User talk:Werson

There's a difference between an apostrophe and a prime mark. Unless there's something in the Manual of Style that says to use apostrophes instead of prime marks (or major sources that use the apostrophe instead of a prime mark to refer to these particles), your revert was unwarranted. —Werson (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do use apostrophe insteas of prime mark - see references and external links in current revision of Z' boson article. And there are NO sources using prime mark. --antiXt (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on Omega-6 fatty acid worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my addition on the Montauk Monster talk page. I can assume your interest in recent information that surfaced. Axelarater (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Axelarater[reply]

Sorry dude. I'm kinda new to the whole "image rules". Mabe I should know my stuff more next time BEFORE I upload an image. Guess I'll just stick to writting and updating articles (which is something I happen to be o.k at lol). Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster G (talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top easily find the subject: Complexity Zoo redirects there. Twri (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't continue debating further myself, but I just want to make one thing clear as we end the mess on the ALBUMS talk page.

I did not personally call you a butthole. I said that coming on here trying to tell us we must conform to your policies regarding a certain subject makes you LOOK like a butthole. I did not mean any personal insult in the matter, and I apologize if you've taken it as such. I was attempting to provide rational reasons for my opinion, as well, and I hope that was seen amidst my comments.

I hope no offense is taken and hope that will not hamper any communication in the future should we end up both working on an article at different times. =)

Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, an awful edit. See relevant Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 23:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Werson. Nice fix on the Show/Hide matter. I wonder if you wouldn't mind addressing another issue re the template. There seems to be a difficulty with certain OS compatibility (says he, pretending to know what he's talking about). The discussion is here. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening with the proposal to mergea few population templates at Template_talk:Historical_populations#Merger_proposal. The idea is good, and should beeasy to realise, at least for {{Histpop}}. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to honor the man who created the Breaking Bad Wikipedia page. I'm serious, you can check! Thank you!

Template:Historical populations/row has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical populations/USCensusRef has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]