User talk:Scarian

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

I'm back

But in a reduced capacity. I don't really have a role anymore and I definitely won't be making a conscious effort to involve myself deeper with Wikipedia. I've moved on in my life but I still have a fondness for Wikipedia and some of its users. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! Enigma^msg 04:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back loser :P Danger^Mouse (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ta to you both! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back to one the greatest!

Wiki is still overpopulated with completely useless whiners (like every single editor who ever complained about you :-D ) Stick around for a while....the Wik needs you and more like you. Frozen in solid on the East Coast all Winter is giving me the blues. And now I read that Gary Moore has died. So I will be in Moore blues for a while to come. No UK trips in my future. Maybe someday. Wiki libs (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha, you're too kind to me, my old friend. MK one day, promise? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Foo Fighters

Thought I would discuss this first rather than just revert, because really, it's not a big issue. I agree with the hidden note that because of the amount of bands the members have been a member of/contributed to, it should be limited. At the same time though, surely Them Crooked Vultures and Taylor Hawkins and the Coattail Riders are directly related, even with only one member in common? Both were formed while Foos were active and feature current members. The Coattail Riders have released 2 albums, while TCV plan on releasing a second. [1], [2], [3], [4]

Also, I couldn't find anything about the note on the talk page (archives included). I'm assuming it was added due to editors constantly adding groups like Queens of the Stone Age, Scream, etc? I don't think the note should apply to the aforementioned band's, though that's just my opinion. What do you think? :) HrZ (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think an old user added it years ago, I can't even remember. Chris-something... He used to be really active on the Nirvana band page. Um... I would recommend bringing this to the talk page for a wider consensus. To be honest, I've just been trying to stick to the note, although if you think a differently worded one would make more sense, feel free to suggest. Cheers for your message, bro. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, was going to do that, but thought I would ask yourselfm incase I missed anything on the talk page about the note. Thanks for the reply! HrZ (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

I'm so behind... Welcome back! Have a cookie. Rory ^{What did I do wrong?} 08:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rory! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User Fasttimes68 is still causing problems with the article on Stephanie Adams

If you visit the Stephanie Adams discussion page, you will see people asking him to stop, but he still insists upon causing trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1992

Here are a few additional links as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive717#User:Fasttimes68_topic_ban_proposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive93#Fasttimes68_reported_by_Therefore_.28Result:_24hr_block_.29

He and user Hoary were the two who caused problem with that article for over five years, which is why it is currently being redirected, yet it's still an issue to them, even with only one sentence in the article. Major conflict of interest going on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.68.72 (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)