User talk:Search4Lancer/archive2

Hello

your hurting my hard work, im not hurting anybody else's. why dont you think about that

whats AFD? and Ill be watching you like a crazy hawk too. If you breath I'll know it, If you crap I'll know it

Come again?

Would you point out my "unconstructive edits"?

Thanks

Hello Search4Lancer/archive2,

I wish to thank you for your vote on my RfA. It has passed with a final tally of 59/0/0. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! KnowledgeOf Self | talk 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Perth Glory homepage

I am the Juandy Tan this stupid article is about. The user Jmmw created it, go look at history. Please delete this article as soon as u can. I thought it was pretty cool at first, Im a huge glory fan, but this is truly an insult to the team.

Juandy Tan created That page to be funny, he also graffitied many other pages with spam, The user jmmw had absolutely nothing to do with it

Re:In the end...

Thank you. Though I never had any intention of becoming a sysop on Wikipedia ever, DrippingInk sort of inspired me. Perhaps I'll give it another shot in the future. Oh, and... does this indicate that you do not believe me to be Winnermario's sockpuppet? I would hope so, after the message you dropped me ten minutes ago. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you honestly only care about honesty? Good enough for me. :P —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, all right. Thanks nonetheless. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re Projects / Vesa / etc etc etc

Yes. It is time, I think.

AM in Radio receiver design

I saw that you had altered AM to AM broadcasting. I think that it is intellectually a very dangerous thing to go about changing every example of the use of the term AM to AM broadcasting. To the majority of users AM means AM broadcasting (circa 100 KHz and circa 1 MHz) but AM is a modulation system not a broadcast band. The page which you had altered is a page devoted to electronic design ideas, so I think that your edit was a retrograde step.

I have a background in radio electronics and I am well aware of a series of systems which are AM in nature but have nothing to do with AM broadcasting for example

UHF TV in the UK/Europe/USA this is normally AM, Sky TV and the other sat. broadcasters however use FM for their microwave TV broadcasts.

Also in the USA 27MHz CB uses AM rather than the FM used in Europe.

Also airband (air traffic control) comms. uses AM at circa 120 MHz

Most shortwave broadcasting is AM, FM is not used much below 30 MHz for anything.

Also AM is the basis of some related modulation systems such as SSB, and much morse is sent by what is strictly speaking a AM based mode.Cadmium 14:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. On a postive note the little things on your user page which look like babel templtes are jolly good. (Cadmium)

Question

Do you believe that I am User:Hollow Wilerding, User:Winnermario, and User:DrippingInk? Or do you believe that we are three separate people? Actually, this question seems a bit pointless, since I assume you're going to respond with an "I don't know". I could be wrong though. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my summary, PLEASE!

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen

We were unfairly blocked, that is why I have started this RfC. Thanks, S4L. Siblings WC 02:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God bless you. Siblings WC 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

distracting signature

Hi Search4Lancer, your signature is very cool, but is it possible to tone it down so it is less distracting? How about not using a background color? If you want your own signature to be noticable to yourself, you can do what I do: use a CSS style that only the author sees. Look at my signature here and User:Quarl/monobook.css for an example. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 06:37Z

Signature

Have you considered shortening your signature at all? It takes up five lines of text on my edit screen. And it includes two images, which are generally preferred not to be used in signatures. I'm not saying you have to change or anything; just thought I'd leave a suggestion. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I was not aware of the comment above when I left this message. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Do you mean you considered changing it but decided not to? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to, Lancer

I happen to consider my contributions to the pages in question to be very constructive. As well, I am aware of the many fanatic and racist groups who frequent and abuse this website, along with the site's non-exsistant methods for screening; I am merely compensating for the ridiculous concept that is, Wikipedia.

I would appriciate if you would stop leaving me your irritating messages; thank you.

Goodbye

The following message was typed and signed by Mariah Wilerding, formerly known as Hollow Wilerding.

The blockings of all three accounts has made me look at Wikipedia in a different light now — it's an incomplete project that will never finish. Who wants to be a part of that? Though I do admit it is a good idea, it is a waste of time as something that will never be complete is a pure waste of time. That is just my opinion though. Actually, now I believe that the blocks were appropriate. Why do I say that? Everyone who operated an account does not wish to return because of the administrators, who, if you read the messages I left on User talk:Everyking, strike me as a very peculiar. They'll all be happy when we're gone, but they'll later realize that it was all their fault and could have easily prevented. Especially that idiot Bishonen, who conducted all of the research because she was not favourable of me due to the Hollaback Girl FACs. She never even knew that we all shared the same computer; when it was later brought up and she found out that we were three-using-one, her intentions were to banish me — definitely. That's precisely what she did, out of bad faith, no evidence, no references, no anything, and that's all because she didn't like me.

She got her wish. I want to thank you for sticking up for me in the end, but good contributers like us won't be returning. If not for a very long time. Should we return, we're going to boycott all admins and have the title stripped from Wikipedia entirely. But who knows. Gwen Stefani and Zelda articles won't be nourishing for a long time, that's for sure. So thank you, thank you, and I bid you farewell. 64.231.118.71 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aibonkago.jpg

This image is listed as fair use. I'm afaraid it is against policy to have fair use images in the user namespace. Could you remove it please?Geni 18:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: An invitiation

Interesting. Did you figure out who it was? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Republic

If you're going to disambig something, please ensure you aim it at the right location! Anno Domini is AD, not BC. - Beowulf314159 12:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - sorry. I dug a little deeper. There isn't anything else to aim it at, is there? That's not your fault, it's a flaw in the way the dating articles are laid out. It just looks weird to have BC link to the AD article. It looks like a mistake. - Beowulf314159 12:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing a flag

I would like to ask you not to cross an official flag on your user page. Imagine someone did that to yours. This is even considered a crime in many countries. I just regard that as bad manners. Many will find it offensive. I am sure you are able to express your reasonable opinion in a respectful way. May I ask what reason you have to feel bad about a union you do not even belong to? ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very intelligent of you to write you value all feedback and then talk down on those who point out to you that you are violating wikipedia policy. The image has been deleted. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism charge

by changing the page about lebanon, pa, i was adding knowledge about my classmates who will one day become famous. after reviewing, i can see how it might be considered useless information but my friends will agree with me that what i was putting is truthfull information.

I will not make any more edits unless i see them absolutely necessary.

Disambig Aliens

Hey there. I moved Extraterrestrial life in popular culture to Extraterrestrial life in culture about a week ago and noticed a few hundred redirects which I have since been plodding through. Most of these were because of your dabbing "alien" to Extraterrestrial life in popular culture. This was certainly needed as alien is often linked without a proper dab. However, in the majority of cases I'm changing the link to the main Extraterrestrial life article. It's a comprehensive article which I think people ought to visit first and the culture sub-page is noted right at the top if people want to read in that direction. Often I'm simply changing alien to extraterrestrial (which I've been attempting through various renames to make more standard on the wiki) unless it sounds clunky in a sentence. So if you have more dabbing to come in this regard I was wondering if you might link to the main page. Cheers,

Spam4Lancer

Here is some random scribbling on your talk page. Hope it's what you wanted! ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi Search4Lancer/archive2,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RFA thank you!

Thank you for supporting! Even though I still haven't worked out what half of User:Sasquatch's support says... :-) If you ever need my help with something, please let me know! Jude (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Just echoing Tony ... the guidelines outlined at WP:SIG are strongly encouraged. You really shouldn't have any images in your sig, let alone two. Please remove them. --Cyde↔Weys 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my final request to conform with the site guidelines which are strongly recommended. --Cyde↔Weys 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly second that final request. The 6 lines of sig file are completely inappropriate. Please keep the user info on your userpage.

to paraphrase: thy community's will is the law, and thy community wills conciseness and clarity, so let clarity and simplicity be thy will. so mote it be. ;) -Quiddity 09:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also MeatballWiki's entry on Controlling yourself The gist is, if you can't even control yourself to abide by community standards, no one else is going to pay you any heed. --Cyde↔Weys 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oblongs

I've looked over your posts on both the Oblongs as well as other article discussions. This is my advice to you: Chill out. Yes, people throw bombs at you. No doubt about that. However, if you did not throw an insult back at them, they would not be so angry at you. For example, consider your reply to me. Look it over. If I was thinner-skined, I most certainly would have taken it as an insult.Also, from what I can see, what you consider to be "personal attacks" are the same jabs you deal out. The very best way to deal with those is to ignore them. Otherwise, they'll blow up, and get personal. You have the power to difuse this situation. Use it! Rsm99833 06:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Regarding your frustration, you might consider getting a copy of Vandalproof. It may make things a bit easier. Rsm99833 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

People have been requesting since January that you remove the image from your signature. A recent straw poll has confirmed that images are not welcome in signatures. Since you have been unwilling to make the change, you have been blocked until you post a message confirming your change of signature. Thanks for understanding. Shell ^babelfish 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, its considered highly civil to discuss a problem you have with the person who caused it first. Running off to the RfC on Tony Sidaway so your friends could all chime in on how unfair it is to be blocked for blatently refusing to follow community guidelines is disengenuous at best. Shell ^babelfish 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For further explanation ... the pentacle image you've been using in your sig was recently converted from png to svg format, which reduces the filesize by over an order of magnitude. This is clearly a good thing. However, because you were inadvisedly using this image in your signature, I'm now having to run a bot to go through and clean up your mess and convert the image on literally hundreds of talk pages. --Cyde↔Weys 14:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to, you are choosing to. But hey, that's your choice. Try not to have too much fun now. Search 4 Lancer 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I did change my sig, either last night or early this morning. It was not made aware to me that I had to report said change to some unspecified higher power, and even so, I wouldn't have had time to, anyway. Some people have to work to get bye, you know. I also find it absolutely ludicrous that:

This results in a block "with an expiry time of indefinite."
A block is imposed as a result of a violation of a guidline which is "strongly recommended," not a rule.
You would do something like this to an editor who has actually contributed a great deal to this project. And you wonder why good people leave for good.

Search 4 Lancer 23:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've ublocked but it would be nice if you could go to a simpler sig, its 3 lines on my high res monitor (21') and its a fair bit of db usage :o -- Tawker 23:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyouverymuch. Search 4 Lancer 23:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Tawker. Please please simplify further. Partially due to the code cluttering up talk pages, and partially due to the distraction of such a bold block of colour.

Can you see how your sig is distracting to other users' eye-focus? and how the code block makes it harder to visually scan through talk page code looking for threads? The only thing that would be even more subjectively distracting as rendered is blinking text.

This can also make some people less respectful of your written opinion (such bold colours carry connotations of rebellious-individualism, or of garnering attention), and so hampers your best intentions.

Does that all make sense? something to think about anyway. Thanks :) -Quiddity 00:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please? -Quiddity 19:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's already changed it enough I think. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Re: Buzz Armstrong

Yeah, turns out a bunch of other people made that same mistake. Probably because Buzz and Armstrong are much catchier than Neil and Aldrin.

Wikipedia says that Aldrin meant to say "for a man," but misspoke. Λυδ α cιτγ 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Search4Lancer,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you have been recently blocked/civility issues as discussed on your talk page. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]