User talk:Sbandrews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Wind farms in the UK 3 Vorticella 4 Vorticella shape 5 Talk:List of RSPB reserves 6 empathy 7 Energy efficiency in British housing 8 Economics_of_global_warming#Optimal strategies for mitigation 9 portal watch function 10 Renewable energy in Scotland 11 Wikipedians who maintain the energy portal 12 Climate of Mars 13 unrelated links 14 Picture of the Year 2006 15 Indian Mathematics 16 Martian global warming 17 Request for review 18 Climate of Mars cleanup 19 Mars 20 Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mars 21 Regarding your entry 22 Undone revision 23 Geology or geography 24 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies 25 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies 26 War of the Worlds 27 Tzuriel Raphael 28 Phycology 29 Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Sbandrews, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alias Flood 00:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wind farms in the UK

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wind farms in the UK on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and congratulations on your work on this topic! Gralo 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vorticella

Really liked the photos - I was hoping someone would come up with good images. As for tomatos, how about a small greenhouse ! We are swimming in tomatos and Capiscums at the moment - journey from plant to table is about 20 feet. Regards Mrs Trellis 09:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vorticella shape

It was not my invention to call it "inverted bell". If you google for the term, you will be surprized how many flowers are desribed as "inverted bell" (e.g Hesperaloe parviflora snd more), although, as with vorticella, flowers may rgow in any direction. I have no idea why botanists use the term, but they do. I may guess this may be related to preferred direction, i.e., they "pop up", rather than "hang down". `'mikka (t) 14:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:List of RSPB reserves

Hi - could I point you towards this page as you have contributed to this list (& still are active). I think it could be improved but would rather have a wider range of views. If you are not interested sorry to bother you. Regards --Herby ^{talk to me} 10:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] empathy

Hi, if it was you that left a message on my Wiktionary page – I've updated the etymology to try and make it clearer. (Horrible word!) Widsith 13:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy efficiency in British housing

Hi SB, thanks for your input! I've made a couple of changes to the text to clarify the overall situation, but in relation to your specific question, 42mt domestic / 159mt total for 1990 x 100 = 26.42% (which I've added as a note to the 'edit' page). Regards Gralo 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economics_of_global_warming#Optimal strategies for mitigation

So a kid tax iseugenics, but a carbon tax is perfectly self explantory and needs no citation???? I'm confused. How is a carbon tax easier to understand than birth control?? Has economics degenerated to the point where you have to give references to explain that population size influences the economy??? do you really need a reference for 1+1=2??? How about http://dieoff.org/page27.htm (search on warming) I self referenced to Wikipedia because i thought it would be correct obviously someone messed up. I guess I could try and go back and fix the reference for whoever did it, but why do that when i could just complain about it!
Lee Wells 12:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] portal watch function

I am trying to see if I can set up a portal with watch functions - can you test this out to see if it works for people other than me + do you know any portal template experts who could help with the unwatch functionality? regards sbandrews 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just seeing a box with your text "This is just a test....." Gralo 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You could try asking at WikiProject_Portals? Gralo 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I tried to put a watch function on the Portal:Energy intro box - does it work for you? sbandrews 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing immediately obvious, but perhaps I need to leave it until someone changes something?? Incidentally, this is interesting.... Gralo 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, you should be seeing a 'watch' button now in the top right of every sub-box next to the 'edit' button - but oh well, at least I didn't break anything :) cool link btw - good to see Portal:Energy doing well, regards sbandrews 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes - I can see that! Sorry, I was looking in the box / for changes, not on the box title bars. A worthwhile modification :-) Keep up the good work! Gralo 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

hooray :) sbandrews 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're still around, you might like to cast your eye over the main introduction on the portal, which I've just rewritten to try to make it, well, more interesting... Gralo 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You also need to watch Portal:Energy/box-header & Template:EnergyPortalNavbar Gralo 02:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renewable energy in Scotland

Wow - many thanks indeed! Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians who maintain the energy portal

Hi. As explained a little here, there is now an all new sleek black user box for those who actively maintain the energy portal. I would be honoured if you would care to add it to your user page; you help is much appreciated! Details at Portal talk:Energy. Also, I think we might be getting close to asking for a Wikipedia:Portal peer review soon... Gralo 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

coolio, like the userbox and a peer review is a good idea - I just signed up as a volunteer Template:PortalReviewVolunteers/List however that works, (if at all :), regards sbandrews 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked the box, it's good to have company :-)

I've been reading through a lot of reviews of featured portals, so have a reasonable idea of where we're at - main problems are the need to change the content quicker (no big surprise), and having old news hanging about. I'll be taking a look at both of those next week, I hope, prior to PR.

Because the page is so long since now, I'm planning to split off the categories and topic links to a separate tabbed page. Perhaps you could take a look at this new page? Did have the blue title larger, but there were problems in IE so had to reduce it (still cuts a sliver off the bottom, but OK until can find someone technical to fix it - unless it looks bad in your browser?) Shouldn't take look to convert the main page, once I've the OK from you. Incidentally, the existing introduction "In society, the word energy is most often used in the context" will stay, but will come below the new title box... Gralo 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

yup it looks good, the category browser is nifty - not seen one of those before - good to cut the page down a bit, don't want to overwhelm people, and at the same time good to have all that info on another page - I have IE too so I guess it looks the same for me as you. I'll keep an eye on your changes, lookin forward to the PR sbandrews 01:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Up and running! Spotted another problem afterwards with IE - sure it wasn't happening yesterday - but have documented the issues here, and have put in a request at Village Pump (technical).

ye iv'e noticed that bug before - but never as bad as that. The portal is looking great! One small thing, maybe the new tabs for Explore topics & categories and Mainpage need to be highlighted because people aren't used to them and may miss the new feature which would be a shame - perhaps increase the text size a tad - or even (shock) a change of colour (green maybe) until peeps catch on? Otherwise coolio all round :) Regards sbandrews 00:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK; major problems resolved & portal review request made - though as a portal maintainer I'm not sure that you're supposed to participate! Am also suggesting that wikiprojects get involved in preparing future selected articles (see here, for example).... Gralo 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate of Mars

Thanks for all your hard work on this article, its looking better all the time. Mishlai 19:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ty, it's kind of an addictive topic, especially those intriguing swiss cheese features - and to think I never would have thought about it at all except for that crazy MGW article :) kind regards sbandrews 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. ; ) ~ Rameses 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unrelated links

Hi. I removed the two scientist's names from the see alsos because it is not standard at wikipedia to put do this; you won't find any lunar or martian scientist names at Moon or Mars, and if you had to add them, the list would be very long. Of course the two people are related to the topic, but there is no relevant infomation on their page. Besides, there are other people who I think are better known for martian climate studies, and picking these two is somewhat arbitary. If you reference one of their papers, then their name will be wiki-linked. In any case, feel free to put them back if you feel strongly about it. Cheers. Lunokhod 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the Year 2006

I assert to have voted for 2 in the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition and to be the same as commons:user:sbandrews. sbandrews 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Mathematics

Thanks for your very helpful comments! I have to confess that I did feel crummy about leaving all those unsightly "fact" tags everywhere, but I did it, in part, because I was getting ever more frustrated about having anything and everything I added swiftly removed by Freedom skies (and before him another editor). The funny thing is that I can actually provide better citations for many of the Vedic Mathematics' less ludicrous claims than the ones currently there. Maybe that could be an area for cooperation (in light of your suggestions). I'll try to address it on the talk page. Thanks again for taking the time to be so helpful! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

you are most welcome, kind regards sbandrews 22:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martian global warming

Hi. I've reverted your edits at Martian global warming because they went against the Articles for Deletion discussion, which had no clear consensus and thus resulted in a keep by default. If you would like a second hearing, please appeal the AFD at Deletion Review. Thanks and happy editing! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

from WP:AfD - "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected...." - the consensus was clearly for merge, however, if you prefer keep, I bow to your judgment, happy editing sbandrews 09:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review

Hi, I have carfted a version for Indian mathematics. The version can be accessed here.

Kindly compare the version with the present Indian mathematics article, the version which to which I edited earlier and the version prior to my involvement:-

I have:-

• Removed every single peice of quotation. The quotations ranged from glowing praises by Lapalce and Einstein to critisisms by Professor Dani. The material may belong under "Indian mathematics" on Wikiquote but it clearly will not find it's place in Encyclopedia Britannica.

• Provided citations for extraordinary cases. I will in time provide citations for the whole of the article.

• Removed the very odd "Charges of Eurocentrism", which is based on personal opinions and in it's best form may find place in a newspaper or a magazing article but certainly does not belong in this logbook of knowledge.

It would be helpful if you voiced your opinion on which version to keep. Please forgive the minor mistakes, if any, in grammer and puncuation. Since some editors have been aggressive and meanacing, I have had the uncharecteristic inclination to work on Wikipedia through my exams and I will make a check for these mistakes. Regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the quotations are rather long - however, rather than remove them it would be better to first request the OP of the quote, or other editors, to rewrite it in a more Wikipedia like style, thus improving the article rather than just taking it back a step - such a request could be made on the articles talk page, possible giving a suggested reworking for them to consider. sbandrews 10:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Charges of Eurocentrism section has substantial referencing, suggesting that there is a body of literature adressing the issue - do you think that the references are incorrect? Editors of Wikipedia tend to add to the parts of articles that interest them - few editors are impartial. Perhaps you could add a critique of the section with a few counter references to balance it out? kind regards sbandrews 10:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Greetings, I was involved in the RfC in Indian mathematics. My efforts were directed towards creating a version such as this one, as compared to the this, this and this version. My efforts initially began with removing misrepresentation of quotaions and then I tried providing some of the "citations needed" tags with actual citations. The situation resulted into an RfC, timed during my examinations, to which I could admittedly, not work on adequately. Fowler&fowler has asked me to work with him but since I am sitting my examinations and the article has been edited extensively since the RfC by other editors I no longer can keep up the pace. My exams will continue and after that I will be leaving, taking a few days off WP. I have reviewed my future with the Indian mathematics article, and have come to the conclusion that since I am under time constraints and am under such pressure in real life that adequate responses or editing actions on "Indian mathematics" are just not possible for me right now. I can't contribute to it in the manner that I usually would; it would be unethical to the extreme to ask the other editors, who have wished me well during my examination, to wait. The article is under the watch of many good editors and I see and hope that it's quality benefits from the present situation. Many regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate of Mars cleanup

Thanks for the consult. I agree that the cleanup tag can be removed. Oren0 01:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mars

Many thanks for your helpful comments on the Mars FAC, they have proven an invaluable guide and I am very pleased with the improvement they have generated in the article, kind regards sbandrews 18:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; you're entirely too kind. Good luck with your FAC nomination. — RJH (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mars

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mars, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Cut-and-paste move of Wikipedia:WikiProject Martian Geography, with minor changes to lead - delete and perfom proper move, and then re-adjust the lead.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your entry

You made an entry on my sandbox stating that temperature data was readily available [1] and on the Talk page you promised a citation.[2] You have not provided one. Indeed it would be difficult to provide a relevant citation since the information being requested has not been made available. You can read comment #43 on this thread to learn more about the issue of unarchived data. [3] If work is to be called science, the researcher must archive his data and his methods. Information must include not just the raw data, but also what stations were used and what information was relied on regarding the history of the stations. Auditors will want to know if the data was homogeneous or not and whether the data was treated as homogeneous or not and what adjustments were made. Phil Jones has not provided this information and is still not cooperating with requests for it. The auditors involved are fully expecting to have to file a lawsuit to get the required information. These are the facts as I know them. I am going to remove your entry for the time being.RonCram 03:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Roncram, forgive me if I was rather slow to continue the debate, but I don't have easy access to a library. You state that that Mann et al. 'do not .... make available their data and methods' - this I decided to investigate. I looked up a typical hockey stick paper - Mann and Jones, Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia - Geophysical Research Letters, 30 No 15 CLM 5 . I have to say I was dissapointed with your position - the paper devotes nearly half its length detailing its data sources and methods. Most of the data seems to be taken from the published work of others, e.g yang el al 2002, D'Arrigo et al 2001 etc etc. My question for you, how is it you can accuse Mann of withholding his data when the data he uses is not even his own and appears in other publicly available scientific papers? sbandrews 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sbandrews, of course I forgive you. I also am not always able to respond quickly. However, this is an important issue and I am eager to get the matter resolved. Were you able to visit any of the links I provided that discussed the withholding of data and methods? I am afraid that at this moment you do not understand the full extent of the issue, including withholding computer code. In the latest post, you mention Mann who has withheld code and has tried to stonewall on a number of data sharing issues. The source code was one of the most difficult, but eventually Mann turned over the code. The actions of Phil Jones are also very much an issue and may result in a lawsuit (although recently Pat Frank of Stanford has been arguing to just reconstruct the temperature record in a full and open manner in order to shame Jones into releasing his data and methods). I have put together a few links for you to peruse to get a better handle on the issues and the amount of discussion and controversy that has been generated so far. Please take a look. The first three involve Mann. Then one on Jones and several others on the issue at large.

Mann on Source Code [4]

Title to MBH98 Source Code [5]

MBH98 Source Code Status Report [6]

East Anglia (Phil Jones) Refusal Letter [7]

Nature’s list [8]

An Open Letter to Science [9]

A Reply from Science [10]

Reply to Science regarding information request [11]

Mass General Hospital on Data Withholding [12]

Scientific Misconduct [13]

Replication Policy [14]

More on NSF Data Archiving Policies [15]

Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science [16]RonCram 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

roncram, your answer is unfortunately not persuasive, for two reasons, but I will concentrate on the most important, namely you do not answer my post at all. Why do I need to visit these links when I have the paper in question here in front of me. A simple question for you - do you have a copy of this paper? sbandrews^t 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sbandrews, I have one or two of Mann's papers on my other computer - not on this one. I am not sure if I have the GRL paper or not. However, I am familiar with MBH98 and I know there is no possible way his data, methods and code could be provided in the original MBH98 paper. Some of his data was referred to in his paper. Some of his methods were discussed in the paper. It is standard practice for journals to require authors to archive their data and methods so if other scientists want to replicate their work, it can be done. Mann has not done this and journals have allowed several authors (quite often climate scientists) exemptions from this requirement. This has led to several scandals. If you have followed the history of this controversy at all, you would know that getting Mann to disclose all of his data and methods has been a huge issue. If Mann has reformed his practices so that his data and methods are freely available, that would be welcome news. Also, the original entry you made related to Jones and not Mann. You have failed to discuss the Refusal Letter from East Anglia. It appears you wish to keep your present position by choosing to not be in possession of the facts. I do not know how you can be persuaded if you refuse to read the links provided.RonCram 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

roncram, we must put this discussion on hold for a few days while I get a copy of MBH98, I can't discuss what I haven't read, regards sbandrews (t) 19:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sbandrews, no matter which paper is being discussed, you are not going to know how inadequate the data and methods supplied are unless you actually try to replicate the reported results. RonCram 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

roncram, you cannot change the target like that, not with me anyway, either the data is available or it is not, that was your assertion, are you backing down now? sbandrews (t) 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am not backing down. And I am not changing the subject. I'm trying to explain the subject to you. I am not saying the authors do not provide ANY information. I AM saying they do not provide enough. I am trying to point out to you that the people who authored the links you have refused to read have actually tried to replicate the results of Mann and Jones. McIntyre finally got enough information to replicate Mann and found lots and lots of problems with MBH98. Go ahead and read MBH98. I'm not trying to stop you. But you cannot stop there. Once you read that, you also need to read the links I provided so you can understand the issues in trying to replicate their results. BTW, I just came across this bit by Nature published in 2002. [17] If Nature did not understand that additional information has to be archived somewhere OTHER than the article itself to be made available when a researcher wants to replicate results, then Nature would not have published this. Do you understand now? RonCram 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but can't you be more specific, which part of the data is missing? The GRL paper cites about 10 or so sources of data, presumably MBH98 is the same, I would be wasting time chasing them all up if you accept that some/most parts are available... sbandrews (t) 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What I have said all along is that Jones and Mann do not archive their data and methods and make the information available when requested by scientists who wish to replicate their results. Yes, I do think you would be wasting your time in a sense because you would find some info but not enough. If you want to know about the controversy, read the links I have been providing you. In the case of Mann, one of the big issues was the code - although a number or other questions went unanswered for a long time as well. In the case of Jones, the issue goes to his 1990 UHI paper (and his claim the data from Russian stations was homogeneous without providing any station history data) all the way up to his present data and methods for determining global temperatures. You seem like an intelligent and reasonable person. Once you have a handle on all the issues, I think you will be as outraged as I am regarding the conduct of these scientists. Please take a look at the links I provided.RonCram 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

this is the one right? Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK. 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392:779–87 sbandrews (t) 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the right one. It is available free here. [18] Also, please note the corrigendum Mann et al were forced to publish because McIntyre attempted to replicate their results. Mann admitted some of the errors but not all. The debate is still ongoing because even though the NAS agreed with McIntyre that the bristlecone pine series was unreliable and should not be used, some of Mann's supporters continue to publish using it. I'm starting to get off track here, sorry. Read that, then read the links regarding Mann above.RonCram 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undone revision

Hi. Can you explain why you undid this revision please? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exploration_of_Mars&diff=113681202&oldid=113289366 Thanks in advance, --82.41.42.96 12:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for asking, I appreciated that you were taking the time to improve the article in good faith but I felt that you removed too much information just to make the page tidy, although you certainly did tidy it :) Please don't let me put you off from editing the page, regards sbandrews 13:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geology or geography

Here's another interesting new phenomenon on Mars, from the HiRISE camera [19], but I can't decide whether it belongs in the Geology section or the Geography section - what do you think? Regards sbandrews (t) 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... I'd guess it's more applicable to geology, as it could be a wide-spread phenomenon. Geography seems to be more about map-making and individual, named features. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies

Hello,

I've requested an arbitration regarding the conduct of Freedom skies.

Can I trouble you to write a brief statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies about your impressions of Freedom skies' edits and conduct?

A brief recounting of your comments at Talk:Indian mathematics and will suffice.

Thank you.

JFD 05:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War of the Worlds

Actually, upon further research, the previous edit may have been right. I based my edit on the reading of a scholarly article that now seems to have been an "in-between" between the old story of countrywide panic and what seems to be the current story in vogue - that people were scared and uneasy, but hardly "panicked". In short - I was wrong:

“

Some researchers now doubt the estimate of nearly one million hysterical listeners. And early reports of deaths from stampedes, traffic deaths, and suicides were false. Nevertheless, many were clearly frightened. "Fake Radio ÔWar' Stirs Terror Through U.S.," reported the next day's New York Daily News. For example, one college senior told how he had been on a date and returned to his girlfriend's place to rescue her: "One of the first things I did was to try to phone my girl in Poughkeepsie, but the lines were all busy, so that just confirmed my impression that the thing was true. We started driving back to Poughkeepsie. We had heard that Princeton was wiped out and gas and fire were spreading over New Jersey, so I figured there wasn't anything to do -- we figured our friends and families were all dead. I made the forty-five miles in thirty-five minutes and didn't even realize it. I drove right through Newburgh and never even knew I went through it. I don't know why we weren't killed. . . . The gas was supposed to be spreading up north. I didn't have any idea exactly what I was fleeing from, and that made me all the more afraid. . . . I thought the whole human race was going to be wiped out -- that seemed more important than the fact that we were going to die."

”

( http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/050722_war_world.html )

So, thank you for your diligence, and I'm sorry for a bad edit. Throw 'er back in, I guess - and there's a free cite from a Ph.D for your troubles! --Action Jackson IV 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tzuriel Raphael

Thank you for your good intentions at removing what you thought was vandalism; however, the former Israeli Ambassador to El Salvador really was found by police drunk and naked except for a bra and bondage gear and with a dildo shoved up his ass. This is why he is no longer the Israeli Ambassador to El Salvador.

Check the BBC links. DS 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phycology

Re your edit [20], phycology, phycological etc... the study of algae, you must be learning a lot with this bot project of yours, good luck :) sbandrews (t) 11:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! Although I suppose that's no bad thing :) By the way, I like the interactive map of Mars you have on your user page. Nice job. Cheers, CmdrObot 00:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)