User talk:Aspro

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia community, Aspro! And thanks for weighing in on the MMR page...

Here are some of the perfunctory useful tips (mostly borrowed from ClockworkSoul), to speed your indoctrination into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial.
• When you have free time, try to grasp some of the nuances at Manual of Style, Assume good faith and Policies and Guidelines. But keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Don't worry about keeping up with the Jones' learning curve on NPOV, but be respectful of others' POV and use a neutral point of view; your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, above all else, do have fun!

And some odds and ends:

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Since you attended to the perspective offered by Andrew Wakefield, perhaps you would be interested in contributing to the resolution of the editing conflicts there?

Best of luck, Aspro, and have fun! Ombudsman 18:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No faux pas

A google search reveals that triple jab seems to exist as a phrase only in the UK. Which would make sense, since you seem to be from there. I did do a google search before I deleted it and because the first page was mostly anti-vaccination sites like whale.to, felt that it was most likely NPOV like much of the vaccination articles, unfortunately. If it goes back in, it should mention that it is only called that in Britain. As for what I say to a poor, unintelligent housewife (?) - "this shot is three vaccinations in one." Simple as that - I always opt for straightforward descriptions instead of confusing (at least to me) jargon. InvictaHOG 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

It is only to do with allopaths suppressing anything critical to allopathy, any other reason is just a cover story, which is why they want to delete the main anti-vaccinator, Viera Scheibner, and Vaccination critics. There is some specious reason on that one. Lily Loat, the main anti-vax person a few years back, got wiped out and directed to National Anti-Vaccination League. I suppose it will be only a matter of time before that gets deleted, although as it is in the past they may ignore it. john 22:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

refs and so on

Thanks. You mentioned scientific support for I think the statement that the various drugs named are "first line". I'd look in teh manufacturers' summary of product characteristics; in the British National Formulary, but overwhelmingly (apart from knowing it from a medical coruse and later experience) the question of what is first line in a particualry milieu is answered by looking at local prescribing policies, and at accounts of what doctors treating the conditions actually use. Which the TMAP seems to be a very mundane example of. In the UK try NICE, whcih is trying to do something similar on a wider front. First line doesn't mean that there is only one drug to use first and it must be used first, it distinguishes some which are only used after failure of others, and in fact it probably would be better for the article to say something less specific, such as "routinely used" to avoid arguments over whether Vnelafaxine is first line or second (second now) and whether Lithium is (first line by specialists for bipolar; third line for depression). Helpful? Midgley 01:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Even NICE gets influenced by pharmaceutical stake holders siting on the board.

Psychiatric drugs are 'palliatives', no more no less. They either mitigate, and thus bring some respite or they don't.

The poor understanding about the aetiology of mental distress and thought disorder means these conditions are still beyond rational treatment... So it is a case of suck it and see.

Psychiatrists don't ( not the ones I have talked to) believe a word that is written by the manufactures.

Think back to 'negative feed back systems'. Anything one proscribes, the body will start to immediately compensate!

Tell you this: when something appears to work, its only because it coincides 'by chance' with spontaneous improvement that would have happened anyway. Also, I have come to believe in the 20% rule. Only one in five will benefit from any treatment. Definition of First line: it is sales and marketing Jingoism. [ Mania is something else! In the old days they used laudanum ( and some times barbiturates) because it seemed to help. Today - nothing seems to help.]--Aspro 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Trolleybuses for West London

I deleted all the links you added to Trolleybuses for West London. The site in itself is not particularly notable, nor is it directly related to the articles you added it to (eg The general article about Uxbridge should have links to general sites about Uxbridge). See also item 3 here. --Dtcdthingy 01:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Rework of articles critical of psychiatry

Hi Aspro,

I left a message in Talk Antipsychiatry page: you can convert references now if you wish. There’re other related articles that need rework and/or merging. Have you seen the tagged Psychiatric imprisonment article? —Cesar Tort 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I already merged this article. —Cesar Tort 17:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Kava

No worries! Sorry about that. Cheers Donama 00:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See Also

Hi Aspro. You are absolutely correct according to policy, i apologise. The odd thing is i don't think i have ever seen commentary added to see also lists before, therefore i was boldly attempting to maintain a consistant style as i understood it. Even Wikipedia's best work appears to refrain from commenting on lists, see recent featured articles, Wayne Gretzky, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, F-35 Lightning II. However, if not already done so by someone else, i'll revert. Rockpocket 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging Proposal

A merger of Speech therapy, Speech-Language Pathology, Speech pathology, and Phoniatrics into one article has been proposed and a name suggested for the new page. I note that you have contributed to one page or the other in the last while. If you have any comments please make them on the talk page of Speech therapy. --Slp1 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Lucas

Thank you for experimenting with the page Joseph Lucas on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Xdamr^talk 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to enlarge a little: article pages are not the place to communicate with other editors. If you want to discuss a particular aspect of an article as it stands then you can use the article's talk page.

Xdamr^talk 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wharncliffe Viaduct

On 22 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wharncliffe Viaduct, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dextroamphetamine

You seem to be familiar with pharmacology, and an outside opinion would be welcome at Talk:Dextroamphetamine#keep_your_eye_on_the_ball. KonradG 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 UK Foot and Mouth

Arrghh! Spoke too soon! Grr. Thanks for reverting so quickly ;) _TheIslander 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Adams talk page

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Douglas Adams are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Biopsychiatry controversy / PTSD

Hi Aspro. I noticed that you removed my revision to biopsychiatry controversy. You may not have noticed that I posted a rationale for the revision on the article's talk page. Could you please respond to my objections if you don't agree with my edit? Thanks. 152.130.6.130 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, for your reply to my question at Talk:Electroporation, which I just noticed. 152.130.6.130 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Havidol

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Havidol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Some thing 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Havidol

An article that you have been involved in editing, Havidol, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havidol. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Updates to Havidol

I have made some significant updates to the Havidol article that I believe addresses the concerns about notability. Please review the current article to see whether you believe this will be sufficient to save the article from deletion.--Dan Dassow (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Un-do

Reverted that sorry. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I see the article is up for deletion. I do not think this should be deleted, going to vote "Keep". Thanks, and sorry. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD/Direct metal deposition

I think that you and Wikipedia would be best served if, at AfD/Direct metal deposition, you inserted a “vote” of “Redirect to X”, where you replace “X” with a specific article to which you think users should be redirected. —SlamDiego_←T 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Acupuncture - Mannheimer

When I asked Mannheimer why he included poor quality studies in his metastudy, and I asked for the raw data to plug into my own analysis, he refused. Happy to provide correspondence. Mccready (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion of this topic on Mccready's talk page... as I said then, Mannheimer's position that he will share the dataset with other academics, but not necessarily anyone who asks, is well within accepted boundaries. regards, Jim Butler (t) 06:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The world is changing AcuJim and many researchers don't take this view. There is now tiny overhead in emailing a file. In fact in the time Mannheimer spent denying the request he could have met it. The correspondence shows he clammed up as soon as I asked about why the lousy studies were included. Mccready (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cochrane

The report I had in mind asked two of the most outspoken advocates for a particular intervention to summarise the field; their review was dominated by their own work, included known errors in that work, and ignored all evidence conflicting with their pre-existing opinion. Meanwhile, that intervention had been tried in several real populations and the measured effect was, instead of the 70-80% they predicted, actually zero. So: my opinion of Cochrane is somewhat tainted :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are altmeders in Cochrane. The email correspondence on my page shows the top level of Cochrane is unwilling to act. Of course they have a right to be there, but not a right to pervert science to their own ends. Unfortunately Cochrane is allowing some appallingly lousy research to go out under its name. Pity, I had high hopes for the project when it started.Mccready (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bath Festival of Blues and Progressive Music 1970

Hi, you obviously have a lot of info on the Bath Festival of Blues and Progressive Music 1970, would it be possible to add references to the sources?, or is it all from personal experience (I'm guessing :-).— Rod ^talk 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you had a great time - I was too young & started festival going with Knebworth in the late 70s before discovering Glasto in the early 80s. I will try to add some refs to the article.— Rod ^talk 19:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

London categories

Thanks for notifying me about this discussion. I've made a few observations about how I understand the taxonomy worked - and announced the discussion at WPE and WPLondon. I suspect England geography, and possibly United Kingdom should also be advised.

When these were put together - about a year, or so ago, we did our best to set up something that made sense, there was no distinction then between anything. I've made my vote on the basis of my initial feelings about the matter. I will continue to read the discussion and take note of any convincing arguments to collapsing the categories back into one. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I think something you did had unintended consequences. I have no problem with Category:Barking & Dagenham disappearing per the CFD; however, if removed before the sub-categories are moved into the new parent category, then the linkage of borough components is lost. The bot did this for some boroughs, but has never completed its work. The bot did about half of London - ignoring the rest. Let's discuss how to move forward, so it gets sorted out correctly. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found the CFD note now; you seem to have it in hand; pls let me know if I can help. Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

River Brent Copyright violation

Thanks for that, Aspro. I think you're right that you don't want someone thinking that Wikipedia copied Barrett. It's word for word the same. I was reading it because it was put through my door a few days ago in an attempt to justify Barrett's supposed status as good neighbours. Well on the whole, I think they would have been better neighbours if they hadn't partially demoloshed and weakly restored one of our best-loved listed buildings, and built 771 flats at the end of our road, but never mind. I was just reading it and thought 'hang on....this sounds very encyclopaedic!' so I checked and...bingo! it's the same! I will get a scan uploaded. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Viaduct hanwell.jpg

File:Viaduct hanwell.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Viaduct hanwell.jpg. 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:Viaduct hanwell.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Hanwell Wharncliffe Viaduct 205167 3b413d4c.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Hanwell Wharncliffe Viaduct 205167 3b413d4c.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Colney Hatch Hospital

You may or may not watch the Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum talk page, so allow me to draw it to your attention. I do not think you should have backed down, but your argument was more about historical usage; mine is about modern day acceptability. Anyway, since the hospital had several names, there is no particulat reason to stick with the first one as the page name. Feel free to contribute there...

File permission problem with File:Bath Fesival 1970 ticket reverse.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bath Fesival 1970 ticket reverse.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bath Festival ticket 1970.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bath Festival ticket 1970.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:PA System Bath 1970.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:PA System Bath 1970.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Think I’ve taken care of the last three items. Have included File:Bath Festival 1970 stage.jpeg to the OTRS, because I shot it at the same time. It just appears to have been the two sides of Admission Ticket above that was wrongly licensed; the dozens of other uploads appear OK. Any more queries let me know.--Aspro (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

presence vs presents

Hi Aspro, on the science ref desk, you make the comment "...would also alert any critters of you presents." The words may sound identical in some accents, but presents = gifts; presence = existance in a place.

I'd have phrased it "...would also alert any critters to your presence."

--Psud (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Psud. I didn't look right to me when I typed it but I couldn't think why. Early onset of pre-senile dementia I expect ;-)--Aspro (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hanwell cemeteries

Even in a little place like Hanwell there is more than one cemetery so you need to give your articles more formal names so that people wont have to guess which ones you writing about. There are three cemeteries in Hanwell. Two inner London boughs have one each and they both refer to them as “their” Hanwell Cemetery just to add to the confusion.

Also, I have had a look at your link to the Westminster cemetery website and I think they meant to say that the cemetery was originally owned by St George, Hanover Square, before being taken over by City of Westminster and thus having its name changed (from St George's) to become the new “City of Westminster Cemetery

There is a brief bit of history that might make things clearer, and that you may want to include in you article: [1]

This composite image will show how much confusion the present article could create with the current title . Think that a new title “City of Westminster Cemetery, Hanwell” fits in well with the WP naming convention. Don't forget to go back and check any articles you may have updated in error.--Aspro (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note - I hope this finds you well! I came at this from wanting to write an article on the Not Forgotten Association (on a personal stub presently, in development), which lead to me writing the article stub on its founder Marta Cunningham, which lead to me writing the article on Hanwell Cemetery, where she is buried! I notice that Mill Hill Cemetery, which is also a City of Westminster location, is far more interesting (lots of war grave stuff, so lots of refs), but again doesn't presently have an article. Not being a local I defer to your greater knowledge, and happy that you move it to the suggested title of "City of Westminster Cemetery, Hanwell." What would be your suggestion on the naming of any article on Mill Hill Cemetery, and equally should the article on East Finchley Cemetery be named in the same convention? Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

IdeaConnection

Hi Aspro, you commented in an AfD about this article last week. It has now been recreated and I think it is significantly similar, but my request for deletion under WP:CSD#G4 was declined. I'm unsure whether to renominate it as one source may just about provide notability. Could you possibly drop by the talk page if you have a minute to discuss the best course of action? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sir william ellis 2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sir william ellis 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly ^hi! 04:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed problem with image gallery

I was able to fix it using the template with the parameter align set to left. Nevertheless Thanks for your help. Appreciate it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at Talk:RD

I am writing to notify you of this discussion at WP_Talk:RD. -- Scray (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Medical advice at the Ref Desk

Hey, I know your heart is in the right place – and it's unfortunate we didn't nip the question in the bud earlier, before other editors chimed in with their advice about how to subdivide the original poster's medication – but please don't keep putting back your instructions about how to divide the contents of pills. In this situation, the best thing we can do (and the only thing we're allowed to do) is refer the poster to his pharmacist. He obviously doesn't understand what he's doing, because he didn't know that his pills weighed more than a quarter of a milligram. He's apt to do himself harm if he half follows the instructions from random strangers on the Ref Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Refdesk comment

I consider this comment to have been unnecessarily rude and abrasive. Dragons flight (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to him/her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.1 (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

answer to the space balls mystery

Thanks for your answer of a few days ago, about the 'balls from space' mystery - if you're interested, here's the solution solution - I still don't understand why they're falling only in Namibia, Australia etc. - anyway, thanks again Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You deleted my edit

See here. Just a mistake or have I done something wrong? Dismas|^(talk) 21:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't know what happened there. You certainly haven't done any thing wrong. It might have been due to an edit conflict or something that I did without realising. Please do resubmit it.--Aspro (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Erucic acid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transient (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) 11:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not spot it. --Aspro (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Saltiness of salt & sodium chlorite

I think you might have missed Trovatore asking you if the "sodium chlorite" in your answer to WP:RD/S#Saltiness of salt was a typo. Cheers. -- 110.49.225.158 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)