User talk:Schrodinger82

Welcome!

Hello, Schrodinger82, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

DO NOT edit other people's comments, as you did here. It is considered vandalism, although this edit appears to be a mistake. If it wasn't and you do it again, though, you will be blocked from editing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment was by accident (I hit cut when I meant to do copy). The second comment was my own, only I forgot to sign in when I posted it. Schrodinger82 11:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Mencia page[edit]

It appears to me that a particular editor has become dictatorial. I have put in a request for other editors to give their insight. Hopefully, this can be resolved shortly, as it is tedious and obvious to both of us that these references deserve to be included. -- Andrew Parodi 10:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a dictator of the most evil and tyrinnical type. By the way, good work on a compromise edit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your Mediation case[edit]

The case page has been moved to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05 Bowling for Columbine, but no mediator has been selected yet. Please feel free to use the case page to discuss possible solutions with eachother. Good luck to all the involved parties. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling for Columbine Arbitration[edit]

I am escalating the case with Bowling for Columbine to arbitration, please give your statments if any here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bowling_for_Columbine PPGMD 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 17:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine[edit]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Schrodinger82 is banned from Bowling for Columbine and related pages and talk pages for one year. This may be repealed if the Arbitration Committee feels that his editing of other topics demonstrates significantly improved understanding of Wikipedia's core principles. Violations of the article ban shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Join us in the "Terminator" Article discussion page...please...[edit]

If you are still a member of Wikipedia, please join user:TomTheHand and myself in a discussion of which terms should apply to the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Infiltration Unit in its various forms.

To be as neutral as possible, I will relate the views of TomTheHand as well as my own, as accurately as posible:

Tom believes that the term "Android" should apply to all of the incarnations of the Model 101, from Endoskeleton all the way up to the gestalts of flesh-and-blood and the combat chassis played by Arnold in the movies. He furthermore believes that the term "cyborg" does not apply to any of the Terminator's forms.

Thanos777 -myself -thinks that the Terminator is worthy of multiple appelations depending on which configuration (read: Type/Series) the Model 101 is configured as.

That is to say, I believe that the "Base" Model 101, just the endoskeleton with no cosmetic enhancements, is best defined as either a Humanoid Robot, Anthropomorphic Robot, or simply a Robot.

When the Model 101 is outfitted as a Type/Series 600, the endoskeleton covered by rubber skin, I believe that the Terminator is then most correctly classified as an "android."

And finally, when the Model 101 is equipped as a Type/Series 800/850, the endoskeleton with the living flesh-and-blood covering, I believe that the most correct term for the creatre is "cyborg."

Again, I respectfully ask you to come back to the "Terminator" Article and lend your input; those of us who are there in the Article's discussion page are engaging in a lot of back-and-forth regarding the different terms and the disagreements as to when they should be used.

Hope to "see" you there soon!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thanos777 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Incubating: Futuristic Sex Robotz[edit]

Greetings! You are receiving this note because you voted to Keep in the FSR AfD in 2006. Since then, the bands notability has increased, in my opinion. I've created a new page in the Article Incubator at: Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Futuristic_Sex_Robotz. Please feel free to join us in enhancing the article to meet wikipedia inclusion requirements. Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]