Jump to content

User talk:Vivacissamamente

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vivacissamamente (talk | contribs) at 11:56, 2 January 2013 (Undid revision 529003135 by 41.220.69.34 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If every visitor here signed (please do), I would soon have a list of everyone who had visited my page recently!

Hi!

Hi, and thanks for the edits per Talk:sigma-algebra. I sat down to do them this morning ... and imagine my surprise, the articles were not quite as I remembered them. For an old-timer, I note you've kept an low profile. The party is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 14:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Specifically, for future reference, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout: "Proceed descendingly: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the chronologically later it was made." Hyacinth 10:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply to my question re the Elusinian Mysteries. Tony Boulton 25/7/2006

Angela Beesley

nominated for deletion. --Coroebus 16:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC) you are stupid![reply]

just a note

it's spelled "vivacissimamente" in italian.

Yeah, I've known for a few years now, but I think that makes it kind of appropriate.
Thanks.

AfD nomination of List of atonal pieces

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of atonal pieces, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atonal pieces. Thank you. S.dedalus 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)I'm a total dork.[reply]

Concur

I concur with your deletion of the text that "thought-terminating cliche is an example of itself." I had also read that and scratched my head. If whoever it was feels strongly that this should be stated, he or she should explain it better. DanielM 14:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question

I suppose that the stuffy mindset would be a dealbreaker. The part which puzzles me is that encyclopedic knowledge is noteworthy and has survived the test of time and will be read by many, while most journalism is on a trivial subject which will be forgotten by the end of the week. -Oreo Priest 15:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.