NOTE: IF YOU POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE WITHOUT A SIGNATURE, YOUR POST WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

Excuse me, why are you being rude and threatening me? I listened to your opinion and edited the page to what I thought would restore neautrality. If it has not reached your standard, please not me know, but I do not appreciate your threats. Thank you.

OmegaWikipedia 22:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)OmegaWikipedia

Howdy. Regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Greatest mathematicians, do you feel it is OK to put a CSD notice on a VfD article if the article is clearly a speedy candidate? I've done this several times in the last few days, but will stop if there is specific policy against it or if there's a good reason for not doing so that I'm not aware of. Cheers. android↔talk 00:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Oops, looks like I misunderstood your initial comment in the first place. I meant putting the CSD notice on articles nominated for VfD, not the discussions. Nevermind. android↔talk 10:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is user SPUI an admin? If so I would like wikipedia to explain how he can continue to write profanities and make unsubstantiated comments on other users in public. It is setting a poor example to people who can be bothered to read this encyclopaedia. JamesBurns 04:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After I was reverted a couple of times on another article, I asked on the relevant MoS Talk page about my approach to dates. The last time I checked, the consensus seemed to be that my style was consistent with the MoS, but few (if any?) people agreed that it should be adopted as the recommended style — so it's permissible, but no more. I don't revert it any more (I seem to remember reverting on the article in question just because the links were included in both places, and because the birth date was wrong in the summary), though I use it for articles that I start, or on which I do a lot of work. I prefer it because, first, I think it makes the summary look less cluttered and messy, and secondly, it makes the summary summarise the greater detail of the article — but I've given up trying to convince others of that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved the article twice, accidentally. The spelling is "E.S. Posthumus", not "ES Posthumus" nor "E S Posthumus".

Thank you for the message on my talk page. I appreciate you contacting me. However, you are incorrect, the majority of the people on the talk page are in favor of removing the image from this article. By repeatedly reinserting it, you are going against the majority view. Force10 21:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)