User talk:Number36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Number36, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up! 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


If you look at the contributions here and the differences, you can see what they were doing. Which was way back in December November. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, phew :) wasn't me then. -Number36 23:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation Corkscrew[edit]

Hi! You removed this link [1], saying it was "dead". I assumed you meant that the link no longer worked but I managed to open it successfully, just now. Was that the your only objection? If so, I'll reinstate. Folks at 137 08:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yep that was my only objection, sorry about that, don't know why it didn't work for me yesterday, tried a few times over the day before I removed it, but only got the page can not be found error message each time, works for me now though, I've reverted it back in now.Number36 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Roman Republic[edit]

Hi, your edit of the roman republic article seems to have cut off the bottom half of the article. I'd add it back myself if I knew how! Sierro 13:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah it did too! It's been fixed now thankfully. No idea how that happened, I was just trying to fix the spelling of a couple of words higher up in the article, weird. Thanks for the heads up anyway, I'll watch out for that in the future.Number36 01:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pie is good![edit]

And so are random messages on talk pages! Kyaa the Catlord 01:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Its a marvelous night for a moondance. Kyaa the Catlord 01:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mike Brown. I hope he does! Heh. :P Kyaa the Catlord 02:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


The passed motion to move dwarf planets to Name (dwarf planet) is currently being finalised at the Talk: 1 Ceres page. As you participated in the original debate, it would help if you could now add your vote there. The Enlightened 19:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

David Wong article[edit]

If that is the case, add {{db-repost}} to the article yourself. However, db-repost should only be used for articles that have been through AFD. If this article's deletion was a speedy-deletion or a prod previously, the recreated material is evidence that its deletion is being contested, and it should have at LEAST one chance to go through AFD. The article itself is a mess, and it seems to make tenuous claims to notability, so db-A7 does not seem to apply, which is why I added a prod. If this is a repost of an AFD'd article, then go ahead and add the speedy tag. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone removes a prod and does not change the article in any way that meanifully addresses it, then send it to AFD. AFD tags cannot be removed until the disussion is complete. I will complete the AFD if you wish. Its a bit of a procedure to list it, but it has gotten alot easier in recent months, the template really walks you through it well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

David K Wong article[edit]

I took a look at the article, and I messaged the author a few ways he could help improve his article if he can provide the right sources and use proper wikiformatting. This message could also help you if you're interested in helping with the article A copy of the message I sent him is below:

If you don't remember me, I was the one that notified you about your first article being deleted. I went ahead and took a look at the article you have posted now, and I thought I'd share some tips with you if you want to make your article successful.
As I predicted, the article is been nominated for deletion once again. People usually watch for attempted recreates of pages that have been removed before. This nomination, however, is not a speedy deletion, but a proposed deletion. This kind of deletion is different. A speedy deletion only requires one administrator's judgement and the article is gone. Proposed deletion is done by input and voting by the community. This allows you time to add sources to back up your article (to which it has only one source). Also, don't be afraid to talk about the nobility of the page in it's talk page. The more sources you find for this page, the less likely your page will be seen as uncreditable and be nominated for deletion.
Also, if you want your page to be successful, you should read up on these wikipedia pages and apply them to the article:"
  • Tutorial, in case you haven't read it at all
  • Manual of style. This will help the article's format look much better and be in accordance to wikipedia's neatness policy.
  • Verifiability and Reliable sources will help you properly insert sources, footnote sources, and much more needed to prove your article's credibility.
I hope all this helps you out. If you have any questions, message me. GOOD LUCK!

Thanks for letting me know that he started his article again. Best not to bite the newcomers, or be a WP:DICK. Good luck to you! BeanoJosh 06:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: No problem. It's good to help with someones interest on wikipedia, even if he is new. He is headed in a hard direction, however. Out of all the articles you can create, creating one about a person is one of the hardest. It's very hard to prove the person credible or encyclopedic. Whatever direction the article goes, let us hope it's done out of good judgement and good terms. Have a good one. BeanoJosh 06:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect removal of deletion tag on David K. Wong[edit]

I think you're right on the tag removal. I really should have read through policy and the tag closer. I only considered that the article was probably going to be removed anyway, so I might have jumped the gun. I also reverted because the anon edit removed a couple of other tags. Oh well, the article was deleted anyway. Pingveno 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Red Son[edit]

Ah, you may very well be right about that point. If so, I apologise for presumption, as I was, rather ashamedly, making the edit based on only my memory of the story, which I do not have to hand at the moment. Thanks for letting me know and for being so polite about it. --Jayunderscorezero 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of zombie films[edit]

A proposition has been put forth on the issue of including zombie movie titles in the List of zombie movies. As an editor that has made comments on this issue, I would like to invite you to partake in the vote. --Charleenmerced Talk 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

List of zombie films[edit]

Hi Number36. I have brought up the current problems from List of zombie films at Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts. I didn't mention you directly, but as you are another contributer at that article I thought it would be appropriate to let you know. Take care! SaintCyprian Talk 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


WikiProject Auckland This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


I seem to have screwed up and renamed the UNIT article since I didn't know there was a vote going on. Type 40 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Canterbury Television logo.gif)[edit]


Thanks for uploading Image:Canterbury Television logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

Regarding reversions[2] made on June 29 2009 to Eurymedon vase[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Number36 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Though I did violate 3RR and fully understand this block, I want to request an unblock for the following reasons; I had no intention of edit warring and when I realised that I had edited more than allowed (Though only by two posts and it was the next day in my time zone) I stopped editing the page straight away, posted a message to the other party and reported the situation to the 3RR page, nor do I have any intention of editing the page further now, I would have reverted my last revert as recommended in the guidelines surrounding 3RR but the other party had already done this (and hopefully it shows my good faith that I didn't continue and revert his edit). I had originally mistakeningly thought that the 3RR wouldn't apply as the edits I was reverting had blatently false edit summaries describing everything being undone as vandalism, these were not good faith edits as the guidelines on what should and what shouldn't be described as vandalism had been repeatedly pointed out to the other party, but he made it clear on the talk page that he was going to refer to any edit he didn't agree with as vandalism anyway. The admin who blocked me stated that I should have provided evidence of an atttempt to resolve the problem on the talk page, I'm unsure what was meant by this as I filled the template in to the best of my ability, and I did query whether I had done it correctly not having been involved in the process previously. I provided a link to the discussion on the talk page and briefly described the statements made there. If you don't want to unblock me that's fine it's only for a short time afterall, I understand that I had edited erroneously, though as I said this was due to my previous misunderstanding of the 3RR rule, but I can offer my assurance that it was not deliberate and I had no intention of continuing, or of edit warring in the first place, but only of trying to undo edits which were clearly, and explicitly stated beforehand as intended to be, bad faith.

Decline reason:

Block has expired, making this request moot. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 21:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Actually you didn't technically violate the 3RR but it was still edit warring which is the real issue. Yes, you're absolutely right, it was incorrect and quite insulting for Twospoonfuls to repeatedly refer to the edit you restored as "vandalism"; that was not a good-faith comment but they certainly were good-faith edits. That said, his inappropriate comment is not a good enough reason for you to revert - you were reverting because you preferred the other version. What was meant by the blocking admin is that you weren't discussing your revision on the article talk page (nor, really, in your edit summaries either). So you were both edit warring. Mangojuicetalk 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee to help resolve a dispute about Eurymedon vase.

Mediation is a voluntary discussion intended to resolve disputes. Mediators are experienced volunteer editors who maintain a neutral perspective and may assist disagreeing parties to come to an agreement. The requesting editor has listed you as a party, i.e., a user who is involved in the dispute and who is being asked if they will agree to mediation.

Because mediation is voluntary, the Mediation Committee will not open a case unless the users involved all agree to try to resolve the dispute. According to Wikipedia's mediation policy, discussions during a mediation are privileged, i.e., cannot be used "against" you outside it. This is to give mediation the best chance of success.

Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurymedon vase, and indicate whether or not you would agree to resolve the dispute through mediation.

If you are unfamiliar with the Wikipedia mediation process, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or ask advice from a member of the Mediation Committee at the case's talk page. Please note there is a seven-day time limit for all parties to confirm their agreement to mediation. Thanks, Blue Danube (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"As you and I discussed once before on my talk page, it looks like this needs to be taken to mediation. Twospoonfuls recently just archived our discussion without permission! Please sign the mediation, bud." Blue Danube (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

MEDCOM rejected our RFM, so I followed the their suggestion and filed a MEDCAB case instead. It is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-16/Eurymedon vase. Let me know what you think. 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Danube (talkcontribs)

Susan Calvin[edit]

The date of Calvin's birth (and a few other dates) is stated in the binding text of my paperback copy of 'I, Robot'. I think it has also been termed 'Mind and Iron', but I may be wrong on this. I have assumed that Asimov was the author of the text, in which an un-named reporter interviews Calvin on her retirement from US Robots. --Robert Fraser (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Being Erica episodes[edit]

Hi there, thanks for your message of 2011-11-03. It seems everything is sorted out and everone fine. Therefore *thumbs up* --Hippopotamus777 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your sandbox[edit]

Are you still looking for it? The easiest thing to do would be create a Redlink (like User:Number36/36 (number)), edit that then work it there. If you have any questions, let me know. Achowat (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


I hope you don't mind but I moved the message you posted at Wikipedia talk:Spam to the noticeboard where external links are discussed: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard# (shortcut WP:ELN). Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Zombie Films: Request for input[edit]

Hi there - you've participated in discussions on this page before and I'd love to get your input on another film - 2007's I am legend. I haven't really come to a conclusion one way or another, but I have presented some evidence for both sides of the argument. Any chance you could stop by the talk page when you have a second and share your thoughts? Thanks! --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Zombie Films: Request for input[edit]

Hi there - you've participated in discussions on this page before and I'd love to get your input on another film - 2007's I am legend. I haven't really come to a conclusion one way or another, but I have presented some evidence for both sides of the argument. Any chance you could stop by the talk page when you have a second and share your thoughts? Thanks! --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Admin Noticeboard for disruptive editing - a situation you've been involved in[edit]

I've opened an admin notice for Ronnie42, and a large part of my argument is his history on List of zombie films. Because of your past involvement, I thought I should let you know. The entry can be found here. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of zombie films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Am Legend (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC) -Thank you Mr Bot ;) I was restoring a link along with quite a few others, it probably pointed to the right article when it was originally placed in the article so I'll go fix it now.Number36 (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Deleting[edit]

Personally I don't mind. I'm not sure if there are any policies about it, though, so I would run it by an admin before being too bold. I can recommend user:De728631 as a fair judge.

But I will take the opportunity to pass on some advice.

  1. Don't be so hard on yourself. We all make mistakes, and one of the important rites of passage is to reach a point where we don't try to hide that. I took no offense at your edits -- it was a simple mistake and since I could see what the problem was I took time to try to defuse the situation by pointing it out.
  2. Don't be so hard on others. If you had taken a friendlier tone, having the error pointed out wouldn't sting quite so much, and it would therefore be easier to follow (1) above. (Sort of like the Golden Rule, I guess.)

All the best -- Elphion (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your page. Again apologies if my tone seemed unfriendly, I certainly didn't intend that.Number36 (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Enforcing WP:Cat gender[edit]

Thanks for enforcing this on some of the articles I wrote on. I probably got sloppy. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.} GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Number36. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)