User talk:Myles325a

August 2010

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at Talk:Newcastle High School (Australia). Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on the purpose of talk pages, see Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice followed

Category:All pages needing cleanup Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Unblocked

Sorry for the delay in unblocking you. I've removed the sockpuppet template from your userpage, and restored it to its original state. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, the block on your network range should have expired by now, so I've removed your IP Block Exemption. Should you encounter any problems editing, please email me or post an unblock request. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

toolserver

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Myles325a&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

Talkback

Hello, Myles325a. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
Message added 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hold on there

The insulting message you left on User talk:78.38.28.3 is noted. You risk being blocked from editing if you continue with such behaviour. You could apologise on his talk page, or remove your comments. Moriori (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your further edits to that page are noted. I have left a message about your behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Can someone take a look please?. Moriori (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wit

I thought you might appreciate this. I like to watch this page. Malleus has a finely tuned bullshit meter. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that page brought me to this one! I wish I could pull off what you did! Outstanding!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do ? I am impressed already,( doesn't mean much as I am pretty dim) that's why I came here. 188.220.186.57 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, time has passed and I really don't know what I did that was so outstanding. Good thing is I'm doing such things all the time. I'll wait for my future biographers to clarify the matter. Myles325a (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to KenKen. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on KenKen. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ^Bongo_matic 04:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removal from RD/S

I have removed something you posted to the Science refdesk, because I felt that it was unproductive. If you wish to discuss this, please use the relevant Talk page where I've started a section for it. -- Scray (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this too from the same section:

"How jolly nice for you. Now if you can just clear up some of those shameful slums, you'll be all set to join the 20th Century. (P.S. Printing in full caps is regarded as a style best suited for the uneducated and uncouth. Then again, perhaps you better keep on using it.) Myles325a (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

Per WT:RD. Please do not bite our Reference Desk visitors. Thank you, WikiDao ☯ 12:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate discussions at the ref desks

Please don't keep reposting closed discussions at the reference desks. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for us to wildly speculate about the living conditions of your fantasy world. It has nothing to do with being "scientific" or not; no one used that rationale in objecting to your discussion. The reference desks are just not the appropriate venue for such discussions. They exist so people can ask questions which others can answer using references, usually from Wikipedia articles. What you basically did was post a giant wall of text describing your "82% Better Earth", and then asked for an open discussion regarding it. That simply isn't appropriate. --Jayron32 05:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with what others have said about this Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate

Sweet man. I appreciate your postings at the reference desk. Mac Davis (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myles! You naughty boy. Engaging in conversation. What next? I love the navel thing, and the 4 sexes, and the big floating thing - but I reckon those alone add up to way over 82%. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it may have technically been a refdesk violation, that was very interesting to read. I hope you publish a novel or something set in that world someday. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fairly extensive current discussion about chit chat on Wikipedia here, if you're interested. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secret in their Eyes

Thanks for your interest in the article. What question did you have that was unanswered by the article? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Titanic (1997 film) to understand the challenging discussion that may lie ahead. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik can't handle anything challenging, which is kind of sad. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, burn! :) Come on, you know that talk page is a monster. Myles, I recommend not worrying about the plot summary for this film. People will generally be able to see the film itself, and I think it is a better payoff to research for secondary sources and to contribute details about the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, so funny to watch your fears play out! Why are you so threatened by me again...? I think I know but it would be good therapy for you to put it in words. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want my feedback about you as an editor, contact me on my talk page. I'd be happy to share my thoughts. Let's leave Myles alone. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myles, go ahead and discuss the plot summary for the film with Ring Cinema. He responded to your concerns on the article's talk page. I would also recommend asking DagosNavy (talk · contribs) for his thoughts since he has worked with Ring Cinema on the plot summary. Good luck! Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I said to "leave Myles alone" because Ring Cinema was taking our discussion a different direction than one about the film article's plot summary. I didn't want to have an unrelated discussion on your talk page. If you need third opinions for the discussion about the plot summary, contact DagosNavy or ask for feedback at WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never..

I've just added a reply to a comment you posted at Talk:The Black Cloud a couple of years ago, just in case you haven't found the answer in the meantime (and are still interested..) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Tango|talk]]) 13:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rhetoric

Hey bro'. It's good to see you still active. I was wondering whether you've got any idea how we can improve the ethos here - improve the quality of rhetoric and make the place more amenable to scholars and experts. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Insult Accurate Answers

I'm not trying to be the reference desk police, but your response in "Transmission of light through transparent medium" is unwarranted and out of line. If the answer you were criticizing was incorrect, or if you were less snarky about it, it wouldn't be a big deal; but the answer is correct, moreover, everything in it is legitimately phrased. You may want to take a look at our articles Quasiparticle and Polariton.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Removed response to difficult to understand question

See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Removed response to difficult to understand question. Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marxist philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Holy Family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thread indentation

It's customary to indent your comments one tab from the person to whom you are responding, to make the conversation easier to follow. Do this by placing one more colon in front of each of your paragraphs than their comments had. You can't have any blanks or other characters in front of the colons. Like this:

Indented text.

Doubly indented text.

Triply indented text.

I indented you comments on the "Horses on Mars" Ref Desk Q appropriately. Thanks, StuRat (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Myles325a. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]