Hi, and welcome to my user talk page! I really like hearing from other editors, so feel free to add your comments. I also welcome criticism, but please do your best to remain polite and try hard to assume good faith, just as you would if we were talking face to face. Comments that ignore these fundamental community standards, or comments from editors who've shown a pattern of ignoring them in the past may be deleted without reply. I regret the necessity, but I just don't have time to respond to editors who can't subordinate their pride and emotions to the goal of improving the encyclopedia through civil collaboration. Also, if I left you a message on your talk page, please answer on your talk page. If you leave me a message here, I'll answer here on my talk page. This keeps a discussion in one place, so much easier to follow. Thanks! Ohiostandard (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words at the review! I appreciate them more than I can adequately express -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Thanks again for your dedication to improving the encyclopedia. Ohiostandard (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Happy to help out - I cannot remember how that one ended up on my watchlist, but now that it's there it might as well stay. Nice work with the notability discussion on the talk page, very well reasoned and exactly on point. I wish there were more editors round here who took the time to do such research and explain it so well! And thanks for the offer of nominating me for an Rfa - you are not the first to ask, and I think I will probably get round to it a little later this year. The problem is dedicating the appropriate amount of time to the process, and at the moment things IRL are a little hectic! – ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for your kind words. I do understand "a little hectic!" I'm nothing like so prolific as you are here, and I receive only sporadic requests for assistance from new users. But I often hear the siren call, e.g. "I'll just look into this one small thing," only to look up a few hours later and realize I've spent more time than I'd intended. But it does seem to me that BLPs merit special care, and it's certainly a pleasant way to beguile a few hours, besides. Thanks again, Ohiostandard (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your posting at ANI, where you expressed caution about possible OUTING. Since the creator of this article is making no effort to keep his identity private here, I suggest that you go ahead and offer this matter for review, especially at WP:COIN. (User:Aldinuc admits here that he is the designer of Fastflow). My own opinion is that the article needs reliable sources to show that other people have taken notice of the technology. If no such evidence can be found, an WP:AFD may eventually be needed. The fact that the creator is editing the article on his own software may not be a fatal objection if he will cooperate in finding the needed sources. I also don't like his creating links to Fastflow in other articles, which he has done on a large scale starting May 17. Nobody has posted anything other than templated messages at User talk:Aldinuc in the last several months. The possibilities for discussion are far from exhausted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

( Please note: The posting at ANI referred to above is now here. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) ) [reply]

Thanks very much for your comment, EdJohnston. I see I was too hasty to mark the ANI discussion as "resolved" in just 50 minutes, after only one editor had replied. Sorry I didn't give you and other administrators a more reasonable time to comment. Thanks, too, for the link to Aldinuc's disclosure that he was a designer of what we're all calling "Fastflow", for now. I'd missed that. I certainly agree with you that this merits additonal discussion, and do intend to follow up on the matter. I've been a little slow to do that, but I promise I'll get to it soon. Best, Ohiostandard (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive analysis on the sentence "I didn't disagree with you." It helps me a lot. I am curious to know whether you are a mathematian:) Best.--刻意(Kèyì) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I enjoyed the process very much, so thank you for the opportunity, and for your kind words, also. Because I like to keep a discussion on just one page, though, I have copied what you wrote, above, to your talk page. I have also replied further, there. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I am no sock puppet. I am a kid from southern california with a bio degree. I believe this article is important for a large number of reasons. I may do some more editing, mainly on specific chemicals found in the plant. Please let me know if you have any concerns, see you on the page. Mindovermatter77 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the above to your talk page, and replied there also. I much prefer to keep the entire thread of a discussion on just one page. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one last thing that confused me. You wrote previously,

"This latest account was solely created to make a vote in a requested move discussion, which is what the disputevote template was created for in the first place."

Huh? The "disputevote template"? All I see is plain text, italicized, plus a link to wp:sock. No template, and I can't find a "disputevote" or DisputedVote template elsewhere, either. No harm, no foul, but that's just you having your fun, right? Or is there such an animal lurking in some template library that I just haven't found yet?  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. The template can be found at {{DisputedVote}}. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling. One of the things I like about interactions with you is that I tend to learn things. ( Often in the same way the Dalai Lama meant when asked whether he resented the Chinese. I understand he replied, "Oh, no! They are my greatest teachers!" But learning is learning, and I'll take it where I find it! ;-) Somewhat more on-topic, old friend, your direction to the template allowed me to find this, too, among its related documentation,

As always, sound judgment is required when using this template and others such as {{sock}}. If at all in doubt, it is probably best not to use, lest we run afoul of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks, Satori Son 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just sayin'.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your biggest mistake is assuming that I don't already have evidence demonstrating that the user has two active accounts. I do have that evidence, and based on that sound judgment, my first inclination was to ask the user if they would be so kind as to reveal their other accounts. The question was never answered (or denied, it was merely blanked). Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been helping at the help desk for going on five years, and I think your response to my post was one of the nicest I've ever seen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess this means my dairy products will be okay for awhile? ;-) Thank you for taking time to post to my talk page, in addition to providing so clear and concise an explanation at the help desk. I appreciate the courtesy. I'm surprised to hear that my words of appreciation were at all unusual there. Perhaps new users assume that help desk volunteers are paid Wikipedia employees? Whatever the reason, it always surprises me to find that many users fail to recognize and acknowledge how much dedication and work from others their own ability to contribute actually rests on.

I often hear Wikipedians express pride about their high edit counts, the many articles they've created, & etc., and that's understandable. But I do wish it were more generally recognized that this wonderful place would necessarily implode of its own weight in the absence of so much behind-the-scenes generosity. And I wish more contributors here would follow your lead and help out in the vital infrastructure work that's required to keep things here running well. It seems to me that your own work here is exemplary in this way.

By "exemplary" I mean:

• You create compelling articles. ( I'd very much like to make the acquaintance of a few Goodfellow's Tree-kangaroos. I had no idea such a delightful animal existed. And your article about the film Anguish scared me all by itself, without even seeing the movie! )

• You help new users with an admirable patience and painstaking clarity, and

• You also work to keep the engines running smoothly behind the scenes in a score of underappreciated but crucial ways.

I've thought several times previously of saying some of this, but I hadn't interacted with you directly before, and it would have been too much of a liberty, coming from a complete stranger. But I'm very glad to have an appropriate opportunity to say so now. So thank you, again, for your extraordinary dedication to this remarkable enterprise, and for your very generous work to sustain and improve it so consistently and for so long. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I had a funny feeling at least some reverts would occur. The mass categorization was partly in response to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agriculture in present-day nations and states. I wanted to ensure all the agriculture articles were properly categorized before the list was deleted. I usually do check parent cats but after seeing several articles, particularly on Africa like Agriculture in Niger, I assumed both cats were common practice. The addition of Economy cats occured at the end of my actions. I should have double-checked and good on the user for reverting the changes. I will run through soon and check the others they may have missed.

I haven't read that particular book but do work on dams articles in the Columbia basin/river. Dams are pretty interesting and a lot of engineers see them as our way of "completing nature" by using a river and canyon nature provided to generate power, store water, etc. Even without dams, the concept of how a large portion of land drains into a river basin is awesome on a large scale. The Mississppi River for example drains all or part of 31 U.S. States. All in all, everything that the river effects and supports is amazing.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help. SharedIP templates are easy to add if you install the "Friendly" gadget. I love Twinkle, Friendly and refTools, they really make life here a lot easier. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert right now. I appreciate your telling me. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I've violated 3RR here, you should count again. In fact, after another user had 3 times reverted my edits, I took a break and posted the article to the BLP noticeboard. Also, when you commented on the material, I believe you were looking at the version after I had already redacted most of the contentious material, as the original section was not "six short sentences", but rather closer to 30 sentences worth.

Regards, Fell Gleaming^talk 03:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you stopped my confirmed status due to my actions, but the problems on the other case has been solved so what of my rights??? (BlackImperial (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. ( Explosion of lightning and deafening clap of thunder, here. ) You're now confirmed. Is that better? ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to read Fastily's comment about your request on WP:Requests for permissions, the part where he says, "You are autoconfirmed." If you don't know what that means, enter the text wp:autoconfirmed into the search box you'd use to search for an article. The "wp" prefix tells the search function to search not in mainspace, where all our articles are stored, but to search in the space where all the rules and resources and policies and pages meant for editors are stored. Try it with other words or terms you don't understand, too, e.g. try wp:indent, or wp:agf, or wp:watchlist, or wp:reliable, and see what happens. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohiostandard, did you file a sock report on this? Be good to get it settled with check user.... tia, ----Nuujinn (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]