User talk:Lomn/Archive 3

Debunking definition

I have a Websters Dictionary and it states that "Debunk" is "to ridicule". 65.173.105.197 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The primary entry for "debunk" in Webster's is "to expose the sham or falseness of". Not "ridicule". — Lomn 21:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocks/Bans

How and when do these start? IF I did'nt ask, someone else could in a horrible manner and may get blocked (:O). What is the scale/criteria? 65.173.105.197 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC) :)

Also, is there a article on these Emoticons as well? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.105.197 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason I asked is that I have just got some really weird ones with a E-mail program. As for the sig, just me getting old. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC):O :D

Thank you for your input

Per Gp75's topic ban, I don't think encouraging him to work with the AFD process is a good idea at this point. Past history suggests that's just setting him up for further violations that will not be well-received. Why not just keep him productively in article space and give him the full opportunity to have the topic ban lifted? — Lomn 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your observation regarding GP75. I made the request because I wanted to see how the young man actually looked at the site. In order to correct his behaviour, I have to get a clue of how his mind operates. My problem is that too many people berate him to be productive, but no one actually made the effort to get him to the point of productivity. If you recall, I only asked him to ID potential articles -- he obviously cannot participate in AfD due to his current status.

If it is also not a problem, you may also just want to say "Hi!" to him on his page -- as you can see, I am the only person currently giving him the time of day. Not that I am complaining -- I find him very intelligent and friendly. He only needs a hand. Thanks again, and please feel free to share your comments with me at any time. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not stopped by "just to say 'hi'" because I think that's counterproductive to Gp learning that Wikipedia isn't a social networking project -- I find that whole "I cut my hand" exchange quite instructive in that regard. I've left comments when appropriate (and when 4 others haven't already addressed the topic at hand), but I don't see much purpose in that until the block lifts. That aside, though, I wish you luck with the mentorship process. — Lomn 13:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have to agree to disagree on that. If you review the page, you'll notice the drama stopped immediately when I just stated that I hoped he would get well soon -- that didn't take much of an investment on my part. I am not condoning GP's previous behavior, but at the same time I am not fixating on it. I am of the belief that the efforts of the past six months regarding GP have been a dismal failure. The blocking, berating, and exasperation produced absolutely nothing -- it actually took a bad situation and made it worse. While GP bears burden for his actions, I also blame the various admins and editors who misread the situation and fed the fire. Outside of permanently banishing GP from Wikipedia, I believe it is time for another approach to the matter. Maybe this go around, we'll have success. Thank you, again, for sharing your input. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Using Blogger.com to talk about my things

Thank you for telling me about Blogger.com. If it weren't for your idea, I would've been Blocked for sure. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you know what? I think I love Blogger.com! Ericthebrainiac (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If....

..it was not for you, I'd probably end up being a rotten Wikipedian. As stated, when I move in, I'll have you nominated to be a Admin. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :D :)

Weird Fish or Weird ?!

See this one: Weird Fish or Weird ?! This thing was caught near Cuba, and a link, that is accessible says it is a Batfish. That link is below the pix of this thing. Was going to send it up to both the Paranormal Project guys and the Project Cryptozoological guys as well, to find out what this thing really is. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Olive Branch

		Olive branch
		That issue between us a little while ago has been bugging me. Finally, I acted. I have learned since then, and would like to give you this as a sign of peace.--LAAFan 13:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and, would you consider being nominated for adminship? I've wanted to nominate you before, but I don't want to solely nominate, as Im only a Novice Editor, and admins nominating users have a better chance. However, one day I came across User:Keeper76 (admin) page one day, and it seems he's watching you and would be willing to nominate you. I still need to ask Keeper 76, would you consider being nominated for adminship? It would be Keeper as the main nominator, and me as a co-nominator (it's that whole admin nominaton thing again). Reply back with your answer, whether that be you accept or decline.--LAAFan 19:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've actually been working up an RfA template, but I'm about to head off on vacation, so I'm thinking I'll postpone until after that at a minimum. This new Wikipedia:RfA Review also has me thinking about postponing to see what shakes out there -- or at least until I've put my thoughts about the review on paper, as I think that'll become an interim topic of discussion at RfAs. — Lomn 01:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, good luck, zOMG you got Kurt to go neutral but got opposed for giving an opinion on him, etc. etc. —Giggy 09:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, either way, that's gotta be noteworthy, right? And noteworthy is next door to notable, so article space, here I come! Or something. — Lomn 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! Very refreshing RFA, a testament to the quality of the candidate. You'll do great. Hit up my talkpage if you you have any stupid questions, I don't bite (I also don't promise that my answer won't be equally stupid...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't usually vote, just watch but couldn't resist - congrats you admin you! -hydnjo talk 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Congrats on a successful run and a rare non-oppose from the weber. Take a look at {{admin dashboard}}, I think you may find it useful. –xenocidic (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Len Berzerk

Can you help edit this article?

--Len Berzerk (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool I'll post It and wait to see what happens.--Len Berzerk (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDb Having Something On Valeria (telenovela)

I assume that IMDb might have something on Valeria. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My search showed no such information. Do you have a source? — Lomn 13:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My Life

Do you want me to talk about my life? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia, no. Contributions to that effect will lead to blocks. — Lomn 02:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ericthebrainiac came close to getting a permanent block earlier this summer for harassment of users and for contributing basically nothing to wikipedia. He was supposedly on a short leash, but if he's getting bothersome, you might want to post a complaint at WP:ANI about this character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bigfoot

Well, in that case, thanks. ClovisPt (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are "People shooting Bigfoot"....

Why are links proving that people shooting at Bigfoot not allowed? These prove that there are people who will shoot at anything that moves. That is why I don't go in the woods at all, because someone who may have drunk too much beer and/or even "Red Eye Whiskey" might mistake me for the monster. I'm nearly 7' and weigh nearly 270lbs US. Do you shoot/hunt at all? 205.240.146.233 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Disregard. Question has been answered. Thanks for the help. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-Paranormal" Source Reliability on Wikipedia?

Why are "pro-paranormal" sources considered "unreliable"? IF I did not ask this, someone placing one may get (polite)outraged when some one else said that his/her source was considered "unreliable". Some sources are "Subject Specific" such as one that said that we have a lot of different aliens visiting Earth, like www.maar.us, or that someone had shot and killed Bigfoot and took the remains to a local college(I'm near a few of these local colleges). What of sources like that? Are they also unreliable? 205.240.146.233 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrected HUGE error. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The content of the source is not what dictates its reliability. WP:RS clearly spells this out. — Lomn 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry

sorry captain had the wrong end of the stick there - not trol though!! Bradley10 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not nonsense! Surely this is the purpose of the reference desk - to find the answers of questions that are not on Wikipedia already. If you do not like my questions then you do not have to answer them, but they seem to me reasonable questions and expand the scope of wikipedia. science progress only through human curiosity Bradley10 (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

yes hes only my fiance but i enjoy calling him my spouse or my husband. I guess it doesnt matter to me as much as it does to others.\

--Chaela <3 (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.:General vandalism

I let others use my terminal. What should I tell them? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You could start by not lying. Exactly one pattern of editing exhibits itself from your IPs: yours. There are no other edits. Abuse of article space will result in a block. — Lomn 14:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Where I'm at, there is a LOT of people. I'm near two major population centers, several housing projects. No lie there. Had to teach some people how to use a computer, and some found Wikipedia, had to show them how to edit on that as well. The vandalism could've been worse, but I threw out the idiots who think it is funny to vandalize Wikipedia. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You said that months ago. Conveniently enough, your behavior is not changed. I don't believe you. — Lomn 14:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That is one of the guys I personally tossed. She was a real smartass. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm the kind of guy that will present physical evidence of something. If you and I were in the same room, and we're talking about tea, and I find about a tea that would put you to sleep, I'll put the box in your hand, and that box would have Oriental characters on it. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, there are two schools near me. One is a Jr. High, the other is a High School. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do I move in at?

When I do, can you keep me honest? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm already working to do so. — Lomn 15:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I move in on Wikipedia? What do I need to work on, once here? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I give up teaching other people about using a computer, even going to Wikipedia, because some ass may mess things up for me on here? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Registration Name

How do these sound to you:

• Lomm II
• Lomm's Assisstant
• 16.164.240.204 - That one will mess up some people. Had to ask. A "IP" AS a Username.
• Fox News Guy (I'm not politically affiliated)
• Bigfoot (Hey, why not. I helped expose a fraud in Georgia)
• Your Suggestion (Your Username shall be _______________ )

Anything I should know about Usernames? I am just trying to fit in here. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess the first thing I need to learn is about "TYPOS". 205.240.146.248 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One other thing

I'm NOT trying to "out you", anything like that. Were you trained in military intelligence? My family was in the military, some even served in US intelligence, especially in two really famous intelligence outfits. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

Had to ask. How long? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably 48 hours initially and then escalating. You have had previous IP addresses blocked before. — Lomn 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgot. Thanks. Getting old. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sick Admin Template

Can you set that up? I don't think IPs could. The intent is that if I find a ill Admin, I could place this, with Wikipedia:Administrators in it, a small pix of a guy with a thermometer in his mouth, a ice bag on his (if a man)/her (if a woman) head, both templates stating that "This Admin is ill. If you need a Admin, feel free to select one from this list of available Admins"

Also, the ill Admin is to place this on his/her user page and talk page, it'll remain there until he/ she is better. I'll give you the credit for this one. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that is a good idea? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Hell of a Website"

When I, others see someone doing a excellent job, be it you or even Wikipedia, I'll let you know that you have done a excellent job, same thing with Wikipedia. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The only time that people interact with a Admin is to complain, complain, or cuss/curse them out, and I have seen that all over Wikipedia, related sites. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Found what I was looking for

Found out how to move in here. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Kept Word

I'm now officially here. Powerzilla (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Did you know":

That a mosquito can breed in a bottlecap? I have set one up full of water, and it was full of mosquito larvae. This also came up when the West Nile disease was all over the news. Powerzilla (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to place that, but how do I "source" that, other than what I've done?! Powerzilla (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't, as it's original research and thus not suitable for Wikipedia. There's also the question of whether it's relevant to either of the bottlecap or mosquito articles. — Lomn 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.:Warning other users

Did not know that. I thought I had caught some vandals. Appreciate the reminder. Powerzilla (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

One guy said that he saw Bigfoot in the toilet after he ate at Taco Bell for crying out loud. I thought he/she was being a comic. Powerzilla (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Most vandals appear to be comics, thus is why I directed them to two humor wikis. Powerzilla (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.:NWO

Someone gave me access to TBN, which is a religious TV network, and I have a movie that also depicts that sort of thing as well. Thought you should know. TBN makes all manner of references to the NWO, and how it will destroy those who are religious, incl. using the mental Health system. ("Diagnoses" to range from paranoia to delusions of all sorts, which is why some Christian sects don't like the mental health system at all. I also watch a lot of Law & Order as well.)I'm also near several churches, and you ought to hear some of these preachers as well, especially when Revelations is read from the Pulpit.Powerzilla (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have heard my fill of kooky conspiracy theories, both from religious and non-religious sources. — Lomn 02:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

10-4 Powerzilla (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.:Unsupported Content

I do apologise for that. Did not mean to do that. I lost a uncle. People do strange things when they lose family members. Powerzilla (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.:Micronation and Amazons article

The micronation that I have found does indeed espouse the ideas that match those that the Amazons had - now have, since it appears that they're returning. Like I told someone else, I had to deal with law enforcement, and one of the things that I had to learn is dealing with evidence. The evidence regarding that micronation and the Amazons is that, circumstantial evidence says that the Amazons have returned, are returning, are attempting a return to this planet/ plane of existence. Do you think that is interesting, if not shocking? I also have conducted research into different materials and matters, since I am setting up a RPG. Powerzilla (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a micronation has no business being linked as a meaningful example in an article outside its immediate scope. Talking about a widely-notable concept (e.g. Amazons) in a narrow context is fine by me. Reversing that is another matter entirely. — Lomn 23:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the claims of it being a sex club, but it is really a micronation, and there are some really strange ones out there, like the one that was a WW II anti-aircraft battery. It functions like a old style city state, like what Athens and Sparta was. Powerzilla (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does any of this help? Powerzilla (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"It really is a micronation" is a nonsensical statement. Micronations really aren't anything in the context of the wider world -- that's part of the whole definition, that nobody of significance recognizes their legitimacy. So no, it's not anything more than a club. — Lomn 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

10-4 Powerzilla (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way, there is no war going on at all. I just found one of those really weird articles. You're just doing your job man. No problem here at all. One other thing yet, go to Youtube.com, then input "Amazon" there. The result will blow your mind. I don't know if I could use Youtube links at all. There are movies, etc. of that sort on there. Powerzilla (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Due to unverifiable (and generally invalid) copyright concerns, youtube should be avoided on Wikipedia. — Lomn 03:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

10-4 man. :) Powerzilla (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC) :)

Amazons and World War II

I have seen references of both British and Japanese military units being called "Amazons" since the units were all female. I can't find anything else on these quirks in history anywhere. IF I did, would that be "OR" ? Powerzilla (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looked again, all I got was from RPGs and a obscure Soviet Women's military brigade reference, DC Comics, Marvel Comics, all on Google. I Googled "Amazon" units in World War II. any other suggestions? Powerzilla (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to real life military units in World War II. Powerzilla (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS or don't add it. I grow tired of repeating this mantra. Even with a reliable source, it's unlikely that the Amazons article is the appropriate place -- your attempts to equate various female topics with Amazons are original research. Discuss said units, if they existed, in a style similar to WAVES. — Lomn 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

10-4 man. There are also the WACS as well. I used to have some books about World War II and remember the author calling these all women units "Amazons", such as "Amazons Fight Hitler", and the b/w pix shows them with either guns or some kind of pike. Thanks for the help. Brought it here first, like I said I would. Powerzilla (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just remember that neither "a book I had" nor "a show I saw" are reliable sources, and that a literary allusion is not the same as fact. — Lomn 21:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

10-4. Powerzilla (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mars' coldness

• This site say mars low is -125 F and high is 23 F, and rf#4 on Mars say the vg. surface temp. is -81 F. I thought Mars have greater surface range. The ext low I thought is like -180 F, and what about the extr high? Is the extr high like +50 F? The short answer is Mars is a very cold planet.--SCFReeways 23:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:LINKROT

This link citing about mars futur greenhouse warming is a rotten link. This has no content, nothing but a white-blank page with error notice on it. The version you undo on Formation and evol... I don't think anybody have access to that site.--Freeway91 23:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I get a valid page when I visit that link. Perhaps your browser is misconfigured; either way, the link is not "rotten" (nor is such status grounds for removal, particularly when a book is cited with the link for online reference purposes). — Lomn 03:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Greenhouse effect

Does "Greenhuose effect" always means increasing pressure of the atmosphere or not always. Because Mars is lack of magnetic field adding heat will not help covering the atmosphere. I doubt if Mars will ever become a blue planet. At first two billion years Mars atmospher may still be around, maybe won't change it's level, then next billion years the solar wind will wear it away.--Freeway91 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re.: Block

I was also going to place some cites, but BOTH Wikipedia AND MY ISP went "off the deep end". On Wikipedia, I kept getting weird versions of it, then MY ISP went bananas as well. That (and you doing your job) is why I did not protest the block at all. Powerzilla (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ACORN SCANDAL

This is all over the news RIGHT NOW. SO FAR, 14 US States are examining and throwing out voter registration matter due to concerns of FRAUD. Is THAT worthy for Wikipedia? Powerzilla (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I got the mess on FOX News, The Communist/Clinton News Network, my local news, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, MSNBC, other news outlets. I have Satellite TV. You know that, IF I can find a source, I'll place it (IF both WP AND my ISP are functioning properly). You can help here. Google "ACORN/Scandal", and you will see the SAME thing that I see on this matter. Powerzilla (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ACORN SCANDAL Source

• http://www.nypost.com/seven/07132008/postopinion/editorials/another_acorn_scandal_119692.htm

That is WHAT I'm referring to. This source may also be a blog, since people are commenting on this scandal, just as we are commenting on this being a good WP source. It claims to be the New York PostPowerzilla (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This one may have to be accessed OFF of Wikipedia, since there may be a bug in the linkage. Powerzilla (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The ACORN situation is getting to be a real handful, so I need help with source placement. I have just heard that the FBI has hit ACORN, and some guy claims that ACORN registered him AS a voter 73 times, and he is barred from voting, and he claimed he was intimidated by ACORN personnel. You can help. Found one source already. News is comming in all over the place. Powerzilla (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Zilla, I really don't much care about the latest "scandal" du jour. If you have a reliable source ready to back up your claims, that's fine. Otherwise, I suggest you not worry about "breaking news". Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not place emphasis on attempts to be the first with a story.

As for the particulars, though, I recommend against an NYPost editorial (I've bolded the key word). Why not find the NYTimes article they mention? And avoid use of "I heard" and "some guy" -- claims of that sort are readily dismissed. — Lomn 01:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been hunting around, and the scandal is getting worse for Barack Obama. I am on FOX News about this. I was on CNN, other news outlets. Powerzilla (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All are claiming that this would affect the election in the US. Powerzilla (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

@ this time, I cannot find the New York Times article. Also some claim publically that the New York Times is scandal ridden. Why is that? Powerzilla (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Source Reliability/ Foreign Sources

Got two here. Someone else found these.

• http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5543
• http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/acorn_voter_fraud/2008/10/13/140131.html

Are these reliable? One is a Canadian source, other is a extremely conservative source. Powerzilla (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Found these on the ACORN talk page. I'll see what I can find. Powerzilla (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have Googled ACORN voter fraud, and you would not believe what has turned up. The links above claim that Obama is linked to the Acorn scandal (at best, could be worse). Also, as stated above, this mess could affect the US presidency. Powerzilla (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Canadian" is not a concern, but "independent news source" is. That calls journalistic standards into question, as there's little to differentiate a blog from an "independent news source". An unabashedly biased source (the latter one) should be avoided, too. Find mainstream news, Zilla, not this wonky crap. — Lomn 13:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

10-4 (Says the same thing, saves space, especially on the Summary section). Powerzilla (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Offensive Userpage?

Anything on mine that may be offensive. I have seen a few "offensive Userpages". Powerzilla (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing of concern on yours, though I take some issue with the statement that "I have adopted you"; I have not. — Lomn 21:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed that claim. Powerzilla (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WarriorFIRESTAR‎

I don't think he's trying to make a point. He's just brand new, and not familiar with Wikipedia conventions and policies, and is trying to do the right thing by discussing controversial changes before he makes them. I recommended that he start the discussion, he just appears to not understand much about where and how to hold said discussions. treat him nicely, he doesn't seem to be making a point or trying to be disruptive or anything, he just is brand new and doesn't know better. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re.:Caution

I was only citing what others have cited, and that being of a medical nature, not politics. Powerzilla (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else is claiming that "Big Pharma" is intentionally drugging children, NOT me. I'm not even politically active, much less making a political mess. Powerzilla (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are responsible for your edits -- both the removal of valid citations and the addition of unverifiable information.

WP vs "Alternative" media

Some of these claim that the mainstream media, like the New York Times is biased, even slanted towards some agenda. Can Alternative media be used AS sources, given claims of that nature? Powerzilla (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No.

Attack

Since someone has accused me of making politically biased matter in the Jeff Rense article, how do I report the attack? As stated, I'm not even politically active at all. I could'nt even attract ants to a pick-nick. Powerzilla (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What's to report? Avoid the unreliable sources and there's no problem. — Lomn 04:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

?!

What is a "linkfarm"? I have seen references to this matter? Powerzilla (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, how do I nominate a Admin to be a 'crat? A 'crat is someone who could make or break a Admin instantly. I'm thinking of having you nominated as a 'crat. Powerzilla (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarm / Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Also, while the procedure is noted at WP:RFB, your unfamiliarity with the concept ("make or break an admin" is completely at odds with acceptable bureaucrat behavior) leads me to suggest you drop that. — Lomn 16:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else told me how powerful the 'crats are. Powerzilla (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Found a foreign news source about a Bigfoot. See Bigfoot Talk, Re.: Where do I put this?!. Is that what you are referring to as a mainstream source? It claims that three Bigfoot creatures were spotted. Powerzilla (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Fiziker's comments regarding the unimportance of the story. While it's true that some sighting could become important, Wikipedia does not concern itself with abstract possibilities. Questions about what we'd do if x occurred can be easily answered when (or if) x occurs. — Lomn 19:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-Assault weapons

Is it OK to have that listing of templates? Some look like that only Admins can use them. Found them lying around the place. Powerzilla (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

None of them are restricted to admins (very little is, really). User block templates are only of use to admins, given that most editors aren't able to place blocks. I'm not sure why you're calling them "assault weapons", though, and the caution to read-before-use is a good one. — Lomn 23:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the templates are there for good reason -- they're a generally accepted measured response. Something like this is never appropriate. — Lomn 16:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just playing in the Sandbox. Did'nt mean to offend. Powerzilla (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

UFO and WP:RS

I have found a "UFO story" in which a TV station has reported that a UFO was in the Sacremento, California area. Sacremento's TV 10 News helicopter (Air10) had got a UFO on tape. Link is http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=50924&provider=top. This is the only reliable source I have found regarding this matter. I Googled this matter (Google: Sacremento, California/UFO and you'll see what I've found). Powerzilla (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The article said that Air10 was filming some football games when it spotted the UFO. Powerzilla (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The source is probably OK. At this point it's likely a question of undue weight. Glancing at the story, it's a newscopter guy saying "we saw something -- don't know what it is, don't know how big or how far away". Is that really relevant to a description of UFOs at large, or to an article about Sacramento? I don't think it is. It's much the same as your Bigfoot question the other day -- sightings are pretty common, and individual sightings are not generally noteworthy. — Lomn 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time a UFO was seen over a major city was Chicago, Illinois and that turned into a hell of a news item. Agree? disagree? Powerzilla (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel it constituted a major news item. We've got an article on the 2006 O'Hare International Airport UFO sighting, as it turns out. Some of the sourcing is suspect, but there are also multiple national-level reliable sources. On the other hand, there's no mention at all of UFOs at the Chicago article, and rightly so for an item that helped fill a slow news day and was quickly passed by. The Sacramento thing is just one local news station at this point. Yawn. — Lomn 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ER docs and police

Found this. Was going to place it in the appropriate articles. See http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081224/hl_nm/us_police_er for more. It claims that the ER docs are treating too many injuries that result from police brutality. Powerzilla (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Should I place this? Powerzilla (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyer^c 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re.:"And Here we go again"

• UFO Casebook, click on the primary sources, which are British News sources. Jeff Rense, then click on the "Sensational Title", then click on the primary source links there. Those are all British sources. Too many to mention, and wanted to avoid violating WP:RS, WP:OR by mentioning possibly dubious sources. There are also what appear to be Youtube related sources there as well, depicting "Eyewitness" video of the alleged UFOs, the UK taking steps at increasing security at the affected area.
• I used to deal with police who gave the Viet Nam War ere "draft dodgers" hell. Even those who were 4-F were treated like shit by these police officers who believed that they were "faking it". I hope that they don't bring back "the draft" because of the current war.
• I used to live in Louisiana.

10-4. Powerzilla (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

— 10-4 :) Powerzilla (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :)

Got one. It is a UK source. It is http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/12/ufo_crash_site_sealed

More on the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerzilla (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.louthleader.co.uk/news/WIND_FARM_UFO_UPDATE_Fallen.4876871.jp Powerzilla (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/7817378

Are these OK sources. These are the primary sources. There is more. Powerzilla (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana Law Allows YOU to Kill Carjackers

http://www.law.wustl.edu/journal/55/109.pdf - Law says YOU can kill percieved and actual carjackers. Powerzilla (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How is that for a source about people killing carjackers outright? Powerzilla (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good source (though 10 years old -- is this law still in effect?). However, I note that it does not claim what you put in the article. — Lomn 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not know if it is, but carjackings went down to 0 after some idiot tried to carjack someone - and got shot trying it. Another source is http://www.articles.latimes.com/1997/aug/14/news.mn-22319 Powerzilla (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As you read the 1st source, it states that someone tried to carjack a motorist in Louisiana, and the guy shot and killed the carjacker, and the incident was ruled as a justified homicide, under that law. Powerzilla (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

An incident being "ruled legal" is a far cry from the carte blanche claim you laid out the first time. That, among other reasons, is why sourcing matters. — Lomn 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ref desk should see this LA Law. Powerzilla (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to get help in answering your question above about that law still being in effect as well. Cheers :) Powerzilla (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :)

Re.: Question:

As for police treating 4-F people as criminals. I DID meet these officers, and the sources for WP are questionable about this matter. Powerzilla (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re.:Pens, Re.: Unusual Pens

I have a few pens that have LEDs in them. The truck drivers and police use these at night. There are pens that function as pens and as covert listening devices, and there are pens that are weapons, such as explosive devices, poison syringes, all used by spies, terrorists, guerrillas. Can this ref be restored? Powerzilla (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I find them quite irrelevant to a high-level overview of pens, as I believe I've noted at Talk:Pen. I do not see how one introduces the notion of an ink-based writing device, then discusses quills, then ball points, and then explosives. As per Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. — Lomn 18:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The lighted pens are primarily used by truckers and by police at night. The other pens are also devices designed to either gather intelligence and or are weapons used in both sabotage and assassinations. The former are sold at truck stops, some restaraunts located on or near the Interstate highway system in the USA, the latter are used by certain govt. agencies, terrorists, guerrillas, resistance fighters, especially during World War II and the Cold War, the War on Terror. Powerzilla (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The former function as pens, but have a light that allows you to see what you are writing w/o losing your night vision, the latter function as pens as well, to avoid suspicion, until a certain action is performed, then it functions as a "bug", a weapon used to covertly kill someone, covertly gather intelligence, covertly destroy a target. Powerzilla (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Google: Lighted Pens

Done that, got a LOT of company links. Would use them, but I do not know if WP will allow this. The pens are a technical marvel, but the sources found are suspect. How can this be resolved for WP? Powerzilla (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the core problem is that you're not addressing the issue. "Combo pens" (or whatever the suitable catch-all name is) may well be a good topic for Wikipedia. However, they're not a good topic for an overview of pens generally. The fact that some police (anecdotally and unsourced, I note) use a pen with a light attached is utterly irrelevant to the nature of pens. If you disagree, feel free to use Talk:Pen to persuade us. As for lots of company links: Wikipedia is not a catalog. That's what Amazon is for. — Lomn 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I Know

I know that but my M.O.I.'s (My Own Ideas) need to be published because when I have an idea for a story and I like it, shouldn't my M.O.I.'s get published? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at what has transpired in The Love God? with Don Knotts and what his character, Abner Peacock, has gone through to get his ideas published. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that what you really want to do with me and block me for my M.O.I.'s? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine that you want to publish your ideas, but Wikipedia is emphatically not the venue for that. You have been told repeatedly that this is the case, and the community's patience is all but exhausted. — Lomn 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Original Barnstar
		For being an incredible asset to the Wikipedia community. Keep up the good work! —Eustress talk 17:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the RD. —Eustress ^talk 17:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops

Yeah, that's exactly what happened. Sorry about that. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my Earth as Time Keeper question on the Science Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Greetings. Our friend 69.228.145.50 (talk) (Freewayguy) has returned to editing. When that happens, editors such as I generally have to sort things out afterward. On one recent occasion it consumed nearly an hour. I would appreciate your help in terms of putting an effective long-term block in place. (In the present instance he did something mildly useful in pointing out a duplicated link, but then substituted material irrelevant to the article). Thanks in advance. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my "fanfic law sentence" question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions about sourcing

I'm confuse and need help now. This source about white-and asian said both Forign raise and US born Asian and white couples is 66% white male asian female, and the article said 75% I don't know if the sourcing is quite right. But This source about white-black didn't mention what the article said.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the value of an editorial from a film critic on this particular subject. Regardless, the iSteve source doesn't claim what you think it does. He cites a 3.08:1 ratio, our article cites a 3.05:1 ratio. For all purposes they're identical. — Lomn 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But this is the problem. [1] said white male with black female is 117,000 but the source I click on said nothing like that. The problem is WP:FAIL anybody can change Wiki. I'm not trying to change articles. I just want to make sure the information is right, this is a important thing. I meant [2] this source about white-asians. thewe is 3 colums. I don't understand what the second column is for. this is why I assume is 2.33.1 ratio--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't understand the site you're trying to use as a source, then you also shouldn't be trying to draw conclusions from it (and you particularly shouldn't be assuming what you want the answer to be). At this time I don't see any compelling reason to doubt what's presently in the article. — Lomn 01:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Neptunerover

I see you have cascadse protected User talk:Neptunerover. As I see no reason for the protection to be cascade protection, it would appear that you did it accidentally. Please either remove the cascade protection from that page, or explain why you did it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. — Lomn 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He's still pissing about on his talkpage, can I suggest it's reverted and re-protected? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have little doubt that it'll happen shortly, but I don't see any need to rush the process. I've noted that he should not continue furthering his feud with you (and vice versa, naturally), but apart from that edit, I don't see that there's yet been a net negative. Not much positive, either, but I figure it'll swing one way or the other soon enough. — Lomn 17:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I don't know the nature of your email exchange, but I can't think of a single reason why it should be left open. If he wants to request unblock—which is anyway unlikely to be granted—he can use the email system. And all he's doing is being disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

RD Talk

Hi there. Thanks for the note on my talkpage. I'd also like to extend my apologies to you; in re-reading my posts I think I was un-necessarily bitey in my replies to you. My irritation with Vranak should not have spilled over to you as it did. Sorry! Matt Deres (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Intention to Block Notice

I am concerned by your Intention to Block notice[3]. Please delete it as requested at Talk Ref. Desk. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it's important, for the sake of transparency, that I not delete it outright. Not as a possible reflection on you, but on me. Please consider the strikethrough and retraction sufficient. — Lomn 17:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No. You obviously feel that to put on a melodramatic display of repentence at Talk Ref. Desk serves you better than to quietly clean up the strike-thru mess you have made. After causing that disruption at my expense I consider you finished as an administrator there. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk?

Is there a formal process needed to become a ref desk librarian? Buddpaul (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your very informative answers to my question at the Misc RD. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment 'bout pride

Hey, you took it personally? I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, just informing Belchman. But if you don't like it, I'll remove it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

grammar

Michael,

I recently boxed one of your comments at WP:RD/H. As you may be aware, the Ref Desks have been wrestling with the issue of whether and when it's appropriate to correct grammar for some months now. A general consensus has emerged that correction for correction's sake, particularly when there's no room for misinterpretation, is to be avoided. A gentle note of correction to the poster's talk page should be fine, but I hid your comment largely to prevent it being a flash point for yet another dramafest on this issue. — Lomn 13:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why some people are so touchy about grammatical things like that, even though they can disagree about politics or religion or education without suffering any spiritual bruises. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

On Judge Judy

Hi Lomn - I saw your warning to NIM about his 'legal threat' to bring in Judge Judy. While it seems readily apparent that NIM is unable or unwilling to participate constructively in building Wikipedia, I would hesitate to treat his grandstanding as a legal threat. Judge Judy is a syndicated daytime television show (and its eponymous star) which purports to arbitrate trivial disputes between bickering and obnoxious complainants. While it has some of the trappings of a courtroom, it is assuredly not any part of the legal system. Threatening to call Judge Judy is more like threatening to call Jerry Springer or Oprah Winfrey than threatening to call a lawyer.

That's not to say that I don't think NIM should remain blocked indefinitely. Either the account is being used by a particularly dedicated troll, or the well-meaning individual behind it simply lacks the maturity to work with others in this environment — but I would hate to see a good block overturned because someone got confused about it being primarily due to a 'legal threat'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ten,

I was just about to get something posted on the ANI thread (perhaps it should have gone up first). Anyway, agreed on the nature of JJ as entertainment rather than the legal system. My understanding of NLT, though, is that it's closely tied with the notion of chilling effects -- it's not whether the threat is credible or sustainable but simply that it is made (granted, this is quite borderline). I think it's important that retraction be part of any unblock, in conjunction with the other terms at NIM's page.

I agree entirely on the wisdom of the present block; I'm considering the wisdom of also locking the talk page. Given that much of the concern at ANI is tied to the repeated use of real names, I don't know that a standard block-with-talk-access fully addresses the problem (perhaps NOINDEX is sufficient? I'm not sure). Conflating that action with a borderline NLT issue may be a mistake. — Lomn 15:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen the AN/I thread; I was keeping an eye on NIM's talk page because I regularly work the Ref Desk and he had been making a nuisance of himself there. I agree that the purpose of NIM's silly threat was to have a chilling effect, but I am of two minds about whether or not that should be a major factor in deciding whether or not NLT should be applied. Suppose NIM had instead threatened to report his side of the dispute on a different television program (on Oprah, or public access cable, or what have you) or through some other public outlet (newspaper column, Twitter feed, etc.). The point of his Judge Judy threat was not (I think) to instil fear of legal proceedings, but rather to threaten some manner of public exposure, embarrassment, or humiliation. I note that since Judge Judy takes the form of an arbitration, the participation of any party is – as with any television program – entirely voluntary. (Indeed, unless another Wikipedia editor agreed to appear on Judge Judy, the threat is entirely moot; the show won't go on without two parties.) The distinction I would be inclined to draw is that 'real' legal proceedings can begin without the defendant's consent, and have added power as a chilling threat primarily for that reason.

As to locking his talk page (or at least pulling his ability to edit it), I can certainly see no harm in that approach, and much to recommend it. Looking at the AN/I thread and the talk page, it seems like we're getting into situations where NIM is going to be demanding that his young teenage friends and acquaintances start identifying themselves to OTRS and giving consent for the disclosure of their real names...it's looking less and less like a road we want to go down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ten has it right on Judge Judy, both "sides" have to agree to participate, her "rulings" have no legal force or effect (the show pays her "damage" awards) - it was just the last TV show they had on before they came back to keyboard. A legasl threat has to indicate an entity capable of taking legal action. I was really hoping to get a name-change through, even though the u & t pages are already noindexed before going to full lock-down. I hadn't spotted an age issue with the target of their name but now it doesn't matter anyway as they are a minor, so can't give consent. Franamax (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed up on Swatjesters suggestion and sent an email to info-en for clarification, just for my own curiosity. I'll let you know the results. Franamax (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing useful to contribute here. I just wanted to register my amusement that a threat to contact Judge Judy's web site is being considered a "Legal Threat".

More seriously, it really indicates how completely NIM's life revolves around the TV, that the scariest legal threat he could muster was to a TV judge. APL (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think going on Judge Judy would be great. First of all, we all would have to go 'cause no 'pedian would ever let someone else speak for them. Then when it came time for our side to tell their story, whoever spoke would constantly have their grammar tweaked or their words rearranged for better flow. Partway through someone else would say "wait a minute, that's a massive copyright violation, now we have to go back over every single word you've spoken". Every so often the story would be changed to "my firend Alison is teh coolest". And when Judge Judy turned around and said "didn't you just say that you wanted X to happen?" we would be saying "no, check the tape, that was completely rewritten six minutes ago". They would likely close the show down after that case. :) Franamax (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I just hope they don't tape the show during the month of December. I'd hate to have to hold up a banner the whole time. APL (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's unfortunate that "legal threat" is the terminology that I used, because no, it's not really a legal threat. However, it's a threat made to try to influence the community, and it's a threat made with the intent/belief/hope/something that legalese (the presence of "court", "judge", "case", etc) will make the threat more valid. As I noted above, NLT doesn't ask the community to judge the credibility of a threat; it's a bright-line test for Things Users Ought Not Do -- and petty threats easily fall into such a category. But, as I'm realizing after posting, it's a lousy premise for action here (though I think such action -- locking talk page access -- will prove worthwhile). I'll go edit the post at NIM's talk page to that effect. — Lomn 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Midway-1991-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Midway-1991-cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Relative fatality rate between seat belt wearers and abstainers

Regarding your:

Only 15% of people in the US aren't wearing a seat belt as of 2010, but they account for 27% of fatalities in accidents. That means they're about 3 times more likely to die on a per-wreck basis than those properly restrained.

Are you sure about your math? I get ( 0.27 / 0.73 ) / ( 0.15 / 0.85 ) = 2.1. Am I doing something wrong? (Do we have an article on such calculations?) -- ToE 09:44, 22 January 2012

Doesn't look like it (and no, I'm not sure about mine). I ballparked things on the Windows calculator (which I despise, but I haven't found a good post-XP replacement for PowerCalc that'll show history, respect order of operations, and such). I was going on memory about relative ratios and it looks like I guessed wrong about which side of 2.5 the calculation would end up on. — Lomn 20:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ref desk

I just now see you complained here [4] on the ref desk talk page that my comment about being blocked had nothing to do with you. You are right, it was aimed at StuRat above you who brought it up. I am not looking to reopen a can of worms, just don't want you to think I am some crazy bitch aiming nonsense randomly. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Books

Okay, It's fine for me, I am sorry. Can I ask you something that I don't understand?, can a Canadian citizen get U.S. citizenship and mantain both citizenships? Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have answered this question where you asked on the RD already. As a general rule, yes. For a specific situation, seek competent legal advice. — Lomn 16:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the ref desk. Thank you. Please reply on my page, I love to see the orange thing on the top haha. Only if you want. Keeeith (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the closure, but every December 5 I am moved by the fact that I knew Robert A. Hawkins, and the question was badly-intended and was rightly closed. I truly apologize. Keeeith (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please forgive me? Keeeith (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. While I didn't go into full detail, the only real problem I saw with your question was the inclusion of 'why', because that elevates the question into (1) murky philosophy/psychology that the Desk isn't well-equipped to answer and (2) pop psychology and other non-constructive answers from other participants (see also people injecting unhelpful jokes into a sensitive subject). I think a similar question, sans 'why', is the sort of thing that the Desk can usefully answer (though it remains a touchy subject): for example, "Have any studies been published on the motivations behind murder-suicides?" To that end, I linked murder-suicide, which does contain some of that information, as well as links to other related topics. Ultimately, though, I closed the discussion because I felt the discussion itself was bearing out the initial response's prediction of being non-productive and inflammatory, not because of your initial question. Finally, you have my sympathies on this painful anniversary. — Lomn 21:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

James Cameron

I'm sorry, I can't yet handle it well. Keeeith (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Jump starting

The question has been archived, but I added a note about why connecting to the "dead" car's chassis is best. -- ToE 19:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, wires as theoretically perfect conductors vs. being real wires. Thanks for the note! — Lomn 19:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for answering to my questions on the ref desk. You're awesome. I could give you an award, a barnstar for that I would but I don't know where are they. Thank you. Kotjap (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Unlike charges

Why do unlike charges attract each other? I have asked this question to you because I know that you know the answer of this question. C. Walker19 (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I don't know. My general response to this sort of question, when asked, is that "why" is often the wrong question unless you're doing professional academic work at the cutting edge of the field. Otherwise, I find "because that explanation is consistent with our observations" is as good an answer to "why" as any other. Of course, that can answer most any "why does science say this thing?", and so it's rather obviously not a useful answer apart from reinforcing that good theories are built on empirical evidence. — Lomn 16:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Horst Wessel

As the next two responses were equally useless, I must assume you intend to remove them also? Or are you playing favorites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The only other comment when I performed the removal noted Wessel's Nazi membership. It wasn't much good, as it didn't seem to do much except restate the question, but it was on-topic. I have no desire to open the can of worms that is removing topical-but-bad responses, nor am I sure that it would have met that threshold in any case. As I have no knowledge about the actual question, I haven't returned to it. — Lomn 19:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that, I intend to restore any users' comments you deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Given what? Come on, Bugs, at least step up and say outright why specific worthless commentary needs to be restored. — Lomn 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that you are deciding which comments to delete based on who made them, rather than on their "quality". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the opposite of what I wrote. — Lomn 20:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your actions belie your words. You targeted specific non-answers and left others alone. There are only two fair options: restore all your deleted comments and box them up as off-topic; or delete all remaingin comments that don't answer the question. Which'll it be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would love nothing more than to see you make mockery of my actions by adding valuable answers that address the question asked. — Lomn 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternately, I'll ask again: why does this particular comment, which served no purpose and added no value, need to be restored? This is really the hill you want to claim martyrdom on? Content, not contributor. That's what I judged, and it's what I'd like to see you defend. — Lomn 22:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Open your eyes: The OP is a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Entirely possible, as I noted to Medeis, and probably a good conversation for RD talk. I fail to see how that's relevant to your post, however. — Lomn 23:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

vandalism

I have reverted your edit on the Ford, you have no business overwriting me. If you want to add back the material with which you replaced my edit, feel free to do so without removing mine. μηδείς (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed no relevant information from the section and added referenced relevant information. You're welcome to edit in like fashion. If you can't do so, I don't see how you have grounds for complaint. — Lomn 00:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Lomn. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Lomn.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lomn. 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)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

BLP

Thanks for your notice, but one link to an unreliable source (the matter is behind closed doors) does not justify the speculation by our editors about alleged criminal activity by Barack Obama. This goes to BLP next. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

In the short term, I've added additional sources; that's an excellent point about the fragility of a single source. I don't, however, think that "the matter is behind closed doors" is particularly relevant here, per the portion of BLP I linked that specifically addresses reporting unconfirmed but newsworthy and reliably sourced allegations towards public entites. — Lomn 14:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lomn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lomn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Strong I formation.png

The file File:Strong I formation.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)