User talk:Agyle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Agyle! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr 06:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Hm.[edit]

Hi. Been editing various pages, usually as I'm researching something and come across more info than is in Wikipedia. Nobody's left any comments here, other than automated ones, but feel free to be the first! -Agyle 08:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

Hi Agyle, and welcome to WP! Thanks for opening up discussion on the lead to Renewable energy. I'll probably wait a few days, to see what others think, and then reply... regards, Johnfos 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again[edit]

Hi Agyle, have noticed your name popping up and hope you are settling in to WP. I've been continuing to try to bring Renewable energy into line, as one day I would like to see it become a Good Article. But it is very large and unwieldy, and the reference formatting needs a lot of work. BTW, what is your special area of interest? -- Johnfos 08:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have scattered interests, mostly scientific, and lately more energy-related. My background is in electrical/computer engineering. I've designed portable electronics devices, and have an off-grid vacation cabin, so have some first-hand familiarity with small-scale energy-related topics.
Renewable energy is a tough article...it's big and I think includes a bit too much detail (arguably trivia) in some areas (e.g. Renewable_energy#Onsite_renewable_technologies or perhaps Renewable_energy#Aviation_applications), and US-centric subtle policy advocacy (e.g. Renewable_energy#Concluding_comment), which seems difficult to remove with editorial consensus. I have a hunch the article also harbors more plagiarism; the material I removed yesterday was lifted directly from cited sources, but much of the article lacks citations, making fact-checking and plagiarism detection harder.
I've created a couple new articles (recently charge controller), which seems a nice change of pace from editing large controversial articles, although some big controversial articles seem much more important, since poor quality can lead to widely-dispersed misinformation. While checking for plagiarism in the wiki article, I more often found other websites relying on the wiki article extensively, so a mistake can propagate widely, and outlast its inclusion in wikipedia's article. -Agyle 21:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

IM AN IDIOT

Common Cold[edit]

Thanks for fixing the italicized quotations in the CC page. Mea culpa - I did not know the style. Regards—G716 <T·C> 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I just looked that up, as the italics seemed unusual, and in the process read a few unrelated details I was doing incorrectly; I'm sure we both have more to learn! Though while it's good info to know, I consider details like that, or even mistakes in grammar and spelling, less important than clear, accurate, well sourced-writing. Someone who knows the rules can copy-edit quickly, compared to the time spent researching. -Agyle 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Good call on the vit c megadosage, incidentally, are you aware of the <nowiki></nowiki> tags? Allows Cat to be [[Cat]] WLU 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yep, that would have been a better way of explaining it. :-) I use nowikis sometimes, just didn't occur to me there. -Agyle 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Virus classification sources[edit]

I use International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses Database, or sometimes the MeSH Browser. Hope these help, Regards—G716 <T·C> 04:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethanol[edit]

As you probably know, I'm the one who restored the {{fact}} flag you put into the lead of ethanol. As you probably also know, the article lost its GA rating recently. I am working on improving it to regain the rating. My opinion on the "drug" statement is that it doesn't belong in the lead.

I invite you to look at User:Karlhahn/ethanol051208 to track my effort. And please provide any feedback you think might be useful. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 21:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Daikon[edit]

Responding to your inquiry of what my footnote ref sourced: thanks for pointing this out. The reference is confusing in this form, and as you had good reason to question, I did not take the time to confirm the facts pre-existing in the article's sentence before sourcing and adding the other terms to it. That reference does not make the claim that winter squash is one common name, but I did find another online which I can add as a footnote also: raphanus.Professor marginalia 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

columbian red[edit]

If you want to expand it, please expand the section within the Panama Red article. As the result of the AFD debate, columbian red was merged into panama red. I've reverted the recreation of the article. SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The debate result listed [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Columbian_Red|here] by admin (User:JForget) was "no consensus." I was editing the article during the time it was merged, beefing up the one-sentence stub to a few paragraphs with references, and the edit conflict was honestly unintentional. But doesn't JForget mean it doesn't require merging/deletion? My impression is that the majority opinion (out of five) was that most or all cannabis varieties should be in a single article, but there are 28 other articles, requiring more input on such a merge; until that happens, just including this single strain in such an article would seem odd. I don't think anyone meant Columbian Red should be merged with Panama Red (the articles claim a genetic link, but that's questionable and unreferenced). One alternative, short of merging all 28 strains into an article, might be to create a Columbian (cannabis cultivars) article, as there are several cultivated varieties of Columbian cannabis. What do you think? -Agyle 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus to delete. Merging is clear consensus from the comments made at the deletion debate. This debate was not about the broader "lets merge all of the cannabis strains into a single article", it was solely about this particular strain. If I misread the consensus, and they actually meant "merge with Cannabis Strains article" then that's my mistake, and feel free to merge it into that one instead. I read it as "merge into panama red". Feel free to move this one into the main cannabis strains article if you'd like. However, it's pretty clear at this point that the consensus is that it does not merit its own page at this time. (and even with the beefed up information, it's still not establishing notability beyond what would be inherent if it were merged with one of the other two pages). SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Where to merge is the question. Your suggestion to merge it into another cannabis strain article would make sense, but I couldn't find an established connection between Columbian red and any other strain. Merging it into a more general Cannabis Strains article would make sense too, but it doesn't exist. The only hierarchy is that it's a strain of the species Cannabis sativa, but that article currently mentions no specific strains. I'll create Columbian (cannabis cultivars) to cover different Columbian strains, if that sounds ok to you. -Agyle 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I noticed this discussion and thought I'd drop in my two cents. I was getting the clear impression that the consensus was to merge, even though I strongly disagree with that. I wondered why it was closed with "no consensus". Anyway, I think the expanded stub (good job, Agyle!) still deserves its own article. Like I noted at the debate, every taxa is notable, including cultivars. We even have an {{Infobox Cultivar}} for such articles. --Rkitko (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Agyle, can you maybe pick a better name? Other than that, no objection. SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point, I'll use Columbian (marijuana), as that's the plainest way of uniquely describing it. Thanks for the input. -Agyle 05:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for deletion, but I could have mentionned that a merge was necessary although I wasn't sure with which article it should have been merged so I have refrained on mentioning it on the closing. Obviously with a one-line sentence it looks always better to have it merged--JForget 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I see it is has been merged with Panama Red.--JForget 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Old Guard[edit]

By all means, if you want to add your personal perspective to the "official name" of the unit called The Old Guard please communicate to the mediator Tariqabjotu on their talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tariqabjotu in order to see if you can add your name and position on the formal mediation page. -TabooTikiGod 05:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll just watch. :-) I don't know the official name, and don't think it's a matter for subjective opinion, so I'll stay out of it. I did some internet searching, but came up empty. There aren't a lot of military-produced texts on the web yet, but I bet Google will get around to scanning books from a public military library in a couple years, which may help digital researching in matters like this. -Agyle 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've already done my research and came up with some valid sources, see Mediation Page for my summary of the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry If you feel that this logic and reasoning is valid then I would encourage you to voice your opinion on the mediation page. -TabooTikiGod 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I consider your sources suggestive but unconvincing on the question of an official name, to be honest, but also consider sources for the other positions unconvincing. If anything, I thought your sources suggested "3d Infantry Regiment" rather than "3d Infantry." But I have no other sources to add, and my opinion is only that the sources given do not clearly indicate the official name. I don't think that opinion would be of any use to the moderators; they have the same information, and will form their own opinions. -Agyle 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in your findings, Argyle. Regardless of how the name of the unit is listed at whatever source, the signifier, Regiment, is part of the official name, in order to avoid confusion with the 3rd Infantry Division. The Old Guard is one of very few regiments of Infantry (and besides the 75th Infantry Regt. (Rangers) -- and off-hand I can't immediately think of another -- which operates independent of a Division level command. That regiment falls under the umbrella of the USSOC, while the Old Guard is under the command of MDW. Ryecatcher773 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

UK newspaper reliability[edit]

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Snarl! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ping! and Pong! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Boing! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Cracked this now! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Civilitapology[edit]

I completely misread something you posted at WT:MOSNUM and responded rather testily, for which I apologize. I self-reverted the ankle bite. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of palettes article rewritten[edit]

Hello. I expanded so much the List of palettes article, to a point to need... FIVE specific separated articles more! so the original article now simply acts as a kind of main index. I hope you'll enjoy all of them. Yours.Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:VHSV_in_Great_Lakes_region_as_of_July_2007.png[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:VHSV_in_Great_Lakes_region_as_of_July_2007.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Rosaniline hydrochloride.png[edit]

File:Rosaniline hydrochloride.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Rosaniline hydrochloride.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Rosaniline hydrochloride.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good news - DYK nomination of Turkestan cockroach[edit]

Hello Agyle! Just a quick note to let you know that another user, Tentinator (talk · contribs), has nominated your new article Turkestan cockroach to appear on the 'Did you know' section of the main page. I've reviewed the nomination and have passed it, so keep an eye out for it on the main page soon. Nice work on that article, keep it up! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding primary sources to bruxism[edit]

Per MEDRS we should not use primary sources. At least you do not claim any efficacy and have merely added these drugs to the list of drugs which have been studied... but please use a secondary or tertiary source. Also you are entering the url in the doi field of the cite journal template. The doi is not the same as the url.

Please review MEDRS when selecting sources to support medical content on Wikipedia. Thank you, Lesion (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Turkestan cockroach[edit]

Harrias talk 00:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Hay![edit]

Nice work sourcing the bit on haystacks in the hay section -- I'm good with adding sources to that article, as I've nipped and tucked at it for years, but have not had the gumption to tackle an overall improvement drive on it. The main thing is to realize how widely different techniques are throughout the world, and particularly between wet (UK/Europe) and dry (USA/Australia) climates. Anyway, if you continue to have interest in the topic, I'll continue to try and be of help. God knows I've fed and stacked enough of it. Just was laid up for a while last year when I fell with a small square bale (well, it wasn't small, that was the problem, it was an 80-lb bale!) and badly sprained my ankle... might have broken something but was too stubborn to go to the doctor... it's mostly better now, though...Montanabw(talk) 22:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please take care with Rainbow trout article[edit]

Agyle, the Rainbow trout article just went through the Good Article nomination process, is currently under peer review in advance of a Featured Article nomination. I removed the boldface for steelhead based on the fact that it is merely a form of rainbow trout, not a subspecies. Before the GA, the article was very biased toward steelhead and had a lot of inaccuracies. I'd like to keep it moving forward to FA status and will rely on the peer review advice in doing so. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see eliminating bold to de-emphasize it as unimportant, but if the article can't even tolerate the use of the term "steelhead trout," it should re-split into a couple-sentence stub that effectively explains it's a an insignificant form of rainbow trout, with a link to the the main article. Like it or not, steelhead trout is an extremely common term, and pretending it doesn't even exist is counter-informative. --Agyle (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the article pretends that "steelhead" doesn't exist, it just balances the use of the term in context with its relationship to rainbow trout. The term is used throughout the article in nearly every major section. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't clear enough, I was referring to the reversion of “steelhead trout” back to “steelhead”, and that's the term that appears nowhere on the article, despite it being a common (in my opinion) term that redirects to the article. I understand that either are common names with no authoritative recognition or definition, but a scholar.google.com search of primarily scientific literature suggests steelhead is used about as commonly with the word trout as without...I show 19,900 hits for "steelhead trout" (with quotation marks), 710 for "steelhead rainbow trout", and 22,700 for "steelhead" -"steelhead trout" -"steelhead rainbow trout". (Note that "steelhead rainbow trout" includes punctuated variations like "steelhead/rainbow trout" or "steelhead (rainbow) trout"). And that's not even getting into the commonly spoken vernacular “steelies,” which I'd also consider worthy of encyclopedic mention, but that may well reflect my regional Michigan bias. :-) --Agyle (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Input on new standards for cryptocurrency articles on Wikipedia needed.[edit]

Since you seem to be heavily involved in the area, I would like your opinion on potential new standards regarding altcoins on Wikipedia. You can find the debate at Talk:Cryptocurrency#The_Crypto_Question_-_New_Standards. Best regards, Citation Needed | Talk 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the Maya calendar and Long count articles[edit]

Seriously, You just removed text supported by citations to the gold standard of Maya research, Schele and Stuart. Are you even reading this stuff before deleting it? Do you know anything about this subject or is this just vandalism? Senor Cuete (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The citations I removed linked to personal websites and other self-published material. I did not read the entirity of the sources. The authors, based on my searches, do not seem to be recognized experts, or independently published in any related fields. I am guessing that you mean these self-published sources in turn cited reliable sources, which does not make the self-published sources reliable. If I'm wrong, and I did remove citations from Schele and Stuart, it was an accident. I have responded in detail to the removals in the Talk sections of the two articles. The edits were made in good faith, in accordance with my understanding of WP:SPS (Self-Published Sources), were succinctly but clearly explained in my edit comments, and are in no way vandalism. Please remember Wikipedia's suggestion to assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH) from fellow contributors. ––Agyle (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Acetominophen/Paracetamol[edit]

I apologize for over-reacting today. Paracetamol has been a much longer slog than I expected. I would have left it alone if I'd known it would be this much work, and I let my frustration get away from me.Formerly 98 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Skaneateles Lake[edit]

Nice work on re-doing the copyvio material on this article. I was going to do it myself in a day or so: the editor who put it in is a college student who's doing it for a grade, so I was seeing if they would clean it up or not. That's no matter, though.

One thing - be careful with US government material. It's true that it's not copyrighted and is in the public domain, but using it one can still run afoul of WP:PLAGIARISM if the material is not rewritten. Best, BMK (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Inedia[edit]

I accidently reverted your edits which I restored again, sorry.--Jondel (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Cariblatta lutea page[edit]

Hello. Thank you for finding all that information for the Cariblatta lutea page and for advice and fixing the problems! I am sorry about the mistakes I make. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cariblatta_lutea Happy1892 (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Removal of Darkcoin and Zetacoin[edit]

I wondered what qualifies you to remove Darkcoin and Zetacoin from the table in the Crypto-currencies wiki? I had a weird feeling that somebody with no knowledge of the matter would do this.

You've allowed many copycat coins to remain in the table, which have no notable features, and are currently used only by 'pump and dump' speculators. Again, why is this? You have also allowed coins with massive premines like Auroracoin to remain in the table. How do you consider Auroracoin 'notable' when most experts consider it to be a scamcoin? Did you speak to any actual experts before deciding to allow Auroracoin to remain, but taking out Darkcoin and Zetacoin?

Or do you see this table as 'first come first served.' As in, you're just assuming that all the recent additions are scams, even though you have no evidence whatsoever to back up this assertion?

Please explain your position. I'm fed up with self-appointed authority figures on Wikipedia, who have no technical knowledge on the subject at hand, messing around with perfectly valid entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbentolila (talkcontribs) 15:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

David, I have no special authority on Wikipedia. Anyone can edit articles on Wikipedia, and how an article is shaped by multiple editors generally comes down to consensus opinions. The consensus of Cryptocurrency's editors who expressed an opinion on the topic felt that inclusion in the table of "notable cryptocurrencies" should be based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Regarding my decisions to remove Darkcoin and Zetacoin from Cryptocurrency#Notable cryptocurrencies's table, but keep Auroracoin, I explained my reasons in Talk:Cryptocurrency#Tentatively removing Zetacoin and Darkcoin from chart. I don't decide which articles are kept or deleted: one person nominates an article for deletion, anyone can contribute their opinions, and an administrator makes the decision. In Auroracoin's discussion, somebody else nominated the article for deletion, I was one of seven people who unanimously responded that it should be kept, and an admin decided it should be kept. In Zetacoin's discussion, I nominated the article for deletion, two people have unanimously agreed (one suggested merge & delete), and no decision has been reached. Regarding Darkcoin, no article was created.
Regarding the suggestion that Auroracoin is a scam, that's irrelevant to keeping an article, though an MP's opinion that it's a scam is included in Auroracoin's article.
Regarding the suggestion that I apply a "first come first served" standard, in AfD discussions I suggested keeping the recently-introduced Auroracoin, and deleting the older Primecoin. I do not consider their relative age.
Regarding the suggestion that I have no knowledge of cryptocurrencies, I read about the topic on a nearly daily basis.
Regarding the suggestion that I have no technical knowledge, I hold a BSE in computer engineering from the University of Michigan, and have many years of experience in software and hardware engineering.
Regards, Agyle (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
There are already too many crypto-currencies and every week a dozen or so new ones are disclosed. You're obviously an expert about them and if you tell me not to create a new entry about an European one, I'll follow your advice since it's frustrating to work on texts soon fully deleted. The novelty of this eventual entry is not to match it with the most recent altcoins but the novelty is about an historical point of view.
The vatiCoin was imho created before all the now so popular national coins such as the auroracoin we've both voted to keep. Regards. ONaNcle (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
ONaNcle, I have experienced the frustration of working on articles that are deleted. I tend to work less on articles that are very popular, as they can devolve into petty bickering over trivial issues (e.g., Bitcoin), but editing articles of marginal notability always carries that risk. Judging notability doesn't require technical expertise, but guessing which articles will pass an AfD discussion is still difficult.
If a cryptocurrency topic seems questionable, I would create it as a draft, for example Draft:NXT, and mention it in Talk:Cryptocurrency in case anyone else would like to contribute. Drafts do not get deleted, and can allow work to begin before a topic is clearly notable, or before reliable sources are located.
Vaticoin may have been earlier, but obviously lacked the press coverage of Auroracoin. Everyone is trying to duplicate Auroracoin's success, but I think it depended to a certain extent on the Icelandic government's unusual position of restricting/forbidding both their normal currency and cryptocurrencies from being traded outside the country.
Regards, Agyle (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your quick answer and your advices. I don't feel proud at all about this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auroracoin&oldid=601544587#Similar_alternative_currencies but it's just a start... ~~

Agyle, you're my hero[edit]

I edit on many of the same articles as you, though not with the same steady quality and quantity. I always appreciate your contributions. Thank you. Chris Arnesen 01:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chris! :-) Likewise, I notice your edits try to stick to reliable sources, adding and removing material objectively. We've disagreed on some subjective calls, but it's nice having another NPOV WP:RS supporter for the important stuff. I tried editing Bitcoin a bit, but burned out already; too many people trying to promote/demote certain viewpoints. You have more patience than me! Agyle (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin and other cryptocurrency articles. really top notch stuff. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Heya, thanks Hell Bucket. :-) Vertcoin was just a mess of non-RS cites. I looked at MazaCoin afterwards, also up for [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MazaCoin AfD], expecting the same, but was surprised it was like the opposite: a bunch of mainstream media coverage not even discussed yet. Looks like you're all over the topic spectrum on Wikipedia too...my main hangouts are obscure natural science articles; so much less controversy! ;-) ––Agyle (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parcoblatta divisa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lobatae (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) 08:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bowman[edit]

Hi. Good job on this edit. I am glad to see somebody improved upon it. However your comment should have been simply 'Added Main template pointing to Bowman Gum, reworked introductory paragraph'. The rest of the comment comes off as arrogant. It was infact an excerpt from a larger work that I wrote. An earlier part of that work was used in 1940s Bowman. The articles I did on Topps might also sound like one long article as well if you put them all together. It was a research project that I was shifting over to wikipedia but it has long since been set aside. So I agree it does sound jarring when out of context. Anyway it was a great improvement but remember to keep things classy by making a purely factual statement about the edit instead of an opinion piece. Libro0 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)