User talk:Quiddity: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
EdwardsBot (talk | contribs)
Arborsculpture
Line 26: Line 26:
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single|Single-page]] &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] &middot; [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single|Single-page]] &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] &middot; [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0023 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0023 -->

==Arborsculpture==
Thanks for commenting on the "arborsculpture" debate. I agree that [[User:SilkTork]]'s comments at [[Talk:Tree shaping]] make sense as an isolated analysis. I'm not sure if you are aware that [[User:Blackash]] is the Pooktre mentioned in the article and they have stated very plainly that they have a real life agenda not to have a word coined by a professional rival (Reames) applied to their work. Because of this blatant [[WP:COI]] editors should be looking very, very carefully at the views that [[User:Blackash]] is trying to push and why. I've left some specific info at the bottom of the [[Talk:Tree shaping]] that might help editors realize
arborsculpture is a generic term and the only one in the world who seems hell bent on making it otherwise is Pooktre/Blackash. Peace and respect. --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.93.238|208.59.93.238]] ([[User talk:208.59.93.238|talk]]) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:02, 7 February 2010

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." - Winston Churchill

small bag of holding

I usually watchlist talkpage threads for a few days, so please reply in original threads.
If you leave a new message here, I will probably reply here, unless requested otherwise.

Classical composers time-line

I just userfied it to my page per the general concensus. Hope that's ok? I asked Kleinzach to cleanup the redirects. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. We can always move it to a subpage of Talk:List of classical music composers at a later time, or elsewhere, if that becomes useful. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. We have no time limit now (no risk of PROD etc) so the page can be cleaned up at leisure and relocated as and when necessary. BTW, that's an hilarious quote from Winnie: I love it! --Jubilee♫clipman 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arborsculpture

Thanks for commenting on the "arborsculpture" debate. I agree that User:SilkTork's comments at Talk:Tree shaping make sense as an isolated analysis. I'm not sure if you are aware that User:Blackash is the Pooktre mentioned in the article and they have stated very plainly that they have a real life agenda not to have a word coined by a professional rival (Reames) applied to their work. Because of this blatant WP:COI editors should be looking very, very carefully at the views that User:Blackash is trying to push and why. I've left some specific info at the bottom of the Talk:Tree shaping that might help editors realize arborsculpture is a generic term and the only one in the world who seems hell bent on making it otherwise is Pooktre/Blackash. Peace and respect. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]