no matter how much we all type, there are communication issues getting in the way on the talk page. It would be far easier to simply say, "I want to add this text based on this source" or "the article needs to specifically say X, Y or Z" than to keep referring vaguely to things that you say aren't included but others thought were. Anyway, because you didn't seem to understand what I was referring to earlier when I said tagging the article could be viewed as pointy or disruptive if the case for excluded information isn't made, I responded with a fuller explanation.[4] If you believe reliable sources are neglected according to WP:UNDUE, you should explain your case case on the talk page, by saying what significant text is left out according to reliable sources. You provide sources, but then seem to interpret the sources differently than the consensus view, so it's not clear (to me, at least) exactly what you want the article to say. If you don't clearly state that, not only can we not make progress, but tagging the article would not be justified and could be viewed as disruptive. I wanted to make sure you understood this; now that we're no longer under the time pressure of FAR, there's no reason not to work through the proposed text carefully and get your concerns addressed, and we should all be able to proceed in ways that won't end up in a dispute as occurred in the article's history. Tagging an article is usually a last resort, after talk page discussions fail. Also, since you indicated others would weigh in over time and were using the plural "we", I asked who "we" is, and wanted to make sure you're aware that the article was subject to canvassing in the past.[5] Contrary to what the anon poster said, it was not my intent to accuse you (I have no reason to believe you were part of that canvassing, but thought you might know about it), and I apologize if it read that way to you. I just wanted to make sure you know the history of the article, and to encourage you to lay out on the talk page what you want to include so we can work on it without the unnecessary acrimony evidenced on the talk page before your time. I'm sorry if anything I typed read to you the way it apparently read to the IP poster, as that was not my intention. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, all article changes were introduced in Talk first. That went out the window as other editors who saw this consensus driven approach as an assertion of Ownership. They were right of course, nobody can *insist* changes are introduced in Talk first. So I won't. I think you'll find that edits I introduce will be sparse, infrequent, well sourced and absent any interpretation, generalization, or synthesis. I will cite them directly. Otherwise I expect ruthless re-editing, for such is a heart and soul of wikipedia.

I'm not saying edits have to be discussed on talk first; your original post related to whether the article is POV, and I'm trying to find a way forward on that. I'm saying that the answer to your question was that if you allege POV, you do have to give reasoning for that on talk. Several of us aren't sure what it is that you want included in the article, what you believe isn't given due weight, or what you allege to be the POV, so we would need clarification on talk for a POV tag, and we could all move forward more quickly if we understood what it is that you want in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in placing a POV there tag myself, I am simply polling consensus. I imagine it will take days or even weeks for various editors to chime in. It is precisely because I'm not interested in leading a canvassing charge that I'm going to wait so that others can chime in, in their own good time. I'm aware that canvassing tends to occur in variously subtle forms and is essentially unavoidable; such notions aren't part of my agenda and aren't really interesting to me.

The question I posed was sincere; I want to poll opinion as it currently stands, not to state the case or win converts. I shd have made that clearer. I agree that before such a tag were placed, a complete argument shd be presented, and the opportunity afforded to make the changes first. (On the other hand, if it were time consuming to add such the allegedly missing material, the tag wd seem appropriate to warn the reader while such a revision is in progress.)

In the end, I am interested only in the content of the article. I suppose it is not suprising that a topic like AS shd be improved continuously; although different parties disagree (or perhaps just have different emphases), in the end WP can settle things without too much difficulty. In fact, it is precisely the tension between differing minds that brings so much energy to this article, 6 months ago it languished with hardly any edits. CeilingCrash 08:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always understood you were polling to gauge consensus, CC, and I don't think I ever said otherwise. The anon IP misinterpreted my further comments when I responded to your post about not being concerned about how a tag might seem, as it applies to tagging an article without defining the POV allegation. Even with a poll, I don't believe it would be advisable to tag an article POV without some explanation in terms of WP:UNDUE (remember, polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wiki works not on votes or polls, but discussion and consensus -- we need to understand what the POV allegation is, and several of us still don't know what changes or additions you want). I never said that it was your intention to tag the article; that you were polling consensus was clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I rolled back your recent edit on Godel's IT. I think a removal of that size should be discussed on the talk page first, raise your concerns there and if others agree with what you see as a fault in the "Modern Proof" then go ahead and remove it. Discuss on the talk page. I don't mean to say you are wrong or right on the reasoning behind your belief of the faultiness of the proof, however, I think there should be some discussion before a removal, maybe someone else has some input or a fix. Thanks --DFRussia 11:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I shd have brought it up in Talk first. CeilingCrash 18:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could discuss your objections to the "Modern Proof" of Godel's theorem, because they are easy to adress:

1. You claim that the Church Turing thesis is being assumed. That is not true. The general Church Turing thesis isn't necessary, only a very special case. This special case is that the deduction algorithm of formal logic can be made into a computer program. This is a direct consequence of the completeness theorem.
2. You claim that the proof is "vague". What is unclear? It seems to me to be completely precise! If you have objections to the wording, or if something is confusing, it can be explained.
3. You also claim that the proof assumes Godel's theorem because computability assumes Godel's theorem. That is not quite correct. While the development of computing did lean heavily on Godel's achievement, the particular proof used is self-contained and does not use any notions at all other than quining.Likebox 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments--- you are truly a decent human being.Likebox 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an honest one :) Better to quickly admit an error than spend an eternity defending it. CeilingCrash 02:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunately a rare trait. Only truly good individuals are that honest.Likebox 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the section in the article, so please don't spend too long in a sandbox. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is likely a personal feeling of animosity from Arthur Rubin toward myself. I don't want to speculate on his motives. I don't know who Carl is, or if he is a real person or not. The proof I gave is somewhat new in its phrasing, but it involves no original research. It is just an algorithmic rephrasing of Godel's original argument, which makes it easier to understand. It removes the stupid "two x's" trick which is present in both Godel's argument and Turing's. The two x's is just a way to avoid quining. But because of personal issues, there will certainly be a fight to get this language included, and that I think that I will need help in that fight. Perhaps you could tell me if you feel that you can help. Likebox 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceilingcrash--- I got to hand it to you--- When you change your mind, you really go whole hog! Thanks again. One thing though. You meant to say "L's proof does not assume CT or Halting" when you said "L's prove does assume CT or Halting". But whatever, the intent is clear.Likebox 06:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I make that sort of typo all the time (i'm slightly autistic, strange pattern-matching in my brain.) My comments are just my objective assessment. I obviously regret kicking off the whole conflict, tho the resulting discussion may prove valuable.

My experience with this proof was that I read it with a basically incredulous state-of-mind. So I skim-read, looking for defects first. A bit later, a little voice in my head entreated, "slow down ... what is actually here?" It became clear I had made a mistake, but the beauty of the proof compensated for my personal shame.

I have found that people forgive an error if one rapidly and completely mea culpa's. It's not people who make mistakes we dread, it's people who just won't listen. CeilingCrash 06:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. Your courage and integrity are unbelievable. Were that all people were like you. I think you were right to delete the proof when you thought it was wrong. Since you're honest, all it took was a little rereading. Presto, you're on the side of good. The only reason other people with reservations didn't delete the proof before you did is because they were afraid to look stupid. I expected this battle at some point, I'm just surprised it didn't happen two months ago. Hats off to you!Likebox 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CeilingCrash--- it's ok. You are an honest and decent person. But I have an agenda here, which is to present programmer accessible proofs of all the results of recursion theory, in a way that is accessible to anybody. I am an asshole, and I do not work toward compromise. The price I pay is that nobody likes me and my changes rarely are accepted. The benefit is that my expositions are clearer than those of others. I will bear the cross of criticism, as its mine to bear alone. I don't expect anyone else to bear it with me, especially not a decent person such as yourself.Likebox 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Somehow, I am disinclined to persuade you to be otherwise :-b Are you aware of wikinfo.org ? It does accept original research and could serve as a provisional publication of the proof ('any port in a storm'.) You could also take personal credit for it. Personally, I'd like to see your version published in close-to-current form. Were that to occur, the wiki article could then cite the article directly with your permission, and in fact you would be recused from the controversy due to Conflict of Interest policy, all of which would have an ironic and amusing finality ! CeilingCrash 19:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CeilingCrash, but if you are following the discussion on the talk page, you will see the real reason why the language is not incorporated. It's a deep rooted disease in academia, which divides mathematics from computer science. I am politically aware of it, but I think you might not be. The only way to fight it is to be an asshole, which is why I am an asshole. But believe me, I pay the price every day.Likebox 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you do not mind making enemies among pompous academics, you can reinsert the discussion yourself, and see what happens. Just remember, all the attacks have nothing to do with technical points, and are entirely political. They are the dying gasps of the logician guild which has hidden away Godel's theorem for seventy years.Likebox 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous technical points with Likebox's "proof"; I pointed out a laundry list before, and could do so again. The reason that recursion theorists use the notation and terminology we do is to avoid the errors and (more importantly) gaps that occur in the sort of exposition Likebox wrote.

I came here, actually, to encourage CeilingCrash not to edit while logged out [6]. In addition to giving away your IP address, it makes the conversation more fragmented. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know you are talking nonsense here Carl. Why not join our side? It's never too late to switch, and you would feel a whole lot better. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict, and bring order to the galaxy!Likebox 22:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to say about Eubulides' "proposed wording." I don't understand how he's addressing your concerns at all: in one version, he says that "Most students with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability; some are gifted, and some reach their fields' summits as adults." This makes no mention of SBC's finding that AS is much more common at the highest level (of the Math Olympiad, at least.) It seems like that quote could be modified to reflect the fact that AS people disproportionately reach that "summit." On the other hand, the way things have been going, I don't know if suggesting that would accomplish anything, besides putting both of us through the same unproductive discussion you've just been through. So I'm leaning towards opposing Eubu's proposal (on the grounds that it's misleading and omits relevant, published data) rather than suggesting specific changes to it. One other thing to note is that the anon poster who supported the change may not have read/understood your points in the previous section, so it might be helpful for you to keep explaining yourself in the current section - even if you're not getting anywhere with the Pathology Posse, there might be other people who are confused or just haven't read all of the preceding discussion. (I'll throw in my $.02 when I can, but I won't always have time. Don't worry, you're doing a great job.)

Anyway, I'm sorry if I made things harder for you by misinterpreting and jumping on SG's comment (although I'm not entirely convinced that I did misinterpret it, and her subsequent explanations make no sense to me.) I'm not sure I understand what she hopes to accomplish by blocking your changes, but I'll support the addition of information from reliable sources until someone offers a rational response. Species8471 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a failure and refusal in that article to dispassionately let sources speak; that source says one thing, they simply misread it and say another. The math issue was supposed to be an example of a broader bias; it has served its purpose.

Baron Cohen says one thing, they ... say another. Four or so editors have abandoned that article due to this POV bias (see the Featured Article Review vote.)

I am glad you are participating in the Discussion, I am seeking administrative intervention so wikipolicies might some day prevail ... CeilingCrash 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soulgany101 and Cassandra complex (psychology)...no more words are needed I suspect. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got your email. As you are not a named party, you really don't have to reply again unless you want to. You can reply wherever any wikian is allowed to comment. Help me know if you have more questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, it is SandyGeorgia that is the difficult editor trying the patience of the larger community

Please provide actual evidence for that allegation in the form of diffs or retract. I have not seen a single diff that lends credence to that claim in any way. It is one thing to state that this is your belief, or your theory, or even a hunch. But you say it is a fact. Prove it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would greatly help your case if you would provide diffs. See WP:DIFF. From what I can tell so far, your evidence shows that SandyGeorgia worked hard to improve Wikipedia, not damage it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh ... No. I won't dig up the diffs, the links I provide can lead anyone to the text in question. Anyone who can read and think can decide whether these are the actions of a cooperative editor. I do not have further time to waste on this, or any other wikipedia issue. Take it for what it's worth. CeilingCrash (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of wiki, the term used is collaborative editor. Which link in particular do you believe is the best evidence for her non-collaboration? Do you honestly think that SandyGeorgia doesn't collaborate? It's practically all she does, and that's pretty clear from the evidence you've provided. —Viriditas | Talk 10:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you get it? I don't care what you or anyone else concludes. The archives speak for themselves. If you read thru them (did you? all of them since august?) and conclude that she is cooperative (I do not use wiki terms, as i am no longer a wikipedian), well - I really dont think I can help you with that. I'm done here.CeilingCrash (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you or anyone else concludes. With respect, isn't that the root of the problem? Take care, I hope you decide to come back when you are feeling better. —Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There honestly is no problem. I only wish to indicate the facts, which are there for anyone to read. That Talk page, SandyGeorgia aside, is actually an interesting survey of the topic of Asperger's, and perhaps worth the readers patience. My interest is only to point the interested reader to this body of text. I trust the reader to think for themselves and conclude as they will. A debate serves no purpose that I can see, as a former wikipedian. Wikipedia is yours, not mine. I hope people read the whole Talk archive since august. My hope ends there, and my involvement ends here. Best CeilingCrash (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry for the late reply. –xeno (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.