User talk:TeaDrinker/Archive4

Thanks re: my userpage

Thanks for catching that. I deleted his nonsense on my talk, but totally missed that - duh! Again, thanks a bunch, Vsmith 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. --TeaDrinker 02:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Global warming

TD, could you consider removing (or moving) your "strong opposition" remark from Option 2 at Talk:Global_warming#Option_2:? The involved admin, User:Mel Etitis, apparently just did a quick count for each option without reading carefully and came up with the wrong tally. I know that's not your problem, but maybe removing your comment could help avoid further confusion. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake; I thought I already had moved it; instead I just added a comment to the option 1. I can well imagine this would add to confusion. I have added strikeout to the old comment. Thanks for catching my mistake and all the hard work. --TeaDrinker 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lava Flats

Thanks for putting back the stub part and references to other pages; I forgot to put those back when removing the long, rambling nonsense about llamas and kittens and lava soccer. As a note, I'm not being labeled a 'previous vandalizer' for getting rid of the lava-licking garbage, am I? I don't see how that could be considered vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.209.225 (talk • contribs).

Happy to help out. By no means would your helpful edit be considered vandalism. My edit summary was refering to the vandal who added the information was the same who removed the categories and stub. Sorry that it was unclear. Thanks again and keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker 00:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, post talk-contributions on the *bottom* of the page. I can read, really. I'm glad to have helped!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.209.225 (talk • contribs).

No problem, just about everyone makes that mistake.  :-) --TeaDrinker 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Accountancy

Sure, these various accountancy concepts are individually valid, and an article onn accountancy should certainly contain them. What are not, by and large, is desrving of individual stub articles. A rediect to accountancy would, in my personal view, be wholly acceptable.--Anthony.bradbury 17:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, I am not an accounting expert, but I don't think it fits WP:CSD. My academic intuition tells me that there are probably histories and philosophical examinations of these ideas in the literature, so my tendancy is to keep them seperate to develop. --TeaDrinker 17:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Time Travel

"the future evidentally communicates primarily via text messaging" Lawsuit for muscular damage to my face and tear ducts is in the works :P WookMuff 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, silly vandalism deserves a silly revert. --TeaDrinker 06:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the links. They really help! Ernest lk lam 11:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad you found them useful. --TeaDrinker 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Global warming neutrality

I hope you noticed that there has been considerable discussion of the POV pushing and lack of neutrality in the into on the discussion page. It takes the form of few vs some arguments, etc. The "endorsements" are actually old and being used to support stronger more recent "conclusions" that did not even exist at the time. Will you discuss this on the dicussion page? --Africangenesis 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I been reading the discussion page for some time, and am familiar with the accusations of POV pushing, etc. I am not sure what you mean by endorsements, but I would be happy to discuss topics related to editing the article on the talk page. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker 23:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why are you removing Astrobotanist's edits? He is simply attempting to contribute to the Wiki community, in his own special way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.86.235.174 (talk • contribs).

Anyone can contribute, but they must (as you must) follow rules in doing so. --TeaDrinker 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Failure to uphold ideals

On the very home page, it states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", emphasis on those 3 words, and yet, my edits are being constantly, and without fail, removed. I am simply trying to contribute my opinion and knowledge to various articles, and to remove all of my posts and then claim that Wikipedia is an encylopedia on which "Anyone can post" is extremely disingenuous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrobotanist (talk • contribs). If I am banned for my next edit, I will be extremely disappointed in all of you.

Yep, anyone can edit, but there are still rules to follow. See the welcome page for more information about contributing. And please don't make legal-sounding threats, there is a rule about that too. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Consider this an official cease-and-desist order, Wikipedia" was not my statement, that was an edit from another individual that I promptly deleted, full aware that legal threats are not acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrobotanist (talk • contribs).

Thanks, I appreciate that. I was not sure if you and the anonomous editor were the same person. --TeaDrinker 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed not. I have never deleted entire articles, as I have seen take place today. By the by, I reviewed the "Five Pillars" of Wikipedia. So my contributions can be approved, so long as they share no single opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrobotanist (talk • contribs).

Not quite. There are multiple requirements, of course, but having been published in a reliable source is one of them (it can not be original research of your own). It also must reasonably and proportionally represent the major perspectives on a subject, even if published. More or less think, "would I see this in a suitably large, modern encyclopedia?" If not, there is probably a rule why not. Remember Wikipedia is writing an encyclopedia like any other; the difference is how it is being written, not what is being written. --TeaDrinker 23:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Vandalism

Only too happy to have helped out! Glad you appreciated it! Have a great evening! (Tea rocks btw...) Whiskey in the Jar 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Whisky ain't bad either! Thanks again. --TeaDrinker 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry for pasting that template on that guy's User page instead of talk page. Thanks for moving it for me.--Kkrouni 21:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, I hgave made the same mistake many times. Keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

The Tom Collins article I added actually did come from my Web site. I wrote it and it seems weird that I cannot have it shown on this site, but the other information/links can remain.--Notime007 20:59, 7 May 2007

Thanks for the note. I did not realize that you wrote the drinkswap page as well. My main concern was that it appeared to come from another website (particularly since it came from a site which contained a copyright notice). Copyrighted material with all rights reserved can not generally be used for article text (see copyright policy for more information). For the copyright, it would be sufficient to remove the copyright notice from your website and change it to a GFDL license notice. This license says you allow other people to edit and modify the text, redistribute it for any purpose (including commercial), so long as the modifications are themselves GFDL licensed.

As a secondary issue, I wonder if it might be possible to add sources for the text. I am a bit uncomfortable adding something which has two conflicting accounts of the history without descibing the sources or evidentiary basis for the accounts.

I am happy to help with anything editing related. Let me know if there is something else I can do. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 14:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

How do I recommend a page for speedy deletion? Thanks, --Solo1234 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to check is that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. There are several deletion paths, depending on how clear-cut the deletion is. Articles which meet the criteria for speedy deletion can be nominated for deletion by adding a deletion template to the top of the page. There are a lot of speedy deletion templates, but the most common ones are listed in the box on the right side of the criteria for speedy deletion page linked above. The generic tag is {{db|reason for deletion}}; just add that bit of code to the top of a page (substituting your reason for deletion), or to save time, use one of the specific tags listed at WP:CSD.

If an article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but still violates policy or otherwise should be deleted, you can nomiate it for deletion through the article for deletion or proposed deletion process. Article for deletion (AfD) is a three step process, with the specific instructions at the bottom of the article for deletion page. Proposed deletion is for articles where the deletion is not probably going to be controversial. To prod an article, as it is called, just add {{prod|reason for deletion}} to the top of the page. Unlike speedy deletion or AfD, anyone can remove the prod tag, in which case it should be moved to articles for deletion.

That is a lot of information. The main thing to article deletions is

1. If it meets criteria for speedy deletion, add a {{db}} tag
2. If not, add a {{prod}} tag.
3. If the prod tag is removed (which anyone can do), nominate it for article for deletion
4. Always keep in mind that the author of the article is probably going to be disappointed that their article was nominated for deletion; it is important to be as nice to them as possible. Some misunderstand Wikipedia, most have not read all the policies (has anyone?), but most mean well and really want to improve Wikipedia.

Let me know if I can help with anything, or if you have any questions. Best wishes and thanks for the note! --TeaDrinker 01:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links?

I would like to add at least one major article on the climate solutions debate that ran in Environmental Finance in November. The journal is fine with it. What do you think?

Staceff 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and crossposted your question to Talk:Climate_change#External_Links.3F, together with my reply. It will probably reach a broader audience that way (climate issues are pretty widely discussed). Thanks for the note. --TeaDrinker 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism rv

It was a pleasure, I assure you. Whiskey in the Jar 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bramhall

Not understanding some Wikipedia things the way perhaps some people do, I made an error. You correctly picked me up on it, and I have now removed the comments you specifically said were in breach of NPOV. bluetuliproseread 00:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit more concerned with the general tone, but I will take a look and comment on the talk page of the article. Thanks, in any event, for the work. --TeaDrinker 07:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help! --TeaDrinker 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I must have deleted his article at one time, so now I have a "fan". =) -- Gogo Dodo 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the joys of watching recent changes. All the best, --TeaDrinker 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks yet again. Not sure where that one came from at all. =\ Oh, well. =) -- Gogo Dodo 21:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all; it must mean you're doing something right to annoy vandals like that. --TeaDrinker 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a habit. Thanks times four. =) -- Gogo Dodo 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. --TeaDrinker 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aw Gee

Thanks for the brown brainstorm star of atta-boyishness. Keep on editing... =^)

a/k/a jguad1

You are certainly welcome, and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

re Riot Jazz

C'mon, you're going to have to come up with something better than "that's what the band members call it". You need some third party use of the term, in reviews or articles or whatever. Herostratus 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I replied on the talk page. --TeaDrinker 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hey, you're welcome. I'm discovering that all of a sudden, recent changes of User pages is not being manned/womanned as well as it usually is.... And I'm trying to clear the ones who got through. We're brothers all the same. So, you're totally welcome! aJCfreak yAkBaK 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with Vandal

I protected the Nas Discography page because of content dispute and offered MykeType to resolve our dispute over the content in the article talk page. He continues to edit over the protection and does not respect the protection. I sent him a message regarding this and has done nothing to help accomplish a resolution. Can you help me? he has been warned by administration already, I dont want to be banned because of the 3RR rule, but I keep protecting the page from edits everytime he edits over it.--Moderator 14:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, and thanks for the note. The {{protected}} tag is generally only used when a page has been protected by an administrator (full protection actually locks editors from making edits--no way to get around it). Only an administrator can actually protect an article; the tag itself does nothing. Since I am not an admin, I don't think I can help in this regard.

To request protection for an article, you can put a note at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It may also be wise to start a discussion on the article's talk page explaining the reasons for your edit and/or issues with MykeType's version. At present, both of you are blocked for three revert rule violations, so this may have to wait until you are able to edit again. --TeaDrinker 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Chuck Norris

The user Hellfirespectre has vandalized the Chuck Norris entry since your last correction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Norris&diff=133362896&oldid=133304654 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.19.210.8 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for the alert! I have gone ahead and reverted it. Feel free to contact me again if there is anything I can help with. Incidentally, if you are interesting in fighting vandalism (an ongoing problem here on Wikipedia), you may want to check out WP:VAND for some resources, and Help:Reverting for information on how to revert. You can also register an account (it is free and requires no personal information), which gives some other resources which are useful (see WP:REG for information). In any event, thanks and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 07:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Global warming and Supply chain network

Hello TeaDrinker: There is a direct connection between Supply chain network and global warming as it is the supply chain which generates all of the carbon emissions from businesses globally. Supply chain network logistical tools can be used to calculate, optimize and reduce carbon emissions on an ongoing basis. There are also many other actions that supply chain network operators can take to fight global warming in a systematic way.

There is a reference to this on the Supply chain network page at the bottom and I plan to write more about this when I get the opportunity.

Not sure what is involved in adding the Supply chain network article to the Supply chain page, but I have no objection to this.

Thanks for your comments and interest!

Scmexpert 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Most of the global warming article is focused on the science of global warming, rather than the range of actions which might be used to mitigate them (there are lots of such actions). But perhaps that is a discussion better left for Talk:Global warming. --TeaDrinker 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image removal

Thank you for the message,TeaDrinker. I'm removing not just images, but my own images only, because I no longer feel comfortobale to place them at Wikipedia pages myself. Best regards, Mbz1 19:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Thanks for the note and clarification. I can only wish that there were more editors were contributing images like yours. I wouldn't want you to feel uncomfortable, but take it from me: the images are great and I think contribute tremendously to the articles. If there is anything I can do or help with, let me know. --TeaDrinker 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, TeaDrinker.

Mbz1 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Welcome

Thanks, pal! Osquillar 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome, let me know if there is anything I can do to help! --TeaDrinker 23:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Charismatic megafauna

You merged this article back into megafauna without discussion. I gave my reasoning for the split at Talk:Charismatic megafauna; also, it survived this AfD at which no one suggested a merger, but expanding the article. Please don't merge again without gaining consensus. The way, the truth, and the light 18:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. It is strange since I could have sworn there was no talk page on Talk:Charismatic megafauna when I looked before merging. I must have simply missed it. I really didn't think it would be controversial, but since there is need for discussion I will tag it appropriately. Thanks for catching my oversight and bringing it to my attention. --TeaDrinker 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Element115 Listing

This is not an advertisement; this is a description on a national software and services company in the USA. We are reputable and reference able in the major healthcare provider, information technology circles of influence. If you look at the category of "content management" software and services you will clearly see we add value to this site. We are unique in our field due to our in-depth healthcare expertise. Healthcare institutions seek us for consulting and guidance for their Web initiatives. Recently we were written up in the following technology industry publication:

http://www.integratedsolutionsmag.com/index.php?option=com_jambozine&layout=article&view=page&aid=5482

Thanks for the note and link. As a general rule, editors who are personally involved with an article subject (such as being an employee of a company) should refrain from editing those articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). I will go ahead and add the link you suggested to the article, since it does help address notability (although is quite short of WP:CORP to my read of the guidline). Thanks, --TeaDrinker 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Gondola Spider

I found the newspaper article about the gondola spider, it's in swedish but I have a photograph of the article. You can find it at following link;

http://www.fuskbugg.se/pub/misc/P5220060.JPG

You can see Ohmdahls name, 'spindel' which is spider in Swedish, 'venedig' which is Venice in Swedish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.175.29 (talk • contribs).

I do see a headline involving a "Gigantic spider" and I assume this comes from Svenska Dagbladet. Perhaps if you could give me the date and page of the article, along with the full title, I could find it in print. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can see the headline "igantisk spindel funn" which is actually supposed to be "gigantisk spindel funnen" if you 'repair' the words. "Gigantisk spindel funnen" means "Giant spider found" in Swedish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.175.29 (talk • contribs).

Is that the complete title? What is the date of the article and who wrote it? --TeaDrinker 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

No worrys mate, any time--AdamJWC 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pleistocene megafauna

I have no objections and as such have removed nothing from the article, only added to it. Perhaps those who object so strongly that they revert my additions should discuss their objections, then we might have somewhere to start. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethel Aardvark (talk • contribs).

Unhappily, I sent the matter over to the three revert rule notice board. Repeated reversions is not the way to solve this problem. I will start a new discussion on Talk:Megafauna (although there already is some there). --TeaDrinker 06:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't seem you started a heading there. Did you mean Talk:Pleistocene megafauna? The way, the truth, and the light 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How embarassing, I actually wrote a section; I wonder if it did not save... No matter, I will add it. Thanks for spotting it! --TeaDrinker 07:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (again)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help! --TeaDrinker 06:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to your message

I decided to delete the userpage, especialy since that user has no other contributions and has been registered for quigte a while, and left him a message about it. Academic Challenger 20:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it, if there is anything I can help with from here, let me know. --TeaDrinker 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I screw up a lot

BABOON MAN has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! --TeaDrinker 05:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Canderson7

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I appreciate it. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help! --TeaDrinker 02:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:TALK

I believe you just reverted a comment of mine on a talk page. I think that was in violation of the WP:TALK#Others.27_comments guideline. 75.35.110.164 02:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up your concern and the link to the appropriate guidline. However in a hotly contested article stating, without further discussion or comment, that something in the article violates one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, will inevitably generate more heat than light. Your specific addition was to a list which everyone was invited to edit, and so I felt no qualms about removing an item which I did not feel added anything to the discussion. Let me know if this does not answer your concerns. --TeaDrinker 06:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not. The guideline clearly forbids editing other's statements on talk pages. How could you possibly believe that you were in accordance with that? 75.35.110.164 15:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your concern. I do feel that a collaborative list, even if it is on the talk page, is something which is reasonable to edit. I will note that your addition to the list, in a way, edited someone else's comment. Of course, it is not an issue since everyone was invited to make such edits. In the same way, I would argue, removing an item from that list is not what the talk page guidlines were trying to get at. I hope that JamesS's compromise is acceptable to you, however if is not acceptable resolution to this problem, let me know what else you would like done. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On reviewing your history [1], it seems clear that you are in fact JamesS/User:Nrcprm2026. I apologize for the confusion, and I can understand your concern. I read the addition of WP:NPOV as unhelpful at best. Most people who edit that article are experienced editors, so saying they're position violates a major policy, without any further explanation, is something will only inflame rather than clarify. Obviously, no experienced editor would see "WP:NPOV" as an argument against their posisiton (since they believe their actions are in line with it). In short, I saw it as trolling or, to be more charitable, an error made by a new editor. Its presence in, what appeared to me to be, a collaboratively written list seemed to indicate the appropriate action to take would be to remove the item (alternatively, of course, if I took the list to be a simple comment, since you were not logged in, I would likewise have removed the "WP:NPOV" addition as refactoring someone else's comment). As far as the substance of the section, I have not carefully read the section so I have not formed an opinion on what the article should contain (being somewhat tied down with work outside Wikipedia). However, in light of this exchange and its relevance, I will do so as soon as possible. Thanks again for bringing this to me, and if you're still unhappy with this resolution, feel free to discuss it further or suggest what else you'd like to see done. --TeaDrinker 16:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

First time help

Thank you for your help with sorting out my Category box and for sending me the welcome page, I'm assuming it was you.

Blueturtle01 18:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help, and thanks for your contribution! All the best, --TeaDrinker 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 19:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, why should the vandal be banned? Let me count the ways... Happy to help and keep up the good work! --TeaDrinker 19:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

uw-v1

• CTRL+V is even faster :P  Trinexx  ►  05:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah the wonders of modern technology... I will have to check that out; thanks for the tip! --TeaDrinker 07:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAQ

I moved the FAQ because it was on a talk page when the FAQ itself is not a talk page. So I put it on the article section so people could use the talk section for its intended purpose, to talk. I did not move the FAQ because I really wanted to or because I wanted to somehow exact revenge. So I will now undo your editing and make the page so it makes sense.--Peace²³⁷ 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and I better understand your concern. However I think there is substantial opposition to the move, so perhaps it would be better to discuss the move on Talk:Evolution and try and reach consensus with other editors. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I need to take one of these because I have been grounded permanently from the computer. Just go ahead and take my username out of the system, cuz I won't be back. I'll be "festering." Festering Rat Corpse 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Festering Rat Corpse

Thanks for the update. There is no way to remove your username from the system at present. If you would like to be blocked from editing, feel free to state it on your talk page. However the best think to do at present, however, is simply not log in or use your account. --TeaDrinker 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lost page

Hi TeaDrinker You kindly sent me a welcome page last week. Now I cannot find it for the life of me and it's not in my history. Do you know where I would find it now please, so that I can add it to favourites. Thanks. Blueturtle01 16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Howdy and thanks for the note! I think the welcome message you're thinking of is at User_talk:Blueturtle01, which is your talk page (although that message was actually sent by User:Adrian M. H., I believe). You can get to your talk page at any time by clicking the "my talk" link at the very top of the screen (when logged in), or if you want to use keyboard shortcuts, alt-n. Is that what you are thinking of? --TeaDrinker 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was what I was thinking of. Thank you for the advice. Blueturtle01 19:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help, let me knoe if there is anything else I can do. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 19:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard work editing Wikipedia. Solo1234 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! You have made my day! --TeaDrinker 18:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar you sent me

I don't know what I did to deserve it but thank you :)--Sandahl 05:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Use page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. --TeaDrinker 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks....

...for the reverts on my userpage - I guess you got to repay the favour (although it is down to you that I got hit in the first place!!) :-P Ryan Postlethwaite 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. Summer must be making the young 'un restless. --TeaDrinker 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

*snerk*

"Not the binary Wikipedia" cracked me up. And, like many of my days here, I needed a chuckle. Cheers. -- Merope 02:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you belive I actually considered translating it into ASCII to see what it said? --TeaDrinker 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Not used to this wikipedia talk pages yet... too spoiled (ruined) by myspace and IMing. I'll be expanding the Mint section for pure selfish reasons (I need the information to expand my mint garden, and figured I'd organize it all in a place where I can easily access it). Jeremywosborne 01:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages do take a bit of getting used to. I too was spoiled by vBulletin discussion boards before coming here. Compared to those kind of set-ups, this is a bit like a giant sheet of butcher paper... It takes getting used to. In any event, keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my userpage. :)--Ramdrake 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I am happy to help. It looks like the user was blocked for a week. Hopefully that will be the end of it. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Old Friend, New Problem

Hello Sir, you helped me a long time ago in establishing a page for Austin Ryan Fuentes however in the last few days its come under attack as several people, mostly from USC have placed an AfD on in after more then a year online and in my view justified existance, can you please vist the AfD forum regarding this issue and make a positive/keep comment I would certainly appreciate it, in the mean time I am going to try to contact Mr. Fuentes himself to get his imput, his grandfathers page, John Duran which I also helped restore is also under AfD albeit with less "personal-attacks" I am happy to make my argument on both pages but I think I've fallen on deft ears and frankly I think that it is personal for whatever reason (moreso in regards to Fuentes). In regards to Fuentes if he should not be in existance then other persons such as Cassandra Mann should not either for she although having a similar social-status has done far less for society and has no personal wealth of her own or notable philanthropy or credit in a movie(s) yet she has her page and is oddly enough maintained by the same person trying to AfD my contributions Thanks Bruce12 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look into it. --TeaDrinker 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:UBX

I noticed a user creating userboxes in the UBX space, particularly User:UBX/Waifs and User:UBX/Waifs2. Is this part of your move or should these be moved to the user's space? --TeaDrinker 01:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but it doesn't bother me at all. It wasn't the intended purpose of the account, but I really have no problems with it. If it bothers you in any way, shape, or form, though, feel free to move them out of User:UBX's space. :-) —METS501 (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick attention. I have no problems with the boxes (other than the fair use issue which caught my attention and prompted my edits to them) but I wanted to make sure the location was on the up and up. Keep up the great work, --TeaDrinker 01:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) —METS501 (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

David Orrell

Hi TeaDrinker,
Although we have not always agreed I do trust your reasonableness and I thought I could ask for your feeling about this discussion and its current outcome. I'll understand if you do not wish to share your view. In any event, good day and sorry for asking... --Childhood's End 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and the kind words. I will certainly take a look. --TeaDrinker 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

"I humbly accept the Editor's Barnstar. I'd like to thank the Academy, and all the little people...."

Oops, sorry. I drifted off into Bad Oscar Ceremony Land there. Thank you very much for the Barnstar. I'll post it on my user page in just a bit.

As for being an admin, one of my best friends (User:Helmsb), himself an admin and one of the quizzers on the Bible Quiz team I used to coach (badly), has been trying to get me to go for admin status for some time. I'm of two minds on this. Much of my work is new-page patrol, and a lot of that involves slapping speedy tags on as much of the garbage that comes in as possible. I like the fact that I'm not the one who makes the final call on whether or not an article gets the proverbial gong, just in case I'm being too hasty, though in most cases it's obvious. OTOH, when it is obvious, it might be handy to be able to dispatch the offending article on the spot.

I admit I'm a bit sloppy about edit summaries. I need to work on that.

Let me think it over. I'm going to be out of action for a while pretty soon, so I won't do anything until I get back. But thanks again for the compliment. It is very much appreciated. Realkyhick 02:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your caution is admirable, although judging by your contributions it looks like your judgement on speedy deletions seems pretty sound. It seems pretty rare that you tag an article and it is moved to prod or AfD, much less kept. In addition to patrolling new pages, of course, you could also look over the articles which other editors tagged for deletion and keep that backlog to a minimum. I am confident that getting you the admin tools would benefit the project. In any event, keep up the great work an have a good break from Wikipedia. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome and question

Thank you for the welcome, TeaDrinker. I do have a question for you regarding external links: I vaguely remember reading in Wiki:EL that if an external link exists in two articles and more directly belongs in one more than the other, it should be removed from the one with the indirect connection. But, rereading Wiki:EL just now, I can't find that specific reference.

Case in point: There is an article about the architect Jean Nouvel and an article about the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis (whose new building is designed by Jean Nouvel). Both articles contain external links to Ateliers Jean Nouvel website. The Guthrie article contains a link to the Jean Nouvel article. It seems to me that the external link the Ateliers Jean Nouvel website properly belongs in only the Jean Nouvel article. Your thoughts?

(Apologies for the moving post... I'm still learning how to communicate on Wikipedia)

Bfx12a9 23:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note (and sorry it took as long as it did to reply, I have been off wiki for the past day or so). I wouldn't hesitate to remove an external link which you find of only marginal relevance, and I would completely agree with your assessment of the link. In fact, I could find no information about the theater on the Nouvel website. I agree it seems reasonable to remove the link. If someone does want to keep it in, you can discuss it on the talk page, but I don't think it is likely. Keep up the great work, and feel free to write me a note again if there is anything else I can help with. --TeaDrinker 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I recently had a message from you saying I vandalized something? If you could please explain to me what I did that was vandalism, I would appreciate it. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.0.111.66 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for contacting me about this. The message I sent you was in reference to this edit, which appears to be a reference to a Stephen Colbert show. The joke (inserting some variant of the phrase "Reality is a commodity" into the article) has been done many, many times, and wears a bit thin. If you did not make the edit, then you may wish to register an account (this will prevent the recipt of unintended messages). All the best, --TeaDrinker 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I talked to my roommate about it, and he assured me that he had not edited it. My only conclusion is that someone broke the passcode on my wireless router, which I will be promptly changing shortly. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.0.111.66 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for your attention and prompt action. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 23:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Law of Time as Original Research

Hi Teadrinker, just received your msg because you thought the Law of Time portal is OR. Well, it isn't, it is a compendium of revolutionary science started by Jose Arguelles and continued by many. But I have no promotional interests, so, first I was thinking of hosting this at wikia or some other wiki farm, just chose Wikipedia because this is Public and Enciclopedic info, in order to avoid duplicates. Please tell me if you think it it shouldnt be in Wikipedia and I may move the project to Wikia. I just want to start the portal to make the initiative so other people from around the world start making articles about all the diverse subjetcs this science comprises. Thank you very much. --Kamazeuci 00:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I am not familiar enough with Wikia projects to give any useful advice about it. Wikipedia is perhaps the best known Wiki project, however it has some pretty restrictive about what can go into it. While it is a place for documenting existing knowledge, there are several things to consider. Articles are a good place for documenting existing knowledge (published in reliable sources), however it is not really a place to host a project on expanding this knowledge or documenting generally unknown technical aspects of it. A reference on what material Wikipedia usually uses is (the somewhat unfortunately titled) Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Rarely are the technical aspects of science outside of the mainstream documented on Wikipedia, because are not covered in third party sources.

My feeling is that Wikipedia is not really what you're looking for, and the content is not really what Wikipedia does. But we'll see what other people think. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing link spam

As you keep removing a link to a lasagna recipe as link spam, I have taken the liberty of finishing the job for you by removing the others that were left behind due to reasons only known by you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.33.206.56 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for the effort, I agree those links should also have been removed. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 19:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome :) --Woodchuckk 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely welcome. --TeaDrinker 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Yeah, sorry about that, but I know these people and they wanted me to add them onto their pages. I should have said that before. They go to my school. --LegaliseCannabis 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. It appears I was mistaken, sorry about the vandalism warning. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)