Welcome!

Hello, Haddock420, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 16:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

wikipedians

Hello, i saw you were listed on the Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians, but as one of the funny ones, and i invite you to read this and add your name or something else if you want. You may also want to put your name here: category:wikipedians by fields of interest under drugs/drug addiction. cheers! --Ballchef 13:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1969, 2007

You are not alone. The Apollo programm was a hoax. It was telling and selling shit to people and still is. I have Bill Kaysing´s book at home: We Never Went to the Moon. The 30 Billion Dollar Swindle. I have read it. Kaysing cites NASA clearly: The fucking rocket of Apollo 11 weighted some 3000 tons. The Saturn-V engines delivered around 120 tons thrust. It´s easier not to trust them than to trust them. Kind Regards, Filmtechniker alias 80.219.86.190 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Haddock420 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually respond properly to this when I first saw it over a year ago, I just thought "Hey it's some crackpot being a moron." But I really do feel the need to respond to this. I know the guy who posted it isn't gonna read it, but still, I feel I should give this a proper response.

Firstly, according to Wikipedia, Apollo 11 weighed 46,768 kg, which is 103,105 pounds. That's 103 tons. So if your figure of 120 tons thrust is correct (I don't know if it is, I'm not going to bother looking it up), the rocket would've launched.

Secondly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Those astronauts risked their lives to help prove that space travel was a feasible goal. They were the first humans to land on a non-terrestrial body. At the time (and still even today) space travel was a dangerous and experimental thing. They knew they could die out there, but they still did it. What you said is unbelievably disrespectful.

Now, if the moon landing was actually a hoax, I would want to know about it. But I've looked up this stuff before, it wasn't a hoax. For every piece of evidence indicating it was a hoax, NASA has a perfectly valid scientific rationale for it. Why does the flag look like it's blowing when the moon has no air and thus no wind? The astronauts twisted the flagpole to get it into the ground, and since there's no air to create resistance, the flag contiued to move under its own inertia.

I have to admit, some of the evidence to the moon landing hoax does seem very convincing.... until you read into it, then you realize that's it's bullshit. Don't buy into conspiracy theories just because you want to be one of the people who "knows the real truth". Buy into them because they're true. If someone presents you with a conspiracy theory about something, don't accept what they say at face value. Research the evidence on your own, see if it checks out, and if it does then sure, go ahead and believe it. But to blindly believe a conspiracy theory is just as bad as blindly believing the government, which is something you conspiracy nuts love to chastise people about.

And "It's easier not to trust them than to trust them," what the hell kind of reasoning is that? This isn't about what's easy, it's about what's true. Grow a fucking brain. Haddock420 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cheechandchong.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cheechandchong.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry it took so long Haddock420 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cheechandchong.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cheechandchong.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheechandchong.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cheechandchong.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Haddock420

A tag has been placed on User:Haddock420 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CptViraj (Talk) 17:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]