User talk:Lomn

Old talk topics headquartered at User talk:Lomn/Archive

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) :)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

If....

..it was not for you, I'd probably end up being a lousy 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 :)[reply]