User talk:Briefplan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To leave a comment, please start a new section by clicking here.

[edit] Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you! :D
Some cookies to welcome you! :D
Welcome to Wikipedia, Briefplan! I am Snowolf,I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Snowolf How can I help? 21:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Your recent edit to Black Hawk Down (film) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Grrr. Stupid bot. Briefplan (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phi and semitone

Hello, Briefplan!

Thanks for your interest in the Mathematical Coincidence page. Please check it again, to find what I was writing to you when I entered an editorial conflict with that other editor. He has misquoted me, and has somehow convinced you that a "concensus" supports the deletion of my contribution. Please, take your time. Examine the entire matter independently, and come to your own conclusions. (I am not asking for your support, but simply that your thoughts be clear of the influence of one other editor.)

Thanks again for your interest, Prof.rick (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'm sorry if there has been any misunderstanding, but I believe I have no bias in this situation (I just stumbled across it in RC, and have little interest in the article subject), and having reviewed everything, looking at both your talk pages, and the Mathematical coincidence and Golden ratio article histories and their talk pages, I'm going to stand by my original decision. Although I admit I can't find the other user which User:Dicklyon mentioned, I still believe that he and myself, presenting our rational arguments, constitutes a consensus. We have tried to convince you of our views, and you have tried to convince us of yours, so I'm afraid we must agree to disagree. I'm sorry this couldn't work out better. Briefplan (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Briefplan,
No offence taken! You have stated your case in a logical and understanding way. Of course, we can't all agree on everything!
Wikipedia can only work with such understanding. Thanks, Prof. rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof.rick (talk • contribs) 08:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)