User talk:DanielCD/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

December 2005

thanks

Thanks for the welcome! I've been working on a few pages, just trying to get the citing and balance right. I was wondering though, how do you open up your same account in another language? Or is that possible? Thanks for the offer of help!--Elizabeth of North Carolina 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

fix edit summary

I screwed up. I removed a clean up tag (abdomen) and accidentally credited mattaopedia in the edit summary when it should have been Ec5618. The only way I can see to fix it would be to make a meaningless edit (like adding a space somewhere) so that I can have another edit summary. Can you edit my edit summary? (you can reply here, I'll watch for it) TheLimbicOne 21:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Gimme a min to check it out. --DanielCD 21:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Just let Ec know that you meant him. There's actually not a way to change those that I know of, as it's really not a big deal. You might just proofread the article again, as you bound to find something that can be improved, then you can add the correction to that edit summary.
But as a simple answer: it can't be fixed as far as I know (unless perhaps you appeal to Jimbo himself, who can then apply for an Act of Congress...lol). Shouldn't be a big deal, just chalk it up to a learning experience. --DanielCD 21:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
In addition, you could always make a "null edit" and add that. Nothing says you can't. --DanielCD 21:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I'm sure I'll find something. TheLimbicOne 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

re: award

Thank you! I like to clean up the redirects because (1) I'm anal retentive and (2) it draws the attention of other users who will review my changes (and fix my gaffs). I'm glad to know somebody's watching out for the integrity of our projects. TheLimbicOne 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't give many (3 in almost two years), and it just let's you know how much I like to see tightening up of loose-ends that I'm too lazy or busy to fix up myself. Rest-assured, it is deserved. --DanielCD 21:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Then again...I've only gotten one myself...lol

January 2006

new project

Sigh, it always happens this way. I start with a simple edit (grammar, spelling, etc.). Then it explodes into this huge clean up and consolidate project. My latest is body cavity, which currently is a pitiful article on the subject. I thought you might like a heads-up. TheLimbicOne 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD

My explanation is that you should be adding your comments to the bottom of the page, not to the top of it. I'm sorry if I lost something when moving your comments to the proper position, it was accidental but in future please be aware that you're not supposed to put your comments on the very top of an AFD, particularly not above the nomination line. Homey 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I lectured you when I should have lectured Gbleem, it was he who misplaced his comments. I must have accidentally pasted over yours when I moved his. Homey 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you still with us?

Please review my latest proposed merge at eumetazoa as it's apparently controversial. TheLimbicOne(talk) 03:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I stumbled into a hornet's nest. I hate taxonomy. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

re comment on childlove-thingy-vote

LOL thx. Hey I came here a couple days ago and your page just said "I see thing... bad things." and I was gonna say, wow best user page ever, I wish I had your restraint. But you changed it, its still tres cool. And you copied a couple of my boxes, wow, I'm flattered! Yeah the anti-fascist thing I made a while back, it's one of Mussolini's symbols. K laterz Herostratus 14:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please

  • Please delete my account. Kingjeff 00:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Awww, come on. I cain't do that. --DanielCD 04:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what a special project is

The pedophilia advocacy article is certainly not encyclopedic enough. So far all sources I've read have been misquoted and interpreted according to a specific point of view, but since many people support these mistakes it's tough. My strategy, apparently, is to get reverted repeatedly. Any better ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusduck (talk • contribs)

Pedelec

I don't know if you noticed, but this article is up for deletion; there is an existing article on the English Wikipedia at motorized bicycle - if there's good content in Pedelec you could help by merging it (which is what Im looking at now). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for helping out with the translation of this article. God bless! it is said that "Every action has a reaction." Best wishes. --CyclePat [[Image:Ladies safety bicycles1889.gif|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 01:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

KC

You're right! Kindness does add a freshness to things! After reading your quotes I'm tempted to wax definitive and say that Kindness is freshness and freshness is progress and progress is moving towards others and to move towards others is to be kind. How was that? It went in a circle. I think the folks you quoted did a better job than me. lol.

Welcome to the Kindness Campaign! LambaJan 18:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for helping with the 1911 EB question. -- Peripatetic 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another "Apple" to Polish

Only this time a seriously wormy one in need of CPR (no controversy though, except the bland, impersonal fight to stop it being merged with ASPD again). Somehow it has so much potential and yet is such as mess at present.

[It REALLY needs a DanielCD touch, if you have time to glance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy--82.195.137.125 09:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)]

[PS Am now so firmly hooked on Wikipedia that I have created User account --Zeraeph 09:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)]

Infobox

Ha! Hilarious. Thanks for sharing it. It's so true. Glad to see you are back from Wiki break. I am cleaning up a couple of 1911 articles of interest to me (mostly Renaissance composers and such); nothing new from the missing articles project yet. Have to get focused. Let me know what you need me to do; I'd like to see the EB get finished this year! --FeanorStar7 18:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mr DanielCD

Lately I was complaining about you behaviour: citing new and unpublished names and facts from one of my submitted manuscripts. I just wondered how you could lay your hands on it !

I have changed some facts in 'your' page Cavolinioidea, but rather would like to get in email contact before I go on doing so, There's a lot of incorrect facts there ! Please send me an email, I included mine at the base of the Cavolinioidea page !

Arie W. Janssen 15:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The data about Praecuvierinidae and the Cuvierinidae, came from this site [1]. Since they had been published in a scientific journal (published in Basteria, 69: 25-72, 2005), there was no reason to doubt their validity. In a way I'm happy that the original researcher Arie W. Janssen found this article in Wikipedia and made some corrections, since he is probably the most eminent researcher in this field. I've always tried to write articles that are at the forefront of science, relying on the latest information found on the internet. But this subject is handled by so few specialists, that it is sometimes difficult, actually almost impossible, to find a second opinion on the same subject. Therefore, if the original researcher has made modifications to this article, I'm glad to accept them. It is the wiki way to improve articles written by someone else. JoJan 19:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr JoJan, that was a nice, polite, and flattering reaction, but it is UNTRUE ! The date of 17 July 2002 has never been mentioned in that website. What WAS mentioned there, was the fact that the manuscript was SUBMITTED !

Arie W. Janssen 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Other sites use Wiki info at their own risk, and if they use data and it's wrong, that's their problem. The policies are well stated that the info is not at all guaranteed to be accurate. I think this is a simple misunderstanding, and if anything that needs to be fixed, we will do everything we can to fix it. We realize you have a problem, and want to help you make it right. Please settle down, and state exactly what you feel the extent of the problem is, how much you feel you've been wronged, and what you think needs to be done. If there's an error, let's get working on it. (I will also place this on his talk page). --DanielCD 23:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Also: Guys, I'm sorry I don't speak Dutch (I certainly wish I did). JoJan, perhaps you can relate that I am willing to forgo my normal activities and offer any assistance you guys might need in rectifying the situation. Good luck, and feel free to message me at any time. --DanielCD 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Daniel. I've sent a lengthy email (in Dutch) to Mr. Arie W. Jansen explaining what has happened, explaining that I didn't copy or steal his manuscript (how could I ?) and that I don't know the people named by him. I explained again how I retrieved the information from the internet and from a book in my possession. He has (half-heartedly) accepted my explanation and wants to close this discussion. He has even proposed to make some changes in Wikipedia in articles about holoplanctonic gastropoda. So we can say at last : "All is well that ends well". JoJan 08:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Criminal Psychology

I had a question regarding the comment you posted for this article.

As you pointed out, the article could use expansion, but perhaps the initial contributor could only develop it to the level at which it now stands.

It seems that you know enough to consider Michel Foucault a footnote. Do you have anything to contribute?

Merci

Alice Curiouse 19:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhm...I think the answer...to that...would be....Uhmmmm........No. --DanielCD 03:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pedo Advoc proj

Hi, I haven't forgotten about the Pedophila advocacy artice (and perhaps a couple other articles) project. I will set it up if no one beats me to it, but probably not 'til next week. I have to do some actual editing work before I go nuts! Also, I guess I will try to find a way to get the people who actually study how organizations work to put together a quick advisory regarding the Current Unpleasantness, and damn quick. Probably by creating a project and inviting the people who have shown erudition on the Organizational Development area of articles to puhleeeze join...

Anyway, I think on the Pedo Advoc thing, I will invite all the people who voted on the AfD and also some mental health bigwigs if I can scare any up, perhaps to offer perspectives on the Rind et al. (1998) study which seems to be quite important. But you, Daniel... you are admin if I recall. Well, as it's a somewhat charged subject I will (as just another editor) be quick to warn people if there is any ungentlemanly/unladylike behavior, and want be able to back that up with quick firepower if necessary. You have some familiarity with the subject, so you're a natural go-to guy for that... would it be best if you were not involved in the workings of the project? What say you? Herostratus 10:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

orohippus stub

I'm not so experienced in wiki; I'm working for a project on horses into it.wiki and I found lots of interesting articles into en.wiki.

Take a look to Orohippus (I saw your signature in its history). It looks very similar to the content here: [2] but I dont'n know as to manage this problem. Can you help me?--Alex brollo 07:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wormy Apple

They made you an admin?

DARN! Knew I should have checked before getting snappy in the small hours...NO BETTER MAN though, congratulations!

Please check back to "Psychopathy" see what you think of changes? I promise to suck up better now I know--Zeraeph 09:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

arrogant beast

Hope I didn't sound too pompous - but there are many wikipedians who seriously think the way you joked. - DavidWBrooks 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics Help

Sorry to bother you, but could you provide an answer to this question about external links to lyrics? Thanks. - Rudykog 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that's how it was, just wanted to make sure, thanks again. - Rudykog 20:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Joshua Gardner

The links that you removed appear to be the personal pages of the alleged; I'd say that they're pretty relevant in that regard. Mackensen (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate

Really do appreciate the award.

I am experiencing a malfunction that is preventing direct access to other Users, articles via the tabs on top of the articles, other User pages. Martial Law 04:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Malfunction has been terminated. A User said it was caused by a glitch in the Firefox programming. Martial Law 10:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

License

I put that Promotional lisense there because I got it from a website and secondly all other award images are displayed in that lisense. If I am wrong, please tell me the correct lisense. Thanks. 202.169.222.38 06:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Chennault

The mission statement is on the website for Chennault. I'm not sure how to cite or reference, but it's on the website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ARSQuest (talk • contribs) .

Can...

Can you transfer a copy of your non-admin. toolbox to my userpage ? Martial Law 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's done. --DanielCD 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


LOVE IT !!!!

It sure is. Appreciate this. Martial Law 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Darn you...

That's about the third time today I've gone to revert vandalism, and found you had beat me to it. Oh don't worry, I'll get you one of these times. ;-) Keep up the good work. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Idolatry

Hi, Daniel. I looked into it a bit more, and that line had been in the article, unnoticed, since Dec 5, 2005. This is what scares me about Wikipedia. Little changes like that slip through unnoticed, and then get taken as truth. We would actually need to have every article frozen and edited to prevent this; an impossibility, I agree. So, we have to do the best we can under the circumstances. Thank you for the note; it's nice to hear from other editors (especially administrators ;) ). Avi 22:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord

You're welcome to make a statement on the request for arbitration: the request up currently has statements from outside parties you can see for an example. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were... a bit unusual, and that he truly believes he's doing the right thing. But, well, even if he is, it doesn't mean he hasn't exhausted people's patience to the point where arbitration is called for to figure out what to do about it, so I've voted to accept the case. You can also participate on the Workshop page if the case is accepted, without being a party to the dispute. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Kat,DanielCD and EB

I've contacted him outside Wikipedia and he is of the opinion that this entire arbitration procedure is a huge farce and he really doesn't care what the committee does one way or the other. When people like Android79 are given any credeence whatever, the entire procedure loses all validity.

He does want to simply get some enlightened admin who is respected to make some simple and basic edits to the Bigfoot article, since it is not what he *says* that is judged, but it is the name he carries that is judged and instant reverts follow with no consideration of the __content__ of the edits he tried to make. However, an admin who has some philosophical background, such as DanielCD, might be able to insert a short paragraph in the Bigfoot article that can make a profound change in how READERS view this topic.

He says it is the old fashioned and almost comic book approach used in Wiki,has been "Is there a Bigfoot or is it a hoax?" and this ignores the possibility that a new life-form may be involved, by excluding it from the basic question.

The better question for an ARTICLE should be:

On the question of alleged hairy humanoids, does the evidence show they are 1) a hoax or error; 2) a zoological species of possible primate; 3) a life form outside of zoology that has special abilities that enable it to escape capture?

In the light of research by advanced theoretical physicists such as Dr.Micho Kaku, (CCNY,CUNY)("Parallel Wolrds") and Dr. Fred Allen Wolf ("Parallel Universes")as well as recent research evidence found by active researchers other than himself, this __restructuring__ of the basic article format question is justified.

Can an enlightened and intelligent ADMIN insert this change into the article?

And perhaps the extremely technical types in Wiki can take basic ideas. suggested, with references, and re-edit them in the Wiki manner so everybody is happy? Each person has their talent. Some break the ice, some clean up.

Gerald Hawkin

yup yup

Funny you should ask (Pedophila project), I just started setting up to that, I'm gonna work on it my userspace for a few days before I take it public, yup you'll be hearing. Herostratus 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Data Loss Bug

What is going on ? Tried to respond to your request, only that some kind of bug states that data loss has happened, thus can't do so. Martial Law 04:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can..

Can you place this on all of User:Beckjord's socks as well: User_Talk:Beckjord, Re.: "Just seen this / Plea." ? This should discribe what happens in this kind of thing.

On the Request for Arbitration, Re.:Beckjord, can you state this ?

Statement By Uninterested Party Martial Law

I recomend that User:Beckjord be placed under a mentorship protocol with mentors that are familiar with paranormal matters, yet follow Wikipedian protocol. These must not be skeptical, yet still follow Wikipedian protocol, since it is skeptics that set him off. People have seen strange things, they don't like being told that other people will percive that they're liars and idiots. I have investigated a incident in which someone had desired to shoot me if I say that I'm a skeptic, since he and other witnesses were made out to be liars and fools by "skeptics". User:Beckjord may have been raised to believe that "seeing is believing", and does'nt like people accusing him of lying and/or being a idiot or some kind of nut because he has seen something strange.
Appreciate the time taken to examine this plea. Martial Law 08:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my really short time here has made me unqualified me to be anything but a plain old editor. Martial Law 08:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I am no longer in that area of the US where that gunman was located. Maybe he was moving out of the area. Martial Law 10:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The incident about the gunman happened four or five years ago in Fouke, Arkansas, thus is why I'n no longer in that part of the US. He thought I was "one of those 'skeptics'" who made the residents look like fools and idiots, because of the Bigfoot incident. Martial Law 10:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the gunman is in jail somewhere. Martial Law 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

tich,tich

Contacted him by email re this and he says it it not merely what he has seen that has set him on a new path after 1978, but what his photos show, what the creatures have said to him and to others and to others, and to others, and evidence from track DEPTH, EXTREME DEPTH and tracks that end in snow that others have videotaped, and not just those he has encountered which he has. Thus his position is based on EVIDENCE and not merely seeing. This is something 95% of those involved in Wiki in this issue just do not grasp. Got it, ML?

Yakitory

User:Beckjord, if that is you, Admin DanielCD and I are trying to keep you from being tossed like a 7 day old, spoiled fish. I too have seen and experienced things that defy current social acceptance. In one incident, a orange UFO ripped up two LARGE oak trees and tossed them aside as it returned to where it came from. Can you imagine a 10 ton oak tree flying at you ? Martial Law 08:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
As a result of this kind of thing, the state sanctioned ridicule, I have become a paranormal investigator myself. I have investigated some famous incidents, such as the Phoenix UFO Incident, the Roswell UFO Incident, the Gulf Breeze UFO incident, and seen two UFOs while I was in the Gulf Breeze area ! Currently, I'm trying to deal with a UFO incident that recently happened in Arizona in which a woman claimed that aliens from space had "phasered" her brother. This had allegedly taken place in Salome, AZ. Martial Law 09:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I do apologise to Admin. DanielCD for intruding on his talk page. A unknown User contacted both of us on this talk page. Martial Law 09:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC) :(

Contact

Contact was made by a 207.200.116.13. Martial Law 09:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

With.. / Quote

With power, comes responsibility and accountability. Martial Law 23:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Commentary..

Commentary is accurate. I did not want to scare Wikipedia with what happened 4 or 5 years ago, and my short time here on Wikipedia may disqualify me as a mentor. I will keep a eye on User:Beckjord, and do what I can. Martial Law 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ref bigfoot photos

Hello! These pictures are fantastic. We would just like to share this story. we are doing so after hearing the re-broadcast of Robert. W. Morgon tonight on Art Bell from 2001. In Jan of 2001 in the early morning around 4 to 5am, my husband and his fishing buddy of 11 years were fishing in Roosevelt Lake right where the Mogollon Rim borders the area. His buddy saw the figure first and , could not figure out what it was and quickly told my husband to look . My husband looked where he was pointing and saw what looked like a 9 foot tall man covered in dark brown hair walking quickly along the mountain ridge above them perhaps less than 100 feet away.. He said it was extrordinary because the "man" was taking huge strides unlike a human could walk and was able to walk the entire ridge in five minutes or less. He said the being swung it's arms as it walked and walked straight ahead. For a second, he wondered what a man was doing up on the ridge?It begun to dawn on them this was no man!They were able to view the hairy being" for five whole minutes.He said you couldn't miss it. It was HUGE and certainly from that distance it had to be. He said it had huge long arms, but not like an ape, and long hairy legs but not ape like. My husband said there is no way it could be a human since the area it was walking in was inaccessible, as there is no ingress or egress up there. his buddy shook his head in disbelief and said he;'d never tell anyone what he saw. But my husband is convinced the huge 9 foot tall early morning strider is abosolutely 100 percent BigFoot. He said there is no way it was a man because of the way it looked. when we heard the Broadcast tonight , Morgon validated that BigFoot sightings have occured around The Mogollon Rim. And that BigFoot families do live around there. We believe it !My husband knows they saw something most unsual that morning, and that it was something other than human as we know it. Thanks for allowing us to share this true story. BigFoot is not a myth! They exist, as my husband saw firsthand. Stephanie Stevens

porkypine

Pedophilia activism

OK, it's up for review, edits, and corrections, at User:Herostratus/Pedophilia. However, I some people have been working on it, and maybe a whole project thingy is not needed anymore. But was protected just recently and its still tagged NPOV disputed, so I dunno. I'll ask the editors involved and see what they think. Herostratus 14:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • OK... maybe its overkill if the article is coming along. Herostratus 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Color Climax Page at Wikipedia

DanielCD The Color Climax page at Wikipedia was not vandalised, the information was corrected. The "Controversy" section was totally untrue and furtermore, unprovable because there is no evidence to prove any of the viscious and slanderous allegations that "Wikipedia.org" alleged on the page with reguard to that section and The Color Climax Corporation. Further allegations and slander will be reported to the Color Climax Company as they will most likely have a vested interest in defending the history of that great company, the number one and most well respected Adult Movie and Magazine company in Europe. Respectfully. Lexxfan2000Lexxfan2000 03:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good will

Good will is assumed, and greeted with appreciation when shown. Of course editors should be able to agree to disagree. Consensus is really about finding the text which will have the least disagreement, not necessarily the most agreement. Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia. There are some topics which most editors won't touch with a ten-foot pole, leaving them only for the most partisan and involved users. Those topics are most in need of "dis-interested" editors. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning messages for vandalism

Hi. I noticed that you actively revert vandalism to articles. Thanks!! I also noticed that in at least one case (Jennifer Aniston) you didn't leave a warning message on the vandal's talk page. There are templates (documented on Wikipedia:Vandalism) that make it fairly easy to add messages, but if you revert vandalism regularly it can still be tedious. So I've made some vandal-warning tools that are documented at User:Kbh3rd/Vandal_warning_toolbox. A list of warnings can be added to that toolbox menu on the left whenever a user talk page is being edited so that the proper warning message is only a click away.

I wonder if you'd like to try this out. I've not (yet) made it very public like CryptoDerk's and Lupin's much more sophisticated tools, but I'd be interested in getting some feedback on it.

Thanks again for your help! --Kbh3rdtalk 12:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sometimes I just do a casual patrol and don't go out of the way to leave messages. I'll make a point to be more dilligant. --DanielCD 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Gosh, thanks. I dunno how useful it really is, but I found it educational and enjoyable to put together that stuff, and I'll keep working on it... thanks for your kind words! We (or just I, or whomever) need to sort through the external links and categorize, rate, add, whatever. Of course, you were actually learning about the subject and working in article space while I was messing around with that project structure, so um I think you were doing the better work...

Yes, I think I am going to change it now, so that the only "active task" is working on nomenclature... that makes a deal of sense. I don't see a huge amount of activity on Pedophile activism, and maybe that can be handled on the talk page there. But the project is ready to activate, or will be, if there's a flare-up anywhere along the line. Which is good. For now I guess I am not proposing to put in public space, I guess, although there is a redirect from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia, because its not super active. By all means people can be directed to it, though. I will be working on it, but slowly, mostly learning for awhile, but I have other stuff I'm doing also... man, I wrote an article yesterday. Seems like weeks since I've done that. Felt good.Herostratus 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

not vandalism

My change to the "Ego, superego, and id" article was not vandalism. Your message instructed me to read the welcome page, however that clearly states that anyone can edit and correct any mistake they find in any article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.117.172.251 (talk • contribs) .

My sincere apologies if I made a mistake. --DanielCD 21:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
And it looks like you were right. Sorry 'bout that. I reverted my revert. --DanielCD 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: not vandalism
Thanks for reverting the reversion. :) (Sorry if there is a better place than here to put a reply -- pretty new to editing the wikipedia). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.117.172.251 (talk • contribs) .

thanks

thanks for tidying the article on Agathocles - still need to learn. firstly is there a way of leaving messages to someone without editing the talkpage? seems odd somehow. Agathoclea 21:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

To Daniel : Why are there suddenly warning labels all over the Poincare page ? You have produced NO sources to contradict my sources. - What is wikipedia all about ? SOURCES, I thought . -- I guess not !

RE: Henri Poincaré
That's hardly a case for censorship. A mistake on my part, perhaps, but I don't have any reason to censor any of that. If you have a case, and think I was in error, let me know in a polite tone and we'll make sure it gets fixed. It's as simple as that. --DanielCD 22:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)