User talk:4twenty42o: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:40, 10 July 2010

You do not have new messages (last change).

My talk.. If you are here because I reverted an edit and made a mistake or accused you of vandalism please be civil and I'll fix it. No reason to curse or SHOUT. Accidents do happen...

Please remember that:

DGAF

This user doesn't give a fuck about your opinion and thinks that angry editors should chill out and remember we were all new once upon a time.

Thank you

Much obliged to you for reverting vandalism on my user page. Best wishes, Jus da fax 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Genseiryū Karatedō Federation

Hi, are you available to help out here Talk:World_Genseiryū_Karatedō_Federation#.22Fresh_Start.22_Proposal? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest chapter in saga here: User_talk:NeilN#MARIO_IS_NOT_RIGHT_YOU_IGNORANT_ABUSER_OF_POWER_HERE --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

theres no consensus for the version you like either. im not really making just but also adding things. so if someone keeps erasing that....--Eduen (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, Who rejects my changes and additions? other users just as me. so why should the version of the article of their liking should be given priority over my changes or also those of user Zazaban. They have reverted my changes but also erased my additions and other things they dont like while i have never erased their "anarcho" capitalism. I suggest you also speak to those to those other users, otherwise you could be accused of onesideness. now if you are also in the crusade to keep the "anarco" capitalist bias on that article you could very well speak out. this because you claim to be in your userpage a volunteer againts vandalism.--Eduen (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"And you can bet you ass I would revert any of the above mentioned just as quickly if I felt that they were editing against consensus."

So can you expect something else from me or other users? and Who decides whats is consensus and whats not? Seems you already decided. I thought the point was reaching consensu since there wasnt one and so the edit war. Anyway they have also kept erasing things i added and so they can be accussed of vandalism. I havent really erased anything much really. Mostly argued order of things and less emphasis on minority fringe positions.--Eduen (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well i hope you dont expect me to then think you and the users nihilo and Knights...are defending "neutral point of view" while im the "biased edit warrior". And also i will report vandalism when someone erases things like post left anarchism, christian anarchism, insurrectionary anarchism and individualist anarchism in Europe.--Eduen (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H. Dale Jackson

Please explain the edit on H. Dale Jackson; specifically, removal of the section aboout his involvement in Arkansas and Missouri gambling ballot initiatives. Thank you. Moproducer (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hispanic

Please to not swoop in and increase tensions even more you are not helping, there is edit warring going on and your friend Bab-a-lot has already reverted the same content more than 3 times against 2 other editors who have raised issue on the talk--Wikiscribe (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cool (aesthetic)‎

Thanks for your edits on this article, and your comments on the talk page. Greatly appreciated! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Mile Island revert

Hi. I had written this text "-* In a Saturday Night Live episode, references to radioactive damage is done in a sketch through various stereotypical consequences of radioactivity (falling hair in clumps, glowing)." in the TMI pop culture section; you reverted it saying it (in your opinion) was better suited in the snl page. So why not put the X-Men movie fact in the X-Men movie page?
I feel - as a small snippet of info concerning "TMI in pop culture" and not relevant to the mentioned media - they both still belong on the TMI page. At most COPY them to the media pages, why remove? Care to comment? Thanks. --151.16.142.246 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - forgot to log in. --David Be (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Ground Army

are you reverting all my updates, ffs stop it, I am trying to clean up the mess some idiot posted, only to see you reverting it back... Article is full in inaccuracies and ppl gonna only laugh at it, stop reversing my work, unless you prefer for article to remain inaccurate. Mic of orion (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that in discussion section but the thing won't let me post it, or servers are slow, w'e the case... Mic of orion (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one account, Mic of Orion, I just didn't log on, that is all, now that I am longed on I changed it, but thing takes time, now in discussion section I have ended up with 3 modernization stubs, quite annoying... I don't log in to wiki a lot, but when I do, I do so bc I want to edit the article as it is full of inaccuracies, sometimes I do it without logging on if minor changes is all that is needed, but as I have life other than wiki... Mic of orion (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bye and Happy Christmas

Please accept my advanced Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.I will not be able to wish you on those days as I will be taking a Wiki break for one month starting tomorrow. Also wishing you a Happy editing.. :) arun talk 06:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, why?!

Hi, I was just about to log on a couple of mins ago. The ip I've just been assigned (randomly) by my ISP showed "messages pending", so I clicked through to see what it said. Here's the address: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.1.182.144&redirect=no It appears you made a 'revert to old' and left a brief message. As I said, I was not actually responsible personally for the edit in question (the person assigned this IP last time was) but still, I think I'm inclined to agree with their request for more referenced sourcing of the claims, which begs the question: Why did you revert? I'm interested to know, if only to find out whether I've been doing something wrongly myself for the last 7 yrs or so! I'm not asking in an 'aggressive' or challenging way, merely a lazily interested point of order. Many thanks Codeye (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M24 Sniper Weapon System

You reverted my removal of the conversion from AMR to MOA accuracy and said "Just because you cannot read it does not means its untrue" My question is can you read it? If you can read it I would be interested to know the formula used to make the conversion. My understanding is that citations for articles are supposed to be in the article's language.

I've spoken with a two mathematicians, explained AMR and MOA as used in the article, and they both said there is no way to convert between the two. I've searched the internet quite a bit and have not been able to find any conversion either. The idea of using variance and normalization to convert between the two is simply not able to give you a conversion it can get you a very very rough guess at best. It's like trying to convert apples into oranges. Fordag (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Soriano and Daniel Razon articles

Hi, I have recently nominated the article dedicated to the unnotable Daniel Razon on an AfD but as no knowledgeable person participated, and because a trick was pulled (i.e. a faux RS was dropped and then the pro-keep editor went straight to ANI and reqested a speedy closure during the times that I am usually absent due to time zone differences) the decision of the speedy closure ended up as "keep".

Now, as a result of this tragic event, the same pro-keep editor experienced a high morale boost and, as expected, as soon as he started editing in favor of the subject a Soriano droid came crawling up from the sewers and started making complementary edits specifically adding local award nominations, unnotable awards, blogs and ADD-owned websites as references, and cajoling the said pro-keep editor to obliterate well-sourced information regarding Soriano's rape case etc. Here is a sample edit.

Consider this conversation. Those who have enough experience in dealing with all ADD related articles and familiar with the results of all checkusers that I've requested are fully-aware that this anon, just like all others, cannot be an impartial editor but another follower of the cult with probably dozens of socks. I would just like to give you a heads up on both articles, especially their respective talk pages. Thank you! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My dad was an Army pilot ...

He once snuck me up in a rotary engine (?) plane called (I think) a Beaver. (I forget, but it sounds right, and fitting. LoL)
Beside me in the jump seat was a funnel and tube thing ... which made me think of those old Navy movies where people are talking into tubes ... and so I put the funnel thing up to my mouth and talked into it.
My father then informed me of what the funnel was for, there being no latrine on the plane.
End of my Army stories. :-)

A quick salute to you, most honorable (if "F"oul-mouthed LoL) 4twenty42o as 2010 begins ... May there be wondrous delights for you and yours in the coming year.

I think of you as someone you'd want beside you when the shit hits the fan.

NOTE: I have memorialized the comment you once made about Proofreader77's editing on a controversial article ... at the top of my user and talk pages ... which I have spruced up real nice for 2010. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

hey i wanted to apologize. i still think [am sure actually] that i am right about that source so that the article is too much "own research" but i was being way too silly. if you want to review the edit more closely any time then do so. i'd say the same to RepublicanJacobite but i can't edit his page. best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.54.18 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cockness Monster

So beautiful :,) - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom notice: 1953 Iranian coup POV

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#1953 Iranian coup POV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Soriano article again

Hi 4twenty42o,

If you are not so busy, your help in keeping an eye on the above article will be much appreciated. It's deja vu once again with anon's whitewashing and deceptive edit summaries. Thanks! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 15:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again 4twenty42o,

As an editor who have contributed much on the article, I hope you find the time to comment on this discussion. Cheers! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 15:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a third-party opinion regarding the subject. Here is a brief background regarding the article:

Shannon Rose insists that Soriano is notable as a fugitive.

- - Shannon Rose continues, as always, to criticize Soriano by calling his church "notorious, cult, etc.." (good faith, isn't it).
  - Shannon Rose (jumps to conclusions) and decides to reject a recent award given to the subject.
  - I, the anon, felt sorry for Shannon Rose's impartial view on the subject. (claiming many negative things about the subject, i.e "notably notorious in using all the tricks in the book")

180.191.61.141 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to obviously irrelevant links

Ahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahh fuc k u bi tch and i dont giva fu ck either

@@ Line 164: / Line 164: @@
 ==Reverting to obviously irrelevant links==
+Ahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahh fuc k u bi tch and i dont giva fu ck either
-A few minutes ago I corrected a link to a page which was obviously irrelevant to a discussion to link into a discussion which is relevant.   You have restored the old (bad) link.   Please advise your reason for doing this. [[Special:Contributions/78.151.89.253|78.151.89.253]] ([[User talk:78.151.89.253|talk]])  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 09:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-Please see my reply to your last post on my talk page. [[Special:Contributions/78.151.89.253|78.151.89.253]] ([[User talk:78.151.89.253|talk]]) 09:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
-Please see my reply to your further post of a few minutes ago on my talk page. [[Special:Contributions/78.151.89.253|78.151.89.253]] ([[User talk:78.151.89.253|talk]]) 10:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
-Please see my reply to your further post of a few minutes ago on my talk page. [[Special:Contributions/78.151.89.253|78.151.89.253]] ([[User talk:78.151.89.253|talk]]) 10:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
-Please see my reply to your further post of a few minutes ago on my talk page. [[Special:Contributions/78.151.89.253|78.151.89.253]] ([[User talk:78.151.89.253|talk]]) 11:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)