Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within news, policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here.

« Archives, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

I feel offended

Hello. Today I was reading your fukking marvellous Wikipedia, when somebody called Yamla left a message. I felt offended because he said I was writing nonsense, i wasn't at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.93.196.236 (talk • contribs)

That happens sometimes when you are editing from an IP address instead of a unique user name. If you want to avoid confusion in the future, register an account and use it whenever you edit. If you choose not to do that, understand that the confusion is likely to continue, so please do not respond to warnings with hostility and profanity. Kafziel 15:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, get an account...many benefits to having one. --Osbus 23:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Since your using an IP adress it's possible that someone else using the same computer was adding nonsense. If you get an account you'll be distinguished from other users, even those using the same IP adress. Deathawk 04:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Let this also be a reminder to editors: whenever placing a warning on an anonymous editor's IP page, always qualify it with "if you are the editor who did X"... Deco 09:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

you have new messages (last change) : what does it mean?

Hello. I am a registered user of wikipedia. However i dont log in everytime i refer wikipedia [wich is like everyday for everything!]. When i opened an article a few minutes back - i found this - from the page on "The OC" . Is this message meant for me? I have not come across this before and i am sorry i have not taken the time to read all your FAQs and policies. I did not make changes in wikipedia that promote anything i am connected with except pasting a link to the research institute i work at for the article on microfinance - and thats only because it will help people who are researching microfinance/credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.226.40.76&redirect=no User talk:220.226.40.76 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. -- Solipsist 02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I log in via a wireless connection [a G-Tran Reliance India card]. I think my IP address setting is such that it assigns an address automatically and incase it does. I love referring all wiki websites -- sometimes just for fun facts and info -- and would never misuse it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnanlakshmi (talk • contribs)

From your description of activities it looks like, yes, that message was meant for you. Linking to commercial websites is considered spam; if there is non-advertising information on those sites, it would be better for you to add content to the articles rather than links. See Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer for more information. Kafziel 16:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the response. I just wanted to say that the posting i cited was done in 2005 - so why was this message posted recently? Also the user talk message for me does not cite the article to which the supposed commercial link was added - i would honestly like to know if i have violated any rules so that it does not happen in the future [especially if its something else other than the link i cited]. After the posting of website link in 2005 [i sure dont remember editing the microfinance/credit page after that] and the latest one being - edited contents of article on Bengal Tigers quoting findings/observations from an NGC programme and a book [because that was the reference]. If the following is indeed the violation: what should i do now? Remove the link from the microfinance article? btw its not a commercial organisation [neither are there clickable ads on that website]. The Centre is a part of a larger financial management and research institute - all they [and i admit i belong to this "they"] do is research on microfinance and development & i can honestly say that people will find the website useful - be it for doing research on their own or getting expert information on microcredit(finance) and impact evaluations in India. I cannot make it a part of the contents. Under "General Information" - where i added the link - there are other such websites i refer to in my line of work including CGAP and Microfinance Gateway for research documents and technical articles. So it fits in there.

Just to add to this post: my current IP address is 220.226.18.141 (checked online). The one quoted in the message is different? Lakshmi Krishnan

The message can only refer to the addition of external links to some articles on painters, all of which go to painting galleries on famous-paintings.org, all done by 220.226.40.76 on March 14, 2006. Since Reliance assigns the IP address automatically, you may get the same address as a different user in the past, and therefore the message intended for one user may show up for another user – but only if they are not logged in. It definitely has nothing to do with the links you added. I hope this clears everything up. (By the way, I see no problems with these edits either. They refer to non-commercial sites, and for obvious reasons such as copyright – and thinking of the overloaded servers – this could not have been done by "adding content".) Lambiam^Talk 01:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Need a map of universities of US

Hello, I'm a new reader of wikipedia with poor English; could you someone tell me in which article can I find a map of the universities (or at least the most famous ones) of US, with the states' boundaries? Thanks very much.--162.105.248.71 12:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, you want maps that have the exact locations of the best American universities. Here is what I would suggest:

1. Go onto the following page of US News & World Reports that lists the top universities in the United States(LINK TO LIST IS HERE) (these are considered the prime measure of large universities in the US). About the first 50 or so are considered the finest in the US. There is also a separate ranking for liberal arts colleges, these are generally smaller but some are also very well respected, that list is here.
2. You will notice that you can click on each name on those lists, once you've clicked on the name you will see the school's address. Copy the addresses.
3. Go to a mapping website, either Yahoo Maps or Mapquest and enter the information you found on the US News website in step 2.

The process may not be the fastest, but it will answer your questions. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page (just click the discussion tab on my userpage). -- Bobak 15:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This got me curious. Turns out the U.S. has 4,168 colleges and universities with 15,927,987 students.[1] Rather a lot to put on one map, though. Rmhermen 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Stick a pin in a map of the US at random and chances are you're within a few miles of a college. A map of all the colleges would just look like a stipple sketch of the US itself. Kafziel 16:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and frankly, a lot of them aren't worth the time of someone looking from what appears to be outside of the country. The US News lists have their flaws, but they're certainly good at picking what universities and colleges are generally considered prestigious. If the question-asker wants to cross check, they can also look at the list provided by the Times of London (which people have transcribed here, although the list is a little short and is biased towards research universities). -- Bobak 16:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the user asked for help from 162.105.248.71(an IP from P.R.China). It seems that a map easy to see the location of all the colleges and universites is not so easy to get. Mmmm... 4,168 colleges and universities, my god!... maybe my friends and I would try to draw a map of the most famous ones in our(and maybe other Chinese students') opinion, if the time allowed. Just for our own need, and hope it would be useful for more people. Thank you all very much, especially to Bobak for the link of usnews :) --Neverland 13:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Neverland, I left you one more comment on your new talk page, essentially this, if you can get it where you are, is probably exactly what you're looking for (although it maps a lot of places you probably won't care about --good to cross check with US News or similar ranking). -- Bobak 15:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll ask my friend in US to have a look about the books; then decide to by or not, or find what I can get from them. What a pity they are not free and not open.--Neverland 14:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use art tags

The fair use tag for works of art states that the image is fair use for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs. Dose this mean that a work of art can not apply as fair use in an article about the artist himself? I find it strange that an image could be fair use for the genre it belongs to but not the artist who created it.

Also, could more than one image be used in an article about the artist provided that they are all famous or relevant examples? Justin Foote 17:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If the artist's article discusses the image(s) in question, it is a valid case of fair use. (The discussion should be significant; at least a paragraph or more, so we can have a less than dubious fair use claim.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Next fundraising drive?

When will it be held? Ingoolemo ^talk 01:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked a month ago and was told it was soon. Sumahoy 02:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A new one? Oldwikisource: still has the notice from the previous fundraising drive. I mean, there's no green bar showing the amount of funds, but there's fine print "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales's personal appeal for donations" on the top right corner. – b_jonas 15:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Statistics on anonymous vandalism

I had to do a data collection for a statistics class, so I chose to do it on anonymous vandalism on Wikipedia. I found that 38% (+/- 13.5%) of anonymous edits were considered vandalism by WP:VAN. The confidence interval is 95%. The sampling was done at 19:15 (UTC) on May 4th (a Thursday). The rate of vandalism may change depending on the time of day and day of week, but I didn't need to do that much work for the class project. The sample was the first 50 edits that appeared on the recent changes page (logged-in users hiden). 19 of them were considered vandalism. There were a few edits where my own judgment as to what vandalism is may have influenced the results, but I think the definition, overall, was fairly easy to interpret. On a non-scientific note, I also counted the number of vandalisms that were link spam and the number of vandalisms that were reverted within 20-50 minutes. 5 of the 19 vandalisms were link spam (26.3%), and 11 of the 19 vandalisms were reverted within 20-50 minutes (57.9%). The later statistics did not have a great enough sample size to mean much, but they are still interesting. I know it is a fairly simple study, but I thought some people would be interested, and I had to do it anyway. Does anyone know if there have been other similar studies? I think the amount of vandalism we have to deal with here is quite outrageous. I think further studies on time dependency of vandalism and the rate of vandalism for logged-in users would be interesting. --Basar 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you include edits by clueless newbies in vandalism, or just malicious edits? --Philosophus ^T 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't include newbie edits, but that is where some of my judgment comes in. There were actually only a couple of edits that were borderline. One was somebody writing about themself; it is sort of hard to tell if the person was trying to be funny and clever or if the person really just didn't know what Wikipedia's policies are regarding notability. --Basar 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for doing this. I'm not convinced the sample size is large enough but presumably it is correct within an order of magnitude or so. JoshuaZ 23:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the statistics equations, we can be 95% certain that the real average would be between 24.5% and 51.5% (38% +/-13.5%). I know it sort of seems ify, but that's how it turns out. --Basar 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty large margin of error. •Jim62sch• 00:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it should be accurate within an order of magnitude. JoshuaZ 00:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, an order of magnitude would be between 3.8% and 380%. --Basar 01:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right). Joking aside, I'm curious as to how you calculated the time margin of error. Also, I think that relying on a sample on a specific day at a specific time is problematic. I suspect that the most frequent vandalism occurs during US East coast daylight hours, especially during school hours. The most obvious form of time dependent vandalism is that from school IPs and it is frequent. Furthermore, most of those seem to be US schools, especially on the East Coast. JoshuaZ 01:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The equation is p+/-z*[p*(1-p)/n]^1/2. P is the sample average, n is the sample size, and z is from a table which is equal to 1.96 for a 95% confidence interval. The sample size, however, has to satisfy this equation in order for it to be valid: n*p*(1-p)>=10. The 10 is only 10 for 95% confidence intervals. The value is like 40 for 99% ones. It just makes sure the sample size is big enough for the distribution of sample means to be normal. The original equation gives us the actual interval. --Basar 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, a month or two ago I had a discussion on the main page where I demonstrated that 100% of anonymous edits to that day's "Article of the Day" were vandalism, whether malicious or experimental (I do not discriminate between the two). For all the rhetoric about how it's bad to protect the featured article because valuable contributions can be made by new editors, there was not one bit of supporting evidence for that theory in the entire 24 hour period. I'm pretty confident in saying that similar results would be found on almost every day since then. Kafziel 14:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

When Noah's Ark was a featured article, I had a similar experience where every anon edit was either vandalism or extreme POV pushing. However, when Yom Kippur War was featured, some small changes from anons were positive. One shouldn't find it suprising that the fraction of vandalism edits to the featured articles is much higher than to random articles, since they are the easiest to access. I do, however, strongly disagree with your classification of test edits as vandalism. Indeed, for the ability to make test edits along it makes sense to let anons edit the featured articles (trying to sheperd articles on the main page is exhausting, but its only for a day). JoshuaZ 14:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, if someone doesn't even know how to use a search bar to navigate Wikipedia and find an article they know something about, they certainly shouldn't be editing anything. Good editors learn the ropes before they go charging in. I never vandalized a page, not even on my first edit, and I'm sure most other good editors are the same way. There's no need whatsoever to go into the middle of an article and type "Does this work?" and then save it. That's childish and it's vandalism.

Besides which, for an article to become the article of the day, it has to be a featured article. It has already been combed through by experienced editors with exacting standards, and the likelihood of a completely inexperienced user showing up who just happens to know something nobody else knew about the article that just happens to be the article of the day is so miniscule as to be irrelevant. Besides that, there are lots of other articles linked to from the main page, in the news section, in the "Did you know" section, etc. If someone is so easily turned off to Wikipedia that finding one locked article makes them leave forever, then it's probably not too great a loss. On the other hand, I myself know quite a few people who have a bad impression of Wikipedia because of the amount of vandalism immediately visible straight from the main page. We're hurting our reputation a lot more by leaving them unlocked. As you said, it's just for one day. If the change is really so important and the editor really has potential, he can come back the next day to put it in.

Anyway, it's not really an issue, because my "study" also found that no matter how much statistical evidence you produce, and despite the fact that there is no evidence of a vital edit made by an anon to the article of the day, people absolutely will not be convinced. :) Kafziel 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

When Kakapo was the featured article (less than a month ago), it got very many anon edits (and some from newly created accounts), most of them vandalism, but a few were useful fixes to wording or wikilinks, and one from, I suspect, someone with inside knowledge of the kakapo breeding program [2]. A single anon edit like this one makes up for a lot of anon vandalism, in my opinion.-gadfium 21:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Database Access

In the month of April, Thomson gale allowed free access to all their databases to celebrate national library week, or something like that. I used the Times Digital Archive (1 2) with brilliant success. I researched my favourite topic of the formation of rugby league. I found many articles of significant value, not only to those who appreciate rugby league but union die hards too.

Has wikipedia ever considered organising something with organisations, such as Thomson and gale who have a massive array of information on many topics, to allow access to wikipedia members? I'd be interested in something like that! POds 12:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

An error in Chinese interface for the user's preference

After change the interface language to Chinese, I saw an error may be maked in this page. i think the word "点子邮件" in the pink box should be "电子邮件" in simplified Chinese and "電子郵件" in traditional Chinese.

Template:Prioryofsion

This is a succession box about alleged heads of a fictitious society (recently publicized again by Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code). It is included in numerous articles about real persons, such as Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and lots of others. I find it outright stupid and utterly unprofessional to mix fictitious stuff with content about real things or persons. I have removed these boxes once already, but someone seems to believe they were needed. My suggestion for a better way of doing this would be to just use a list of such alleged heads (exists already at Priory of Sion) and to not use a succession box. What do you think? Lupo 18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let's not give this more weight than it is due. The list in the article should be fine. Rmhermen 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The priory is one of the most discredited conspiracy theories in existence, furthermore the claimed list here isn't even universal among people who claim that the priory did exist during that time period. They should all be removed, and someone should consider TfDing the template. If there are no further objections, I will go through removing the template. JoshuaZ 22:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is such a fringe theory that it certainly does not warrant a prominent succession template. Yes, a small note on the bottom of these articles (in the 'Alternative theories' section or something) would be appropriate, but that's about it.--Pharos 05:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I TfDed it. Johnleemk | Talk 06:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Skyring

I'm confused. Is User:AULDBITCH LOVES YOU a sock puppet of Skyring or not? The User:AULDBITCH LOVES YOU user page says that he is, but JTDirl says on Skyring's talk page that it is acceptted that he is not. Unless that's just JT's opinion? Arno 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed the standard skin?

Within the past couple weeks, I came to wikipedia and it looked compeletely different. I've switched to Cologne Blue as being the closest to what the default style used to be, but I'd really really like the old style back. Can anyone help with that?

Peerio

What is Wikipedia's view regarding the Peerio "serverless technology" design. Will it be the future's pathway to less hops and less reliance on super nodes delivering better QOS

70s hype

The 1970s section and mention of the 1970s in other sections is causing adverse comment - http://70struth.blogspot.com/2006/04/wikipedia-inaccurate-1970s-section.html - please can contributors contain their enthusiasm for the 1970s and ensure that all references to the decade are justified?

Frankly, to me that whole site looks suspicious. They seem to be out to prove that the 1970s didn't matter and see us as some kind of pro-1970s freaks (can anyone really be that excited about a decade?). A good way to deal with this issue would be to instead list specific events that undeniably occurred in the 1970s, perhaps as part of these movements, rather than broad movements that lasted over long periods. Deco 09:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think the 70s section is disproportionately large compared to other decades, that's why I gave the link to the "Why I Don't Love The 1970s" blog originally (just before I joined Wikipedia). The odd thing is, people are now waxing lyrical about the 1970s in a similar way to the enthusiasm for the 50s and 60s we experienced in the 70s and 80s. Trouble is, there seemed to be a consensus of opinion that the 50s and 60s were worth the enthusuasm, but there are many who disagree that the 70s are comparable.

I note that the blogger is an Englishwoman - I'm English, too, and believe me the amount of 70s "hype" we've had over here is very wearing! I agree with Deco that the 1970s section should be presented as undeniable 1970s occurring facts, and perhaps linked more to the adjacent decades where appropriate. Time is a constant stream. Decades are only human-made measurements of time.Andy Eng

Iambic Wikipedia

For a college assignment, I was given the following task: write ten lines of iambic pentameter, with some sort of rhyming pattern, on a topic of your choice. Here's my result (I know it's not very good: it's not even perfect I.P.!).

Imagine an encyclopedia,

Which anybody in the world could use.

Now imagine Wikipedia.

Updated daily, in-line with the news.

The updates are all done by volunteers,

In fact you could do some yourself!

Then the work is-checked over by your peers,

And no-one ever increases their wealth.

The excellently easy interface,

Makes Wikipedia a knowledge base.

So isn't that nice! Just thought it was worth mentioning!--Keycard ^(talk) 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, kick ass! Represent! Kafziel 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tables?

I've noticed that a few types of articles have specific tables associated with them--some communes, comic/manga/anime/cartoon characters, etc. I was just wondering where/how I could make a new table like this; I've been cleaning up articles, and a few are chemicals which could really use a table of characteristics (atomic weight, generic name, pH, boiling point, and so on). Does such a table exist already or what? (Of the form {{Category|Categoryname=Name}} Thanks! Tamarkot 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, there are several such tables. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Tamarkot 03:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

does any1...

does ne1 no of an online cult i could join?

You've already found one! We call ours Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales is our god-king. Most of our rituals involve collecting, categorizing, and sharing the sum of human knowledge. We're always ready to welcome newcomers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yolo Bypass

Is anyone familiar with Yolo Bypass (and any other important bypasses in Calfornia)? I've created a lot of articles on California rivers and I'm having trouble deciding how rivers should be classified and what their terminuses are, currently and historically. I've gotten conflicting information about Yolo Bypass. Some say it is completely artificial, while others say that it is natural but modified. I'm particularly interested whether Cache Creek and Putah Creek would flow into the Sacramento River if Yolo Bypass had not been built/modified and if the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel had not been dredged, in Putah Creek's Case. -- Kjkolb 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You may want to try a crosspost to the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject California and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. I was going to suggest the authors of the relevant articles, but I see you are the relevant author... - BanyanTree 02:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

GOOD THAT I AM NOT ADMIN

I WOULD BAN FNARF999 for 24 HOURS.
ALSO, I DISLIKE THE MENTION OF MY NEW USER ACCOUNT.
THIS IS NOT GOOD, AND GOES NOWHERE.

THIS GETS DELETED AFTER 7 DAYS.
MY USER TALK WAS SO MUCH VANDALIZED, THAT I ABANDONED THE ACCOUNT.

http://uk.360.yahoo.com/nikemoto2511

FULL OF USAGE OF COMPLETELY WRONG ENGLISH. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND IT.
I NEVER INVITED THESE PEOPLE. I DO NOT MIND PEOPLE READING IT.
WHY DON'T THEY MAKE THEIR OWN BLOG, ABOUT THEIR OWN LIFE?

User subpage

Hello. While I sympathise with the fustration of dealing with the language difficulty issues, I think it would be better if you deleted the sub page User_talk:Fnarf999/Akidd, as creating a page dedicatated to issues with one user is unhelpful to fostering a good enviornment, in the same way that User:Akidd dublin/cleanup/they toldme wasn't. As this page was deleted by creator request, I suggest that you do the same. Regards, MartinRe 16:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, and I will do so immediately. I created it as a reference to the many remarks of his, but I shouldn't have created it in Wikipedia. I'll take it offline. Fnarf999 17:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, that's cool. Thanks. MartinRe 17:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Followup, as per your request on another talk page, to delete a page without an Afd, you can use the speedy delete process (see WP:CSD for what criteria this can be used for) In this case, all you have to do is add {{db|owner request}} to the page, and an admin will drop by shortly and delete it. (Ps I'm not an admin myself) Regards, MartinRe 17:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(This is not related to wikipedia anymore) You are not neccessarily entitled to write about individuals. You do not own one line of my weblog. You are welcome to visit it/to publish the address of it, if you believe this makes sense. I would like to let you know, that Akidd_dublin is not longer taking communication. It has been abandoned. It is not because your unwanted communication. I had it in mind before that. It is not required that you safeguard my new articles, as it looks you are still new nere. At this place, i would like to discourage you to put further effort into the affair (i assume called VENDETTA by you), and the subject of evealuting my personal cyberspace (websites). You can do so (this means you are entitled to scroll my websites) within the TOS (terms of service) of your internet provider, of yahoo! inc., and other service providers. I hope there is no mistake within this decleration of non-interest, no-belong etc. Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 18:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sure, anything you say, Yy-bo. No mistake at all. But, you know, if you don't want people to read your blog, you shouldn't put it on the internet. 24.22.172.60 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)24.22.172.60 18:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I consider this pointless. People (in north america) can put their troubles to a weblog. I have desgined it to be un-personal. I do not invite fnarf999 to my new account. i can put other things to my weblog. i can put nearly anything to my weblog. it does not have to play wikipedia. personal worries should not carry one here. I have put my blog on the net. People can read it. It is not written for anyone. I have written two new articles. you (IP) do not have much claims about these new blog articles. just because they are not talking about you.

I suggest you write an own weblog. I am not taking ADDITIONAL TALK about the topics which were touched. You are not invited to my blog. I can switch off comments. Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you don't have to be in North America to write a blog! May I just point out that you are commenting HERE on my talk page, not on your blog, and I am responding to you HERE, not on your blog. Have I left comments on your blog? No.

If you have intelligible, constructive comments to make, make them. Fnarf999 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)