Talk:You have two cows

Duplicate Article

Hmmm...wait. Why are there two "Two Cow" articles? That's dumb. Someone should do something about that. Harrumph. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 12:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You have two articles. Both are lame. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Someone want to put them out of their misery, despite my superb contribution to them today? We could take the cows to the stun gun.... DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 13:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I made this one as a more serious treatment of the subject, explaining it and trimming it down to the RW-relevant examples. I figure this is the most sensible approach to it. ^narchist 13:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And what about the other one? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's in the funspace where it belongs. ^narchist 18:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as we keep on top of the content creep on the main article, things should be Just Fine. ^narchist 18:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This way lies madness. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Addenda

You have two cows. Ealing Libraries blocks access to one.

Yhtc - Conservapedia: this is proof God exists. They are not l#####n cows.

Yhtc - Wikipedia: Please read a personal message from Jimbo Wales/an editor of XXX articles - follow this link. This is original research. This is unsourced information. (add to taste) 82.198.250.67 (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

== Deletion ==

Shouldn't this be redirected to the other article then? Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 08:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I've removed the only mainspace links to it (both of which were completely pointless & irrelevant) and it's unlikely to be a much searched for term. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)