Jump to content

User talk:Suffusion of Yellow/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Hello, Suffusion of Yellow! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

That redirect

It was created without assertion or evidence of notability by User:Ardeshirshojaei; User:DJBullfish made it a redirect to Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, of which it is one of over a dozen Centers for this and that. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Correcting Date

Thanks for correcting the date in my article about the Mount Whitney Fish Hatchery. You are speedy! Jim Heaphy (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Righteous Sock Barnstar
Awarded to Suffusion of Yellow for meritorious editing. Thank you for your good work with new articles written by an unknown editor. As part of this project I created an account with a dubious username and wrote ten referenced but badly formatted stubs about Antarctic mosses. Your cleanup has been impressive, and please feel free to ping me on my regular account--I feel a bit guilty for not having started them better, but was trying to imitate the style of a new user. Durova362 04:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


You're quite a bit better with that sort of article than I am. Thank you and cheers! :) Durova362 04:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

You have been granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessen the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, because the rollback feature does not require fetching the data from the page history and then sending article data back to the Wikipedia server as the javascript requires, therefore you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the latest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the last edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
As part of WP:NEWT I created a new account and started an intentionally malformed article which I expected to be promptly deleted. Instead, it was to my great surprise to find that you had made an actual effort to restore the page and make it a valuable addition. Wikipedia needs more editors like yourself. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh, just noticed that you've already received a barnstar from Durova. Oh well, the more the merrier. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It's okay, Julian. Looks like we've stumbled upon a really good editor here. Let's give credit where credit is due. And Suffusion of Yellow, stay just like you are. :) Cheers! Durova362 17:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I like...

...your username. I'm just re-(re-re-re-)reading The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, so I instantly "got" the reference and I have to applaud you on your witty choice for an username. Regards SoWhy 08:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I do as well! I wish I had an I Ching Calculator. -- Atama頭 19:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Recursion

You have to admit, it was a good demonstration. 128.252.254.37 (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your message

You are very welcome of course. I keep a pretty close eye on it now. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Untitled comment

i was making a constructive point....we need a mention of turkey as a food —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.219.31 (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

lol

This made me laugh... oh people.. A8UDI 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of of typing up a post to AN/I since it contains a borderline death threat and seems based on an old grudge. Do you think that I'm perhaps taking matters too seriously, and perhaps feeding the trolls? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:71.233.46.199

I first blocked for 72 hrs and then reblocked for 12. IMO, not worth wasting time on thinking. The block is only a message, it doesn't really matter 12 or 72 - the user is not destructive to the mainframe, just trolling. I'm watching their talk and will reblock for longer next time. Please leave me a note if they resume their activity. Also, don't hesitate to drop other messages. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion section on veganism

You had previous comments on the matter. Extended discussion here: Talk:Veganism#Comments_2. KellenT 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

About Comics

Now that was fast! I was hunting around for the right stub template but you beat me to it. Thanks for your help. CarolineWH (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of the Beast

I did not add "personal analysis or synthesis to the article "Number of the Beast". I added historical facts and information similar to the rest of the article. Why are you attacking me so much? Get off your high horse. 99.160.222.24 (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?

I was making very good additions to the encyclopedia, and you destroyed them all. If you were here, I'd smack you in the face. --Getraped22 (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I probably should revert this comment from a now blocked user, but now would be a good time point out Antandrus's 26th Observation. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

stop deleting my posts =

Whats wrong with my contributions to Porridge? Is this how you treat other fellow Wikipedians?

EDIT: Judging by the last two comments from other users on this page, It does seem you do treat a lot of other Wiki editors unfairly. Come on dude, we're just doing our thing for Wikipedia, by making the most complete articles information-wise as possible. Be fair. Frozenfool (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at User:Getraped22's contributions here Special:Contributions/getraped22 and you'll see that no unfairness is involved. Mark5677 (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, user_Suffusion sure liked to follow this guy around on Wikipedia. Tell you what, I'll stick up for this Getraped22 dude and revert all the edits that he had changed. We can't have any cyber bullies like Suffusion chasing this guy around. Frozenfool (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
"...prison food for inmates in the UK's prisons, whose inmates liked dipping their nuts in it." Vandalism, if not true, unencyclopedic and trivial, if true. Suffusion's edit was correct. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey don't knock it until you've tried it. If you go to the Porridge talk page I'm sure you'll find some users who share similar feelings about porridge. I mean, I can understand in some small way why you guys would be offended - after all it's a very "new" concept and like all "new concepts" it's not going to be accepted into the world straight away. Take rock 'n' roll music back in the 1950s for example, that wasn't very well accepted by the public at first and look at what it's become today. Please, I beg you to reconsider. Frozenfool (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I noticed one of you guys just blocked me yesterday. I'm back now. Someone else just edited the Porridge article expressing their own joy about dipping their nuts in porridge and it wasn't long before one of your fellow men censored him. I'm a little appalled by your urges to censor this new concept on porridge but I'll tell you what - I won't hold a grudge, I'll play it your way. Why don't we make a compromise to keep both parties happy? I'll play it by the book... I'll write about porridge-dipping a lot more professionally, I'll even cite the correct references next time I write about porridge-dipping next time I write about it. I'll even put it into a separate section on the article if you like, or I'll make a completely separate article about it. How does that sound? Keep in touch! :) Frozenfool20 (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Someone vandalized my Userspace! I must of really made someone angry. But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! --Meaghan the vanilla twilight 14:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Thanks from me, too, for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, both of you. Rosiestep, does User:JI Hawkins seem familiar to you? I know he's not the original sockpuppeteer (see this thread), and I'm wondering if he's someone with an old grudge against you. It seems odd that he'd pick a random admin's userpage to vandalize. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me too for cleaning up my talk page! --NeilN talk to me 23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Usually one gets those kinds of attacks from schoolyard vandals and POV pushers. I've never seen one from a spammer before. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting this bit of static. I hope it didn't take you away from anything important. See ya 'round Tiderolls 05:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Happy vandal fighting! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

You're very welcome. Been reverting enough of my own tonight, figured I'd help someone else as well! Glad to do it. --Manway (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

i hate u

who cares if i made a bad edit? 173.35.192.189 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re

Yeah no problem, I should've reported the guy earlier. Thanks for adding the IPs, the report would be somewhat redundant without it. -Reconsider! 10:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again

Many thanks for taking care of this. Regards Tiderolls 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, whenever I get enough "rollback failed" pages naming a particular user, I add them to my watchlist. I think I've gotten quite a few from you. :) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

How's it going? Do you like pretzels? Frozenfool30 (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox confusion

Thanks for graciously dealing with my misnaming issue. Newbie *duh* getting there slowly.GrahamTM (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching that vandalism on my userpage, dude. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's on my watchlist as of now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks yet again. I've added your userpage to my watchlist, I hope the opportunity to return the favor doesn't come up. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem again, and thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OMFH. so funny

your name is suffusion of yellow and you revereted an edit about pee! PEE IS YELLOW! hahahahahaha 69.149.187.131 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a barnstar!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You've beat me to reverting vandalism twice tonight-- I think that all your hard work smacking vandals deserves an award! Sophus Bie (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, (completely unrelated to this barnstar,) you have the coolest username I've seen all night. Sophus Bie (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Vandalism Revert

Hi Suffusion of Yellow! Thanks for the vandalism revert. It is very much appreciated. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 09:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I see you reverted my page a few times too. Thanks! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

May I pick your brains?

Hi! I noticed your test page with special characters in the article name, and it seems we're both looking at the same problem. At least, when I use PILT (my version of Lupin's AVT) I have, um, certain difficulties with such articles. Did you come to a solution that I might be able to pick up? Philip Trueman (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't notice that AVT had a problem, even. I made that page as a preemptive measure to test my own little script. But now that you mention it, I'll look into it (tomorrow, going to bed now). In the meantime, feel free to fill that page with profanity if you want to test your script. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what that script is intended to do. At a guess, the idea is that when a rollback (in a new window) completes, it'll switch to the user talk page of the vandal, and then add the warning. Yes? Fair enough. In PILT I'm taking a different approach. Now I've got Ajax rollback working, I don't have a rollback window. The long term plan is to intercept my rollbacks in the edit stream (I already do that bit), and use them to trigger talk page opening, or even automagical creation of the warning. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's pretty close to what it does. The "vanarticle" parameter is used by both Twinkle and Friendly, which I use to issue the actual warnings. I took a closer look at your PILT tool and I think I'll try it out tomorrow. To answer your original question, I've found that Lupin's tool is not using EncodeURIComponent() in a lot of places where it should be. See [1] for all the places I've found so far, but I don't think I've found them all yet. It looks like PILT is doing the same thing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Really me!

Yes, it's really me. See the discussion above. I will request unblock from the other account because I don't want to post my IP address here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} I'm currently autoblocked. The autoblock template won't format correctly unless I put in my IP address, and I'm not going to do that. The account that got me autoblocked is User:Suffusion of Yellow&more?, which I created to check if Lupin's recent2.js correctly parses usernames which contain special characters (see the discussion above). I was trying to find the correct template to use for alternate accounts when User:NawlinWiki blocked the alternate account for impersonating me (which I appreciate, by the way!). I posted an unblock request from the other account, and User:Daniel Case put it on hold. I'm not sure that he realizes that this account is autoblocked. I don't know if it's possible to un-auto-block an account without knowing its IP address. If not, please decline this request and I'll take a 24-hour wikibreak. :-)Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[2] is your autoblock. Tim Song (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the autoblock. Keegan (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't know that number could be used to unblock. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Sullivan

I didn't mean to stomp on your edit, you just managed to do the same thing I was trying to do (you just seem to type quicker than I do). I just overwrote yours as I had added some of the awards he won. Vulture19 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, such things happen. Your edit added more info than mine anyway, so it's all for good. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Admirable

If this is incorrectly formatted or in the wrong place, please forgive. This time, I am not aiming for mischief.

I'm actually a bit fascinated by the regenerative power wiki articles seem to have thanks to those like yourself. I'm wondering if you are paid to do this, or if there are just so many devoted users out there that a happy balance is had.

I maliciously edited (vandalized) two articles tonight and found them both QUICKLY restored and a warning given. I did it because certain referenced people's actions highly offended me, so I meant to vilely slander them as I deemed they deserved all the retribution the world could give. I still believe the latter.

But I also believe in the beauty of truth and accuracy, and I am glad to know my childish efforts have been thwarted. It's good to know that we can count on wikipedia and it's loyal users to protect truth and nurture it.

So... thanks, I guess.

Again, if this is in the wrong place, please, my apologies. Unfortunately, it was not obvious how/where to leave you a message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.240.121 (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Image on User Page of Man Ejaculating on Women's Face...

Suffusion of Yellow, Administrators on English Wikipedia are allowing this image to stay on your User Page, Or have they "warned" you? To me it looks like inappropriate for little kids to see that sort of thing... and yes Anyone can use WP. Thank You. --Huik01 (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhh my god, stupid me again sorry Yellow damn IP did it. --Huik01 (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I thought you'd figure it out. I added a request to have this image and another one added to the bad image list, so both will only show up in the appropriate articles. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The user named Zoogom has received 3 warnings of vandalism already and very recently he/she vandalized the article Mexicans by deleting a section and typing in a goof note in it's place, you can see this for yourself in the history of the article. This person appears to just be here for the sole purpose of causing disruption. Just letting you know since I saw that you gave him a final warning on his page.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We are having problems with the user Chris Iz Cali. He/she has a record for vandalizing all Mexico related articles by supplanting false information and deleting sections or sources. If you check his history you will see he has been doing this for some time now and has been warned several times to stop his disruptive edits but shows no willingness to stop or cooperate with other editors. I don't know how to report him/her so I'm letting you know since you seem to know how to deal with vandals better than me. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how that is unambiguous vandalism, though I didn't look too closely. Can you point to one specific edit that is clear vandalism, and explain why? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well what he/she is doing is not so much vandalism as it is purposely distorting and manipulating specific information in certain articles to suit his POV. You can see what he/she has been editing in his/her Edit history. His/her agenda is to manipulate the demographics of Mexico-related articles to lower the number, or percentage, of the indigenous peoples and raise the European demographic; that is his/her M.O.. In the article Demographics of Mexico you can see from the revision history how he/she has manipulated the data by augmenting the European demographic and lowering the indigenous statistic. He/she ignores cited sources and adds contradictory information without showing where he got that information from. He/she has a history of doing this and he has already been warned a few times to quit making disruptive edits to other articles. I also believe he is the same person as IP 76.83.2.131 but this is only my speculation because both seem to be following the same pattern in their recent edits. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I left a note encouraging him/her to discuss the subject on the article's talk page. Hopefully he/she will do so. Note that if something "is not so much vandalism" it's best not to call it that. POV-pushing is a serious problem, but it's not necessarily vandalism unless it involves the deliberate insertion of falsehoods or any of the other things listed here. Without reading the user's mind, I don't know if they removed the source in a deliberate attempt to be disruptive, but the blank edit summaries certainly did not help them in the matter. Hence the encouragement to use the talk page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well I hope this person listens and uses the talk page rather than making disruptive edits. Thanks for the help and advice. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paradox Valley

Updated DYK query On January 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paradox Valley, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Re your message: No problem. Sometimes a welcome and a single warning works and sometimes it doesn't. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jane Austen

Oops! Very sorry: I reverted the wrong edit when I saw this silly sentence appear on my watchlist (didn't realize he had reverted it himself). --Azurfrog (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it; I'm sure I've done the same thing myself on occasion. Happy editing! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti Earthquake

I had to cut and paste, because the page already existed, unless there is another way? DustiSPEAK!! 01:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, tag the intended target of the move with {{db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|REASON FOR MOVE}}, and assuming there was never any content on the target and the move in uncontroversial, an admin will delete it for you. However, while I can't find the relevant section of the MOS right now, based on 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, I think the original title was correct. If I'm wrong about that, this discussion should probably continue to the article's talk page, though. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That may be true. I was going on the fact that it is the title of an event, and as such, each significant word should be capitalized. I could be wrong though? DustiSPEAK!! 01:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not a proper noun, so should be lower case CTJF83 chat 01:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Yeah no worries. Hmm your userpage seems to be a prominent target for vandals. -Reconsider!

Thank you

Just wanted to say thanks again for correcting the title of Today Was a Fairytale... had I known that it wouldn't be capitalized when I added it, I'd have let someone more experienced do it! The Mach Turtle (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my userpage. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

We may never know the real ethnography of Mexico since the Mexican gov't does not have a racial census. However, most statistics on this subject are estimates/educated guesses. I say the CIA world factbbook is wrong because it has old sources dating back to 1999 and 2004. The statistics/estimates for the ethnography of Mexico by the CIA is about 20 years old, about when the illegal immigration began. By that time, the demographics might have changed, and the 1990s also brought many white Latin Americans such as the Argentines. This is just my point of view, I am sorry if I have edited perhaps inapporpriately. But I just cannot see the Natives respresenting such a huge chunk of the Mexican population. Especially since most immigration to USA by Mexicans has been by Native and mestizo Mexicans, since all statistics show that they are the poorest in Mexico, whites would not go as illegals, or else the US popular media would picture illegals as white, and not brown (as they always do). The reason they are poor may be the effects of social racism, corruptness, the effects of the old caste system, or any combination of these three. If many mestizos and Natives are leaving Mexico and many whites (such as Argentines) are taking their place, then wouldn't you say that it is only logical for mestizo and Native populations to have shrunk (at least a little)?--Chris Iz Cali (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I say we find more sources and stop relying wholly on the CIA world factbook.--Chris Iz Cali (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Touché

I've restored the deletion template to MEOW. You can speedy it if you like. I thought that, with 7 million google hits, it wouldn't get deleted :P. Allformweek (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Janeane Garofalo

No, I did not, I'm going to assume that it was some sort of edit conflict between myself using Huggle and the current revision using Twinkle, not sure specifically what happened. Thanks for the tip on the auto signing, I will do that. Also, not sure what you mean when you say that people frown on signatures like mine. Can you clarify? Thanks, cheers. petiatil »speak 09:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petiatil (talk • contribs)

I see, thank you, I was unaware, I will correct that immediately. petiatil »speak 09:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petiatil (talk • contribs)
There, I hope I've got it now. Ha! Thanks again, I appreciate editors like you who are quick to point out mistakes like these. petiatil »speak 09:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wirieg's Problem

First of all, thank you for caring and warning me before deleting the article.

Well, obviously, the words which show no hits on Google do so because of two reasons. For the name of the creator "Wirieg Azqud", there is no entry since the problem is completely new, unknown and un-commented anywhere. As for the other word, it is completely normal that the searcher does not find it since it is a coded/encrypted word, as the article says.

I am sorry if the article is causing you any problem.

Wirieg (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Wirieg

Sorry, but if it's completely new, it can't be on Wikipedia. Original thought is not a bad thing (of course), but Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. We have an article on Kryptos, for example, because many reliable sources have chosen to write about it. If your puzzle attracts such attention, then we can have an article about it, but not now. Also, note that Google doesn't care whether or not a word is coded, it just sees text. Searching for "VTTMZFPKWGDKZXTJCDIGKUHUAUEKCAR", part of the still-unsolved part of the Kryptos text, gives me lots of hits. Seaching for the solution to the puzzle, whatever it is, might turn up nothing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism

Thanks for removing the recent abuse from my Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Standard deviation

Sorry, I did not revert to the times. Greeting Δεισιδαιμονία 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I've done the same thing myself. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Experiment

Pardon my classmates, it's a public terminal at a school, and Peter Wildoer is a teacher here.

Just figured someone should have an explanation. 85.225.171.96 (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you haven't already done so, create an account for yourself in case that IP ends up blocked in the future. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Much appreciated. MC Rocks (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re

Ah, it's really no big deal ;) --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 05:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank

User:Tyw7 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank for reverting the Vandalism done to my talk page --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 05:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Newfoundland

Heh, just noticed that at the same time. I've restored it. Also, I'll clean-up the leftover redirects. Thanks for reverting the moves :). - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU

FOR STOPPING BEING A MINIMALIST. 68.186.52.63 (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Al Melling page

Hi - please can you be more specific about that... I will do my best to find references. Thanks, Korzenioffski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korzenioffski (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Suffusion_of_Yellow/Archive_1&oldid=1142490491"