Talk:Lady tasting tea: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Thanks |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
I just wanted to mention this is a fun cool article to add. Thanks for doing so! [[User:Talgalili|Talgalili]] ([[User talk:Talgalili|talk]]) 12:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC) |
I just wanted to mention this is a fun cool article to add. Thanks for doing so! [[User:Talgalili|Talgalili]] ([[User talk:Talgalili|talk]]) 12:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
: Thanks for your kind words.I created this add to prevent the appearance that the well-established phrase, "the lady tasting tea" was being used on Wikipedia to promote (good<!-- from the snippets I've read -->) book with that title. Having two articles, and a appropriately positive link to the book seemed like a good idea. (As a general policy, private concerns should not be able to seize public or common property.) Best regards, [[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|Kiefer.Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|talk]]) 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC) |
: Thanks for your kind words.I created this add to prevent the appearance that the well-established phrase, "the lady tasting tea" was being used on Wikipedia to promote the (good<!-- from the snippets I've read -->) book with that title. Having two articles, and a appropriately positive link to the book seemed like a good idea. (As a general policy, private concerns should not be able to seize public or common property.) Best regards, [[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|Kiefer.Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|talk]]) 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:52, 4 March 2010
Welcome!
Statistics Stub‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Mathematics Stub‑class Low‑priority | ||||||||||
|
Great add
I just wanted to mention this is a fun cool article to add. Thanks for doing so! Talgalili (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words.I created this add to prevent the appearance that the well-established phrase, "the lady tasting tea" was being used on Wikipedia to promote the (good) book with that title. Having two articles, and a appropriately positive link to the book seemed like a good idea. (As a general policy, private concerns should not be able to seize public or common property.) Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)