User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive20

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy[edit]

What needs to be done to take the neutrality warning label off this story?--Beth Wellington 03:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done and hello[edit]

Ta bu shi da yu,

Hey there. I was browsing thru some of the Sydney links and eventually found my way to the reunion page, and low and behold, there is a pic of you that I recognise as I went to school with you! So there you go, although there are no pics of me in wikipedia to give away my identity, not that its that hard to figure out from my name. You have done some great stuff on wikipedia - well done! How do you find the time? Like many others out there, wikipedia is what I do when I'm clearly not working hard enough.

OK, back to this job. (Westius 05:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yep, same year! (Westius 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Article for Deletion[edit]

Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...[edit]

... cool idea... only it looks, uh, like a bum-crack! And as I always say: say no to crack. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What looks like a bum crack? I am utterly confused. -- Newhoggy | Talk 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Wikimedia Australia logo... good try though :) Ta bu shi da yu 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Yes, I suppose it does! -- Newhoggy | Talk 07:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary[edit]

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 45% for major edits and 26% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear inpolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qif[edit]

What's your take on this now? Interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly shouldn't be used any more than it is already. People are basically inventing new things to do with it, rather than creating templates that are really necessary. It's fragile, in that at any time, the template syntax could change, instantly breaking this everywhere. -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]