User talk:Was 203.27.72.5

Transclusion
At least on Wikipedia, that word means something else (inclusion of a template in the current page). See Transclusion. Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 11:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. What word should I use instead...or better yet, is there a template for what I did? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd probably just describe it as "moving" the question. As for templates, I don't see anything in Category:Reference desk templates, but perhaps you can create one if you do find this to be a common thing you do. —Kusma (t·c) 16:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome!

Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

At Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful &mdash; there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin ( t ) 06:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Avoiding common mistakes
 * Manual of Style

Sinebot
Re to your signature: I don't know for sure, but the comment was made by  whereas the signature claims to be by, and the talk page link in the signature is to the talk page of. It seems reasonable Sinebot that would not recognize the given signature as valid as it should link only to a page for W203.27.72.5. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's needlessly confusing to have your currently-used account claim that you are now/still some other/older account. It's certainly fine to put a note on the page of your former IP self to your current login and vice versa. DMacks (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually changed my account name and apparently this process isn't as seamless as I thought. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Roman Euler diagram

 * My pleasure. Thanks very much! 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ref Desk
Contrary to what you seem to believe, you do not have to develop a consensus that it's OK to answer a question before letting someone answer it. In fact, I think it would be more reasonable to require a consensus against answering it before you start hatting valid responses. My response was relevent to the queston, contained a couple sources, and did not give advice (nor did the question ask for any). Buddy431 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please just see the talk page. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee

 * Thanks! It's about time for a cup of Joe. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

BP
Thank you for your comments and assistance to launch RfC. Just for your information, the name British Petroleum is not in use since merger with Amoco in 1998 and now the name of this company is just BP. Using name British Petroleum was one of clash points between American and British editors during the Deepwater Horizon accident and this will by my understanding only heat the national feelings. Otherwise, good work and once more, thank you. Beagel (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that! I'll try to chase up my edits and reword them. Thanks for pointing that out. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've changed every instance of British Petroleum to BP in my comments. If you see one that I've missed, per Talk page guidelines you have my permission to change it on sight! 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Beagel (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, 203!
Just wanted to say thank you for all your help at the BP talk page, and on the article! I hope we don't wear you out too soon ~ having fresh viewpoints on the page is a really welcome change, and hostility has almost entirely disappeared. That's a giant gift.  petrarchan47  t  c   09:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I see my wording wasn't overly popular, but at least I can get a feel for where everyone is coming from. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just delightful to have this activity, and I thought your paragraph would make a really great addition to the article. I am really appreciative for the time you've put in, seeing that not many were responding. Thank you! It's a pretty involved issue, with strong viewpoints, each believing they have RS to back them. But with this new input from others, it's bound to end sooner than later :)   petrarchan47  t  c   21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I do have a question, we don't seem to be attracting much attention to the BP page, and we are at odds still about what to include in the Lede. Do you know of editors or administrators who might 'specialize' in helping create NPOV Intros and fancy helping?  petrarchan47  t  c   20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for help
Hi 203,

In case you have a moment, we have a pretty simple issue that could use a second opinion at the BP page. It's to do with wording matching secondary sources rather than primary. Two editors are seeing things a bit differently, and I've told them I would see if you had a second to take a look. Many thanks,   petrarchan47  t  c   22:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)