User talk:The Scarlet Letter

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! 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 becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

Again, welcome, SqueakBox 23:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hey *******, this is Andy =D

I see that you have no edits.

Why is that?

Darth Panda 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is because currently I have not anything to contribute, if you mean by my mainspace edit count.--A 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, love how you blanked out your name. Maybe I should too?...

Nah, I'm too lazy =P Darth Panda 01:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite easy to blank out one's name and erase all history of it.--A 02:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Hi. I had thought I protected the Banning policy prior to you edit. It seems I did not. However, I've removed the edit made after I applied the protected page banner to the page. When the protection expires, please feel free to re add that edit. Thank you for your understanding. Best regards, Mercury 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... I restored your edit. Mercury 03:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adult-child sex

Dear Scarlet, welcome to WP:PAW. Your userboxes (where on earth did you collect them so quickly?) look quite sympathetic but your recent edits don't live up to your own standards. If you are truly skeptic, humanist, empiricist, anti-censorship and pro-choice, you will acknowledge that there is amper scientific evidence for the existence of non-abusive adult-child sex that should be reflected in Wikipedia. Don't you agree? Roman Czyborra 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a specialist by any chance, so I have no knowledge on this; therefore, I cannot say whether there was amper scientific evidence or not for the existence of non-abusive adult-child sex. As for my userboxes, I collected them through this and this if you are interested in those userboxes.--A 13:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! Roman Czyborra 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi. Why did you remove that section from my talk page? I had written a reply to it, thanking you. a.z. 02:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You already had this on your talk page. "This was probably a contributing factor to the banning of notorious "problem editor", Jim Burton. Any following accounts that edit in similar patterns are now widely suspected to be pedophile sympathisers, and many have been banned for such reasons, or for largely unsupported socking allegations." In retrospect, I think that I was in the error of removing it because you seemed to have forgotten it. Feel free to reinstate that section.--A 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post had a lot more information than Dyskolos's. I will re-add the post. I feel it would be good to re-add it to the other talk page where you had posted it too. I feel this is an issue that has to be discussed. a.z. 02:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your editor review

Hi, regarding this comment you made on your editor review: "This page is a mistake, but I don't know how to get rid of it." You can request deletion of a page you created, provided you're the page's only substantial contributor, by adding the {{db-author}} tag to the page. --Muchness 03:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion on -isms

Hi. A user category that you are in has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. You are welcome to comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heine–Borel theorem

Thank you for your work on this article. I have a few comments. First is that one should use LaTeX for formulas, or otherwise HTML but then the variables should be italic, so x instead of x.

Second, I don't agree with your recent edits to this article. You transformed an informal discussion into a more precise statement filled with symbolic notation. While that is great for mathematicians like you and me, it will be very hard to follow by non-specialists (and in general, notation and symbolism tends to obfuscate things). I am very tempted to revert back to the article the way it was before, but that would destroy your work.

I will strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, and I would suggest you put back the informal text you removed while adding your own text below it under a new "Proof" section. I wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, do so revert. I need to go to sleep, so I shall take care of this tomorrow.--A 03:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did revert as the other text looked better. Your work is still in the history and can be recovered if you want to continue working on it. Again, I suggest keeping the informal discussion, and if you want to add a formal proof, do so under it (of course, feel free to edit the informal part, so that overall the article reads as one, my primary objection was that the informal text was replaced by a formal proof, I don't care much about the actual details of what is in there). Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

It is YouTube not Youtube. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal Umlaut

[1]

Your edit summary said you were just changing spelling, but you also removed a fact tag. Was this intentional? - Revolving Bugbear 17:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is intentional. I saw that once I changed the spelling, there was no need for the tag.--A (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution near (?) on how to entitle Tony Sandel's lists of books portraying sexual attraction to children

Some time ago you proposed merging two pages that dealt with adult sexual attraction to children, one for attraction to boys and one for attraction to girls. I think resolution of that question and several others is near. Your input could be helpful.

Please visit Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males#Requested_move. The editor who had done the most work on that (and related) entries has accepted a proposal for a new title that may put to rest objections dating back to late 2006. This is a request that you look over and comment on the direction in which we are going. SocJan (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bake-danuki

I've tried to rewrite some of your contributions at Bake-danuki into better English, but I'm not confident that I've done so correctly. You might like to have a look and see if it is ok. I haven't got the books that you refer to so it's hard to make corrections, but from my understanding of the issues I think I have the general idea.

221.219.152.176 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like your rewrite was correct, so should be okay.--A (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

If this user is also "User:New Questions".. Please check your email. Brendon is here 13:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also this user, but I am not even sure if I remember what e-mail was associated with this user, since it was so long ago... haha.--New questions? 14:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Qusayr (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) 12:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]