User talk:Delldot

Archives

1: 10/05–12/06 2: 12/06–01/07 3: 01/07–02/07 4: 02/07–03/07 5: 03/07–06/07 6: 06/07–09/07 7: 09/07–11/07 8: 11/07–11/07 9: 11/07–12/07 10: 12/07–01/08 11: 01/08–02/08 12: 02/08–03/08 13: 03/08–04/08 14: 04/08–05/08 15: 05/08–06/08 16: 06/08–07/08 17: 07/08–07/08 18: 07/08–08/08 19: 08/08–10/08 20: 10/08–04/09 21: 04/09–01/10 22: 01/10–11/12 23: 12/12–03/13 24: 05/13–12/15

Thanks for dropping me a note! Don't be shy about asking questions, I'm always glad to help. I will reply to messages here, so you may want to watchlist this page.

If you'd like to undo an action of mine and can't get a hold of me within a reasonable time, go ahead. If I disagree, we can discuss it when I'm back. This applies to admin actions too.

why did u do this?

Ok I did vandalise some pages like the spider one so i understand why u undid my additions. But why did u undo my edits on Sopranos character pages? Those were totally legit. Did u eevn check before u deleted them or did u just assume?--Chop Top (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Card fan?

I'll have to admit, I've not (yet) ventured outside the Enderverse. Funny comic. It's been so long, I can't remember which one is my favorite after the original. Probably Speaker. cheers =) xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As a fellow Card fan, I'm curious as to your thoughts about the potential for my username to be divisive, either in the context of it being a derivative of the word xenocide, or in the context of it being derived from a word coined by someone with such controversial personal views. By the way, I haven't picked up The Worthing Saga yet, but it's on my list. As to why Empire is so different than his other work - probably because it's based on a an upcoming video game, thus wasn't entirely his own creation. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 03:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, it never would have occurred to me that your name was divisive. My instinct would be to totally not worry about it unless someone says something, and probably not even then :P I mean, it's great to not want to upset people, but at some point stuff is people's own problem, don't you think? Of course, this thinking is coming from a person whose userpage is a giant rainbow, so do with it what you want. :P You could always put a disclaimer on your user page or something if you're worried about it though. Anyway, yeah, I'm desperately hoping Empire was ghostwritten or something. Still, it wouldn't be enough of an excuse, because he still allowed his name to be put on it... :P delldot on a public computer talk 08:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• hey delldot, your further input on this issue is requested here: User_talk:Xenocidic/RFA#Potential for username to be divisive (even if you just want to echo what you've written above). cheers, xenocidic (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input and for your offer to (potentially not) help ;> P.S. You shouldn't spend so much time on public computers - you could catch a disease or something. =) xenocidic (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it, I gotta work on those slutty editing habits of mine :P delldot on a public computer talk 05:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Huntington's disease

Well done on the comprehensive review and edits you made on Huntington's Disease you seem to have got stuck in for several hours ? Many thanks. I would've dabbed a med barnstar but I'll wait 'til you haven't had one for a bit ( unless you keep getting them all the time :) that is ) keep up the good work *, LeeVJ (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for the kind words Leevanjackson! I was at work, so I had to keep logging off and back on, hence the delay in the "reviewing" post and the decision (I was working on it in my sandbox). I've never had a med barnstar, though I once got a standard one for work on neurotraumatology articles. It's my most prised one because it's the only one I've gotten for my content writing. :) Are you going to work on Huntington's Disease? If so, definitely give me a heads up when you're ready to have me look at it again, I can let you know if I think it's ready to go back to GAN. Thanks again for the note. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 03:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been for a couple of years now, since I found the original article had something I didn't know, and was lacking somethings I did, what a great resource wikipedia is ! As you say , quite a broad scope so may take a while - I had been referencing secondary sources but breaking them down into primary , blast - but your note on primary/secondary has pointed the way, cheers! I expect that there will be extra bits to look by the time I have addressed your review points - whilst doing just three, I turned up a new HD animal model (monkey). I will let you know when article is ready for a second pass. LeeVJ (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aargh, I know what you mean about breaking the sources down into primary, I've done a ton of that same thing! In fact, about half of my work on concussion involved undoing the other half. :P Awesome progress on the review, you're really tearing through that thing! I'm glad my review's pushing you to find more stuff, I look forward to seeing the new, improved version! Wikipedia was lucky the day it managed to attract you with the HD article. Hey, have you read much about excitotoxicity? It might be interesting in the pathophysiology section (on the other hand, it might be too in depth for this already detailed article). delldot on a public computer talk 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou :) and I'll check it out ....LeeVJ (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Subcutaneous emphysema

On 22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Subcutaneous emphysema, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:CavidadePleuralDrenada.JPG

This figure [1] is one of the first anatomic computer made that I saw about 1995s. I have no more the source of it, due to my old hard disc brokes. This figure was colored and I have transformed it into black and white and add a chest drain on it by myself. Thank you for your kind attention. Best. RobertoLyra (discussão) 13h37min de 22 de Maio de 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roberto, thanks so much for getting back to me. I'm so sorry, but I don't think we can use the image! Even if it was modified, we can't use it without permission from the copyright holder of the original. :( It really is unfortunate, because it's very good, and it illustrates the chest tube very well. It's a good idea to modify an image of a chest to put a tube in, though. I can work on making one from one of the other anatomy images at commons. Sorry Roberto! delldot on a public computer talk 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Delldot, I agree with you. The idea to work on making one new image from one of the other anatomy images at commons is really better. Please do your best. Thank you for help. If possible visit this page I start: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistema_coletor_de_drenagem_pleural_ou_mediastinal]

Than you.Roberto Lyra (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so kind and understanding about it Roberto, I definitely will work on it. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: SE GA

D Awesome! I'll get working on them today, too, and hopefully we can have the article 'pimped' out in no time :) Nice work. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 09:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Treecreeper

Many thanks for the prompt review and the useful comments which I'll address before GA. I didn't altogether understand the comment about sources. The refs were all from

• the standard texts for (a) tits, nuthatches and treecreepers, and (b) European birds in general
• peer-reviewed scientific journals
• The website of the BTO, a prestigious national research organisation with it's own peer-reviewed journal, Ibis

I can't really see where the problem is? Jimfbleak (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Yeah, the sources are definitely good enough for WP:V, that's not the concern. The issue is that secondary and tertiary sources are better than primary studies. The papers I was talking about were "Molecular phylogeny of treecreepers (Certhia) detects hidden diversity", "Forest Fragmentation Increases Nest Predation in the Eurasian Treecreeper", "Effects of male removal on female foraging behavior in the Eurasian treecreeper", and "Behavioural responses of Eurasian treecreepers, Certhia familiaris, to competition with ants". I didn't read them, but I strongly suspect from their titles that they're primary sources, i.e. that the information being reported in them is the original findings of the writers or their group. Especially with the sentence about the removal of males, I thought the article might actually be reporting these findings, which could be a problem because one study may not be enough to generalize (though you could say "a 2006 study found that...", though it would still be better to have a review article if you can get it). I've been told that though using the background info from the intro or discussion of a primary study is better than reporting its results, it's still not as good because those parts of the papers may not be getting as thorough of peer reviews as review articles do (reviewers of studies tend to focus on the methods). I agree that them being in peer-reviewed journals is a good thing. It's just that secondary and tertiary sources are better. Just a suggestion for FAC. Definitely let me know if you want to discuss it more, I'm glad you brought this up and gave me a chance to clarify. delldot talk 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about presentation, I'll make it clearer that it may not be generalisable, at least in theory. In practice, there's little choice to using journal research for some of these less-studied groups, usually there's nothing much else on the web, and you're stuck with BWP and the family monograph. Ironically, at FAC I've sometimes had to justify a book or the BTO, but never a journal (yet). The tricky thing is getting an acceptable ref for some of the cultural stuff eg swallow tattoos in Barn Swallow.Jimfbleak (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean about the difficulty finding secondary and tertiary sources, I'm actually facing that same problem with Subcutaneous emphysema. As I might have said, the article is very good so I made an effort to be very picky. Best of luck in the FAC! delldot talk 05:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

why did u delete my sopranos edits?

Ok i admit I vandalised some pages such as the page on spiders but my edits to characters on the sopranos were totaly legit. Why did u delete them?--Chop Top (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry Chop Top, I didn't realize you'd left me a note earlier, I only saw it just now. Yeah, I wasn't sure if those were vandalism, but some of them looked a little suspicious. It's unusual to have an account that both vandalizes and contributes constructively, so I suspected that they may have been sneaky vandalism--vandalism that is made to look like legit edits. But you're right, I should have been more careful (maybe researching whether they were correct on google). I guess I was just tired and in a rush, which isn't really an excuse at all. Go ahead and replace anything you did that wasn't vandalism. Again, I'm sorry for that. delldot talk 02:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

*huggles*

-- Gurchzilla (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

*many, many huggles*! :D delldot talk 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pesticide resistance

Hi Delldot:

I looked at the article and it's not too bad although I would edit the language about a "pesticide treadmill" which is not really an accurate description of what happens. I have some good references on resistance and will try to work on this "sometime" -- retirement is currently a lot busier than I had hoped.

Are you by chance anywhere near Washington DC? I am organizing an symposium on the environemtal fate of pesticides for an American Chemical Society meeting there in August '09. Maybe we could get together and recruit some more scientists for Wiki work in this area. Maybe you could show me how to get around the Wikipedia, I find it daunting.

Don --DonWauchope (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely know what you mean about the dauntingness, I've been around for >2.5 years, and I'm still daunted sometimes! But, absolutely, I'd love to show you around! Have anything in particular in mind? I don't really know how to get started, but I can definitely offer my services as question answerer any time you need help with anything.

I'm in Florida right now, but my boyfriend's family is from near DC, so we might go up there at some point. But August 09 is waaaaay to far ahead to know. But that's a great idea to recruit more scientists for the 'pedia, I'm always psyched to recruit people, especially ones with expertise!

Good luck with your busy retirement! (Hint: cut out doing all that work!) delldot talk 03:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

SAH

Hey dell. <-- (how original..)

Any chance you could try and fix the tables on subarachnoid hemorrhage per Jim's comments on the talk page? I have absolutely no idea how to do it and I don't think Jdfwolff is that keen on doing it either ;) Thank you :) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Murphy

noticed your edits on this page. the article needs a lot of work. it seems probable that the creator wasn't a medically knowlegable person. names of diseases are used where names of operations are appropriate, etc. e.g. appendicitis, when appendectomy is meant. i'll work on this over the next little bit.Toyokuni3 (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Yeah, I was thinking of giving it a GA review, but the submitter hasn't followed up on the suggestions I've given so far, so I was hesitant to put much work into it. Maybe it should be put on hold to deal with the accuracy problems you saw and the copyediting ones I was working on, and we'll see if they come back to work on it. Thanks for putting the work in! Are you interested in medicine yourself? delldot talk 19:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

did some work on john b. murphy. i'm sure it's on your watchlist, but just in case--take a look. let me know what you think. this was the biggest edit i've done so far. as for my interest,yeah i'm 'interested in medicine', and we'll leave it at that. however, i saw a userbox some time ago, and now i can't find it again. it said 'this user feigns ignorance and stupidity as a tactic.' i like that. slan agat anoisToyokuni3 (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome work, thanks so much for putting the time in and for pointing out those problems. I'm still cracking up about the popular appendectomy comment, probably will be for sometime. Looks like the GA nom's only working on issues related to the GA hold. :/ So if you still see any potential inaccuracies or other such serious problems, I would urge you to mention them in that section and ask that they be cleared up before the hold is removed. (Or if you want to point these out to me, I can be the bad guy instead :P) Great work so far, glad to have you on the project. Not that it looks like you need it, but definitely let me know if I can be of any help with anything Wikipedia relted. delldot talk 07:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Subcutaneous emphysema‎ listed for deletion

not really. :) Gurchzilla (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I almost cried when I saw this update on my watchlist. Not funny :P Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why you little...! I'll get you back some day, when I think of something mean enough. Not really, you are so great you can do no wrong in my eyes, and I would have extreme difficulty staying mad at you even if I tried delldot talk 09:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

awwwwwwwwww -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Neurology

I just thought you may like to know that i've started up a new WikiProject on Neurology. It's in early stages and needs a lot of work to get things categorised but hey, it's a start! Check it out if you want :) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk?_Sign? 17:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Have you mentioned it over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience? I don't know if it'll get much traffic because we don't have any active neurologists afaik :( Maybe we can attract some! delldot talk 18:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to :) Yeah unfortunatly we don't have any neurologists but we do have laypersons and other doctors interested in the topic and that should be enough for the time being! It's primarily to serve along side the Neuroscience project but dealing with anatomy and the more disease side of things. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk?_Sign? 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ER

I am still interested in getting reviews, I have reviewed other editors, I only took the notice down as it was slower that I imagined. Thanks for the notice, and the kind words. :)  Asenine  18:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm on it! Should have it done by at most a day or two. delldot talk 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Editor review

Hi. Yes, I would like someone to review my review, so that the review process can progress, so that I can continue the process of progressing the process of my personal editorial progress. Sorry about the (slightly) late reply, you posted it at the exact moment I changed my status to offline. I didn't realise it has been a month already, time sure does go by quickly. Well, as for reviewing someone else, I'll get to it, and I'll try to see if I can help shrink the backlog as well. By the way, I'm thinking of making a personal RfA support criteria version 1.0 when I have time, based on the contributions of the candidate, and I'll see if I can review the reviews in a similar manner. For now, I'll get to checking my watchlist, and thanks for helping review my review (sorry about the repetition). Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, the repetitive repetition wasn't that repetitive. Gimme another ping when you've done a review and I'll review the review, review you, and review my review of your review and you before finally... uh... hitting save? K, you win. XD delldot talk 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ping! I've reviewed one review so is that enough or should I review a few more? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW (unrelated), I noticed you put "supbages" on your userpage, is that meant to be subpages? I left you a message instead of correcting it myself, in case others are not edit your page. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bwahaha! I must have had that up there for like a year, and no one's both noticed and had the kindness to actually mention it until you did just now. Much appreciated. (BTW, you're welcome to edit my page if you want). delldot talk 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, thank you for your extensive and consise review, and I wish to answer a few of the questions. Yes, I'd like to start participating in GA/FA, but I don't have much experience in those areas yet so I'd like to build upon my experience as I start. Should I also participate in other main-page material, such as DYK? As for the inline citations, I've recently contributed a lot of them: check my contributions related to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, its interwiki counterpart in French, Simple English, and Chinese, the articles related to the earthquake such as Mianyang, Wenchuan, and Ngawa Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture, although another user has now been doing the updating. Also, I added citations to May 2008 Colombia earthquake, and image, and also fixed a double-citation. The issue with the lack of in-text citations in articles such as Charlie Redstar is, I've only used a book for a source. I'm still planning to write more articles with books and expanding articles, as I did to Lake monster, although in the future I will also likely get some more references from the Internet for my book-written articles as well. As for the fictional book articles I've expanded such as Cryptid Hunters, I might have added too much of the plot but there is a lack of Internet resources out there for most fictional books. Per your advice, I have added   to the measurements in Charlie Redstar and made some other fixes. The articles that have been prodded were Michelle Jobin and Natalie Thomas. The Michelle Jobin article was likely deleted because she retired from The Weather Network and her biography was removed, thus removing the only reference. The Natalie Thomas article was prodded by a user saying it did not have enough notability. Whether this is a result, either direct or indirect, of the article having been deleted 2 - 3 times prior to writing the article, I don't know, but my articles on The Weather Network on-call presenters are prone to deletion. The reason why I started writing these biographies in the first place was because other articles on other TWN bios had already been written, and there were a lot of red links from The Weather Network, so I decided to write more articles. Due to the fact that usually only one reference can be found, occasionally two or three for these biographies, it is difficult to add enough in-text citations to those articles. As for the "funny" articles, I got the impression that Place names with English meanings was deleted because editors thought some of the items were funny or partially funny, and maybe more "funny" names were included than nessecary, or the lack of reliable sources, etc. I tried improving the article by adding more items and reliable sources, but in the end, the page was still deleted, perhaps due to the expanse of items and the lack of references per item. Also, I tried to see if I could integrate some tools like Huggle or Twinkle, but those don't work on my IE. As for user interaction, did you check my 18 monthly archives (oct 2006 - mar 2008) or just my current talkpage? I once had over 100 items on my talkpage so I had to archive it, or are you referring to a much higher level of user interaction, such as those with administrators and very frequent participants? Also, if you are wondering about the Mr. Wheely Willy Guy incident, see User talk:Mr. Wheely Willy Guy, unblocked as a result of my ANI post in April. As for in-depth articles, you may also want to examine my significant contributions to articles list (under construction), although this has sometimes resulted in some articles being slightly too long. I also started WikiProject Dinotopia, but I haven't done much work in it recently, but will try to do so when I get through more of my existant to-do list and my non-existant to-do list (as a result of updating it only once every 3 months). Should I also participate in and start more AfDs, PRODs, AIV, XfD, RfD, CSD, etc? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 13:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for taking my comments seriously enough to reply this in-depth. Commented on these replies at Wikipedia:Editor review/AstroHurricane001 2, let's keep the discussion there. delldot on a public computer talk 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shakers

I have requested Page Protection could you apply it please thanks. BigDunc^Talk 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry BigDunc, I had to go right after I got this note and I ended up forgetting about it until now! Looks like you fought them off successfully, though, thanks for being vigilant on that page. Didn't mean to ignore you like that, feel free to drop me another note if you ever need anything. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 04:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: ER

Sure, a formal review would be great. I looked over your comments, and will remove the warning that I mistakenly put on the IP's page. RedThunder 20:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, one coming up in the next few days. About that warning, I would do more than that: I'd apologize, try to talk to them about it. Explain it was a mistake. That way they'll understand that if they continue to contribute, their edits won't keep getting reverted (I've actually met people in rl who refuse to edit because they think they'll just get reverted). Take it from someone who messes up and apologizes an awwwwwful lot. XD delldot talk 20:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It took me a while to get round to doing this

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Rewarded for the exceptional efforts placed towards often tedious tasks related to medicine. We all appreciate your hard work, Delldot! Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 11:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Aww, Cyclone! Thank you so much! It really does mean a lot to me. delldot talk 12:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 12:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles mentioned in Q1

Thanks for the review! I sincerely appreciate it.

I am going to clean up my major contributions list as some of what I used to consider 'major contributions' are most certainly not what I would consider to be that now. I used to consider anything which was kept in an article for use a 'major contribution'... not one of my better moments (my other one being that the first thing I ever did was create a vanity article about my band in 2006, haha). Would you take another look once I have cleaned it up? Thanks.

Oh, and yes, I see Cyclone around a lot and from what I have seen, he seems like a very modest and reasonable guy. I am hoping he will apply for RfA soon, it would be another of my strong supports.  Asenine  14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you. May I just clarify that I wasn't suggesting you should do a bit of automated work then stop altogether, by all means carry on doing automated work and do more if you wish. What I meant to imply was that you should do those things as well as doing more work in other areas ;) Sorry for the misunderstanding! Oh, and Asenine, I applied for an RfA last month but was considered far too inexperienced, which is of course true. See you both around! Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 18:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Cyclone, yeah, looking back on it I guess that was kind of a whacky interpretation of what you said. I think we actually are agreeing here. delldot on a public computer talk 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

@Asenine, yes, I would love to have another look at your work whenever you're ready! I think it's great both for the articles and your growth as an editor that you're interested in getting feedback on them. I'm flattered that you're interested in my opinion and pleased that you're showing growth as an editor. Gimme a poke whenever you want. delldot on a public computer talk 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Osler

i would welcome your opinion on changes needed on the sir william osler article.pax vobiscum. Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Done on Talk:William Osler. delldot on a public computer talk 02:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

:(

• hugs delldot* -- Gurchzilla (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

*Many, many hugs and other types of affection* My good friend. Take care, talk to you soon. delldot on a public computer talk 22:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is my 100,000th edit; I was saving it for something special, so... *hugs delldot* -- Gurch (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Awwwwwwwwwwww! Yeah, the truly monstrous number of edits does somehow make it more special... :P But you can hug me more often than every 100,000 edits you know. So does this mean Gurch is back?? delldot on a public computer talk 00:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

*cuddles* I guess so -- Gurch (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Very exciting! Welcome back Gurch ^_^ delldot on a public computer talk 08:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I mention how awesome you are? -- Gurch (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nooooo... do tell. XD I must be especially awesome to be thought awesome by someone of your own awesomeness! *cuddles* ^_^ delldot talk 04:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

awwww... *hugs again* -- Gurch (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by :o

...someone very sweet told me I should leave something nice for you, because you were awesome. :o *huggles and meets delldot*. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure meeting you! Thank you for the flowers and for stopping by to say hi ^_^ *huggles* delldot talk 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good news!

I've just recently created the ComedySportz wiki! Check it out! Not much to see thusfar, but it will be great! If you aren't already familiar with ComedySportz, check out the entry in Wikipedia. Happy editing,--Padawan Animator (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More good news! My screen name's been changed! Happy editing,--Artist Walser (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome Pa--I mean Artist! Good to hear from you again. What else has been going on on Wikipedia, anyway? delldot on a public computer talk 05:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Delldot,

Thank you for your message. I was happy to revert the vandalism. I've went through a few pages now and hopefully did some good.

I looked at at least one of the tools form the page you linked (wikimonitor) and while it seems nice, I accidently sent someone a warning by just trying to move the window around. Very touchy program it seems.

There are better designed ones -- right?

I am a computer programmer and spend almost all my waking hours at the keyboard. In the past, when I had to look up some information related to programming, examples, definitions, formulas and ex cetera I had to search endless web sites in endless different formats and usually had to piece together what I needed from different resources.

I have noticed that lately almost all the references I need end up coming from Wikipedia. It seems Wikipedia has crossed some threshold of information content and things relevant to me and my job are now mostly found here.

So, I figured it time I start doing my part to add to the content in anyway I can. Either via edits, additions or corrections.

What that said, if there is anything I can do help, please let me know. -Bob

PS: I just cut and pasted that middle section of the above message to my user page as I think it sums up my Wikipedia experience very nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLint (talk • contribs) 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on his talk delldot on a public computer talk 05:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)