Old talk topics headquartered at User talk:Lomn/Archive
Hey, I just thought I'd drop you a note to say that I appreciate the effort you put into User:Lomn/Sandbox. It's an excellent demonstration of the point we're trying to illustrate to Pce3. Well done! TenOfAllTrades( talk) 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am personally past this thing. But for some reason, ever since he returned from his previous block he has spent most of his time plotting to get me blocked for something I didn't do. [1]. I honestly Hope that he can move on and stop plotting revenge against whomever may disagree with him. I'm sorry if you got dragged into this mess too. My apologies . -- bulletproof 3:16 01:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You need to provide citation for these no-name wrestlers who nobody has heard of proving that htey were trained at the TWA school. JB196 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, someone brought it to my attention that you were thinking of starting a wikiproject on general football strategy articles. Well, I recently did start one up, and I think your expertise would be very helpful there. Please come check us out at: Wikipedia:WikiProject American football The idea is to help clean up the non-NFL football articles (mostly football strategy type articles). Please consider joining this project and helping out where possible! -- Jayron32 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out with the address for my taxes. I couldn't seem to find it. 24.10.159.73 22:06, 13 April 2007
The newscaster made that remark, NOT me. I'm on a rotten Wi Fi connection. 65.163.113.170 ( talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I can type in User:Ericthebrainiac. Thank you for reminding me about my signature problem.
Please see this diff ( [2]) -- Dweller 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with my comment on the reference desk. Stop removing my contributions. Thanks, XM 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Your RefDesk question about the Utah mine collapse and rescue efforts is starting to drift into the middle of the pack, so I figured I'd drop this here, too. You might be interested in the Slate article titled Why don't miners carry GPS-tracking devices?, which is particularly interesting for its (brief) discussion of hybrid wired/wireless systems under development. — Lomn 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Is there an administrator out there who can (a) answer my questions and (b) act upon my questions? Please advise. Thanks. See this page:
Template:Age … it has a "high-risk template protection" banner at the top. See this page:
Template:Age in years and days … it does not have a "high-risk template protection" banner at the top. Why is that? Is there some valid distinction between these two pages / templates, such that one carries the banner and one does not? If so, what is the distinction? If not, can an administrator either (a) remove the banner from the first template; or (b) add the banner to the second template (whichever is more appropriate)? Thanks. (
Joseph A. Spadaro
20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
Thanks to your help, this issue has been resolved. Much appreciated -- thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!
P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
To: User talk:StuRat and User talk:Lomn
From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Simple Math Question -- Need Help -- Leap Years (?)
Can someone please help me with this simple math calculation? It can't understand it and it's driving me crazy. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.
According to Microsoft Excel: A lived 17,260 days and B lived 17,259 days.
That seems to make "sense" since ... although in different calendar years ... they were both born on the same "day" (December 18) but Person A lived an extra day in March (dying on March 21 instead of March 20) while Person B did not live for that extra day in March (dying on March 20 instead of March 21). So, it makes sense that the March 21 decedent (Person A) has lived one extra day more than the March 20 decedent (Person B) ... that is, Person A lived 17,260 days which is one day more than Person B who lived 17,259 days.
So, the only thing that is truly "different" between Person A and B is ... the actual calendar years that they lived through ... and thus "how many leap years / leap days did each person live through." (I think?)
Person A has lived through 12 leap days: in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Person B has lived through 12 leap days: in 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1952.
Using Method One (above), Person A lived one extra day more than Person B.
Person A: From December 18, 1946 to December 18, 1993 is exactly 47 years. So, A celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 21, 1994 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Person B: From December 18, 1904 to December 18, 1951 is exactly 47 years. So, B celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 20, 1952 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Using Method Two (above), Person A lives 47 years and 93 days. Person B also lives 47 years and 93 days. (There is no "one day" difference.)
I tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in years and days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in years and days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
Person B:
{{age in years and days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
So, Method Three (above) agrees with Method Two (above) ... Person A and Person B died at exactly the same age.
I also tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
17260
Person B:
{{age in days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
17259
So, Method Four (above) agrees with Method One (above) ... Person A and Person B did not die at exactly the same age, but one day off.
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what. Thanks. Where is my reasoning flawed?
Method One and Four agree that "A" lives one day longer than "B". (17,260 versus 17,259)
Methods Two and Three agree that "A" and "B" live exactly the same length of time. (47 years and 93 days)
So, perhaps the word "year" means a different thing for Person A than it does for Person B?
That is, the word "year" means 365 days in some cases ... but it means 366 days in some other (leap-year) cases.
That might seem to cause the discrepancy.
However, Person "A" has lived during 12 leap years/days ... and Person "B" has also lived during 12 leap year/days.
Thus, for both persons, the word "year" means 366 days in 12 years of their lives ... and the word "year" means 365 days in the other 36 years of their lives. They have both lived through 12 leap years and 35 normal years (thus, a birthday of 47 years total) ... plus a fractional piece of yet another (i.e., their 48th) year.
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what.
Where is my thinking flawed? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
Since you asked about this just a few days ago on the RefDesk, here's some info on a comet that's suddenly brightened to naked-eye visibility (magnitude 3). — Lomn 15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I was just debating with myself whether to call "Clem" to task for his rudeness, when I saw that you had done it for me. Gandalf61 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lomn. I appreciate the support here, but I want to encourage everyone involved to try to be as cool and calm as possible. I've found – through long and unpleasant experience – that it's all too easy to push discussions about medical advice on the Desks over the line from reasoned debate into ugly flaming. It might be best to avoid calling other editors' comments or questions 'nonsense', even in edit summaries. We want to engage people on an intellectual level, rather than an emotional one. If someone misunderstands my statements (or if I misstate my position, for that matter), then we want to clarify rather than inflame. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades( talk) 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. I am not concerned, I am curious. And a higher sensibility to thirst could well be a Mendelevian issue. -- Leptictidium ( mammal talk!) 15:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
When I ask you to not to do something, please don't do it. 64.236.121.129 ( talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I was being condescending. Lotsofissues 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Guadalcanal 91 cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You have a history of harrassing me, so this seems to be retailiation, which isn't allowed. If you feel the topic is against the rules, remove the topic. Don't just remove my comment. 64.236.121.129 ( talk) 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the rules don't specify that I can't say such things. They only specify that you can't ASK for medical advice. 64.236.121.129 ( talk) 14:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"Hmm, I'm pretty sure that (at least heavy) exercise while sick can cause myocarditis. Not good! -- Aeluwas (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC) "
This was also medical advice. But you didn't remove that. You are biased. 64.236.121.129 ( talk) 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you check kainaw's talk page. The situation has already been resolved. 64.236.121.129 ( talk) 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Good approach. Especially the bit about not expecting any clarification. Have a nice day :) -- Ouro ( blah blah) 14:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The real reasons that I put my fictional things into Wikipedia is because I really wanted everybody and his brother to be invited into my fictional world. Ericthebrainiac ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I really mean this to be the truth. Ericthebrainiac ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This says that a " debunking" campaign be initiated to "reduce" intreast in UFOs. Debunk according to a dictionary means ridicule, as in slander, insult, etc. as stated in any dictionary. This was initiated to stop people from reporting UFOs and clogging comm systems in th event that a enemy has unveiled a new weapon that could panic the people, by ridiculing the people. 65.173.105.241 ( talk) 04:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. But I was removing all that "Teaher X is super awesome!" stuff also, trying to make the article a little less of an ad. I was unaware of the school guidelines. Thanks for the heads up. -- Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 16:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you adopted Eric? I didn't see any indicated on your userpage, so I removed the adoption template with your name on it (which wasn't being displayed anyway, but...). xenocidic ( talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lomn. I've replied to your post on the RD talk page - sorry for the confusion. I hope I clarified my stance now. I don't think what I'm refering to would violate Steve Baker's "signed cheque" argument (which is what you were referring to, right?). Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 08:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What does User:Ericthebrainiac mean? Why does he keep asking me these strange questions? Basketball110 My story/ Tell me yours 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I greatly apologize for my comments on LAA's talk page. Outside Wikipedia I had an extremely stressful day and totally got defensive at every little thing. Please accept that it wasn't you I was "shouting" at, it was my own frustration I vented out. Any way, the border that RyRy5 made for LAA's page is a usermessage template which are always in bold. Best wishes! Wiki Zorro sign 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You know what, you need to find some other user to pick on. I have tons of nonsense from you. We have the same amount of power. I don't know where you came from, my ideas are just as valid as yours. Okay, I made a mistke. But instead, you inferred I didn't know what I was doing. Wikipedia is NOT a website to be nitpicking at other users. If I get one more comment on my talk page from you, I'm reporting you to an admin.-- LAA Fan 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lomn, I have learned of Wikipedia voting recently. However, I now realize how easily that can be interpreted. I know that the votes aren't for a tally. I was stating merely, about the same number of votes for keep and delete, and two administrators on the delete side, I was trying hard to get more !votes for keep. However, I now know that was wrong. I was attempting for more keeps because, I know that the users on the delete side have more experience. I am trying to save the project. I appreciate the advice....-- LAA Fan 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You now have rollback. Actually I thought you were an admin. Why aren't you an admin? You've been here for years, clean block log...I haven't dug too deep, but is there any reason why you're not? Have you ever run an RfA? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No. Not you. I had someone on my terminal who thought he was a comic, like Chris Rock. Does this clear things up? 65.173.105.197 ( talk) 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I had stated that the Men In Black are aliens is the three or four links in the External links section state that they're aliens, and I picked one of those links that do indeed state that, such as "Men In Black Are Aliens", that kind of thing. Can I direct your attention to those links in the External Links section please? One is from www.maar.us, the one I used to prove my case. The others, including the "Men In Black Are Aliens" link is yet another one there. I'd remove them, but someone or a "Bot", like the ClueBot would indicate vandalism. That one falsely indicated vandalism while I was removing it from the Fouke article. Someone else had claimed that Fouke was the home of a cult, claiming the cult AND leader AS a Bigfoot Monster. It had that, two sets of External Links, all of which messed up the article. A check of the Fouke's History section will prove that. The ClueBot falsely blamed the vandalism on me instead. ( :0)By the way, how do those "bots" function? So that IF one malfunctions again, like in the Fouke matter, I can alert its programmer that the bot had malfunctioned. Thanks for the assisstance. IF I do decide to move here, I may have you nominated to Admin. 65.173.105.197 ( talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) :)
Old talk topics headquartered at User talk:Lomn/Archive
Hey, I just thought I'd drop you a note to say that I appreciate the effort you put into User:Lomn/Sandbox. It's an excellent demonstration of the point we're trying to illustrate to Pce3. Well done! TenOfAllTrades( talk) 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am personally past this thing. But for some reason, ever since he returned from his previous block he has spent most of his time plotting to get me blocked for something I didn't do. [1]. I honestly Hope that he can move on and stop plotting revenge against whomever may disagree with him. I'm sorry if you got dragged into this mess too. My apologies . -- bulletproof 3:16 01:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You need to provide citation for these no-name wrestlers who nobody has heard of proving that htey were trained at the TWA school. JB196 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, someone brought it to my attention that you were thinking of starting a wikiproject on general football strategy articles. Well, I recently did start one up, and I think your expertise would be very helpful there. Please come check us out at: Wikipedia:WikiProject American football The idea is to help clean up the non-NFL football articles (mostly football strategy type articles). Please consider joining this project and helping out where possible! -- Jayron32 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out with the address for my taxes. I couldn't seem to find it. 24.10.159.73 22:06, 13 April 2007
The newscaster made that remark, NOT me. I'm on a rotten Wi Fi connection. 65.163.113.170 ( talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I can type in User:Ericthebrainiac. Thank you for reminding me about my signature problem.
Please see this diff ( [2]) -- Dweller 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with my comment on the reference desk. Stop removing my contributions. Thanks, XM 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Your RefDesk question about the Utah mine collapse and rescue efforts is starting to drift into the middle of the pack, so I figured I'd drop this here, too. You might be interested in the Slate article titled Why don't miners carry GPS-tracking devices?, which is particularly interesting for its (brief) discussion of hybrid wired/wireless systems under development. — Lomn 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Is there an administrator out there who can (a) answer my questions and (b) act upon my questions? Please advise. Thanks. See this page:
Template:Age … it has a "high-risk template protection" banner at the top. See this page:
Template:Age in years and days … it does not have a "high-risk template protection" banner at the top. Why is that? Is there some valid distinction between these two pages / templates, such that one carries the banner and one does not? If so, what is the distinction? If not, can an administrator either (a) remove the banner from the first template; or (b) add the banner to the second template (whichever is more appropriate)? Thanks. (
Joseph A. Spadaro
20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
Thanks to your help, this issue has been resolved. Much appreciated -- thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!
P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
To: User talk:StuRat and User talk:Lomn
From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Simple Math Question -- Need Help -- Leap Years (?)
Can someone please help me with this simple math calculation? It can't understand it and it's driving me crazy. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.
According to Microsoft Excel: A lived 17,260 days and B lived 17,259 days.
That seems to make "sense" since ... although in different calendar years ... they were both born on the same "day" (December 18) but Person A lived an extra day in March (dying on March 21 instead of March 20) while Person B did not live for that extra day in March (dying on March 20 instead of March 21). So, it makes sense that the March 21 decedent (Person A) has lived one extra day more than the March 20 decedent (Person B) ... that is, Person A lived 17,260 days which is one day more than Person B who lived 17,259 days.
So, the only thing that is truly "different" between Person A and B is ... the actual calendar years that they lived through ... and thus "how many leap years / leap days did each person live through." (I think?)
Person A has lived through 12 leap days: in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Person B has lived through 12 leap days: in 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1952.
Using Method One (above), Person A lived one extra day more than Person B.
Person A: From December 18, 1946 to December 18, 1993 is exactly 47 years. So, A celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 21, 1994 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Person B: From December 18, 1904 to December 18, 1951 is exactly 47 years. So, B celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 20, 1952 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Using Method Two (above), Person A lives 47 years and 93 days. Person B also lives 47 years and 93 days. (There is no "one day" difference.)
I tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in years and days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in years and days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
Person B:
{{age in years and days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
So, Method Three (above) agrees with Method Two (above) ... Person A and Person B died at exactly the same age.
I also tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
17260
Person B:
{{age in days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
17259
So, Method Four (above) agrees with Method One (above) ... Person A and Person B did not die at exactly the same age, but one day off.
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what. Thanks. Where is my reasoning flawed?
Method One and Four agree that "A" lives one day longer than "B". (17,260 versus 17,259)
Methods Two and Three agree that "A" and "B" live exactly the same length of time. (47 years and 93 days)
So, perhaps the word "year" means a different thing for Person A than it does for Person B?
That is, the word "year" means 365 days in some cases ... but it means 366 days in some other (leap-year) cases.
That might seem to cause the discrepancy.
However, Person "A" has lived during 12 leap years/days ... and Person "B" has also lived during 12 leap year/days.
Thus, for both persons, the word "year" means 366 days in 12 years of their lives ... and the word "year" means 365 days in the other 36 years of their lives. They have both lived through 12 leap years and 35 normal years (thus, a birthday of 47 years total) ... plus a fractional piece of yet another (i.e., their 48th) year.
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what.
Where is my thinking flawed? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
Since you asked about this just a few days ago on the RefDesk, here's some info on a comet that's suddenly brightened to naked-eye visibility (magnitude 3). — Lomn 15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I was just debating with myself whether to call "Clem" to task for his rudeness, when I saw that you had done it for me. Gandalf61 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lomn. I appreciate the support here, but I want to encourage everyone involved to try to be as cool and calm as possible. I've found – through long and unpleasant experience – that it's all too easy to push discussions about medical advice on the Desks over the line from reasoned debate into ugly flaming. It might be best to avoid calling other editors' comments or questions 'nonsense', even in edit summaries. We want to engage people on an intellectual level, rather than an emotional one. If someone misunderstands my statements (or if I misstate my position, for that matter), then we want to clarify rather than inflame. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades( talk) 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. I am not concerned, I am curious. And a higher sensibility to thirst could well be a Mendelevian issue. -- Leptictidium ( mammal talk!) 15:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
When I ask you to not to do something, please don't do it. 64.236.121.129 ( talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I was being condescending. Lotsofissues 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Guadalcanal 91 cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You have a history of harrassing me, so this seems to be retailiation, which isn't allowed. If you feel the topic is against the rules, remove the topic. Don't just remove my comment. 64.236.121.129 ( talk) 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the rules don't specify that I can't say such things. They only specify that you can't ASK for medical advice. 64.236.121.129 ( talk) 14:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"Hmm, I'm pretty sure that (at least heavy) exercise while sick can cause myocarditis. Not good! -- Aeluwas (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC) "
This was also medical advice. But you didn't remove that. You are biased. 64.236.121.129 ( talk) 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you check kainaw's talk page. The situation has already been resolved. 64.236.121.129 ( talk) 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Good approach. Especially the bit about not expecting any clarification. Have a nice day :) -- Ouro ( blah blah) 14:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The real reasons that I put my fictional things into Wikipedia is because I really wanted everybody and his brother to be invited into my fictional world. Ericthebrainiac ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I really mean this to be the truth. Ericthebrainiac ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This says that a " debunking" campaign be initiated to "reduce" intreast in UFOs. Debunk according to a dictionary means ridicule, as in slander, insult, etc. as stated in any dictionary. This was initiated to stop people from reporting UFOs and clogging comm systems in th event that a enemy has unveiled a new weapon that could panic the people, by ridiculing the people. 65.173.105.241 ( talk) 04:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. But I was removing all that "Teaher X is super awesome!" stuff also, trying to make the article a little less of an ad. I was unaware of the school guidelines. Thanks for the heads up. -- Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 16:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you adopted Eric? I didn't see any indicated on your userpage, so I removed the adoption template with your name on it (which wasn't being displayed anyway, but...). xenocidic ( talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lomn. I've replied to your post on the RD talk page - sorry for the confusion. I hope I clarified my stance now. I don't think what I'm refering to would violate Steve Baker's "signed cheque" argument (which is what you were referring to, right?). Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 08:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What does User:Ericthebrainiac mean? Why does he keep asking me these strange questions? Basketball110 My story/ Tell me yours 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I greatly apologize for my comments on LAA's talk page. Outside Wikipedia I had an extremely stressful day and totally got defensive at every little thing. Please accept that it wasn't you I was "shouting" at, it was my own frustration I vented out. Any way, the border that RyRy5 made for LAA's page is a usermessage template which are always in bold. Best wishes! Wiki Zorro sign 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You know what, you need to find some other user to pick on. I have tons of nonsense from you. We have the same amount of power. I don't know where you came from, my ideas are just as valid as yours. Okay, I made a mistke. But instead, you inferred I didn't know what I was doing. Wikipedia is NOT a website to be nitpicking at other users. If I get one more comment on my talk page from you, I'm reporting you to an admin.-- LAA Fan 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lomn, I have learned of Wikipedia voting recently. However, I now realize how easily that can be interpreted. I know that the votes aren't for a tally. I was stating merely, about the same number of votes for keep and delete, and two administrators on the delete side, I was trying hard to get more !votes for keep. However, I now know that was wrong. I was attempting for more keeps because, I know that the users on the delete side have more experience. I am trying to save the project. I appreciate the advice....-- LAA Fan 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You now have rollback. Actually I thought you were an admin. Why aren't you an admin? You've been here for years, clean block log...I haven't dug too deep, but is there any reason why you're not? Have you ever run an RfA? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No. Not you. I had someone on my terminal who thought he was a comic, like Chris Rock. Does this clear things up? 65.173.105.197 ( talk) 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I had stated that the Men In Black are aliens is the three or four links in the External links section state that they're aliens, and I picked one of those links that do indeed state that, such as "Men In Black Are Aliens", that kind of thing. Can I direct your attention to those links in the External Links section please? One is from www.maar.us, the one I used to prove my case. The others, including the "Men In Black Are Aliens" link is yet another one there. I'd remove them, but someone or a "Bot", like the ClueBot would indicate vandalism. That one falsely indicated vandalism while I was removing it from the Fouke article. Someone else had claimed that Fouke was the home of a cult, claiming the cult AND leader AS a Bigfoot Monster. It had that, two sets of External Links, all of which messed up the article. A check of the Fouke's History section will prove that. The ClueBot falsely blamed the vandalism on me instead. ( :0)By the way, how do those "bots" function? So that IF one malfunctions again, like in the Fouke matter, I can alert its programmer that the bot had malfunctioned. Thanks for the assisstance. IF I do decide to move here, I may have you nominated to Admin. 65.173.105.197 ( talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) :)