---

---

started at user_talk:zoe

Why did you delete the Bicycle Day article? At one point there was a good article there. Any nonsense would have been vandalism. Alphonze 10:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I find this appropriate for an article. Sources:

• Hofmann, Albert (1981): LSD, My Problem Child. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-029325-2
• maps bulletin v16n2

The first LSD trip, April 19, 1943, is also widely known as “Bicycle Day” because of Hofmann’s wild bike ride from his lab to his home through the streets of Basel, full of perceptual distortions, not knowing whether he would ever return from his madness.

Would you please undelete it? Without knowledge of the prior content, I can't be certain, but I do not feel this qualifies for speedy. Otherwise, we can just recreate. ∴ here…♠ 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's blatant nonsense. If you recreate it, I'll re-delete it and salt the earth. Take it to DRV. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Day to WP:DRV based on:

• new york times Jan 7 2006, THE SATURDAY PROFILE; Nearly 100, LSD's Father Ponders His 'Problem Child -- Bicycle day noted as named date.
• maps bulletin - Also in print, widely distributed, scientific journal. The first LSD trip, April 19, 1943, is also widely known as “Bicycle Day” because of Hofmann’s wild bike ride from his lab to his home through the streets of Basel.
• erowid established resource for psychoactive plants and chemicals and related issues. Bicycle day noted in Hoffmann's summary.
• Island Views E-Zine #2 - Bicycle Day Commemorative Issue
• Many local, often less publicized events taking place on April 19th.

Regardless of the outcome on this article, you really made a mistake here by skipping AfD. At the very least deserves a redirect. I'll chalk it up to honest misunderstanding, or plain 'ol laziness. Thanks as always for all your work. ∴ here…♠ 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you might be interested in contributing to an article that being written on the subject of Matrixism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xoloz/Matrixism). Matrixism is an entheogenic religion based in part on the movie The Matrix and the writings of Aldous Huxley. I thought you might be interested because one of this religions Holy days is Bicycle Day. 206.124.144.3 04:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The article looks good to me, assuming those sources check out. It should be re-created, or at least sent to deletion review or articles for deletion again with the revisions. -- Create an account and stick around, feel free to drop any questions my way. ∴ here…♠ 07:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is up for AFD here. As you were involved in the discussions to create this I thought you should be no ==

This is up for AFD here. As you were involved in the discussions to create this I thought you should be notified. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, keep up the nice work ;) ∴ here…♠ 00:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Here. Concerning the message you left me, yes it was a mistake. Actually, VandalProof froze and stopped responding. I think this might be a bug in the software. Thank you for correcting this error and for spending your time making Wikipedia a better place.

Cheers! --Meno25 00:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the traditional way to do this is to post on the AfD's discussion that you're withdrawing it. Someone will then be along to close the AfD properly. Blanking the page and db-empty'ing has a similar effect, but it mucks up the records and so on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks for fixing it. ∴ here…♠ 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

for the welcome and the links. Those were very helpful, I love the "don't be a dick"... priceless! Cool place here. -Theory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R.N.Theory (talk • contribs) 07:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for you message and the welcome, the bio/article will have more resources/info soon but at the moment i still have to get used to wiki. Also thanks for fixing the other url, i kinda created that one by accident, hehe. Gr4ff 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As if it never happened. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reinserted Abnerian comment. I looked at Abnerian edit history and all the recent edits are removing comments, I think it is a bit strange so I reverted the rave removal. Just thought I should explain why I did this! Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-removed the comment! No problems, I figured it was harmless as it was his own and un-addressed. After re-reading m:Right to vanish, I'd probably leave it alone next time. Thanks for all your help on this and other articles .. I hope to continue seeing you around ;). See you someday in the woods by the bassbins. ∴ here…♠ 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Here, I wanted to let you know that I have edited your monobook file because it was incorrectly appearing in Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted). This should not cause any problems for you, but if it should for some reason please make sure that you do not reinsert yourself in the category when you fix it. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with you about (this).

I've redirected the hyperlink for inline citations in WP:WIAGA to the section on Inline citations in WP:CITE, and put in a missing hyperlink from there to Wikipedia:Inline_citation for anyone wanting to read the "essay" - which has the further link to the stub article Inline citation towards which WP:WIAGA originally uselessly directed people. I hope this solves the problem but being new to Wiki I dont know if this is a generic change that can be reinforced with bots in other places. Please let me know if so and if this is helpful! I want to use my energies where they are needed! Lucy Skywalker 14:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note! I removed the link from WP:CITE to wp:Inline Citations, as I feel it confuses and dilutes the already confusing introduction. Your work on the citations guidelines is appreciated -- an important and difficult task ;). Good luck, drop any questions my way.. ∴ here…♠ 15:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

i'm so confused mikey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deramisan (talk • contribs) 11:02, April 2, 2007

Don't worry, so is everyone when they arrive. First things first -- sign any comments on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~ -- this will sign and date your comment to ease discussion organization. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more information on talk pages. Feel free to ask away... ∴ here…♠ 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to comment here since you dealt with them back in 2005. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 10:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much! ∴ here…♠ 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses#How_to_determine_if_an_IP_address_is_shared_and_by_whom:

I would like to link a good description of How to determine if an IP address is shared and by whom from Template_talk:SharedIP#See_also. I feel such a section would do well in this article. I have used network-tools.com for trace and whois, but often end up with unclear results, ( 63.3.11.2 = uu.net = verizon ; but what to put with {{SharedIP}} ) Comments?

I'd love it if a similar description was at least linked from User:SelketBot, as that was one of the first places I looked for an answer. Thanks for your excellent bot! ∴ here…♠ 21:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your request. Can you formulate a set of instructions like what you want added to SelketBot's page? --Selket ^Talk 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about how to determine if an IP address is shared... and by whom, and can't find it in the wikipedia documentation for {{SharedIP}} or related subjects. I'm was hoping to find some tricks and techniques to determine who owns IP addresses, and if they are shared. You seemed like a good individual to ask. When I was initially trying to figure this out, I looked at the bot page hoping to find some instructions on how it figures out who owns the IP addresses. I've amended my request at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses#How_to_determine_if_an_IP_address_is_shared_and_by_whom for clarity. Thanks for any tips, info, or pointers to existing instructions. I know how to use a traceroute, but not what to do with the resolved computer name. ∴ here…♠ 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From what you wrote in response to the comments on the talk page of the Matrixism article that is being worked on it sounds like you think that a whole book needs to be written on the subject of Matrixiism before it will warrant an article on Wikipedia. This isn't what you meant. Is it? 206.188.56.24 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Xoloz/Matrixism. ∴ here…♠ 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were looking at the table of contents for the wrong Joy of Sects. There are two and they are both about religion. The one that has a chapter on Matrixism was written by Sam Jordison. 206.124.144.3 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Xoloz/Matrixism. ∴ here…♠ 17:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I registered an account with the user name Matrixism but it was immediately locked by someone named Radiant. Apparently I had violated some sort of policy by posting the working Matrixism article on my user page. I was unaware that I was doing anything wrong at the time and had Radiant informed me that I was I would have changed the content of my user page and there would have been no need to lock the account. I went through the procedure to have my account unlocked but as of yet no one has unlocked it. Is it possible for you to unlock my account? If not what do you suggest? 206.188.56.88 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested that User:Matrixism be unblocked. Please help assemble historically relevant wikipedia discussion at User_talk:Xoloz/Matrixism ∴ here…♠ 04:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would love to contribute but I am still unable to edit pages using the user:Matrixism account. Should I go ahead and edit without logging in? 206.124.144.3 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For better or worse, you managed to stir up quite a storm with your persistance about Matrixism. I recommend starting clean with a new account, ideally not easily identifiable as Matrix-related. Spend some time contributing to areas unrelated to the Matrix. If you feel strongly about your former username, re-request an unblock after a month and with a demonstrated history under a seperate name. ∴ here…♠ 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. That account hasn't done anything productive, and started to bring the issue up on a number of user talk pages, which could have had the effect of a forest fire. I would suggest that whoever the user was could simply create a new account. >Radiant< 12:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

started at User_talk:Upload stuff

Hey Upload, I added a few words back to Terra Choice Environmental Services Inc. but haven't been able to find any online articles written about the company. Do you have access to any articles written about the company to show that it meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for companies? If so, add a note in the article about the source! If not, the company may not yet be appropriate for an article in this encyclopedia. Either way, thanks for your efforts ;). Feel free to drop any questions my way. ∴ here…♠ 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this what is required as a source reference? Any help would be appreciated. I only went to a red line on a page and sourced who they were. Thanks 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)john [1]

It appears this global company recognizes the company [2]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Upload stuff (talk • contribs) 21:10, May 15, 2007

The two sources you mentioned are not really about TerraChoice, but rather 1) Canada Endorses Formaldehyde-Free Fiber Glass Insulation and 2) Environmental Choice Program - EcoLogo Marketing. There seems to be a great deal of overlap between the Environmental Choice Program, the EcoLogo brand, and TerraChoice consulting -- so much so, that I expect one or two of these potential articles would be better as a redirect rather than a full article. If you are still confused about what a source is, take another read through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. ∴ here…♠ 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Still ot sure how to respond to "here". Thanks for your assistance. I now have found this page to review : Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. I was wondering is there such a page for "how the sandbox" works that is in a pictorial or simpler type view? I find this is easier to understand the concepts. Still also not understanding how to "sign" name, I am clicking on the Four tides next to " sign your username::" and it seems to insert the four tides. If I now understand I do not just click on the blue four tides I am to actually type them as I have done now. Is this correct? It seems simple but with the four tides automatically inserting, what I read on these pages, others who are new to wiki are also clicking on the four tides symbol. 14:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upload stuff (talk • contribs) 14:49, May 17, 2007

Hey again upload stuff, there are no real instructions needed for the sandbox, just play. A Sandbox is a place where you can make practice edits, nothing more. I would recommend going through the general tutorial, found at Wikipedia:Introduction. This tutorial goes over many of the questions you are having, including how to sign your name with four tildes.. Good luck. ∴ here…♠ 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I luv u Here, ur my Here-O - get it???? <3 Deramisan 10:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Deramisan[reply]

welcome, greets, thanks. noticed from Hacker. stick around and help maintain and improve the encyclopedia (!). Feel free to drop any questions my way.. Opposite starting pointers: {{welcome}} and WP:TRI. Enjoy ;)! ∴ here…♠ 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the welcome. It was kind of you. And while I'm new to wiki, I've been an avid participator around the cyber world in various places for several years, so hopefully I won't be a nasty little n00b. *grins* Again, thanks. justice 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent.. glad you found your way here. See you around.. ∴ here…♠ 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree with you so much on the space invaders high score issue, but im too exhausted to continue. SI had a nice high score list of the top three players of all times, and they deleted it. maybe you could take over where i left off.. anyway, c u around. 74.96.172.96 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, anyone who takes games like space invaders seriously knows that high scores are important... The will be back in the article sooner or later ;). I'll see what I can do to help. Stick around and register an account! Feel free to drop any other questions my way. ∴ here…♠ 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This article was deleted under A7 for a non-notable podcast and the Articles for deletion/Snowfix page said to contact you here. The podcast in question actually receives over 60,000 downloads for some episodes and has an established fan base throughout the world. Obviously it is a very specialised topic so if someone is not into skiing or snowboarding they are very unlikely to have heard of it.

However, it is almost always featured on the iTunes UK (and in the winter seasons, iTunes US) sports pages for example, and is featured (and heavily advertised) on the TV station Extreme Sports Channel (available in Europe). It is also going to turn into a TV show for this station in the third season, something which very few podcasts have achieved.

So on the base of the A7 reason I would like to submit it for reconsideration. On the basis of why it was submitted again, another viewer had set up the original page without using the podcast info table, and with some obvious bias, so when that was deleted I created a new article (without using any of the previous content). The viewers have also been asked to help maintain the article to increase the amount of information contained and the validity of said information.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Many thanks

Cdk157 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User_talk:Cdk157, feel free to continue there. It looks like this will be fine for an article shortly.. ∴ here…♠ 02:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, haven't really got to grips with how the talk section works on here, so hope this is the correct place to reply.

As of yet there's no articles mentioning the TV show status for the third season as it hasn't been officially announced yet but I'll work on the article for the Notability status by using some magazine/website articles.

Thanks for your help,

Cdk157 23:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User_talk:Cdk157 ∴ here…♠ 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully expect my deletions from the external links section to be reverted; we'll see what happens... —tregoweth (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, your page is NOT about to drop ... fibber! Much appreciation for your assistance thus far, you're an excellent guide and friendly advisor! Deramisan 20:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Deramisan[reply]

I believe I've fixed the template so that if it is placed on a talk page and the subject page doesn't exist, it will display the normal hangon message. If the subject article does exist and hangon is placed on the talk page, it will place a big red message on the page. Hope that resolves everything. If not, please let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to work perfect!, gracias mi amigo.. ∴ here…♠ 02:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to you on my own talk page. Hope you don't mind me being profane on my own page. --KOJV 06:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Another response on my talk page. --KOJV 21:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I make an edit and sign it, why does my name appear after the (UTC) as well as a linked version? Deramisan…♠ 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Updated: crisis averted, own idiocy noted.[reply]

I get pretty annoyed at all the external links that get added and then removed, so why not check first, right? it'll stay on longer that way.

And as far as the snow goes... There's still some skiing to be had this season! My site's called HookedOnWinter for a reason. :-)

Searles2sels (PJ) 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that wasn't HermesBot who added the template. HermesBot doesn't warn users; the only thing is does it add templates that I tell it too. Take a look at its contributions. I was the one who warned the user. --^Wikihermit_(Speak) HermesBot 20:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can adjust my sig. I was basing it off of user:Betacommand. What exactly do you find in violation of WP:BITE on my talk page? ^Wikihermit_(Speak) HermesBot 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. sig: Wikihermit ^{(Talk • HermesBot)} 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, thanks for the friendly message you left for me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benccc&redirect=no

--Benccc

I thought external links to the Tangram game on the Tangram page would make sense. I did not add them though I feel some of the online Tangram games are delightful and educational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharadtriyama (talk • contribs) 12:35, June 8, 2007

The list was out of control with many of those links including excessive advertising, etc. It may be appropriate for 1 link to a web-hosted game. However, I'd personally probably sooner link a directdory like Open directory project before adding such a link. I tend to be in favor of less links rather than more, but I would encourage this discussion raised on Talk:Tangram for additional input ;). See Wikipedia:External links for more info. Thanks for your comment... stick around! ∴ here…♠ 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please answer to me on my talk page. --KOJV 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC) You have another response on the Change section of my talk. --KOJV 09:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neil. I found another magazine article that talks about Matrixism. The problem is that the article is wrtitten in Dutch. It is a very short piece and I am hoping you can find some way to translate it. The article in question, in the Dutch version of Esquire Magazine, can be found here http://www.esquire.nl/lifestyle/article.aspx?aid=149. Also I am not quite sure how to add this source to the working Matrixism article user:Xoloz/Matrixism. I hope you can help with this. 71.36.35.76 09:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to help with the reference now it has already been taken care of. But with this new reference and another similar article in the UK version of Esquire Magazine earlier this year it seems that Matrixism is no longer a borderline case and should have a Wikipedia article published on the subject. What do you think? 206.188.56.88 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK source: [3]. Both of these sources are trivial mentions of the movement, rather than full articles with Matrixism as the primary subject. These source add almost nothing toward establishing notability. Regardless of the sources you find, I will still wait 6 months from the last deletion review to assist in any renomination. I see no hurry here... ∴ here…♠ 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization of the coverage being trivial. Matrixism is addressed with provided detail. Also to require articles with Matrixism as the primary subject goes against Wikipedia policy in that exclusive articles are not required to establish notability. Besides there is already a book with a whole chapter devoted to Matrixism. However I do agree that it makes sense to wait until six months pass before reviewing the article again. 206.188.56.24 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both cases include a single paragraph noting only Matrixism's potential existance. This is trivial. The whole chapter is 2 pages long, as I recall -- a relatively weak single source. Preferring sources with the topic as the primary subject has long been a guiding principle of notability requirements, and most certainly does not go against any policy. Your continued noise-making surrounding this issue serves only to harden resistance. Again, I would recommend that you disappear and edit constructively under a different username and toward unrelated subjects until September. I would also strongly recommend that you find at least 1 additional source of multiple paragraphs published in a widely recognized publication with Matrixism as the primary subject. You can attempt to persuade me all you like, but it is not my decision, and I expect any WP:DRV will be difficult considering the history of this topic. I'm not interested in further discussion, please help with something else. ∴ here…♠ 19:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen on other wikipedia pages where the article also contains a "See Also" section where other resources/products can be seen. The article on Delicious Library does not contain that section and hence I believe it is just a page just for that product without letting folks see what else is available in the same catagory.

I would like to see a "See Also" section on all of these pages so that they are more objective.

I admit I am new to this, but I think adding the "See also" section makes these pages more informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.3.68 (talk • contribs) 15:58, June 18, 2007

See also sections are generally for other existing wikipedia articles. Most of your edits have been promotional in nature for a product called Digital Hoard, including the creation of Catalog_and_Organize_personal_library_of_Books/DVDs/CDs/Games. I would recommend checking out the community guidelines on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Notability and then considering whether digital hoard deserves a mention in the encyclopedia at this time. If so, the correct place would be at Digital Hoard, which could then be linked from a see also section.

Register an account and stick around! Consider editing on something unrelated to digital hoard ;). ∴ here…♠ 18:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably seem fairly trivial, but I just thought I'd let you know that your link to "GAC" at User:Here/watchlist links to the disambiguation page for the acronym, and not to "Great American Country" as you probably intended. --— Poga — 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is to monitor the disambig link to Guglielmo Achille Cavellini, which you will also find on the list. Thanks anyway.. ∴ here…♠ 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I appeared overly harsh, however I feel my edit was slightly more justified by reading further down BOLD policy, to the … but don't be reckless. section and Wikipedia:Be bold#Non-article namespaces. One of my main reasons for the revert was that it was a major change affecting a high-use template (and one that cannot really afford to be broken, changes must go smoothly), and I didn't feel that a proper consensus had been established for long enough on the talk page (although admittedly I wasn't that thorough). Note the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, an expansion on Wikipedia:Consensus. On a more opinionated/personal/POV note, if I had participated in the discussion (which I should have), I would have opposed the change; and suggested that a collapsible template should be split off (as it now has done, into {{welcomeg/c}}).

I also opposed the reason that Lara had given for the change - that new users should be able to understand the code of the template. If a new user wants to learn wiki syntax, they aren't going to jump in and look at what is intentionally a complex template - point them to Help:Table and so on. Then once they have learnt the basics properly rather than trying to divine them from someone else's usage, they could attempt to create tables/templates/parser elements themselves. I would prefer a complex (in code), good-looking, helpful and welcoming template to a simple one.

I had also had some previous experience with Lara on Quake III Arena, and although I was not the one to revert those edits, the content that she added slightly ruffled my AGF feathers. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Word to the wise: Lara bran is probably a sockpuppet of banned user Vinay412 - see here andy 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see diff

Your three favorite artists do not belong in the see also of graffiti any more than the other artists in Category:Graffiti artists do. Leave 'em out, thanks for your contribs. ∴ here…♠ 05:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting the links to other related entries in graffiti? they are connected graffiti persons already with pages in wiki. Therefore, they are related to the graffiti article. BTW they are not "my favourite artists" as you choose to imagine them to be, merely related graffiti articles. If you actually looked at them you would see this.Peter morrell 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are related to graffiti, just like the 10s or 100s of other artists listed in Category:Graffiti artists. Would you propose listing them all? Why these three? ∴ here…♠ 06:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, what then do you propose? maybe another category should be made listing graffiti artists? do you think that is good or not? I am happy either way. I'm not especially precious about the changes I made so I shall leave it up to you. Hope that's OK. thnx Peter morrell 06:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category exists, it is called Category:Graffiti artists, which is linked in the section. I'll re-remove them, thanks for your responses.. ∴ here…♠ 06:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks no problem! regards Peter morrell 06:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the problems with the links I was posting to various book titles. I think you were certainly right in that some were already available in some form on Gutenberg, and I was unaware of the guideline about download sites that require registration.

However, I wonder about those cases where copyrighted works like those of Vonnegut or Drexler were linked from the Wikipedia articles discussing the specific works. So for example, a link to the Slaughterhouse-Five pdf from the article adds a uniquely useful resource for the reader searching for the title, since the complete book is unavailable elsewhere as a free download.

--Gmanacsa 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a good point ;). Referred to Wikipedia_talk:External_links#full_book_texts_at_wowio. Thanks for your thoughtful contributions. ∴ here…♠ 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:070722-mybloglog-logo.jpg
• Image:Helium logo.jpg

Thanks for the notice. Addressed. Twinkle messed up Helium.com by breaking the resolution parameter and did not display anything on MyBlogLog. ∴ here…♠ 19:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only advice on lexis-nexis is that many universities have access to it, and maybe libraries? I know, it's expensive... — brighterorange (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the situation with that essay. It certainly does not belong on WP:CITE, and probably does not deserve a link on WP:WIAGA. Cliff smith 02:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought... introducing citation technique remains unfortunately complicated despite its importance. ∴ here…♠ 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've dealt with this Matrixism issue off and on for the past couple of years. All this really amounts to (after all the examination I and others have done) is a single obsessive individual who continually looks for ways to promote his "Matrixism" geocities site on Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me any questions about it. Philwelch 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note.. even the working page at User:Xoloz/Matrixism appears to have again vanished. ∴ here…♠ 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow ... what a coincidence: Philwelch and I usta exchange email. I hope he's still well. --BenTremblay (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HeyYa mike, just followed the crumbs from Codex. I'm User:BenTremblay here ... not very exciting ... I tend to hang back when thing take off with rockets like WikiPedia did; if the main.man has the drag to magnitize the buzz then not.likely he's gonna listen to an aulde dawg like me. Which is just what proved out ... same with Citizendium. *shrug* NP, there's lotsa good work to be done. So this as greets. Oh, BTW, luv that pic of you at the Berlin conference ... looks like there's a new generation of RainbowFamily in the works! *grin* cheers --BenTremblay (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the greets! The Rainbow family is older than the name -- and outgrows it as we speak.. ;p ∴ here…♠ 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

... nothing unusual this particular evening ... http://bentrem.sycks.net/blog/ is one step lower than a "sandbox" blog: it just echoes my Twitter-tweets ... peek and you'll see.

So this leads to this and that, and that leads to that and this, and ... and ... and ... ... and twittering with Ed Yourdon a while ago I ended up commenting on his blog. Which got me thinking about Dan Bricklin, whom I'd named in my comment ... which brought me to WikiPedia ... to find that I'd missed your comment by /minutes/ InRealTime.

I've never doubted the.good ... I just wasn't into validating the injustice that makes the waiting far more miserable than it need be. And yet, when I have the.good re-confirmed ... like the Buddhas, I bow to beginners' mind.

__{*}__

chers

a bientot ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenTremblay (talk • contribs) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey andrew, thanks for your contribs to Hacker. I noticed you reacted defensively when another editor suggested you keep comments short on talk pages at Talk:Hacker, but I would also request the same -- and based on widely accepted guidelines for talk pages. Check out wikipedia:talk_page_guidelines , specifically: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice , which states, Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.. For the sake of all those interested in following the discussions behind the articles, try to keep comments short! The rest of the talk page guidelines as well as Wikipedia:Civility are well worth the read if you plan to stick around. We're all on the same team here... believe it. Feel free to drop any questions my way, and again -- welcome. ∴ here…♠ 03:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In a perfect world, it would be nice if comments (like this one, for example) could be kept to 100 words or less. However, I believe in two things when it comes to expressing opinions:

1. Conciseness for the sake of conciseness, and at the cost of misinterpretation or misunderstanding of arguments by others, is counter-productive and, in some cases, almost useless. It does not produce a clear debate where all factors are properly explained and understood. Furthermore, conciseness created by not giving clear examples of the point you are making (in effect, verifiability of a claim) indicates an empty argument, leaves room for misinterpretation to occur, and provides fuel for flame wars. It is why all points I make have examples. The programming languages of computers, for example, are universally understood and accepted because they are languages that contain no geographically-specific words, they do not rely on a specific cultural or religious exposition in order to be understood, and they are unambiguous in what they express. Verbal communication languages, however, are different which is why the English-speaking world is made up of different regions and dialects. If everyone on Wikipedia were to use a programming-language-style English that was unambiguous to all people in the English-speaking world, debates on Wikipedia (like the one on the Hacker page) would largely disappear, as words would only be used where they had the same documented meanings in all English-speaking countries. The price paid, of course, would be the severe limitation on people's ability to express themselves using cultural-specific phrases. However, as Wikipedia is for the documentation of events, not a system for expressing opinions, this limitation would be acceptable.
2. The truth nearly always hurts, especially when it concerns issues potentially connected with a nation's identity, language, culture, or any other facet of humans that forms the very basis of their ability to reason with, explain, and justify their environment. Some subjects cannot be talked about in any other terms except in terms that may appear to be insensitive to some individual or group of individuals. Yet, even if you start off gently, eventually you will have to broach the or issue problem that is underpinning an entire debate. Given that, I believe it is better to state your eventual intentions clearly from the start for, painful as it might be, all people involved can then contribute fully from the start and constructive debate occurs much more quickly. Etiquette is rarely, if at all, taken into consideration when another person looks as if they are defaming or criticising another country. That is why, on the occasions where making such contentious comments appears unavoidable, I stay away from cultural-specific and offensive language, slang terms, and unnecessarily provocative rhetorical questions.

Wikipedia guidelines are just that, guidelines, and I fear that "100 words or less" was not drawn up to cater for discussing situations of fundamental bias in articles, nor was it drawn up to cater for comments straying into discusssions of national identity and culture/language. The cost of using unambiguous, simple to understand, slang-free language is an increase in word volume. As an example, Wikipedia's own comments on bias take many 1000s of words. I would appreciate any offer from you, having read each of my comments and responses to fully understand the points I'm making, to compress those comments into 100-200 words of unambigous English that requires no further explanation. Of course, I will then be more than happy to confirm whether you have succeeded or not.

I've just replied to your comment on the Hacker talk page. Before quoting guidelines to me again about style and etiquette on Wikiepedia (which, I admit, are important), I suggest that you seriously study the more important issues of Wikipedia Official Policy on neutrality, verifable sources, and original research, which are the core foundations of English-speaking Wikipedia. Policy is policy, regardless of how the application of that policy is discussed in the talk pages. Most importantly, you should read and study Wikipedia Official Policy on what Wikipedia is not, as this will help you the most in understanding what Wikipedia actually is, and the reasons (and subsequent rights) I have for making, and continuing to make, the points about the bias in the Hacker article.

Andrew81446 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote simply to welcome and confirm that you'd seen the talk page guidelines. Thanks also for the policy links, it is good to see that you've read through those pages as well. Best of luck sticking around... Feel free to drop any questions my way! ∴ here…♠ 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(majority of comment removed, see 07:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC) revision.)

Paddy Monaghan. former (B K B ) Middleweight Champion Of The World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaghan paddy (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied at User_talk:Monaghan_paddy#Paddy_Monaghan ∴ here…♠ 15:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

---