User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Greetings 2 Re: Patrick Fitzstephens 3 The Sephiroth 4 Re: SolArt 5 Torah True Jews, True Torah Jews 6 Re: The Da Vinci Code (soundtrack)(thanks) 7 Juggernaut Bitch deleted 8 Welcome to VandalProof! 9 Improper user page 10 Happiness is the key to not being eaten by the Robot Overlord 11 Facial motion capture 12 William McFerrin Stowe 13 Trados 14 Darren@nocuffs‎ 15 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gornography 16 My RFA 17 VandalProof 1.2 Now Available 18 Benutzer:Chrislb 19 CAPGUN Re: Spuz 20 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Whitwell 21 Chop-chop 22 Ethanol fuel energy balance 23 Amie Huguenard 24 Flowing glass

Greetings

Hi, I noticed your talk page was blank at the moment, and couldn't help introducing myself. :-) I too am a Trekkie/Trekker (so which do you prefer?). Have you ever tried simming? I'm part of a great RPG site you should check out, Section 47. Well, have fun administrating! =/\=Tiro de Aethra 17:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Patrick Fitzstephens

It wasn't an expierement, Patrick Fitzstephens is a noteable internet comedian. You've never heard of him? Tsk Tsk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozz (talk • contribs)

Firstly, sign your messages with four tildes - ~ ~ ~ ~ -, in order for people to respond to you easily. Secondly, if your article is about a notable person, please provide some supporting evidence for your claims, such as mentions in the press, a list of CDs released, awards and acolades that the chap has accumulated, etc. You can use a Sandbox for such article development if you don't have the information to hand immediately. This will then stop other editors from deleting your article stub due to unverified claims and lack of evidence. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sephiroth

Hello once again! I've noticed that you take interest in superstitions, although it is a dispute, I was wondering what are your views on the Kabbalah Sephiroth were? Big Boss Ocelot 04:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't studied the Kabbalah, or any aspect of Jewish mysticism, so I have no view. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see my friend, I was under the assumption you may know a thing or two, but not everyone can know everything! Big Boss Ocelot 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell me however, where do you find all those neat smybolisms for your page? =) And I was wondering where the option is to edit a neat signiture such as yours, Nice html btw.
Big Boss Ocelot 04:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes is what I presume you mean by "symbolisms"? The link is a directory of same. To edit your signature, go to Special:Preferences at the top right-hand side of the page and find the nickname text box. Look at the code of interesting signatures to determine how they were created and use them as inspiration, rather than to do a straight copy. No need to thank me for this information. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you my friend! Yes that is what I meant, user boxes lol. I'm still pretty much new to this but I will get the hang of it sooner or later. Still used to coding in html with <a href's and <style type's such as text/css. But I like this new type of html, thanks again!
Big Boss Ocelot 04:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: SolArt

I made this page as Solart, but then there was some confusion about case sensitivity. I typed SolArt and it wasnt there. I thought someone deleted it so I made it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfandyar (talk • contribs)

Torah True Jews, True Torah Jews

Which organisation is the correct one? The variation on the name is confusing for researchers and there are no claims as to the notability of the organisation. Please remove the inappropriately-named article by tagging {{db-author}} and improve the remainder to show its notable status, if any.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The real name is True Torah Jews it was my mistake before but I don’t know how to remove the wrong one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloger (talk • contribs)

I have removed the incorrectly-named page, so you can now concentrate on the correct version. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

thank you

Bloger

Dear aeropagitica as you can see I am new here and I need help puting this article together can you be any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloger (talk • contribs)

The best help that I can offer at the moment is to recommend that you read the welcome salutation that I will attach below. The pages to which it links contain lots of useful information on how to build and maintain good articles on this Wikipedia. Please read the pages thoroughly and don't be afraid to ask questions! Most people will be more-than-willing to assist you. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Da Vinci Code (soundtrack)(thanks)

It's frustrating that you're an atheist (as you seem like too bright a person to believe in something that is self-contradictory), but thanks for taking care of my messed up "links." Much appreciated!! :-) have an excellent day. --Teenwriter 12:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's alright! It was a minor thing to edit the links in order to point them towards the subject of the comment & it makes the page much more neat as a result. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Juggernaut Bitch deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=The+Juggernaut+Bitch

this link shows the article having been deleted because of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Juggernaut_Bitch) vote. However, the consensus, as you affurmed, was keep.

Why is the article deleted?Brokenfrog 00:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the comment below my summary for the keep vote, you will see that the article was relisted on AfD, with a delete consensus - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch (again). Please read these things through thoroughly!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, (aeropagitica)/Archive 4! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Eagle talk 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I have downloaded and installed the tool but it keeps telling me that I have not logged in to WP correctly. My username is set correctly as (aeropagitica). I have logged in to WP using the link in the dialog box but it still persists. I noticed that my name had been added to the list of authorised users as %28aeropagitica%29, so I changed it to the above. Could this be the problem?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you change your name where???

please explain. I can tell you right now what your problem is. the program does not like those "()"'s. I know how to work this around, but I need to know what you changed. Eagle talk 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The list of authorised users had me down as %28aeropagitica%29, so I changed it to the correct (aeropagitica).  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok thank you

Ok, the problem is this. Only vandal proof mods can make changes that the program will recognize. First off that page is not the page that the program checks off of, but I am going to revert your edit anyway. Please give me 5 minutes to set things right. Then I will tell you what to do next. Sorry for the delay:-(. Eagle talk 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, The %28 and %29 are html representations of the "(" and ")". In other words your computer reads "()"'s as "%28#29". That is the reason your name looks like that. I am not going to change it right away. Lets try something first:-).

1. Open VandalProof (VP).
2. On the VP toolbar, click File
3. Go to set username.
4. Remove what you have in there.
5. Put in "%28aeropagitica%29" (with out the "")

Tell me if you can log in.Eagle talk 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I get "You might have entered an incorrect username. Currently, your username is set to %28aeropagitica%29."  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, one more try

Ok, I have one more idea, if this does not work, failing other ideas, we are going to have to list this as a bug in the software:-(.

I will tell you when to try agian. Please change your name back, (i.e. with the ().Eagle talk 20:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And if I was not clear, wait until I tell you to try agian. (I have to check the official list.:-)Eagle talk 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

AHAAA!!!!:-(

My username has been having problems as well. (i.e. it does not recognize my changes to that page). It is a bug that the software has, check User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs#Moderator update is not working. For some reason it only recognizes some, but not all of my changes to that page:-(. Give me a few minutes to find another VP mod, I need to have him make a "Null" edit. Then the program will recognize you. Sorry for the problems. I will let you know when it is fixed.Eagle talk 20:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have notified 5 other mods (there are 11 total) that are on now, or will be comming on soon. It is out of my hands now. Please try agian, using your normal username agian every hour or so. If someone notifies me, or I see the change I will post here to tell you the good news!!!Eagle talk 20:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have any other problems, please let me know.

Many thanks for your assistance with this. I can't log on at the moment but I will try again later on and also wait for yours or another mods message to say that I have access. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Try now, a mod just null edited for me. Eagle talk 20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the logon still doesn't like my username, even when I log on to WP through the link provided in the dialog box.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Bangs head on nearest wall.... recovers

lol, ok what did you use, your name with "%28%29" or "()".

Let me know, I have at least one more trick in the bag:-)Eagle talk 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC), note, can you post below the last post? thanks

Try my idea too. In VandalProof, try changing your username (File -> Set username). If it says %28aeropagitica%29 change it to (aeropagitica) if it is (aeropagitica) change it to %28aeropagitica%29. If that doesn't work, I still have an idea. Prodego ^talk 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I have used both %28 %29 and ( ) in my attempts to log on with Prodego's prompting. I have managed to get on twice but it has taken about four attempts to do so, with logging on to the tool initially, then to WP through the dialog link, then changing my username from ( ) to %28 %29 and back again. There may still be a glitch somewhere. Sorry about jumping postings, I didn't want to disrupt what may have been another thread, my mistake!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you have successfully logged in??Eagle talk 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

the other problems you are having I will get to in a moment. (has to do with cookies, but one thing at a time!!!)Eagle talk 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have successfully logged in, it just took some time to do so! This may be the cookie problem to which you refer.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What browser do you use to edit Wikipedia? Prodego ^talk 21:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I normally use Firefox but I notice that VandalProof uses IE. Is this significant with relation to cookies?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, turn IE's cookies on. and your problem is fixed.Eagle talk 21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming that you know how to do this, as you followed our conclusions very well, if you don't feel free to ask!!Eagle talk 21:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have set the cookies option to 'accept all cookies' (Tools > Internet Options > Privacy). I'll let you know if I have any more problems. Many thanks for all of your assistance with this problem! Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good!!, now make sure that it works on VP... and, you are welcome!!.

P.S. don't forget to thank prodego:-)Eagle talk 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help you out. Let us know if you have any more problems. Good luck! Prodego ^talk 21:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Improper user page

You're the first admin on the list, so I'll ask you about this. User:Roulette36 has a user page that is racist and offensive. It consists of a single sentence: "Mexicans are dirty." I have advised him that this does not conform to wikipedia policy. If he does not change it, or changes it back, can you please block him or advise me of who I should ask for further action. Thanks. --Tjss 00:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I see that you have already blanked the offending comment from the user-in-questions' page. Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F shows that polemical comments should be avoided & WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:No personal attacks stress that attacks on third parties should be avoided and that good Wikipedians remove them on sight. If the offending remarks are replaced, the user can be warned with the various policies pointed out. If they persist then a block request can be made to an administrator with the repeat offence evidence as a demonstration of the requirement. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I would like to officially request that User:Roulette36 be blocked. After reviewing his contribs, he appears to have thirteen instances of vandalism since 12 February 2006, most of them including racist remarks, especially towards African Americans. I note that on his talk page, he has been warned three times by different users that his actions constitute vandalism, and was threatened with blockage on Feb 13. This user shows nothing but indifference to wikipedia policy and general sensitivity. --Tjss 05:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message on Roulette36's userpage to say that his next vandal effort will be his last. The user appears to edit infrequently on Wikipedia, so I prefer to give them a chance of redemption rather than to block in absentia. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you. --Tjss 14:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Happiness is the key to not being eaten by the Robot Overlord

Facial motion capture

One of our competitors is now trying to erase us from Wiki pages which I contribute to for admittedly business-related purposes, but also to balance the information here. I have worked hard to make sure that even our competition is fairly represented and tried to clean up the entire article not just the 3 paragraphs where I try to encapsulate our new technology. As you may or may not remember you made some redirections, which I didn't complain about, as that makes sense. Claiming we are unfairly advertising because we are pointing out advantages in better technology is a fine line I'd appreciate assistance in navigating.

The fact they only edited anonymously two of the pages I work on gives me some sense of who they are, but I'd like to avoid the whole battle if possible. Please let me know your thoughts. Tmcsheery 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about! Can you please place a link to the article title under discussion in the title of this series of exchanges, please? "Truth verses reality" tells me nothing.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a search on your Talk page reveals the above article from several weeks ago. OK, to avoid appearing partisan in any discussion of technology or abilities of companies in the same field, I would discuss these in equal depth, using a neutral tone of voice and at all times avoiding the implication we are better than the competition. Comments such as "Disclosure: PhaseSpace markers are even more cumbersome..." and "This technology will likely be the winner in a few years..." should be avoided as they are derogatory and speculative respectively. A better approach would be to create a comparative list of the technologies, listing their advantages and disadvantages in a dispassionate voice. Are there only two facial motion capture technologies in existence in 2006? A side-by-side comparison would be in order if this is so. If there are more, perhaps a matrix could be used, demonstrating the potential applications for each technology - are there places where one would be better than the other? Remember, a researcher just wants factual information served in an efficient manner. Don't draw conclusions for them, as an article that tells you what to think instead of letting you either make your own mind up or giving you further avenues for exploration of the topic is a bad article.

I can't blame an interested party using/selling the alternative technology from yours from wanting to edit the article as it stands; something that put me in a bad light when I am trying to earn a living wouldn't go down too well here! Your article shouldn't read like an advert for one technology or a polemic against the other. Advertising is frowned upon in Wikipedia, as it demonstrates a biased point of view. If you can discuss both companies' products without favouring one over the other, then this would be the better course to take. If you feel that you can't see the benefits of theirs and the restrictions of your own product, then it would be best to leave the article in the hands of other editors who have no interest in the success or failure of your respective business ventures. The market will see to it who is successful. Remember, you may have started the article about your own product, but you don't own the article - it belongs to every editor and reader and their edits are as inherently valid as your own, unless they are obviously vandals.

If you want to develop the article in a private sandbox then please do so. I would be happy to offer more constructive criticism if-and-when you decide to show me the revised version. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: After I reverted the article http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Motion_capture the same anonymous location added more derogotory verbage which I actually don't care about and then added more promotional materials for their product, (making it pretty clear who it is) which I also don't care about, just as long as they don't delete us entirely. On the other I'll get rid of the speculative side. I put in the disclosure so I don't have a problem with putting down our technology. Tmcsheery 23:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

William McFerrin Stowe

thanks for your help!! Pastorwayne 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Trados

Hi, Why not just speedy delete the thing? :) Dlohcierekim 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to give the author or another editor a chance to show that the software is notable. I suspect that it may not be but there is nothing wrong with giving someone the opportunity to try.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, That's what I figured, but I'm new to the deletion thing. :) Dlohcierekim 19:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Darren@nocuffs‎

Darren@nocuffs‎ has created several articles which, given that he's a criminal defense lawyer, specializing in DUI and drug cases and that all of them end with "If you or a loved one was arrested for DUI, please contact a skilled defense lawyer immediately", reeks of advertising. As far as I can tell it isn't copyvio, though. I saw that you removed one as original research. --Jamoche 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have also pointed him towards advice and policy with regard to creating good articles on Wikipedia. I notice that a slew of related articles in the same vein and style have issued forth from this user. I don't want to persecute the man by deleting all of them as contravention of policy. Perhaps if other editors and admins also point out their deviations from policy then the author may take notice and edit accordingly?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gornography

....since you seemed interested in the subject in that AfD yesterday, you might want to check out carnography instead, which is the actual name for the phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonflySixtyseven (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I presume that you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gornography? I'm not interested in it. I am more interested in seeing a properly cited and referenced article on WP, which this one was not. Don't forget to sign your comments - for some reason, I could only see the time at which you left your remark. Also, please include a link to the article upon which you are commenting - the AfD - rather than making an abstract remark. It seems a bit appropos de rein to see a comment about a surprising subject on my Talk page out-of-context! Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

re the signature: I can say only, "ack!" If you put the wrong number of tildes, then it only timestamps. (Oh, and it's spelled "apropos de rien" - "rein" is French for kidney.) DS 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a great mistake of mine, thanks for pointing it out to me! :-) I'll have to use it at work sometime. So two tildes only gives a timestamp; three for a name tag and four for both? There's my new thing of the day learned! Best wishes,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you, (aeropagitica), for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

Benutzer:Chrislb

Thank you for experimenting with 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. The article was a non-notable biography according to the criteria set out in WP:BIO. The information should be in the User space and not the article space.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just thing for a few seconds. Don't make me type that again. --chrislb 问题 11:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can affort a bit of your precious time and answer me on my user talk page. --chrislb 问题 14:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The article was in the main article space rather than in the User space, so I transferred the data to the appropriate space, your userpage.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

re --chrislb 问题 09:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I tried to point it out to you. Could you please restore my user talk page, that was created in the wrong user space ([1])? Didn't know it's so hard to understand. --chrislb 问题 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your user Talk page is restored, as requested in your last message. Your previous communications haven't requested this, referring to the user page that was created in the main article space, so lack of understanding shouldn't be construed.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CAPGUN Re: Spuz

I'M REALLY SORRY . i'm a new user and did't know. I will stop. I AM VERY SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Capgun 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Whitwell

Hi there. I thought you might want to take a look again at this AfD discussion and see if your view on the matter has changed. Regards, --BillC 22:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Chop-chop

You speedy deleted Chop-chop before I'd even had a chance to reload the page after creating it! I want it to redirect to Chop Chop, which is a new disambiguation page that I created. - Richardcavell 23:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental deletion of this page. I restored it seconds afterwards. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethanol fuel energy balance

I noticed you added the afd to the page I just spun off from Ethanol fuel. I am quite surprised why you did that, especially since I am still working on it. Perhaps it was an automated procedure, but the page is hardly a personal essay. It just hasn't been wikified into a full article of its own. This was properly noted in the comments.

If it were an automated action, perhaps you would like to look into your code. If it were a conscious action, perhaps you would like to look around before jumping to conclusions. --Rifleman 82 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair comment. The article does read as an essay at the moment and it would benefit from some attention, as you say it is currently receiving. I wouldn't take offence as to my opinion on the content as-it-stands. Now that I know it is to be improved rather than left alone my concerns are allayed. The {{prod}} tag can be removed, if required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Amie Huguenard

your deletion was flagrantly arbitrary. did you even watch the documentary, or perform a google? the wiki:bio guide is far from the gospel truth, and even if i did adhere to it, the article could have stood. Chensiyuan 15:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

20 seconds is what you took for you to delete an article without blinking. i have been waiting for more than 5 minutes for a reply. this does not look right. Chensiyuan 15:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not arbitrary - WP:BIO#Deceased_people asks "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" This is something that the article doesn't answer. Your question to me predicates knowledge of the subject. The article should provide the information in order that an understanding of the individual's notable status doesn't rest on also having seen a documentary. If the facts in the article are present and complete then the question need not arise and notability will be clear from the biographical details.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

it is people like you who believe in your own hype that many wikipedians, seasoned ones or new, find frustrating to contribute to anything. the article doesn't answer everything the guidelines dictate, simply because the writing of one is an ongoing process. it is unrealistic to expect a single person to complete the writing of a full article in one seating. Chensiyuan 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My motivation is not egotistical, it was merely an answer to the above question posed in WP:BIO. I agree that to expect a full biography in one terminal session is an unrealistic objective. That is why Sandboxes exist or are created, in order to preserve articles-in-progress from deletion until they are released. Your twenty-second comment above did not demonstrate my arbitrary or mercenary behaviour, rather it is indicative of the time required to read the article-as-presented.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Flowing glass

Thank you for experimenting with 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. This information is already present in Glass#Behaviour_of_antique_glass. Please research your topic before creating a new article. You may find that another editor has already had the same idea, saving you time and effort.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agh! I was trying to move that information out of Glass#Behaviour_of_antique_glass. Copying the information was the very idea. I was doing it pursuant to a suggestion made by another user that (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glass#But_.2Ais.2A_glass_a_liquid.3F_Don.27t_ask_wikipedia_apparently....) that the section on 'glass as a liquid' be spun off as a seperate article, following the Summary Style principle. Go on then: enlighten me on the procedure for carrying off that kind of maneouvre. --Danward 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Look - can I have my article back and some sort of protection against this happening again. Pursuant to a suggestion made by a user on the Talk:Glass page that the section on 'glass as a liquid' was getting too long and should be spun off as a seperate article (on the Summary Style principle) I was trying to move that information into a seperate article. Otherwise - enlighten me on an appropriate procedure for going about doing what I was trying to achieve before it was all deleted. --Danward 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have moved the content to User:Danward/Sandbox, where you can edit without intervention. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)