User talk:PhilKnight/Archive15

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-20_Peter_Nordin#Mediator_response

Forgive me, I am new to this. My first case. What exactly is necessary to close? Do I post a summary of the case with a conclusion or do I simply change the template field to closed? Thanks for your time and consideration. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I usually include a short summary in the Medcabstatus comments section or leave a slightly longer summary undeneath the discussion between the parties. Addhoc 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

FYI, your user page was vandalized earlier today. Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. Addhoc 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

&thanx in turn 4 reverting my page; never noticed 2 words' diff myself.Hilarleo 10:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags medcab case

Hi there. I opened a medcab case on the guideline for using spoiler templates. the other day. FunPika has taken the case on as mediator, but has requested help from another mediator. I think this was probably wise, as the dispute is not an ordinary edit war centred around a single point, but rather a fairly large discussion involving dozens of users and affecting thousands of users and articles. (My guess is that the discussion on the topic by this point in time exceeds the length of the collected works of Shakespeare). Would you be willing to assist in the mediation of the case, or to recommend some mediators who would be willing and able to? -Kieran 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'll assist. Addhoc 11:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Help needed in completing Mediation Cabal procedures

I am attempting to apply for Mediation Cabal input per the procedures listed on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, but I am not sufficiently skilled to create the "article's case page" listed in part III of "How to list a MedCab request". Can you assist, please? I have tagged the subject article Talk:Bounding per part II. Thanks in advance for the help or advice. Fireproeng 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to hopefully speed this request, following is the input I anticipate for the 'article's case page':

Request made by: Fireproeng 00:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Bounding

Who's involved?

Ahering@cogeco.ca and fireproeng

What's going on?

inadequate source, NPOV

What would you like to change about that?

Article per WP guidelines.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No

I've created the case page at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding. - Addhoc 09:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thamks! Fireproeng 00:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Role of the Coordinator in MedCab

Hi there Addhoc: I note you reverted my addition of myself as a coordinator to the MedCab, which is of course perfectly fine (as this is what I instructed in my edit summary if anyone disapproved). I was formerly the (sole) coordinator of the Medcab some time ago, and largely oversaw the development of the MedCab from an inactive project into something which actually was doing something useful, on the request of User:Kim Bruning. Indeed, the current process the MedCab operates under was in fact my design; and initially I did take something of a hiatus from the MedCab to attend to my personal life. Of course, it is entirely up to you, as it is not my intention to muscle into an initiative you now feel is "yours" as it is true I have been somewhat uninvolved from it for some time; but I should be more than happy to resume work in the administrative side of the MedCab as I feel there is quite a bit of work to be done regarding case quality control and mediator competence checking amongst other things, in addition to streamlining the mediation process and training up new mediators. If you'd like me to participate, then I leave it entirely up to you whether you choose to permit me to become a coordinator again; but, of course, if you do not, then I entirely respect your decision. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Just as a sideline, originally the Coordinator was not an elected position, and anyone could volunteer to perform coordination tasks (to a certain degree). I wonder if you might consider implementing a similar policy, although if you have some kind of pseudo-democratic process behind this then I don't mean to abrogate it. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas, thanks for your explanation. I gather the decision to have 3 coordinators was taken by Cowman109, who took over from you following concerns that MedCab had moved too far away from what it was intended to be. Personally, I think our current set up where there are 3 coordinators, in addition to guidance offered by Kim Bruning and support by Ideogram, is working reasonably well. Addhoc 09:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Ann Crecente

Hi, you chimed in during the discussion for an AfD for this article a while back. The article was re-created after two pieces of legislation were passed. If you could please look at the new article and share your thoughts at the NEW AfD I would appreciate it!

Jennifer Ann Crecente 2nd AfD

Drew30319 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Addhoc, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Happy editing, mattbr 10:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA. Hiberniantears 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion to resolve ongoing conflict

Could you please contribute to the discussion at [1], to resolve the ongoing dispute regarding Aryan migration theory/OIT related issues.Sbhushan 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Launders

The source is actually a TV show, I believe it's linked at the end. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I should have said the only article you mention in your answer to Q2 isn't sourced apart from an external link. Addhoc 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying then, I'll try to dig up the sources. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Random curiosity question, if the article were AfD'ed, what do you think would happen? Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, however I would 'vote' keep based on these searches--Addhoc 18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that any he's the only person ever to do what he did. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode review MFD

I've moved some stuff around and started to set up the review process to work more like WP:RM, where discussions would be held on the article talk namespace (in this case, a parent article such as a list of, etc). You had mentioned that it would be a big improvement, and so I was wondering if this would change your support regarding deletion. Even if it is not perfect right now, there is a need for something other than AfDs to handle these articles, and this is a process that will only continue to improve. If something doesn't make sense, we'll change it. If people are being excluded, we'll change it. But being sniped before we have a chance to develop the process is like getting the ground pulled from under you. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My (Kwsn's) RfA

Thank you for your input at my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed, but I'll try to make improvements on the concerns your brought up. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

LTTE and Norway

We were trying to reach consensus on this subject and I got the discussion started on the talk page, but Lahiru keeps deleting Light Years and my comments. Deleting other people's comment I feel is unacceptable. Sinhala freedom 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Grand Rapids Symphony

Thanks, Addhoc, for defending the neutrality of the edited article on Grand Rapids Symphony. Also thanks to whoever added references to the article. Jtparr 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Also, I appreciate your hard work in finding sources for articles. Personally, I consider lack of reliability to be a considerable problem for Wikipedia, possibly the most serious fault with this method of constructing an encyclopedia. However, at the moment there doesn't appear to be a consensus on how to resolve this problem. Addhoc 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hi,

I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding

Adhoc, I'm asking for your advice on how to proceed with the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding. I'm frustrated with my first attempt at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, specifically with the seeeming lack of commitment of the mediators who have thus far agreed to take this on. The first one accepted the case and then went on vaction. The second offered a one sentance 'ruling' with no supporting exposition (as requested) to help me undertand it's basis (which seems to clearly contradict WP:SOURCE, so I need to understand this if I am wrong.), and is now also bailing (on vacation). I understand these folks are volunteers, and so am grateful for the help - but so far, I have not really received any, either. Should I proceed to formal mediation or arbitration? Thanks in advance for the help. Fireproeng 15:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(From User talk:Fireproeng - I think you have nailed the issue on the head. Use of the word "bounded", as indicating extreme limits, is in public widespread use, so application of that word of this specialty area is of course appropriate. However, use of the word "bounding" as a noun seems to be used in by this relatively small isolated group of specialists, which does not provide adequate foundation per WP: SOURCE for an encyclopedic article. Is this the way you see it? Fireproeng 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on the sources provided so far, yes. Obviously, if better sources are produced this could justify an encyclopedia article. Addhoc 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

When you say, "... I agree there are insufficient for an encyclopedia article." As bounding is not a valid term for the the name of an article, how do we change it? The concepts discussed in the text of the article are valid, so how can we incorporate them into Product certification? Fireproeng 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One more question: I hesitate to change the MedCab page (seems non-neutral). Could you update so Ahering knows it was the MedCab behind the changes?Fireproeng 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should move gradually, in the first instance we could add {{fact}} tags to uses of 'bounding', and create the Wiktionary article. Also, there should be an explanation of this proposal on the article talk page. Addhoc 10:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was away for a couple of days, so I could not watch this. So how does this work? If you don't like what one mediator says you find people who disagreed with your opponent and then keep trying until you get your way? It looks like "Discussion closed" and now you're doing.....what?--Achim 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of active mediation, I was requested to have a look at the case and have begun to formulate a way forward. Addhoc 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okiedokie. I would like to remind you though that it is not some infinitesimally small group of experts who use the term, as my opponent puts it. It is an entire industry, including regulators and consultants. I have even found links where FPEs have used it, though in its extended version, which is why I suggested the changed preamble. I get the impression it is pretty much case closed for you? --Achim 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be plenty of examples that establish usage, which is the criterion for inclusion in Wiktionary, however there don't appear to be examples of bounding being featured in secondary sources, which is the requirement for inclusion here. Are there any books on this subject that feature this topic? Addhoc 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much books that you would buy in a store but it is a regularly used industry and regulatory term. You will see it in all reportable event, and not just on the topic of firestopping, as my opponent falsely claims. You'll see it on write-ups on every licensed plant. The congressional proceedings on the Thermo-lag case, for instance, refer to it. That was widely covered in the media at the time and it covered circuit integrity, which is as much electrical as it is passive fire protection. The expanded use I indicated in my suggested alteration to the article's preamble was based on the use of the term by the very trade association that my opponent claims to come from. If you follow the links, you will see that. I just found it through google. I already provided a lot of links. To me, the fact that certain segments in the construction industry use it, and not the whole population, should not disqualify the article. For instance, we have an article on drywall. Drywallers use that and perhaps handymen - not everyone and his brother. That is the purpose of it, isn't it? I also stand by my earlier suggestion that the mediatior (number 3 now...) look at the motivation to get rid of the term. A crusade for the values of Wikipedia from a newbie? Are you kidding? I've been through this type of thing more than once now and each time, the motivation is just as important as it is in a criminal investigation. We do things because we get something out of it. We avoid doing things because we're worried about a negative consequence. When probed on such basics, my opponent prefers to pretend nothing was ever said and it does not exist. That too is indicative. This topic is an unwelcome stain on his profession. If you look at my article on the topic, you might understand: http://www.geocities.com/achim_hering/Articles/performance_based_building_codes.html These guy don't want to hear that they don't know and that is a very basic flaw in the work that they do, which is partially reflected in the shamefully poor fire statistics that North America has compared against, say Germany, Austria, particularly Switzerland. We suck compared against those places because the devil is in the detail. This is the cornerstone of it and it happens to be the fundamental bedrock of our codes. He says that it goes without saying that thou shalt abide by listings. Pidgeon pellets! This is where they fall down and break apart. The very existence of the term is a huge mirror for their profession and they don't like what they see. That is what is truly at the heart of the matter. The rest is window dressing - like pretending that the newbie is just here to uphold the flag and quote Wiki doctrine chapter and verse? Don't make me laugh. This is also why I am convinced the man will not identify himself. --Achim 05:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the widespread usage it could be included in a dictionary, however without better sources I'm unconvinced that it should be included in an encyclopedia. Overall, I would suggest that you either include citations to reliable secondary sources or accept this topic should be merged. Addhoc 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Merged with what and how? --Achim 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Achim, I have been letting the MedCab process work, which is why I have not responded for a while. However, maybe I can clarify a few of the points you raise above.

• I am sorry you see me as your “opponent”, as think of you as only another editor, and have no rancor towards you.
• I wish you could see that I’m actually trying to help you become a better editor. You obviously have a lot of knowledge, but don’t seem to grasp the thresholds for encyclopedia inclusion as clearly stated in many WP Policy statements. For instance, your reference to USNRC Inspection Report @ Shearon Harris Plant - Bounding of installed configurations from Bounding does not evan include the word bounding. And the NRC SECY-00-0080: "bounding fire tests for the myriad of fire seal configurations" are meeting minutes, which by their non-exclusionary nature can include original thought, making them a perfect example of a primary source. Secondary sources need to be cited, not alluded to.
• Your personal attacks (Wikipedia: No personal attacks, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views…") are not worth responding to in detail. But yes, you are absolutely right that I have only the integrity of WP in mind. Your fantasies otherwise, such as your analogy to a "criminal investigation", are sad. Please stop and concentrate on the issues.

First of all, I have no need for you, Fireproeng, to clarify anything at all. As a matter of fact, I see it merely as a form of thinly veiled manipulation. You say that my statements are not worth responding to, which is merely convenient and self-serving. You can't actually answer these things. After two mediators, you found someone who agrees with you. The last one did not and split. It is also but convenient and self-serving to use my reference to a criminal investigation and then knowingly take it out of context and call it "clarification", which is pathetic. You are attemtping to twist the words around to suit your needs and then label it something else - also pathetic. In case you did not understand, which I suspect is possible, though not likely, people DO THINGS because they have reasons or motives. Those things give us clues about what is really at issue. Another clue is this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fireproeng All you do is attack what is there to fit your status quo. I have yet to see you contribute a subject-related article or picture. You are only criticising from an inflatedly high horse but you have not really added to anything. I have seen that on here before and I find it highly underwhelming. It is also a knowingly false statement on your behalf to tell me that I believe you are only here to uphold Wiki protocol. You know this to be false and yet you state it as a matter of bogus fact, which is a blatant and indicative lie. I said no such thing and you know it. What I did say is that I believe you can only pretend to have this as your motive but in fact it is something else. I suspect that it has to do with preserving the entirely underwhelming status quo of North American fire protection, protecting your trade of FPEs against evidence of its inherent fallacy. Even if you disagree with me, again - possible as that may be - you cannot seriously expect anyone to believe that I meant at any time to imply that I believe you are here to protect Wiki protocol. Nonsense. You are here to protect your trade and expand its scope of work, as indicated here: http://www.geocities.com/achim_hering/Articles/performance_based_building_codes.html . This you consider to be a dangerous view point, that you cannot disprove, which is why you removed the reference from another page, knowing I cannot fight it. In a judicial proceeding on such matters your arguments would be taken apart in minutes. You know that it cannot stand up to any scrutiny and that is why I am convinced that you, and others like you who only attack existing work but don't have anything original to contribute can only hide through the anonimity afforded by this system. Again, I find that pathetic. So, I will make a prediction. Your response will be sweeping statements about how I am attacking you. You will still hide behind anonymity and you will continue to be too frightened to actually provide detailed responses to my statements, either pretending they do not exist and were never made, or to say something to make an uninitiated reader who could not pass a UL test to save his life think that everything can simply be sluffed off, kind of like the FPE fire models from the design period of the Chunnel? And then, to finish off my prediction, let's cry the blues plese? How ghastly to be attacked in such a vicious manner, on facts and conclusions? What a horrible person would do such a thing? And being that it's so horrible, you simply cannot go into the details that would expose your motives. I simply don't buy that you're the knight in shining armour here. You have an axe to grind, just like Mike Dayoub who disappeared as soon as he achieved what he belived to be his business objective. You will keep on here fighting for your status quo. That's what's really happening. I'm sure of it.--Achim 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you stop posting on my talk page? Thanks, Addhoc 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Addhoc, I apologize this discussion got displaced from the MedCab page to your talk page and has used up this bandwidth. I will proceed on the MedCab page or other user talk pages. Thanks again for the help. Fireproeng 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not start here, don't need to finish here. Sorry for the inconvenience.--Achim 01:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

I have no idea what I did to deserve the shiny thing, but I do appreciate it! Shiny things are good motivation for monkeys, and I fit that bill! Best wishes, Xoloz 04:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahmad Ibn Imad ul-din

I'm curious as to why you removed the speedy tag you placed on Ahmad Ibn Imad ul-din. I'm actually considering taking it to afd myself, but I feel I've been putting too much energy into removing content recently instead of adding and/or enhancing it. Spazure 07:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Spazure, using web searches I couldn't find any references, however sources could be available that aren't accessible via the internet. Addhoc 09:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Material removed aginst the advice given in RFC

A while back you were kind enough to comment on an RFC regarding some text on Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) regarding an op-ed I had written about the case (which at the time was supported by a single source). The disputed text is:

Mark Devlin, the publisher of Metropolis, an English-language publication based in Japan, withdrew his support from Baker's cause in his publication, taking issue with the fact that Baker had visited Japan two months before his arrest. He questioned the actions of the support group and claimed that Iris Baker was "deceiving the media regarding her son's arrest and detention".

The RFC is here [2] and your response was to add a link to an extra source.

I took your advice and with the help of other editors I found three secondary sources in UK newspapers that reported on my criticisms of the support group [3]. I feel that having three independently verifiable sources more than satisfies, notability, verifiability and relevance.

However, a few days ago, as part of the removal of a different source, the text was mistakenly removed by User:SlimVirgin (an admin I had been in conflict with before). Rather than go through a lengthy RFC again, I would like to ask for your comments regarding the disputed text. The relevant discussion is just before and through [4] I have done the right thing by taking this to RFC and getting extra sources and I would like your opinion on the current situation. Do you think I need to have another RFC? I appreciate your advice. -- Sparkzilla talk! 09:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

purgatory

Thanks for your contributions. Could you please work with us on the talk page? This page has been pro-Catholic POV since February, and it's been a work to try to get it in shape. Jonathan Tweet 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to PFP pages

I have looked at your fact tags on bounding and your edits to Certification listing. It is fairly self-evident that you do not understand what you are doing. On the certification listing page, you not only removed the reference to bounding from your new friend fireproeng (quasi justifiable since you take his position - also without answering any of my specifics) but you are putting tags on things that are the opposite of what fireproeng is talking about. He can correct me if he finds it convenient, but so far as I know, nobody but you now, Addhoc, whoever you are, is taking issue with the fact that all codes require field installed configurations to be in compliance with the minimum and maximum tolerances of certification listings. You don't even get that, judging by your edits. The only thing in dispute is what to call that, as fireproeng correctly points out in his prose. The evidence you are so ready to dismiss about the existence of the term in industry and by the regulator (not good enough for encyclopedia you have convinced each other) is one thing, but what sort of person would conceivably question the fact that all building codes and all fire codes demand that you have to bound installed configurations (regardless of what you call it)? Nobody in the industry would be so embarrassed as to question THAT, but you have. Then you tell Gerald W. Brown that noone has responded to your little fact tags. This is an industry expert with decades of experience. I can tell from your edits that you have not read a single paragraph in any building code or fire code. You are not qualified to judge such matters because despite the obvious evidence in front of you, you do not understand the very fundamentals of the matter. Even fireproeng will not dispute that thou shalt follow listings. He calls that "understood". He would not risk his license sanctioning for instance the use of a 30 minute door in a 3 hour wall (That would be unbounded by the way.). But you, Addhoc, go ahead and request a citation for basic facts that everyone in the industry is in agreement on, including fireproeng, because it is bedrock construction knowledge. I suggest that you remove yourself from these proceedings until you understand the very basics of this. I would prefer for the last guy to come back from vacation. --Achim 02:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood - if you want to expand fire protection engineering, then although you should include citations, I wouldn't tag content where references could easily be included. However, you haven't provided citations that link from 'bounding' in the sense where it means something more than 'limiting' to the basic concepts of fire protection. For example, in structural engineering, the word 'limiting' is frequently used to describe the ultimate structural load. This doesn't imply that I could write an article called 'limiting' that was about the basics of structural engineering. Overall, you have enough references for a dictionary entry, however that doesn't imply you can make an encyclopedia article by starting with a dictionary definition, then including content about general fire safety. Addhoc 12:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it. Nobody's talking about fire protection engineering. You put fact tags to question that one must be bounded by a certification listing for an installed configuration. That reveals a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. Both you and fireproeng only take tidbits out of what I write and then go off on tangents. If you actually read what I wrote, you would get that. You actually dispute the very thing that fireproeng and I and everyone else who has ever read a building code and fire code agrees upon. --Achim 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you calm down and concentrate on finding better sources. Addhoc 22:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to keep the discussion where it belongs, I will comment on Talk:Certification listing Fireproeng 01:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Addhoc 10:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A lovely tag team you have going here. I know what fireproeng's motives are. I'm not sure what yours are, but the results are pitiful. Neither of you are able or willing to answer any specifics, like Beltway spinmeisters. I hope it makes you happy. --Achim 14:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfC

Addhoc, thanks for your advice on my RfC. I was wondering if you could be a little more specific, though. (Please see my response to you on same page.) Thanks again, Gnixon 19:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Essentially, my advice is that you should only get involved in talk page discussion in situations where the other editors are focussing on improving the article. If they start to accuse you of not supporting the scientific point of view, I would suggest that you should ignore them. Addhoc 21:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. How can I continue discussing the article if my comments are dismissed as being anti-scientific, and how can I edit if my edits are reverted for the same reason? Gnixon 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

solidThinking: adding a high resolution version of the screenshot

Addhoc, your hints were very useful. Thanks. I still have some confusion on how to add a high resolution version of the program screenshot. In fact I have noticed that other articles have a lower res grab that shows the higher res version when clicked. The res of the original picture was higher but I reduced it before uploading in order to make it fit in the Infobox. I am afraid that I need to study... Thanks!--Parametric66 22:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your welcome

Hi There Addhoc. Thankyou for your welcome message. I felt like I was being crushed in a wiki delete rage wave for giving it a go and sharing with wikipedians my thesis on Australian Computer Pioneers Anthony Chidiac. Your welcome message made me feel more at home here, and hope I can write some great stuff for this site - I'm getting hooked! --T3Smile 16:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

And thank you so much for coming in there and helping to build the article. Sometimes, in the subject area that I write in, it's easy to forget the joy of editing. But when someone like you comes along and pitches right in to build rather than destroy, it's deeply appreciated. Tiamat 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)