User talk:Lomn

Old talk topics headquartered at User talk:Lomn/Archive

?!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. flaming lawye r^c 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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) :)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]