User talk:David D.

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. ————————————— Welcome. (Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk
	Template:UWAYOR
You may here

returned from my retirement because of you all

Hey man. I just wanted to tell you that I have returned due to your’s and others kind messages and emails. I missed this encyclopedia, and I have missed you as well. I really appreciate all that you have done for me. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 06:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Enzyme kinetics

Hi David Could you have a look over the new enzyme kinetics section and see if I have missed anything out or become needlessly over-technical? Thanks--TimVickers 02:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Documenting Grace Alone

Would you weigh in on Doright's request that we document the obvious? --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I know nothing about religion, nothing is obvious to me with respect to religious doctrine. Consequently I'm not sure any of my opinions on the topic would hold much weight. David D. (Talk) 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Athletics"

Sorry, David -- I live in Canada, and when normal people use the word "athletics," they always mean "sports." If you Google /athletics site:.ca/, you'll find the only results in the first 150 or so are Athletics Canada and a few provincial affiliates. I suppose Athletics Canada uses the term "Athletics" because of its association with the IAAF and because it is similar to the French term. You'll notice that Athletics Canada calls itself "The sport governing body for track and field in Canada" and its website "the online showcase of Canadian track and field."

I've changed the UK link again, this time to a "Track and field roundup" from the BBC (which uses both terms). -- Mwalcoff 04:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say they don't use the term track and field in Canada. Just from reading their web site it is clear the term is used. However, you said track and field is the only term used in Canada. If the organising body uses the term obviously you can not say that. David D. (Talk) 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean not everyone thinks soccer was invented by Satan? No worries -- might as well have my biases out in the open. -- Mwalcoff 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, just a warning because one of the common fights in athletics, from a north american perspective, is should it be measured/reported in imperial or metric. How can you be a Canadian but a metriphobe? Are you a Clevelander living in Canada? That would make more sense. David D. (Talk) 05:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

XS Energy Drink

Thanks. I've been meaning to do some cleanup on these Scamway articles. You want something interesting? Try a Google search with "Amway" and "scam". A nice synopsis is at Corporate Narc, I just may have to add that to some of the articles external links... Have a great day. Ifnord 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Portals

Thanks, for the additions! I didn't want to add anything, since I was the creator and didn't want to seem too presumptious. It's good though, it will get things rolling and set standards for people to emulate. We need more people in the project to be proactive. Keep it up!--GAThrawn22 00:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, i find it amazing that there are so few cell bio pictures available. You're right we need more people involved. David D. (Talk) 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My Sig

Dear David:

Thanks for the suggestion! The reason is I'm not a particularly effecient coder. I couldn't figure out how to do it without an underline under talk. Thanks for the suggestion. I think I'll put it into use. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a better place to see what i proposed since your talk page link does not work on your own talk page, of course.

Proposed code:

<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken^(talk)]]</font>

Gives this signature: CTS Wyneken^(talk)

Not sure if this is any good since there is still an underline. Anyway now you know this code you can probably experiment. And now you can add somethiong else with your gained characters :) David D. (Talk) 17:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly you could just remove the talk althogether? I think it is quite intuitive that the second colour will direct to your talk page.

Thus, another altrernative:

<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken]]</font>

Gives this signature: CTS Wyneken

Which is even smaller. Then you won't be in Tony Sidaways crosshairs. David D. (Talk) 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... when your version appears on my talk page, its perfect! No underline under the talk. WHen I paste it into my perferences, it comes out with the underline... The reference librarian in me likes the little (talk), 'cause new folk here don't always get the concept and a little assistance never hurt. Anyway, thanks for taking a wack at the puzzle. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Any link that it to the same page will come out as a bold link. Look at the (talk) in my signature here, it is black bold since it is my own page. That is what has happened to your signature on your own page. Another solution is to not link the last part of your name, ONLY the talk part. Try this: <b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font>^{<font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken|(talk)]]</font>}, that will look like this: CTSWyneken^(talk)

Now you only have the talk link. This makes more sense to me, my original problem is that i was confused by the two different links and thought that the Wyneken one was a different sub page in your user space. David D. (Talk) 20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

re your recent msg

thanks David for your msg however I do not understand what you mean? I don't know how to make the changes you suggest perhaps you can enlighten me further? many thanks Peter morrell 19:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks David for your msg: I have now ticked the raw signature box as you said but still don't quite know how to do the other thing...I must be very dim but I just don't get it! sorry thanks Peter morrell 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks I have done that but my name still appears in red and takes me to the user page instead of the talk page...any ideas? thanks Peter morrell 19:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks I think I will leave it at that for now phew! cheers Peter morrell 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ATP

Sorry, yeh, mistake... I didn't realize.. I was trying to fix what you were talking about.... I cliked on the wrong revision... I'll revert it to the changes you made... it's good.--GAThrawn22 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to adding some of those changes but i still think the original diagram is better then the new ones. The spinning top gif is not really an improvement in my opinion. Possibly the space filling or the ball and stick model may be a worthwhile addition? David D. (Talk) 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I do agree, that some of the images may be useful. I'm not sure that they should be at the top of the chembox. It takes up a lot of space... Either the ball and stick model or the space filling model might be useful, since it gives a 3D representation of the structure; as it stands now, it takes too much guess work to determine what color represents what atom (there's no key). Perhaps they might be added at the end of the article... what do you think? --GAThrawn22 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think in the article space, with a key, would be the best compromise. At the end of the day the chem box should be ultra informative, the old figure seemed to fullfill that role the best. But a coloured 3D picture does have a certain 'Wow' factor that is worth incorporating, as well as giving some useful 3D structural information. David D. (Talk) 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

BevNet

I haven't found the quote on their website yet, but I have heard from multiple sources (including in person from an executive at XS) the same quote. I sent a quote request to Bev Net, to verify it with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs)

thanks...

...for the warning :) --Striver 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem David D. (Talk) 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:149.135.47.197

Your edit to User talk:149.135.47.197 has been removed. Please feel free to use the sandbox. Continuing to vandalise may result in a ban.

149.135.47.197, it is against Wikipedia rules to remove warnings from your talk page which have been issued by users. I have warned you about that, so do not proceed to again. --Killfest2 05:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Falsely accused by David D

Pasted from Talk:Jennifer Granholm

counties won in 2002

The text that Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs) wants to be incorporated is:

Granholm's four point margin of victory was met with some criticism as she unanimously won only two of eighty-three counties in the state, Wayne and Washtenaw counties.

The source for election results by county: CNN shows that she won 11 counties of the first twenty five. Of those eleven she won nine unanimously 51% or more of the vote). She got 60% or more of the vote in four counties Genesee, Ingham Wayne and Washtenaw. So first, what does Steelbeard1 mean by "she unanimously won only two of eighty-three counties "? I'm confused by the criteria used to arrive at this number. Second, this looks a lot like original research. If this is such a well known criticism there should be a quotable article out there somewhere. David D. (Talk) 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Scrabbleship said that, I didn't. I was the one who deleted that statement originally. Check the article history. I also added the CNN source. An apology is due, David D. Steelbeard1 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a case of mistaken identity. The correct attributions can be seen here. Sorry for the error. David D. (Talk) 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrected original entries. Apologies accepted. Steelbeard1 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again David, for your help, my user page is working great now! all blue! cheers Peter morrell 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure Peter, if you need any other help please ask. It does take a while to get the hang on the wiki markup and i have yet to find a place where it is all described in a way that is easy to understand. I have found the best is just to pick things up as you go along. Sorry for being your antagonist on the homeopathy page, I am a scientist by trade, so I am sure we come from polar opposites with respect to perspective. Please don't take any disagreements personally, despite how it may look, I do listen and think about what other people say, even if I disagree. Certainly I am into compromises and not edit warring. I find the edit warring futile since the pages are never stable using that tactic. Not to mention the burn out of edit warring contributors seems to be pretty high. I look forward to more interesting discussions. David D. (Talk) 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

ATP images

Response to ATP images at User talk:Bryn C:

Hi David and thanks for the notification. Indeed, the modifications I made to ATP were some of my first. Those images could certainly be improved. I have since made many similar changes and had intended to revisit the ATP article. For the time being I am happy to have the changes reverted. All of my images are created using ChemOffice 2005 and Adobe Photoshop/ImageReady CS2. All of the 3D models are MM2 energy minimized. I must disagree than any edit can be "too much to change in one go", and I would encourage you to assess the merits of each change individually. I am working slowly (the animations in particular are very time consuming) but steadily through the articles listed in Category:Organic compounds, and I would like to think I am improving them (compare before and after). If you have any specific comments or suggestions I would very much like to hear them. Regards, Bryn C (^t/_c) 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe i should say "too much to change in one go without an initial discussion". I think we are all open to changes. personally, I like the stick and ball models. I'm not too keen on the spinning gif, although a slower moving one might be desirable. At the end of the day my opinion does not count for much. My reason for contacting you is that there are a lot of people who will have constructive opinions and will be willing to help out. I think I referred you to the wikiproject (molecular and cellular biology). That is probably as good as any place to start a global discussion on a new style for chemboxes. Did you check out that page? David D. (Talk) 00:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Account

No problem, will get one now

Cheers !

Cheers for giving me a hand with the Thylakoid article, it's a pleasure working with you :-) The magical Spum-dandy 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, good idea doing the pigment disamib page. David D. (Talk) 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote

I wouldn't have "over-reacted" if it hadn't been deleted a billion times, even though I referenced the friggin' quote about sixty times, and linked to it properly each time. Barwick 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Auxin

Good job, good points! I should do it long time ago! (But I was not bold enough as it is removing of the content). Have a good time. Yours sincerely Reo ^ON | +++ 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black's RFA

Nevermind what I said, I'm not going to continue arguing this. His RFA is getting too spammy and lengthy. --Cyde↔Weys 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have my permission to delete the conversation if that will help shorten the rfa. David D. (Talk) 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed, it really wasn't helping anyone. And I can see why you think my characterization of your words was a bit inaccurate; it was (a bit). --Cyde↔Weys 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it the wrong way Cyde, i was not trying to be offensive, but I really had no clue where you were coming from. Unfortunately, this is one of the major problems on the internet. Badly written English in combination with misunderstandings goes a long way to cause unneccesary friction. Glad to see you removed it. David D. (Talk) 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Granholm article

Actually, there is already a table of poll results in the article Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 so we don't need another one in either the Granholm or DeVos article. Steelbeard1 21:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So let's just delete it. David D. (Talk) 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Let's direct readers to the article about the Michigan governor's race. I guess we should now simplify the DeVos article and add more detail to the governor's race article. Steelbeard1 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that I simplified the Dick DeVos article. Since the material I removed was about the governor's race in general, I simply moved the material to the govenor's race article. Steelbeard1 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SB RFA

Yeah, too bad no one else will understand the reference, as the comments have now been moved off of SB's RFA and onto respective talk pages. This is not the first time that I've had a nominee's attack-dog come after me and ridicule (here, quite literally) my opinion because it didn't match their own. Questionable behaviour, really. Themindset 22:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Attack-dog? Hah. These comments are a bit more incivil than anything I've ever said to you, but I guess since this comment wasn't directed at me you think it's acceptable? --Cyde↔Weys 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Line art

Hey, since you asked about line art and why PNG representations of line art are preferable over JPEG images, some good reading is at Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. You'll find background information at Compression artifact and the pages that page is linked to, especially lossy data compression and lossless data compression. And don't omit to read the thing it's all built around, the deep and subtle Fourier transform. Dr Zak 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great links that will definitely satisfy my curiosity, and save me time in the future since i'll save in PNG from now on. While were are at it, what is the prefered format for photos? David D. (Talk) 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For line art SVG is best, since it's a vector graphics format and thus scales best. PNG (a bitmap format) is also good, as it is lossless. Photographs are best uploaded as JPEG images as the compression algorithm is well suited to such pictures. Dr Zak 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, i'll do this from now on. David D. (Talk) 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Double helix template

Hi, I must admit that I am a complete idiot when it comes to markup or html or whatever it is called. I tweaked (or more accurately plagiarised/modified) a template from one created by JWSchmidt by trial and error untill I got something approximating what I wanted. I'm quite open minded about the templates (and I think so is J.Schmidt), so feel free to play about with them. In December I modified one of John Schmidt's templates into several different ones for use in DNA discovery articles, originally it looked something like this, I modified it to include only those involved in 1953 this with photo and this without photo and also modified another one of J. Schmidt's templates for others not involved directly in 1953 but still involved in the discovery, for inclusion in the articles of the big four Template:Single strand DNA discovery2, so it's the same but lacking Crick, Franklin, Watson and Wilkins as they have their own template with each others names on it for their own articles (does this make sense?). Alun 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I very much appreciated your general tidy up of the Rosalind Franklin article. Thanks very much. Alun 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Note

Greetings,

I note a revision in your userpage indicating your college choices. Consider this a gentle prod from a like-minded admirer that you might wish to add Harvard among them. I'm quite certain, given both your intellect and your unusual background, that you would be a formidable candidate, and a benefit to the University as well. I would gladly pay your application fee myself. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; that's quite a compliment (and quite an offer). The only downside about Harvard is that it does not offer a degree in civil engineering, my intended major. And before you say MIT, I have to say I'm looking for an all-around, instead of specialized, school (if only they combined MIT and Harvard...). Perhaps I'll apply to one of two schools anyway (although I couldn't possibly accept your offer). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Harvardian aspiring engineers often choose physics, math, social studies, or sociology as their "concentration" (unfortunately, some small vestiges of elitism do remain at Harvard, and the curricular vocabulary is one: we don't have "majors.") Much flexibility is also given to undergraduates in designing their own course of study, so you may make the civil engineering curriculum for yourself, in consultation with a faculty advisor.

Your suspicion regarding our friends on the other side of Cambridge is correct: M.I.T. really is as frighteningly dull as is reported (for those people who have any interest in the humanities, anyway.)

My offer stands; should you decide to apply, a visit to Cambridge is always best, and I can see about arranging for an especially friendly person in the admission office to handle things. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 04:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So you went to Harvard (still there?)... that answers a lot. I have visited Harvard on many occasions (note the second sentence of the bio on my userpage) and went once last August in a prospective student state-of-mind. Surprisingly, you have convinced me to apply to Harvard, especially since it looks like the school's application won't amount to a whole lot of extra work for me because Harvard uses the Common Application. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Given he grew up near Boston, i think its time for him to spread his wings. He can't go wrong with his current choices. David D. (Talk) 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... if only you knew...

• Me: Grew up in Boston, moved to (metropolitan) Washington, DC
• My Uncle: Grew up (and studied) in New York, moved to Washington, DC, studied in Charlottesville, Virginia at the University of Virginia, moved to Boston
• My Mother: Grew up in New York, studied in and moved to Boston, moved to Washington, DC
• My Sister: Grew up in Boston, moved to Washington, DC, studied in Charlottesville, Virginia at the University of Virginia

My family is trapped... spread my wings indeed. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Proposition 209

Don't foeget that Berkeley abandoned affirmative action due to proposition 209. David D. (Talk) 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember that, but I was addressing his comment about Stanford specifically. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about stanford. Even the sports star are really intelligent. Stanford is known for its strict academic requirements. Its a shame you have to worry about such things. Again good luck. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to clarify. i noticed that tehre are some people very close to this subject commenting on this page. i had never heard of barratt untill recently and I'm not even sure how I stumbled across the page. i would like to think the comments i have made to date are from an outside perspective. Please don't think i am in any camp with regard to this issue. David D. (Talk) 08:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi David D. Thanks for the clarification. I am not saying that you are in a camp but agreed with your comments about lurking. It is good to have an outside perspective but sometime popping in and out does not allow a full understanding of the issue at hand. Case in point you pop in to bulk delete one of my contribution and did not reply to my comments on this, in the talk page. While I understand the OR point, I am sure that there is a better way to address these issues than just popping in and out...NATTO 09:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand. I may well be reading too much of the talk and not enough of the article. I will read the article properly and make some comments on the talk page if i see specific examples that need tightening up. To tell you the truth, considering the controversial nature of the subject, you are are all keeping your cool and making real progress. It nice to see mature editors for a change.

Re: the OR, i did come back to reply to your comments but it all happened so fast, compared to other pages i have edited, that you had already resolved the issue. Did you ever find good sources for those comments. i notice that to date you have not worked them back into the article. David D. (Talk) 09:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. I agree. Of course everyone has his POV and trying to use his or her interpretation of the rules to get their POV across. I for have not affiliation with either those who are against so-called quackery ( being affiliated to Quackwatch or having their own anti-quackery web sites ) or people like Bolen or Negrete. However I know there is more to alternative and complimentary medicine than what Quackwatch is " informing people about. The problem is getting the correct information in the article without " protecting " one view over the other.

As for the posting on the information on the Quackwatch web site , I agreed that under the rules it is OR so I did not work on it since. This said even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information so that in itself should make Quackwatch more an opinion forum than a reliable and neutral source of public information. NATTO 12:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: I bolded the text for easy reference not Natto. David D. (Talk) 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is good information but the OR criteria means it needs to be someone elses analysis. David D. (Talk) 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the statement above:

"...even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information..."

I have seen you write this before, but it is a misrepresentation of what he actually says:

"How do you respond to accusations that your writing is unbalanced?

"Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible." [1]

If you want him to treat the subjects he's dealing with in a "balanced" way (in the sense you seem to be using it, that is presenting both sides of an issue in a NPOV way), then of course he won't do it, and not many people would, since there would be no point in writing a book or having a website, if one did that.

His explanation above can be illustrated by this: That kind of "balanced" presentation about Hitler would give equal time to his own justifications for the holocaust, and equal time to his victims for why he shouldn't have done it.

Barrett thinks that kind of "balance" is nonsensical, especially when dealing with unethical, unscientific, and often illegal actions. He is presenting balance by presenting the "other side of the coin." The quacks are already out there with a far greater internet and written presence, than those who expose and debunk them. Of course they don't think it's "fair" of him to debunk them, but that's life. They make false claims, so he's in his good right to present the scientific POV and debunk them.

Unfortunately, they don't counter his criticisms by building a better scientific argument that proves him wrong. No, instead they simply attack him personally, the good old dirty street trick of ad hom attacks. If you can find the "exception that proves the rule" of somebody actually answering his scientific criticisms with scientific answers, I'd like to see them. I think I've only stumbled across one or two in the last seven years. All the other responses are straw man and ad hom, and the Talk page is full of them. -- Fyslee 13:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I quote Dr. Barrett: " Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible. [2] " Of course he is also the judge of what is a legitimate controversy and what is fraud.... NATTO 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I read a reply, but not an answer to my questioning of your misrepresentation:

"...even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information..."

Where has he "agreed?" "Fair" is your POV. You're naturally welcome to have it, but to claim that he himself "agrees" with that POV is a misrepresentation.

As far as the question of "balance," what do you require of him for him to present the subjects in a manner that satisfies your POV on "balance?" Do you think he should promote the ideas he is debunking? What would be the point of speaking out at all? Doesn't he have a right to his POV, especially since he documents them? Doesn't balance require that both sides of the coin be examined? The salesmen of products and ideas certainly aren't interested in their customers learning about the other side of the coin! -- Fyslee 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Readability of Chiro article

I suspect that the following message might apply:

• Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it.

This message appears when in the editing mode. Right now I can't read the bottom of the talk page, including my own entries! I removed the "References" heading and code you had made, hoping that would help, but it didn't. Were you intending to start a references section on the talk page? If so, it's not a good idea, since archiving will screw it up. -- Fyslee 12:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I was trying to figure out how to make the text visible. I found by stripping out the refs it is back to normal. What you saw was me groping in the dark trying to get the text back. You'll note my first effort was to archive some of the page since I thought it possible that "cut off unexpectedly" message might be occuring. David D. (Talk) 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear David

Dear David, there is nothing, nothing to apologize for, and even less to feel guilty for, k? :) In fact, I should thank you for the smile that your words "smooshing, hugs and kisses" gave me... it made me imagine a dogpile of people all hugging and kissing each other while singing Friends Will Be Friends! The fact that you took the time to have a look at my portals was a flattery in itself, and even more your kinds words towards them. Allow me to be very honest to you, if you have a minute. I've at all times tried to keep my wiki-work and my wiki-leisure as completely separate aspects of a whole. Like Johnleemk wisely said once, "There's a difference between treating Wikipedia like a playground, and treating it like a place where you can whistle while you work." That's why I ask you not to worry about the importance I assign to my priorities; tho I value the human aspect of our project, I humbly try to focus my efforts into building our encyclopedia with the same zeal; one thing doesn't necessarily rules the other out. By all means, this is not an attempt to make you shift your opinion - in fact, I forbid you to! ;) But I just wanted to share my thoughts with you after you so kindly stopped by my talk page. Thank you for your birthday wishes as well - tho I don't want to get one year older! :( Have a great weekend! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

GangstaEB's RFA

Thanks for your oppose on my RFA. And everyone else's too. The final vote count was (0/10/0), so I am now an normal user. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. I can't give it though. Once again, thank you. GangstaEB help me improve! 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I did steal this off Wickethewok's RFA thank-you too.