User talk:Ignatzmice/Archive 3

Talk Back
301man (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Tree frog
Ocellated tree frog is O. langsdorfii Gigemag76 (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Scott R. Snyder
Thank you! ♥ Jennak83 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC) oh! okay!! Thanks a lot!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennak83 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Integrational linguistics (Hans-Heinrich Lieb)
Dear Ignatzmice,

"Integrational Linguistics (IL)" should not have been moved to "Integrational Linguistics (Hans-Heinrich Lieb") for the following reasons:

1. The official name of this linguistic approach is "Integrational Linguistics". For reasons of disambiguation, "Integrational Linguistics (IL)" may also be used. See, for example:

Brown, Keith (ed.-in-chief). Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier. Vol.5,

where Integrational Linguistics has the encyclopedic entry "Integrational Linguistics (IL)", and the approach going back to Roy Harris runs as "Integrationism".

2. Roy Harris started using the name several years after it had been in use (also in publications) for the approach initiated by Hans-Heinrich Lieb. Hence, it would be more correct to label Harris' approach either as "Integrationism" or as "Integrational Linguistics (Roy Harris)".

3. "Integrational Linguistics" (or "Integrational Linguistics (IL)") has been developed by many people of which Hans-Heinrich Lieb is only one (even though he has been the central figure of the approach for many years). It would be somewhat offensive towards the other linguists who have worked on the approach to call it "Integrational Linguistics (Hans-Heinrich Lieb)".

I would be grateful if you could move the article back to "Integrational Linguistics (IL)" or, even better, to "Integrational Linguistics" and move Harris' approach to "Integrational Linguistics (Roy Harris)".

Thanks and regards Mo Tat 2013 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've begun a procedure to find consensus on whether the article should be moved. See Talk:Integrational linguistics (Hans-Heinrich Lieb). I apologize for not realizing this would be controversial. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have restated my points on the discussion page. Mo Tat 2013 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Five Bathing Women at a Lake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to German


 * Landscape with Cows and Camel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to German


 * Peter, Paul & Mommy, Too (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Frank Hamilton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:Fallon Fox
Yeah I was confused, thanks for the heads up. Cheers Cocoaguy ここがいい 01:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nikki Awesome & The Royal Society
Hello Ignatzmice. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nikki Awesome & The Royal Society, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Seem to be signed, indirectly, to a major label, and claim 'hit singles', which is enough for A7. Take to AfD if required.''' Thank you. Ged UK  11:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Arctic  Kangaroo  13:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Frgewhqwth and unsourced material
It's not poking your nose in, since it's a valid part of the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia, and I not only appreciate it, I wish more editors and admins expressed an interest in helping out like you did. However, I don't think this matter merits a report at the AN. It's just some editor, probably a newbie, who doesn't yet understand the site's basic policies, and doesn't understand that warnings like those left on his talk page need to be heeded. Since he was already given a final warning by someone else for his unsourced material, and subsequently violated WP:V by adding it again, I have blocked him. He'll either come to understand that he must adhere to our policies and guidelines, or he'll go elsewhere. But thanks anyway. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's your decision to make, based on whether you think there is a matter that needs to be discussed. If you feel something remains to be resolved, then you should pursue it; If not, then feel free to remove it. It's up to you. Nightscream (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

cpyvio
Do you really think I would deliberately insert a copyvio? It was an artifact of a rewrite and page move to hte author, who is notable  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something major, because One gets used to anything, except a guy has been a copyright violation of http://www.womensfestival.eu/events2006/dutchwriting.htm ever since its creation in 2006 (unless the linked page was copied from the Wiki article, which would make the "external link to review" highly suspect); as Yvonne Kroonenberg is basically a copy of that page, it is too. Please, if you know what's going on explain it to me! I am incredulous that the article hasn't been deleted ages ago. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 04:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To analyze it, the first step is that the English article was entered simultaneously with the one in the Dutch WP, in 2008 by the same editor, one who contributes regular to both WPs.   The book is probably notable in the Netherlands, though it's hard to tell from English sources.
 * I can not tell if the Women's Festival article was copied from us, of vice versa. The ed. who wrote the two articles is very experienced, so it is indeed very possible they copied it from us, just as you realized at the book article talk page. . We were checking for copyvio in 2008, & if it had been a copyvio it would probably have been noticed. But it is a somewhat informal article, and perhaps a little more suited to a website, so I do not know for certain. The best rule is when it doubt, rewrite to avoid the appearance of a problem.
 * Upon seeing the prod on it as non-notable, I checked for the author, and realized that we had no page on her, and, from the Dutch WP, it was clear that she had written many other books, and in a case like that, the assumption is the author is the more notable--if we have one article, it should normally be on the author. I therefore decided to repurpose it, which I did by starting an article on the author, copying and adjusting the text from the article on the book, with the usual attribution in the edit history. I then intended to redirect from the book,. But before I did that,  the new article was spotted by the copyvio bot. Taking a quick look, I saw the great similarity, and since the section on the book I had used would need rewriting anyway, & I had already started doing so,  I rewrote it further in such a way as to remove any copyvio and attribute the critique of the book to the web page which might have been the source. so as to avoid plagiarism. I   I then came here to the article on the book to do the redirect, and saw the information there.  So I'm gave the sequence there and am copying it here.
 * I still consider we do not need both articles, and I will soon redirect to the author and finish that article, though I am not doing it immediately, because things are already sufficiently confused. This can happen when too many people work on the same thing at the same time. I have the same reaction as any experienced editor trying to confront this sort of thing, that if I were new here I would have left, not to return. I firmly agree that all editors are equal, and this certainly applies to content, but when trying to deal with a problematic article, & especially one about books and authors & especially one from another WP, these are all my specialties here & I have enough skill at it that it does not help to be interrupted or second-guessed. Of course I can make mistakes and I do make mistakes, even with respect to copyright, and I always want people to come out and tell me about them.   An admin who never makes errors does not exist, and an admin who does not admit them is not doing the job properly. So the only reason I'm just a little annoyed is while I was writing all this, my ice cream melted. But not a tragedy, for it's good reason to first eat the melted ice ream and then get out some more and eat that also.  :)   DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings, then! Happy editing, and sorry for the confusion. Also sorry about your ice cream. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs  05:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Shirley temple's pussy
Just a heads up to let you know that the discussion about deleting this redirect has been moved to the proper place. I kept your comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You do realize...
...that if Google has hundreds of thousands of hits to a Wikipedia article that is completely wrong, it means that Google has 340,000 links to something that is completely wrong, not that the article is right. In the course of just a few days, Google's magical processes and algorithms would catch up with what was changed on Wikipedia and would now point to the right thing. The prior redirect was ridiculous, but I'm not going to fight over it. It is sufficient to discuss it on the talk page; no need to alert me personally, but thanks for doing so anyway. Fladrif (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: The Chronicles of Legalization
Hello,

My name is Omead, and The Chronicles of Legalization is not a hoax. I am in favor of the end of federal prohibition of marijuana in the United States, and I have formulated a structured, referenced argument that I would like to publish on Wikipedia. The mentioning of being 'desperate' to be invited for an interview in the Addendum is simply an attempt to be humorous; it is better clarified in the actual Addendum.

Please do not hesitate to message me with further questions or concerns.

Thank you, Omsies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omsies (talk • contribs) 06:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to know that it's not a hoax; however, Wikipedia is not a forum for WP:original research or personal essays. Also, see WP:HUMOR; it doesn't seem very useful in your essay. Anyway, please feel free to make your case at the deletion discussion.  Ignatz mice•talk 06:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helix Fast Response System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Psi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Timing of explosion
With reference to undoing my edit on the clock time: What do you mean by "Seeing is believing"? The video footage clearly shows the time as being 4:09:44. This is also referenced in The Telegraph (citation provided on my edit), as well as several other sources. Just tap "Boston bombing 4:09:44" into Google and see for yourself ... seeing is believing, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromanology (talk • contribs) 04:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See the pic we had on the page for a while: File:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png. The explosion began at 4:09:43, no matter what someone writing for the Telegraph says. It spilled into 4:09:44, apparently.  Ignatz mice•talk 05:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it spills from the end of 43 into 44. Given that the 43rd second is spent, arguably the blast occurred at the 44th. If you watch the footage, it's only a split fraction of a second before it spills onto 44. Here's the footage (in slow motion): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSHxMsnjBic (skip to 1:07). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromanology (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would still argue that the relevant time is when it exploded (the fireball is just the aftermath of that one event), and since it's a digital, not an analog, clock, the time is 4:09:43. But it really doesn't matter to me, now that I think about it. Discuss on the talk page, or just do it. I'm off to sleep now. Cheers.  Ignatz mice•talk 05:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Sleep well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromanology (talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

they don't own the name! this is america!
welcome to america~!!!!! parents don't OWN the name here!!!!! only in china!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.182.12.158 (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're not an admin, you should definitely run for one. I've never met a more obsessive editor. -210.182.12.158 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can find better things to do. This is not America. This is Wikipedia, and you're a troll. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like posterity has made its judgment. Maybe take a wikivacation. You don't own WP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.176.138.92 (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Lid on roof edit
Thanks for removing so fast. I didn't see it there, just got up. Kennvido (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think someone else actually put in a sentence after you did—but yours was at the end of the paragraph, so it was easier for me to get at. Sorry!  Ignatz mice•talk 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. The easiest can be the best sometimes. It's just nice to see some NICE people here with no political motive. I have had my fill of dominating admins and editors who think they are just right. Many times I just want to leave Wiki and take up gardening. Kennvido (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect ID'ed
I would put what I wrote with the four cites back... The FBI have cancelled their presser and moved it to later... we could be on top of it here. Kennvido (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't want to "be on top of it": WP:NOTNEWS. If people want breaking (and unreliable) news, they can go to the breaking (and unreliable) news sites. There are more than enough to go around. When things are certain, then we add it to the article.  Ignatz mice•talk 17:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can see I took the side of waiting and deleted arrests as they appeared. Glad I did. CNN ha ha ha... Confused News Network. Kennvido (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not easy to report the news, especially if there's a dozen newses coming out of different sources at the same time. I'm sure Fox is no better. I do know that the Daily Mail and such are much worse. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus reached on "Integrational Linguistics"
It seems that consensus has been reached and the last idea formulated by BDD ("we move the existing Integrational linguistics to Integrationism (currently a redirect to Racial integration with one mainspace link) and this page to Integrational linguistics, after fixing the incoming links") can be adopted as a solution. Would Ignatzmice or BDD go ahead with the move? Thanks and regards, Mo Tat 2013 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry—I've been quite busy watching the Boston Marathon bombings page. As both the pages we want to move to already exist, I can't do the move myself, so I've put in requests at Requested_moves/Technical_requests. It should happen soonish, and then we can go through and fix any links. Thanks for reminding me!  Ignatz mice•talk 20:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Apology
It's okay maybe I need to read Wikipedia's policies on writting articles epecially WP:NOTNEWS. It has been an major point of contention since the event and I guess I'm frazzled as well in keeping up with all the edits othe editors are making. I have decide in my best interest to stop editing this article because if I do I might end up in BIG trouble, so I edit other articles. No hard feeling and I meant no hard feeling towards you either. UnknownElement (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks, Ignatzmice, for helping to find the best solution for the "Integrational linguistics" articles. Best, Mo Tat 2013 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mutiny of Aranjuez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American colonies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear
My correction on the AfD of the All Natural Food Zone was not meant to be a serious criticism of your message, merely to highlight the degree of ridiculousness of the page's claims. I suspect you understood that, but if you felt that the note was actually critical of you or made you uncomfortable in any form, let me know and I'll strike it out. That was certainly not my intent. (And if you don't believe me, check Google Analytics.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, of course! I am not offended in the slightest. I just mis-saw the number in the infobox.  Ignatz mice•talk 02:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good. I wouldn't want you to hit me with that there brick; I might misread your intentions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Testing
Does User:Writ Keeper's script work like it should?  Ignatz sock•talk 21:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yay!  Ignatz mice•talk 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Testing: User:Ignatzsock  Ignatz mice•talk 16:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * More testing: User:Ignatzsock  Ignatz mice•talk 16:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User talk:Ignatzsock  Ignatz mice•talk 16:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

 Ignatz mice•talk 18:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  Ignatz mice•talk 18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Try it again:  Ignatz mice•talk 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pingpingping.  Ignatz sock•talk 18:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Test again, with doc link  Ignatz sock•talk 19:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Foobar  Ignatz sock•talk 01:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Edokter's version  Ignatz sock•talk 11:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

awefawedfrs;oin  Ignatz sock•talk 18:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC) sldakfjasl;dkfj  Ignatz sock•talk 18:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Test  Ignatz sock•talk 01:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC) asd;lkf  Ignatz sock•talk 20:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * foooooobar  Ignatz sock•talk 21:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * foobarbar  Ignatz sock•talk 01:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blah bloo blee bloo  Ignatz sock•talk 17:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's do some more!  Ignatz sock•talk 22:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * qwertyuiop  Ignatz sock•talk 04:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * foooobarrr  Ignatz sock•talk 16:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Max Borin
You posted to User talk:Max Borin. He was another Paul Bedson sock. Keep an eye out for them. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Scusami
Ho fatto un errore, scusami Ignatz, ti prego di cancellare la voce sull'olocausto, la stavo creando in italiano e mi sono trovato con la voce in inglese, si tratta di un errore per cui mi scuso,--Fcarbonara (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Grazie Ignatz per le tue parole :) Un caro saluto--Fcarbonara (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications popup
Your new notification popup is quite annoying. Thanks very much for producing it! Not being sarcastic: we need something to be at least as annoying as the orange bar. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 'S actually User:Edokter's, but thanks anyway! It's interesting—I already had one notification (my sock pinged me) that I was ignoring, and then you posted on my talk page, so I had two. That made little difference to the thing I was ignoring—but it triggered Writ's script, and I also got the orange bar. Which I still like much better. Ah well.  Ignatz mice•talk 12:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to Edokter; I guess he'll see this note since you linked him. Assumed you were the author since you had created the documentation.  Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see I was mentioned here? :) I made a small modification; you now also see how many notifications you have. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 13:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

[[Ducktails (band)
please i think this is a very notable person and this person needs wikipedia page to explain to the world who this artist is. see for example  [[Oneohtrix_Point_Never|OPN]

please

please let this page exist. I beg you. I will continue to edit it and make complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmondanile (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin; I can't delete it. There is a discussion at Articles for deletion/Ducktails (band), which you are welcome to contribute to. However, note that your username indicates you have a strong wp:conflict of interest regarding this subject; because of that, people will tend to take your opinions with a grain of salt. Also, please note that a Wikipedia page is not "to explain to the world who the artist is"; in order to have a page, a band must first meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. And pointing to other articles to say why this one should exist is not a strong argument. You are welcome to contribute to the work-in-progress article that you seem to have copied this one from, User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band)‎ Thanks,  Ignatz mice•talk 18:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States in the Korean War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 38th parallel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
– 296.x (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

INeverCry  18:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain your undo on Kelly Sutherland page?
I can accept that under my contrib name I'm currently a single topic poster. But this is because I've previously anonymously posted. Your second undo tag relating to wikipedia be not being appropriate as a news source doesn't seem correct.

Is there a problem with the news sources I've quoted for my change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helinz (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I do see what looks rather similar to sockpuppets edit warring (but is probably just fans or whatever who are interested in the team), I actually hadn't seen any of that when I undid your edit. I undid it because it doesn't seem like something that is very important to the ref's career; it looks like something that just happened (so people are eager to write about it), but, based on our policy of not being a newspaper, it's not really needed. In other words, I don't see it being very noteworthy ten years from now. It may be that this turns out to be a big scandal or something (just as an example), in which case it would become notable. But it doesn't look like it at the moment. In addition, we have to be careful about bios of living people, and not be too negative about them; while out policy on people notable only for one event doesn't strictly apply here, I think the spirit of the guideline is similar. Thanks, and happy editing! Feel free to ask me more if you're still unsure about anything.  Ignatz mice•talk 22:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Help Me !!
Dear Ignatzmice,

Hope this letter find you in the best of your health

I have written my first article and it was disqualified by you stating that your content is just trying to promote your company or an individual but i have written it in any format that the other companies do like IBM etc, like them we are also an IT based company and would like to have our presence on Wikipedia, I am a hardcore WIKIPEDIAN and of the belief that if you are not on Wikipedia you are nowhere and with this belief and good faith I happen to upload a few things about my company but was disqualified.

Please help me solve this problem, If you could edit my content and get it live on Wikipedia or tell me how to go about it I would be more than grateful to you. It is an esteem for me to have my company profile on Wikipedia. For your reference you could surf through my website www.techved.com

Thanks & Regards Sincerely, Alan Chellanthara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.chellanthara (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Alan! You say "if you are not on Wikipedia you are nowhere" and "few things about my company". Unfortunately, that's not how Wikipedia works. We're not a general web host or a place to advertise your company. See, some businesses really are quite notable, but many aren't; we even have a guideline for that. We also have a FAQ for people who want to write about their company, which you should check out. If, after reading all that, you think your company does meet the notability requirements, you can bring it to articles for creation so someone will review it before it goes out, to make sure it won't just get deleted again. Thanks,  Ignatz mice•talk 12:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration ftw!
Thank you for working with us today, I think we made a lot of progress: This was my first time working with experienced editors and you all were very receptive and reasonable about the points everyone was making. I value this opportunity to help the design of Wikipedia a lot. Thank you for your time today & for working through the problem with us. Vibhabamba (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)