User talk:Lomn/Archive2

Old talk topics headquartered at User talk:Lomn/Archive

Coin toss table

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)[reply]

The question is why User:jclerman et. al. failed to include such a table in the Half-life article if their intent was to serve other users rather than themselves. ...IMHO (Talk) 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, Lomn, to be replying on your talk page) Such a table doesn't belong because

it is a bulk table of primary source material (we don't include such in Wikipedia);
it is (arguably) original research; and
the table still doesn't prove the point that you're trying to make, Pce3. Starting with a sample of radioactive material, you can never be sure that all the atoms will have decayed by an arbitrary point in time. You can predict how likely it is that at least one atom will be left, but you can wait for the age of the universe and not be certain.

Please, Pce3, don't impugn the motives of Jclerman et al.. Discuss the article and not its editors. Incidentally, I'm not sure what self-serving interest you're accusing Jclerman of....? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob on the inserted reply. My opinion on the table inclusion has been that the pre-existing table at the front of the article (half-lives elapsed vs percentage remaining) is ideal for the article.

As noted, the amount of radioactive material remaining is nondeterministic
I find in-depth explanations of radioactive decay, and its particular variances from a standard half-life, to be best treated at radioactive decay (where such a discussion already exists)

So to my mind, it boils down to a case of not needing redundant (and suboptimally positioned) content. — Lomn | Talk 18:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Glass at Univ of Evansville

This is from http://www.dragoncon.org/people/glassr.html. I might even be information worth adding to the Ron Glass article.

Ron grew up the hard way in Evansville, Indiana but it was a childhood of strength and self reliance. His determination got him into the University of Evansville where he excelled academically and was inducted into several scholastic fraternities.

Later, following Ron’s national success, the university paid special tribute to his accomplishments. He was awarded the Medal of Honor, a commendation rarely given in the University’s long history.

He graduated with a double major receiving the B. A. in Drama and Literature. His out standing performances at the University’s Shankin Theatre let this gifted actor to a Theatre Communications Group audition. Ron received so many offers from Regionl/Repretory Theatres throughout the country that he set a record which remains unbroken

Also if you do a google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ron+glass+university+of+evansville) several other sites listing the same information come up.--Twintone 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Edit Warring:3RR appeal

Hi there. Please read about this situation more thoughtfully and try to see it from my perspective. Please do not accuse me of "wikilawyering"; I do not know the first thing about law and wwould be about as comfortable acting in a courtroom as a lawyer as My Cousin Vinny. There is an Administrator's noticeboard for "incidents" that call to be brought up. I was suspended for something that didn't happen. Again, I ask politely as possible - What will be done about the fact that I was wrongfully blocked for a 3RR instance that did not exist?JB196 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

TWA

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)[reply]

Actually, I don't. I reverted your initial "cite every line on the page" version when I added the reference because it looked for all the world like a petty attempt at sneaky content deletion. I have since not edited your revised list of needed citations. — Lomn | Talk 15:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject American football?

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)[reply]

Thank You

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

Re:Conspiratorial

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)[reply]

Fix that link, then play the encl. tape. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

Sure, I can type in User:Ericthebrainiac. Thank you for reminding me about my signature problem.

Reverting at Humanities Desk

Please see this diff ([2]) --Dweller 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XM

There was nothing wrong with my comment on the reference desk. Stop removing my contributions. Thanks, XM 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and stand by my assertion that your comment was "inflammatory, off-topic, and misleading", and note that the Ref Desk overtly states that soapboxing is inappropriate. That said, I will not edit war over your speeding ticket. — Lomn 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine rescues

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)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for pointing out this article to me ... and for making me aware of the post on my Talk Page. Much appreciated. I read the article ... it is very interesting, as is the topic in general. Terrible fate for the miners in Utah. One would think that in this day and age, more could be done. Thanks again. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Help Me - Protected Templates

{{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))[reply]

Both templates are protcted from editing due to high levels of vandalism on them, the reason one has a banner and one doesn't is just down to each administrators preferences, some use them, some don't. I will raise it with an admin to see if one can be added to the second template. Andy^reply 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the second template doesn't have it. I've put up a request for an administrator to add the protection template. In the future, you can do this by adding {{editprotected}} to the protected page's talk page and explaining what needs to be done. Happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, the second doesn't have it because while {{age}} is on over 20,000 pages (I stopped counting), {{age in years and days}} is on less than 500 -- it's just not considered "high-use" in order to apply at Wikipedia:High-risk templates. — Lomn 20:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see where I missed the point -- both are protected and only one has the banner. Yeah, no deep conspiracy behind that or anything. Given that the template is being tweaked after being protected, is not widely used, and has not been the target of vandalism, I'm not sure why it ought to be protected at present. — Lomn 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your help, this issue has been resolved. Much appreciated -- thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikimania in Atlanta!

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)[reply]

Simple Math Question -- Need Help -- Leap Years (?)

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.

Person A is born on 12/18/1946 and dies on 03/21/1994
Person B is born on 12/18/1904 and dies on 03/20/1952

Method One

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.

Method Two

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.)

Method Three

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:

yields:

47 years, 93 days

Person B:

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.

Method Four

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:

yields:

17260

Person B:

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.

Question

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))[reply]

All the methods are correct, but methods 1 and 4 are more useful for comparing ages. The reason is that methods 2 and 3 each count "47 years", but those years have variable lengths, some being leap years and some not. As it works out, the 47 years between 12/18/1946 and 12/18/1993 contain 12 leap days (48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92) while the 47 years between 12/18/1904 and 12/18/1951 contain 11 leap days (08, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48). Note that 1952 is not in the 47 year period in the second case. StuRat 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, had methods 2 and 3 counted from death back in time, the 47 years in each period both would have 12 leap years: 03/21/1947 to 03/21/1994 (48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92) and 03/20/1905 to 03/20/1952 (08, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52). The number of additional days would be 93 from 12/18/1946 to 03/21/1947 but only 92 from 12/18/1904 to 03/20/1905. Thus, you would get ages of 47 years, 93 days and 47 years, 92 days, respectively. The lesson ? Don't use variable sized units if you want an accurate result. StuRat 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, StuRat. Thank you for your reply to my question posted on the Math Help Desk (referenced aboved). I appreciate it. However, I am confused now more than ever. Can you please help me understand this situation? It's driving me nuts. Thanks so much. If you like, please start your explanation from scratch -- so that I can follow it more easily. However, I thought it was important to note that both people (A and B) lived through 12 leap days in the course of their lives. At some point, you said that one guy only had 11 leap days, while the other had 12. (You lost me there.) Then, you said, if we count "backwards" (from death to birth), then they both have 12 leap days in their lifetimes. (Huh? You lost me there again.) So, I am very lost lost (= lost squared). Ha ha. Would you mind explaining this again, starting from scratch? Thanks a lot. By the way, to clarify confusion: when you say the word "year", please indicate if you mean a calendar year (January 1 to December 31 of 1962, for example) ... or if you mean a full year of the person's life (December 18, 1957 to December 18, 1958, for example). Thanks again for your time and patience. Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. (Joseph A. Spadaro 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Follow-up. The issue is that the 1952 leap day is not counted as part of a "year", but as a separate day, using methods 2 and 3. The period used for the final year is 12/18/1950 to 12/18/1951, which does not include February 29, 1952. Thus you have an extra leap day, not part of the "47 years". This doesn't happen with the other person because his year of death, 1994, was not a leap year. So, while both people had 12 leap days in their lives, methods 2 and 3 only count, for the person who died in 1952, 11 of those in the "years" and one as a separate day, while they count all 12 of those in the "years" and none as a separate day, for the person who died in 1994. StuRat 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a way we can simplify the problem, leave off the first 44 years, which contain 11 leap days in either case:

{{age in years and days|1904|12|18|1948|12|18}} =

44 years, 0 days

{{age in years and days|1946|12|18|1990|12|18}} = 44 years, 0 days

{{age in days|1904|12|18|1948|12|18}} =

16071

{{age in days|1946|12|18|1990|12|18}} = 16071

This leaves us with the portion that contains the "discrepancy":

{{age in years and days|1948|12|18|1952|03|20}} =

3 years, 93 days

{{age in years and days|1990|12|18|1994|03|21}} = 3 years, 93 days

{{age in days|1948|12|18|1952|03|20}} =

1188

{{age in days|1990|12|18|1994|03|21}} = 1189

Now, let's break down how those calcs are done:

{{age in days|1948|12|18|1949|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1949|12|18|1950|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1950|12|18|1951|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1951|12|18|1952|03|20}} = 93 <- Leap day included

{{age in days|1990|12|18|1991|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1991|12|18|1992|12|18}} = 366 <- Leap day included

{{age in days|1992|12|18|1993|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1993|12|18|1994|03|21}} = 93

So, by shifting the leap day out of one of the "years" and into the days counted separately, it appears that an equal length of time has passed, when, in fact, the 2nd interval is a day longer. Note that all ranges were assumed to be from noon on the starting day to noon on the ending day (or from the same time on both days, in any case). StuRat 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not StuRat, but perhaps I can help as well. You've hit on the problem on the RefDesk as well as here:

year is used as a term meaning "sometimes 365 days and sometimes 366 days, starting from an arbitrary point" (in this case, that point is Dec 18)

This gives you two different meanings of the word "year" scattered across your examples, intermingled in the final answer, with no further distinction given. That ambiguity is why you get the varied results for "years + days lived" even though it's quite easy to agree that persons A and B lived a different number of days.

Does that clarify the issue, or are you looking for a more explicit breakdown? — Lomn 13:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. I appreciate the thorough explanations. I need a chance to read through them carefully and digest them. I will see if I understand this situation, or not, and get back to you as appropriate. Many thanks again. This problem was really stumping me, and I assume that your thorough explanations will make sense of it, after I have had a chance to read/digest/process them. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, once you get a chance to look it all over, please let me know if it makes sense. The source of the problem seems to be defining a year as anything other than a calendar year (Jan 1 - Dec 31), which means leap days may, or may not, be included, depending on which days are defined as the "year" and which are the extra days. StuRat 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs) [reply]

Visible Comet

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)[reply]

Very, very awesome. Thank you for the cool new website as much as the comet info! Beekone 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

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)[reply]

We want to stay cool...

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)[reply]

Good point, I'll keep that in mind. — Lomn 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symptom

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)[reply]

"Concern" indicates worry. "Curious" indicates interest. "I am curious about how chocolate is made" does not mean one is preoccupied about the chocolate-making process. Please... Do not try to use language ambiguities to prove your [mistaken] point. Linguistical arrogance, particularly when flawed, tends to backfire. -- Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 15:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It just appears we have different views on this subject. Have a nice day. -- Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post flame bait

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)[reply]

I assume you're talking about this? It's not flamebait at all. It's a polite and reasonable answer to your question. Friday (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm on record: LOL. — Lomn 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Reference desk

I was being condescending. Lotsofissues 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice to have that on record, I guess. — Lomn 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Guadalcanal 91 cover.jpg

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)[reply]

Don't remove my comment, remove the topic

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm "more lenient towards medical postings than average"? Hee hee - that's an understatement. I did find it rather humorous that I took the hat of the big bad censorship guy this round. -- kainaw ™ 15:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Eric's questions

Good approach. Especially the bit about not expecting any clarification. Have a nice day :) --Ouro (blah blah) 14:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About my questions

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)[reply]

I really mean this to be the truth. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson Panel

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)[reply]

Allegedly, the tabloids referred to a SECRET govt. project called Project BLACK Book, a really sinister version of Project Blue Book, that makes Project Grudge look harmless. 65.173.105.241 (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, all I can do is feel pity. — Lomn 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Pocahantas Middle School

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)[reply]

adopted eric?

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)[reply]

RD: removing medical questions

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)[reply]

The Telenovelic Guy

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)[reply]

Eric is obsessed with telenovelas and, more to the point, is obsessed with the concept telenovelas he thinks up himself. Most of his edits are harmless nonsense, a few appear to be real information pertinent to Spanish-language networks (I'm unable to verify this, however), and some are his fantasy world spilling over. The latter category is what several people police vigorously, and the second category is the only reason (in my opinion) he's not banned. Given his inability to grasp (or to adhere to) the community's standards, it's probably only a matter of time. — Lomn 04:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion about this user at Wikipedia:ANI#No_useful_contributions.3F. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across the AN/I discussion and am sad to see people attributing malice where I think there's none. As annoying as EtB has been, I almost feel sorry for him at this stage. --LarryMac | Talk 20:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment

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! WikiZorro^sign 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flooding your talk page

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)[reply]

Yeah, we'll see where that goes. — Lomn 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, though, I'll do more than infer that you don't know what you're doing. You don't know what you're doing. You don't grasp basic core culture and policies of Wikipedia, and that leaves you unsuited to try to overhaul project space. There's nothing wrong with this. Everybody starts out not knowing squat about said policies. That's why I've recommended you work with existing stuff, focus on talk pages, work with well-established adopters/users/whatever, and generally understand project space before you rewrite it. Simple. Just not fast. — Lomn 00:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments

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)[reply]

Request granted

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)[reply]

Not much reason. I thought about it a couple years back, but went inactive for a few months. Since then I've watched the nature of RFA go increasingly nitpicky, and I tend to foresee a spate of "too much refdesk"/"do more project work"/"doesn't do stuff that needs tools" (I still can't figure out that last one -- of course a non-admin isn't doing admin-tool stuff; he can't -- but this still crops up in one form or another with disturbing frequency) and so I just haven't bothered. Appreciate the thought, though, and thanks for filling the RfR. — Lomn 17:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot!!!!

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)[reply]

Really, I DID have a idiot on MY terminal. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, nothing in your long contribs history suggests two different people. — Lomn 16:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a BIG family. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) :0[reply]

Re.: Men In Black

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) :)[reply]

Like I said, I'd dump those links, but Cluebot, some other bot would scream, "VANDALISM!!!!", so could you handle that one? 65.173.105.197 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC) :)[reply]

One of those links claims a idiot allegedly staged a UFO Incident, a crash I think, to attract Men In Black personnel. I did NOT add those links, but, as earlier stated, I would delete those links, but a bot would say that I had vandalized a article. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC) :([reply]

Can you help? 65.173.105.197 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except those links are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used to insert article material. I've already pointed this out. Frankly, I don't think those links should be in the article at all, but I really don't want to wade into that slop. — Lomn 05:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do NOT really blame you at all. When I move in, I'll have you nominated to be a Admin, then you and others do NOT have to go into that at all. Someone else placed those links, and from the looks of things, they've been there for quite a while. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]