This page 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.

that is what the edit summary line is for. even though your change introduced no falsehood, and, for the most part the Planck length and Planck time (as Planck mass) are all defined sorta simultaneously, why did you bother to make that change? r b-j 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not sure what to lable my edit so I left it as is. The origional showed the the ${\displaystyle l_{P}=ct_{P}}$, which is perfectly fine but the definition of ${\displaystyle l_{P}}$ is the radius of a black hole having the a mass of ${\displaystyle m_{P}}$ and not in terms of ${\displaystyle t_{P}}$. However, ${\displaystyle t_{P}}$ is defined as the time it takes to travel one ${\displaystyle l_{P}}$ at the speed of light. David618 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

actually, the definition of Planck units is whatever they have to be to make those 3 (or 4 or 5, depending on who's counting) dimensionful constants, c, G, and ${\displaystyle \hbar \ }$, all equal 1 in terms of these units (and then disappear from equations of physical law). it is a matter of solving a posed physics problem that you get the Planck mass being approximately the mass in which the Compton wavelength is approximately equal to the Schwartzchild radius which both would be approximately the Planck length. the edit is okay (which is why i hadn't done anything about it), but seems sorta unnecessary to me.

BTW, it was nice to answer on my page, but if you leave an initial note on someone's talk page, you might expect them to answer on their talk page. (you can put it on your watchlist until you're done with the conversation.) you might not want to expect them to go out of their way to answer on yours.

best, r b-j 18:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We're delighted to have you, but the page you created seemed to be something other than an encyclopedia article. It was therefore tagged to be considered by an administrator for deletion. If you intend to explain why you disagree with a proposed speedy deletion, you may find it useful to insert the template "hangon" into the article prior to writing your explanation. This will alert administrators to your intention, and may permit you the time to write your explanation. In the future, please refrain from creating articles that serve no purpose but to disparage the subject, it is considered vandalism. Thanks. Accurizer 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:Dark Harvest. The page you saw was merely a place holder. David618 16:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In the future you may want to refrain from creating an article that way to avoid it being tagged for deletion. Thanks for your contributions. Accurizer 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I know. I wanted to create a place holder so a friend could create most of the page. David618 16:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Whig Party (United States), are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk) _(Contribs) 02:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My appologies I clicked the wrong thing. I thought I had removed the vandalism. Thanks for reverting that. David618 02:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

To install Godmode-light, just create a page at User:David618/monobook.js (or whatever skin you use), and make it contain the following line:

document.write('<SCRIPT SRC="http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/godmode-light.js"><\/SCRIPT>');

Then flush your cache. (Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5.) + Hexagon1 ( talk) 14:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try that. David618 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you need assistance with anything, or have questions about any of my actions. - Kmf164 ( talk | contribs) 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fiziker/Archive 2006. I noticed you added an entry to Vandalism in Progress. That page is only for very specific cases, as described by the page's guidelines. Your alert would be better placed on Administrator intervention against vandalism ( WP:AIV), where it will usually be processed within minutes. Many alerts that are incorrectly placed on Vandalism in Progress are never dealt with, simply because they become old before an administrator gets to them. Thanks for your efforts. :) -- light darkness ^{( talk)} 06:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I copied and pasted this from the talk page at Vladimir Horowitz

Please discuss the section on sexuality beofore deleting it. We need references to support any claims on Horowitz's sexuality but for the time being this section should not be deleted. David618 18:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, information that has been added to the article should be properly cited at the time of its inclusion. Feel free to re-add the section on Horowitz's sexuality when you have found a suitable and verifiable source. Hamster Sandwich 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the edit you recently made to that article. I hope you understand that proper citations are integral to the veracity of material, information and any edits made to the Wikipedia. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 19:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alard.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• sholem-aleykhem David618! Beside ‎" ‎װיקיפּעדיע‎"‎ ‎" ‎װיקיביבליאָטעק‎‎"‎ stared today. I would be happy if you could help building the projects in Yiddish. a gut wokh Gangleri · Th · T 18:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have some suggestions regarding the Delware Valley map you posted. Kent County in Delaware is not part of the official census combined statistical area for Philadelphia so I think this should be removed from the map. Also, Mercer county is technically no longer a part of the census defined area but is geographically closer to Philadelphia than New York so maybe Mercer county should be retained but just be colored differently. Polaron 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I was only adding the map to from another site to fill in the infobox picture. It probably would be better if you were to ask someone more involved with the Delaware Valley page to make the changes because they would be more aware of what the map should actually be. —David618 21:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, CMSAs are outdated and no longer used after November 2003. There are now CSAs, MSAs, and MDs. You should change "CMSA name" to "MSA name". Just a suggestion. If anything, please reply back here on your talk page. — RJN 01:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll change it to MSA, which is what List of United States metropolitan statistical areas by population uses. —David618 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I had left a message on your talk page earlier. —David618 01:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to either the CSA or MSA. But the data in the box below needs to match the title above. As it stands, the data below is the data for the CSA. In fact, the state of Connecticut is not in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-PA MSA, yet it is listed as the smallest state below. As the rest of the article addresses the whole CSA, I have a slight preference for the CSA title.

Also, the CSA (and MSA) titles do in fact include the states, although I certainly have no objection to leaving them out. 68.193.241.102 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)TC

Well, I am no expert in this field. The articles I have seen mentioned the states but not in the name and it is best to leave them out to decrease the size of the heading. It might be good to list all of the states the CSA/MSA includes. —David618 01:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure how to do it. I tried, but if you would do it that would be helpful. 68.193.241.102 01:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)TC

How to do what? —David618 01:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To list all the states that the CSA includes. (NY, NJ, CT, PA) 68.193.241.102 02:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)TC

I'll add that in. —David618 02:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 68.193.241.102 02:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi David618, I'd be glad to give you a brief overview over the Userbox trouble that has been steaming for quite some time now.
I found about the userbox issue when User:MarkSweep was going on a deletion spree, and some serious wheelwarring was going on between him and Guanaco, which led to Guanaco being de-sysoped and Mark being banned from userbox edits. Arbcom result
Sadly the situation has only detoriated from there. Sometimes Userboxes got listed on TfD, they was broad consensus (and votes) to keep them, then suddendly some admins started speedy-deleting them claiming T1 (divisive or inflammatory). In some cases they were un-deleted by other admins after a deletion review with "undelete" result took place, only to be speedy-deleted once again. All in all, the situation was a serious mess, people started leaving or taking indefinte breaks (including me). There are several admins who prefer a hard stance against userboxes, but Doc_Glasgow, Tony Sidaway and Mackensen are the first three names that come to my mind here. In any case, I must admit that they most likely act in best faith - believing that Wikipedia should be more encycopedia and less "personal touch", but there our opinions differ - and they have power and most of us don't. Hope that helps clear things up a bit.
BTW, I would have voted for your userbox on deletion review, but I'm still refusing to return to WP till the whole mess is sorted out, and anonymous (IP) votes don't carry weight there :( 84.145.220.95 00:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not used to what people want for an arguement to undelete pages. Do you have any idea on anything I could add to my request? Also, do you believe that any stronger measures could be taken to stop this deletion spree? —David618 00:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, a good start is always to request to show the template/box that has been deleted. When users only read "user liberal" they can hardly form an opinion if the box should be restored or not. The other argument that you can give is that it was (I assume) speedy-deleted, citing T2. As T2 is still contested you could (as you already did) argue for undeletion plus listing it on TfD, instead of an outright undeletion, as while T2 is still contested it might or might not be due proces. You might get lucky and get the attention of more userbox-friendly admins, but then again, there are several admins who will outright vote against the box, in best faith. Finally as to what will happen - sooner or later a new policy will be implemented - there are currently several proposals running, the most prominent one from Mackensen WP:MACK. Should one of those turn into binding policy the whole issue would be cleared for good, one way or another. Till then the only other option would be a RequestForComment for the admin that deleted your box, but note the requirements for those before you start one. 84.145.220.95 10:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple. We keep explaining why we feel T2 should not become policy, and do so with assertiveness, yet civility. Fortunately, T2 has been strongly opposed by many in the community, so I doubt we need to worry too much about. I am just concerned that admins may become too reckless and do whatever they please, regardless of consensus. Hope this helps! :-) -- D-Day^{( Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!}) 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem is in stopping the admins who are deleting the userboxes. How well know is this situation? I just leadered about it a few days ago when one of the userboxes on my userpage was deleted. —David618 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am against T2, and I just saw that box on your page, and I'm taking it ;) — Coelacan | talk 02:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, there is also Template:User_freedom, which if it had a category attached, would show a few dozen more Wikipedians who feel this way. I've seen it pretty often. — Coelacan | talk 02:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

right you are. —David618 02:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we should create a grassroots style movement of people with userboxes to stop this assult. What are you're opinions. —David618 02:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay I made a change to Template:User_freedom and it should be working now. I did think there were more of them though. :( Anyway, you know how people leave those linked notes in some of their edits? the "You can help!" ones? I'll try to find one if you don't know what I mean. We can start adding some informative thing (learn why your userboxes are disappearing or being edited) that takes people to an informative page on T2, that exists in userspace so it doesn't get deleted. And also go to the people who have shown up on the anti-t2 category from adding it to user_freedom, and see if they have any more similar userboxes, group them all together, save a copy to our harddrives, and then go to their user talk pages and invite them to start using the edit notes thing. There's a start... Also there have been plenty of people speaking up in the template VfD pages, talk to them, etc., and make sure everybody knows about the VfD pages and to comment there (which I have not been doing, for shame) — Coelacan | talk 03:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

oh gee wait there's a hell of a lot of them... i guess the database just hadn't refreshed yet when i looked :D — Coelacan | talk 03:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of making a template for this and posting it on talk pages. How about {{ Disappearing Boxes}}. —David618 03:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

okay I'm not sure that another template is a good idea, because it is vulnerable to deletion just for being in template space. also some people don't like anything but text on their talk pages. we already have a big category of people to go talk to now, though Template:User_freedom. First let's make a userspace page (your space or mine?) if you think that's a good place to make an informative "wikipamphlet" that keys people in to just what T2 is, how it came about, what's happening, etc. — Coelacan | talk 03:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Made it User:David618/Disappearing Boxes. I'm about to go offline but i'll try adding a bit first. It should contain: T2, Problems with admins, telling people to speak out, & Info about the anti T2 userbox and category. —David618 03:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Second thought. I'm going to sign off now. Do what you want and i'll add stuff tomorrow. —David618 03:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Spent much of the night in discussion. Time for sleep now. User:David618/Disappearing Boxes is exactly what we need though. Do you adding a T2 plea that links there to our edit notes is a good idea, and if so how do you think we should word it (since it has to be as short as possible to make room for normal substance of notes)? — Coelacan | talk 09:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get what you mean. We should also make this thing known to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes. {{ User Anti T2}} was deleted; I'll make something less inflammatory. —David618 13:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

it wasnt an "experiment". dont give me that bs <-- sorry about that - Bagel7 03:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What the heck? Please explain to me your deletion of "Glenna". What the heck? Do you think you can just go "click, click" and erase something? I was going to add onto it, it's not your call. That's rude of you and I am astonished that you just think you can erase whatever. Well, heck, let me just erase your page if you did the same to mine. You have so many complaints from many different people. You are ruining things, and I can't believe that. Thanks a lot for deleting the page. That was really mature and really kind. I can't believe you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiheyhello ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if you intended to add to that page. I saw a page that only said some nonsense so I put it up for deletion and left you a message just incase you were expanding it. Don't just start an article by creating nonsense. —David618 21:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As for Bagel7: I did not want to give the person a stronger warning so I used that one. —David618 21:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your exact stand on userboxes regardless of where the code is stored before transclusion/substitution?— David618  ^t 00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they're useful for some encyclopedic purposes; as you can see, I have a handful. I think, with their badge-like appearance, they're very powerful communication devices, which is why I think they're so popular, and so unpopular. I think the fun and games userboxes are mostly cheesey, but mostly harmless, and they can be cute. {{ user Big Lebowski}} made me laugh. I think the ideological ones, wherever their code is stored, are really tacky decorations for an encyclopedia, and should really be gotten rid of, along with all ideological user categories. I think they're contrary to the spirit of the project, and hence ugly. I think they make it look like Wikipedia's a place for activism, which I strongly disagree with. I support being open about one's biases, but we have to do so in a way so that it remains clear that no kind of campaigning is at all welcome here. We should really encourage people to try their best to check their personal prejudices at the door.

I'm a teacher, for a living, and I would be way out of place to wear a political campaign button or t-shirt to class, as if my politics somehow have to do with what's happening in the classroom. I think of my role as political animal and my role as teacher as being separate. Similarly then, for my role as political animal and my role as Wikipedian.

I also agree with everything Geogre said here, except the part about staying out of the dispute. He's done a lot more work here than I have, and I trust him when he says near the bottom of that section that faction-forming is bad for Wikipedia. I've also seen it myself, and he's right.

I support the current move to get them out of Template space, and prevent their transclusion, because that's a good start, and I'm ok with stopping short of banning them entirely.

Perhaps that's a longer answer than you were hoping for? - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. I think that Geogre has drawn some of the wrong conclusions but those concerns are justified. How do you feel about moving userboxes to a seperate namespace? You said on WP:MUPP: "a technical solution to a cuktural problem won't work" (sic). Are you also opposed to actually moving them to a new namespace or is it just that it would not satisfy may oponents? Also, why are you against transclusion?

I understand your arguement about politics and being a teacher; however, I have had teachers who were very open about their beliefs and it did not effect their teaching (in fact it probably helped it). I believe that the same can be true of an encyclopedia so long as no one tries editing articles that only show their belief. — David618  ^t 01:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I really spell "cultural with a 'k'? Huh. I'm against transclusion because it makes "what links here" available. It's what turns userboxes from personal expressions into group-building devices. It, and the attached user categories, are the real problematic aspects of userboxes; remove those and they're no longer dangerous, merely (IMO) tacky.

Again with the teacher example, yeah I could see a good teacher being open about their politics - I've had those teachers, too. I still think campaign buttons or t-shirts would be inappropriate attire in the classroom. Thus, I'm super okay with people revearing their biases here, but I think user boxes are a cruddy way to do it. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 02:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't chastise myself too harshly for a typo. I am mixed on the whole catagories thing. It can be used for good reasons but it also permits less desireable actions (that came out sounding a little harsh for what it means). Lastly, I find campaign buttons somewhat tacky no matter the circumstances but I don't find userboxes tacky—provided they aren't ugly. — David618  ^t 02:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi David618,

I was wondering, why have you included questions of fact in the poll (Question 1: Is T1 policy?, Question 1: Is T2 current policy?)? Rfrisbie ^talk 01:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people had raised questions of the validity of T1 before but I don't know if anyone still disputes it. I am thinking of removing it because it is essentially a moot point. However some people have said that T2 is still policy and I want to see how many people support that. — David618  ^t 01:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It just seems funny to me. You can "support" or "oppose" a proposal, but a question of fact is "true" or "false." Rfrisbie ^talk 01:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't get your origional meaning. Well said. — David618  ^t 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reopened the poll with no end date and removed your offensive strikethroughs of the opinions of two editors who you seem to feel should not be allowed to express an opinion. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and that for you to try to claim that another Wikipedian has no right to express an opinion merely because they did not come to the party fast enough to suit your purposes is uncivil and offensive. Kelly Martin ( talk) 10:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The poll said that it ended at that time. I believe it should continue and I have no objection to your change. At the time I was just following what Xolatron had done previously [1]. The poll was closed at the time and that proved the only way to keep their opinions while showing that they had not voted during the designated period. — David618  ^t 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What I would like in a compromise and what I would see as a compromise are different. The latter is almost anything other than ongoing speedy deletions in the absence of clear policy. What I would like in a compromise is a very restrictive speedy deletion critera, and a process of gradually migrating userboxes out of template space to a place where they will not be deleted under the broard interpretation. I could also be satisfied with a gradual change process approved by consensus, that Subst'ings all POV expressing userbox templates with a call to Template:Userbox and creates an example page somewhere (perhaps as a sub-page of Template talk:Userbox ) showing how to call it to generate the most popular userboxes. (Perhaps the 25%-50% of userboxes that have the greatest number of what links here calls from User space.) GRBerry 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like a similar compromise. I don't see WP:MUPP passing as it is. It is a good compromise that would remove some pressure in the userbox debates. It would have broad support among general users but not many people are paying attention to what is goin on. Do you have any ideas how to modify WP:MUPP or similar proposals to start getting more support. — David618  ^t 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that there was a poor initial communication of WP:MUPP. I know Sora tried, but apaprently not all expected avenues were taken. Preparing a list of expected communication avenues would help any future proposal. I think that the next one should reference Jimbo's latest comment endorsing the search for a middle ground. We could even simply propose the German practice straight up, as Jimbo has said that it is producing excellent results for them. But I also think that a period of reflection and discussion between proposals is a good idea. GRBerry 01:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer a compromise that has a new namespace for userboxes. However, if this ends up not having enough support, I consider the German practice a valid and good alternative. — David618  ^t 01:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, sorry; I formed my opinion entirely on the discussion at TfD. I'm sure someone could chop together one rather easily- it's more of a fairness issue to me. -- Disavian 03:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

For future ref, the template is:

-- Disavian 06:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I use a strike through? - Bagel7 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Use <s> </s>. Did you add those comments? — David618  ^{t  e} 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. What comments are you referring to? - Bagel7 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, — Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's to you on your birthday, David618! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Jorcoga 03:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a great birthday, David618! Good health, and good luck! + Hexagon1 ^{( t)} 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, David618!

Michael 06:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a happy Birthday message to you, David618, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!!! Have a great day!

Have a great one - Ladybirdintheuk 10:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday and all the best! I am sure that we shall come back very fresh after your wiki-rest. -- Bhadani 12:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a great day!

	HAPPY BIRTHDAY!	EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE
	Wishing David618 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME

Happy birthday when you see this message after your wikibreak! ~ Chris ^{( squirrels!!)} 18:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's to you on your birthday, Fiziker/Archive 2006! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Enjoy your day. Cheers! Mr. Turcotte ^talk 00:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Fiziker/Archive 2006. It's good to know that you're gaining more widom! Editing Since November 29, 2005

Primat e ^#101 03:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. -- MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ginkgo 100 ^talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! 01:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Fiziker/Archive 2006, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee, myself, and B e a rly 541! Congrats for staying with Wikipedia this long. Much too many people create new accounts, do a few minor edits, and just quit. Have a great day! -- Randfan

Good job for staying with us! Keep up the good work. Cheers! : ) — Rand fan ! ! 00:52, 15, December of the year Anno Domini 2006m (UTC)

Thankyou for all your wonderful contributions. I hope you continue to contribute for many more wonderful years to come! Enjoy your day! Jam 01 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This page 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.