Welcome!

(Point of Interest : My old username on en.wikipedia was APL.)

Hi
I'm sorry but I don't understand why you reverted my modification of the here above article. And there is no justification. Could you please precise what's wrong on it?
Thanks Davric (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Davric, You added information about a self-published work with no sources asserting it's notability.

That is generally not allowed. Wikipedia is not for publicizing self-published work, it's for reporting on works that are already accepted by the academic community.

See WP:SOURCE for more information. ApLundell (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm absolutely not the author of this PhD dissertation and 5 different references from different websites and scientific magazines were included in the paragraph. So I consider that deleting it was unfair. I will re-publish. Tanks to pay attention to all the references which legitimate this work.
Davric (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed it again. Please read WP:SOURCE before you edit the article again. ApLundell (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will give up (proof that I'm not the author as you accuse me without any clue). Just one point about your comment and the fact that I'm an anonymous user... Even if it seems that my log on WP English have disappeared (I've complained to WP regarding that), a quick background check would have allowed you to notice that I joined WP on March 2006... 4 month after you. And that I have already written/modified/translated hundred of articles. So "anonymous user" seems also a bad faith argument.
I'm really more and more bothered by people who behave as censors and seem to have lost the spirit I found at the begging and as it's the second time I have such a discussion, I guess it's time for me to leave WP... Good luck Davric (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ApLundell, the reason why, in the "Voynich manuscript" lead, I changed "decipher" to "decrypt" is that cryptologists reserve "decipherment" for the reading of a cipher by its intended recipient; and "decryption", for the reading of either a cipher or a code by an unauthorized recipient. Similarly, while persons innocent of the difference between a cipher and a code often, in English, refer to either as a "code", there is a very basic distinction between a cipher and a code. (Some other languages commit the opposite error, calling both a code and a cipher a "cipher".) David Kahn, in his The Codebreakers (loosely titled thus for readers innocent of the differences!) very carefully explains the distinctions. Best, Nihil novi (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for noticing. It appears that some votes were changed over a week ago. --Maxamegalon2000 13:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ApLundell! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dreamy ^§ 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I knocked this out of its big distracting template.APL (talk))

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need a better userpage :)Eskater11 03:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, preferably one with a lengthy and incomprehensible APL program on it. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where am I supposed to voice my views about this? Also, I have responded to your discussion at the RD talk page. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my satellite question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I endorse this barnstar, after noticing how you, by being calm and to the point, resolved an ugly situation at WP:RD/S#creatively, how heavy might I make pure heat (historical caloric) in liquid form?. — Sebastian 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks!! Reywas92^Talk 00:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. If you're going to delete my post, the least you can do is provide an edit summary explaining it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh okay - cool then. Thanks for fixing it! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

. . . here to improve readability. Feel free to revert if you don't like that stuff. The bullets were a few lines below the above paragraph in my browser but it looks good now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How did you search for them? There's no search function on the website, and the site:rayban.com function in google search doesn't work.68.148.130.72 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The content was not included simply because it was a trivial subject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As much assertion? The only thing close to notability is the censorship, which is only notable if it's covered in reliable, secondary sources. Most articles have reception and development at minimum. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi.

I have seen in the History that you think I am adding false information about Pandora in the Gizmondo 2 article.

In fact, this is not false information. I have seen on many websites: "The Pandora will be released in December 2009".

However, if you don't believe me, research it then.

--79.69.97.234 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your "facts" contradict statements by the actual, official developers. It is not my job to go research your crazy facts. It is your responsibility to provide credible citations and references for your facts.

I'm not sure where you'd find a secondary source more credible than the people actually making the device, who have never said December 2009.

(Incidentally, Are you sure you're not seeing sites that say December 2008? That was the original planned release date.) APL (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your advice on the reference desk. Both me and my hungry plant thank you! cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your post. I don't doubt it's validity (after checking google scholar) and I do seem to have a defective copy. Now I'm wondering what else is wrong with my copy...Drew Smith What I've done 13:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my Earth as Time Keeper question on the Science Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, i was not able to found some informations in english that damnation is a steampunk video game, only on official developers site, in german version is said that damnation is settled in a post industrial steampunk world(http://www.codemasters.de/games/index.php?gameid=2672&format= steampunk is in german also steampunk), i have played this game,i mentioned already they have steam-powered vehicles, weapons and other steam-powered machines, circa 20 - 30 years after American Civil War, not only my person is thinking that damnation belongs to steampunk Al-B

Ok.--Gilisa (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol thanks for pointing out that strange response about African women's bodies was from the 'retrocausal information transfer'. It was a good laugh but I didn't remember the person and doubt I would have bothered to look at his contribs myself Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you responded to a :) of mine with one of your own -- so I'd like to ask you a question. Was it in poor judgment to do what I did? Perhaps you don't know what I did, but you can check it out on the general reference desk talk page. I thought I was being funny, but two editors felt that I was canvassing for support. While I'm not very new to Wikipedia, I am pretty new to the reference desks, so maybe I was way out of line and just don't realize it -- sort of incompetent about being incompetent. What do you say? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So would that mean I was out of line and didn't know it or wasn't out of line and did know it? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I didn't even hit "save on my reply yet! I got distracted by the other discussion on your talk page. APL (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can there be a place for only editors -- cannot every reader visit every page? Or must you be signed in, and every signed in account is assumed to be an editor and not just a reader? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm responding as though you speak for Steve, which I presume you do not, but put[ting] a lot of effort into the Ref Desks and then get[ting] a bit upset when people don't take it seriously not only presumes that I do not take it seriously but also smacks of "owning" the RD. I put a lot of effort into the Crown_(dentistry) article a way back and a bunch of others came along and basically undid all my hard work. I might have been upset, but didn't lash out. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		In appreciation of our personal Détente, both general and specific. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed your apology on user User talk:70.90.174.101 since you have posted to wrong page. It was my post you removed.

I believe this bug occurs when there is very heavy traffic on a topic, such as was found in the 'religious help desk' talk discussion.

It happens to other people too, it's (probably) not something you are doing. (Though you did mix up 70.... and 83...)

83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ApLundell. You have new messages at Drew R. Smith's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi APL, here's the story on redacted names at the latest RefTalk thread. It's very simple. A new editor (probably an LC sock) popped up to ask if BaseballBugs was LC. I answered that it was very unlikely, since Bugs stirs up all his own (good-faith) trouble and doesn't take any pains to hide what he does. Bugs is relatively new to the RefDesks and is not familiar with the long-running LC saga, so he asked who it was. I answered with a link to one of the SPI/CU cases, which would be all Bugs needed to understand. But I used LC's full username, then decided all on my own that I didn't want to use the name, so I went back and took it out. Meanwhile Bugs had figured out the user identity for himself, so I took that out too and left a link pointing to my edit so it would be really clear what I had done. Bugs saw it and got the point immediately, WP:DENY/WP:RBI is really quite standard practice and is done routinely. Bugs and I (among others) continued discussion of the particular disruptive user (and other disruptive users who might be targeting Bugs) in other fora.

TOAT meanwhile left a note letting us know what we already knew or suspected. Since I'd already begun removing the username, I just continued with TOAT's post and left a note and link to the diff where I'd made the change. TOAT is actually quite experienced here and knows who I am. If they wished to revert my change, obviously it's within their remit to do so. Or they could follow my logic and go along with it.

Everything is fine up to this point, no-one has "wasted" any time except just me myself, and I happen to be a volunteer. Then it all went pear-shaped with a bunch of complaints about how it's hard to follow what is plainly linked right there on the page (though admittedly one would have to actually read the thread and click the links), and how everyone's time is being wasted or mis-spent. Well, no-one's time got wasted except the time spent commenting on what I'd freely and openly done. Yes, changing other people's posts should be rare and never done by stealth, but for instance we redact email addresses all the time. I made my decision and if TOAT has a problem with it, I'm sure they'll let me know. In the alternate, you could have asked me on my talk page. It's unfortunate that the thread got deflected into yet another distracting direction. If you have further concerns, please reply here, I'll keep watching this page. Franamax (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it seems confusing with no real purpose at all. It's not as though being coy about the name will stop whatsisname from knowing who we're talking about, but it will confuse innocent bistanders.

If a troll wants attention, he won't care how you spell his name when you give it to him. That's the best case, anyway. Personally, I would take perverse satisfaction from the fact that you were afraid to speak my name.

I mean, either no one knows what you're talking about, and communication has failed, or they do know what you're talking about and you've given the guy the same attention that he would have got if you had just used the name in the first place!

Attributing these abbreviations to WP:DENY or WP:RBI feels a bit disingenuous because neither really comes close. In fact, I would argue that this sort of special treatment is very much against WP:RBI. It just makes vandals special. APL (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, as my username is already a set of initials, if you ever feel the need to ignore me or not recognize me in public, you may do so by addressing me by my name: "Andy". APL (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I look at it a little differently I guess. It's not like I was running around frantically trying to scrub hieroglyphs off the temple walls, it was more an afterthought than anything. I just go with the "ignore" and "dismiss" bits of the wordings, the guy is just so not worth our time. Identify it and toss it over our shoulders. I wasn't introducing any awkward euphemisms, except in my link to the SPI case where I pipe-tricked it as "an old friend" or whatever. It was just shorthand, which I knew Bugs would pick up on right away. Yes, innocent bystanders wouldn't get it right away, but I did leave ample links, I'm not trying to hide anything and the more people who are aware of this little years-long game, the better.

My attitude to the whole LC thing could maybe be summed up with a paraphrase of what I briefly considered posting in response to your "when I decide to turn into a troll" comment: "Oh man, my life is already so barren and meaningless that I spend all this time trying to build this encyclopedia, I can't imagine it getting so much worse that I would spend any time actively trying to destroy it. :)" I didn't post it because I wouldn't be able to emphasize the jocularity over the potential attacks on others. But seriously, when I decide to turn disruptive, my plan is to go across the street and get one of those community garden plots, buy some hiking gear and maybe a sea kayak, and go watch the birds and small land creatures. Important as this encyclopedia is, it's also totally ephemeral to actual existence. I can understand the mentality of the common vandal who goes on a brief spree then realizes there are actual things to do in life. Those others who devote significant time ro trying to screw other people around, much less so. So yeah, there was no hysteria involved, just brushing a little lint off my sleeve. (And Lc has since been attacking the talk page with vigour, at least one IP has been blocked - but every picnic has its ants, right?) Franamax (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, nice to meet you Andy, my name's Francis but I also preferentially accept my long-time nic franco! Franamax (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ApLundell. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing.
Message added 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a ((Talkback)) message on my talk page. 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry if you find it annoying. It's like a game of chess to me, and I love chess. I had great enjoyment turning your statement (possibly) in my favor. Lawyers don't screw around for fun though. They're usually in it for money (I think). --Neptunerover (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trolls, btw, do it through obscene, offensive or hateful actions. That's not me. I generally don't start the game anyway. I only play along. Innocent, I say I am. =)--Neptunerover (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As well, an evil lawyer can twist words from the beginning and set up their deceptions. I make no attempt to deceive, for I know such deception would only be against myself (since thinking one needs to deceive is itself a deception). In speaking truth, words can often be misinterpreted. I do my best to clarify misinterpretations of things I say, but there are so many assumptions to cover. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And incidentally, just because you might have left a Bishop (or ?) open with your common sense statement, that doesn't mean I had to take it. I made a quick move allowing you to come back and refute my interpretation of your statement. The 'best' lawyers know how to keep the game going. Why go for checkmate when you can keep a case running for years? When it's about money, some people can be quite tempted. Everyone has their place though. --Neptunerover (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi APL, with ref to this edit of yours, your comments and !votes at ANI carry exactly the same weight as any other editor in good standing, admin, non-admin or Jimbo (although Jimbo would attract much more attention :). Other weighting factors may apply, such as whether you are a party to the dispute, show not a clue what the discussion is about, were canvassed to comment &c, but so far as I know, the pattern of bits associated with your userrights have no particular bearing on the evaluation. The only difference is that when sanctions are proposed, it should be an admin closing the thread and of course an admin has the option to begin their comment with "I have blocked this user...". Other than that, your well-reasoned and diff-ed opinions are just as good as anyone else's. Regards! Franamax (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this edit, and for being cool and constructive from the very beginning of the thread, I award you this Barnstar of Good Humor. I needed a laugh, and you came through. I've gone back to look at it four or five times, and it's funny every time. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your response to my RefDesk question - it was pretty much exactly what I was looking for - and you even gave a link to a free cloner! Guess I have a project for tomorrow now - so now that you've provided technical assistance once, I'm allowed to call you at all hours of the night for every little thing that goes wrong now, right? >:) Badger Drink (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the "Cyclopedia of Magic" you mentioned online ? What is it's link,please ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read what you are reverting before reverting ! The version you are reverting states that "her arms could be swinging either in front of her to the left or behind her to the left". That is not true. Her arms are always behind *her*, from *her* point of view. Look at both of her profiles : arms behind her. If someone thinks she has her arms in front of her, it is a third interpretation, and he has a problem with his eyes. When you have you arms behind you and you spin, you arms are always behind you. 128.208.6.19 (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intent of the paragraph is clearly to communicate that there is no way to tell the difference between an arm passing closer to the camera (In front of her body) to the (camera's) left and an arm passing farther from the camera (in back of her body) and to the (camera's) left. The directions 'front','back','left', are all intended to be from the camera's point of view, not the dancer's. That's an entirely reasonable way of discussing an image's composition.

I have clarified this to make it even more clear. If you have a more clear, or at least less awkward, way of phrasing this, please do so, but don't take out important information. APL (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean that you are "not convinced that the Coke bottle would hold its shape" rather than "not convinced that the Coke bottle would hold it is shape" ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from my talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you honestly confused about my meaning or are you harassing me to make a point? If the former I would be (reasonably) happy to explain my meaning to you, if the latter please don't do it again. Thanks. APL (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English but one should not have to. If you messed up then please fix it and don't do it again. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, so you are harrassing me to make a point. (The point that you "shouldn't have to" be exposed to grammar errors and that I should fix it and not do it again.) Please do not harrass me again for any grammar, homophone, punctuation, or spelling corrections. Thanks. APL (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread is to be kept off my talk page.

You misunderstand. The point is that questioners to the Ref. Desk should not be answered in substandard English. Thank you for your effort here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will not get any satisfaction by pointlessly harassing me about my grammar or spelling.

If you still feel that my conduct is inappropriate I suggest you either ignore it, or escalate and bring it up at the appropriate forum. Perhaps an administrator's noticeboard.

Please do not continue to needlessly harass myself and/or other editors. APL (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, what do you think of the guideline? i.e. FOLLOW/CHANGE/IGNORE or none of the above? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN/I discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grammer nit-picking on discussion pages. I have asked that Cuddlyable3 be blocked until such time as he understands that this sort of hounding is inappropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This last sentence[1] is ambiguous.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In contrast, there is no ambiguity in this warning an admin issued to Cuddly:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back off Bugs. Franamax (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Cuddly were here right now, he would probably criticize your short statement due to a missing comma. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I considered the comma usage before I committed the edit. I've had that unfortunate experiende while mowing the lawn, but with a mother mouse whose nest I didn't spot. Two years later a mommy bunny panicked in the long grass and her little babies were just able to spring from the nest. I shut off the lawnmower and ran away as fast as I could and "prayed" to please come back, I didn't mean to do that. Then naturalized the back yard and dealt with the neighbours and township officers instead after that. I made my own paradise, constitutionally protected, or so I claimed. So back off Bugs. :( Franamax (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can all learn something from that moving story. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Sean has made a serious reply/proposal on the reference desk, however he appears to have more Perl background (and picked up on it from my mention, which I intended to be an indication of algorithm-complexity, and which I contrasted with "properly done"). Does your background include specifically web applications, or what kind of programming have you done? Will you give me your number and the best time to reach you?
I promise you I won't feel you have any obligation, I will give you ten specific implementations that would be very simple (a few minutes) in Perl but would take literally hours for you (or about a month for me) to do properly, if you have the background I think you have, then you can quote me a fee, a percentage, and I can decide if I would be interested on those terms. It really is win-win for you. Thank you.

Best regards,
82.113.121.135 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid the my background has very little web development (sadly), but more critically, I'm currently employed and taking on a side project for money would conflict my current contract. (I think. I'd need a lawyer to be sure.) That's sort of what I meant by "take the plunge", trying to make money on my own would involve giving up my current stable employment.

By the way, I hope I didn't come off as too negative. It's just that there are a huge number of people who believe that they have a brilliant idea, and all they have to do is hand it over to the right person and they'll be on the gravy train for life.

If you're the rare guy that actually has a brilliant idea, and understands the effort involved in making money, and a realistic expectations for returns, then best of luck to you! Let me know how it all turns out! APL (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

given the latest rude response (not from you), you will forgive me if I don't continue this online. I understand your contract concerns and am happy to talk to you all the same if you will give me a telephone number and the best time to call you. otherwise thank you, but I do not wish to continue in this forum. 85.181.145.43 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:( (OP) 84.153.216.113 (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi APL, thanks for suggesting (at WP:RD/C) that I use GIMP for the image issue I was having. I have another question and, assuming that you are familiar with GIMP, I thought I'd just ask you directly (but if you don't know how to do this, no worries). I have a directory full of files to convert to grayscale (desaturate) and GIMP appears to be able to run batch commands from the command line, so if possible I'd like to just desaturate every file in the directory, but I haven't yet really figured out how to run GIMP from the command line. I thought I'd try to save some time and just see if you know off the top of your head how to write a command that would do this. (By the way, I'm using gimp-2.6 on Windows XP.) Thanks a lot, rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just thought I'd point this out. Dismas|^(talk) 06:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah! Thanks. I knew there must be a way to do that. APL (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. The same thing works for images that you don't want to display. Dismas|^(talk) 00:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thread moved from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm always game to learn a new gag.

Why are you persistently misspelling "archive"[3][4]?

Is it just a trap to get someone to correct you and then accuse them of "harassing" you, because you feel that similar traps are often being set for you? If that's all then I'll be disappointed. I'm hoping for something with more wit.

APL (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for telling me about my misspelling of "archive". It should be fixed now. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied to your comment here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMULoyaleagle (talk • contribs) 19:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ApLundell. You have new messages at JackofOz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I have to say, this was the most amusing disclaimer I've ever seen on AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your cool-headed comments on the Reference Desk talk page. It's always good to see a coherent and reasonable stance rise out of the nonsense on the talk page. Nimur (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? Huh. I didn't think of my post as unusually cool-headed, but I'll take praise wherever I can get it! :-) APL (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Responding to requests for advice about self harm - best practice?. Equisetum (talk | email | contributions) 22:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC) (Using ((pls)))Reply[reply]

I just re-read the RD section I started yesterday and first noticed your comment here. Although I would agree that you're most likely correct as far as many people are concerned, there are alternative explanations for why a third party may want to get involved. In my own case, I suspect I share some traits of a Highly sensitive person with a strong OCD flavour, focused for as long as I can remember on some abstract sense of absolute justice and truth and integrity and correctness.

I've always been at odds with most people about issues of "letting things slide" because of a strong tendency of "giving a fuck when it's not my turn to give a fuck".

Again, you're probably right that most people and organisations and of course companies who get involved in such matters as copyright infringement are differently motivated. But I'm just me, a weirdo who would love nothing more than to live in world of fair play. I should have my head checked for that :D

Anyway, thank you, too, for your input at RD, and have a nice one. Best regards, --213.196.211.150 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we work this monitors issue out? :) CTJF83 19:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, got it! VGA to the tv and DVI to the monitor. Thanks!! CTJF83 19:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ApLundell. You have new messages at BigDwiki's talk page.
Message added 03:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

BigDwiki (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thread moved from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize for invoking your name on the RefDesk talk page. My intent was to highlight a specific case where consensus fell strongly against something similar to the topic at hand, and by analogy suggest that consensus should also go against the current topic. However, I can see that it was inappropriate to name specific users in relation to issues of AN/I and blocking and so forth, so I apologize. It was bad judgement.

I removed reference to your name, but I hope you're not offended if I still mention the incident in the abstract, I feel that it's an important piece of consensus precedent, and I can't think of how else to reference it. APL (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not pretend to be confused when I am not. The accusation in this post[5] has my attention. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dude, that was a year ago. It was in reference to this where you asked a question you clearly knew the answer to. You've long since stopped that annoying habit (Thank you), and I honestly have no other grudge against you. APL (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grudge? GRUDGE? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you asking what "grudge" means?

I thought you were implying that I had some long-standing grudge against you. I said that I don't. I'm honestly not sure what else you want from me here. APL (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explain how "I ... have no other grudge" differs from "I have no grudge". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. That was written in July. It is now October. Besides that I think it's perfectly clear. I refuse to provide entertainment for you any time you feel like correcting people's grammar. APL (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The apology of yours that started this thread was sincere and commendable. It appears, however that for some reason Cuddlyable3 is having trouble accepting it, which is too bad. (Or perhaps there's some other explanation; I certainly don't pretend to understand the fellow's motivation sometimes.) Anyway, I wouldn't worry about understanding what he was trying to say here. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any case, CA3 will have another month to think it over in private... Franamax (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a major character flaw. I generally assume that things I do are wrong as soon as I have done them. It's not anyone else's problem, it's mine. I have been trying to work through it, and try to have more confidence that I do make a good decision sometimes, but every once in a while my internal doubts sneak out. I know I really have to stop that; but understand I'm not doing it to be snide or because I believe that everyone is going to disagree with me (or that I think they are wrong). I genuinely believe that I am usually the wrong one. Its a self-confidence issue on my part, not an arrogance one. It is pretty much the exact opposite of what you have characterized it as. Yes, it is completely not helpful when I express it publicly as I do, and I am seriously working on toning it down. I shouldn't have said exactly what I did at WT:RD, and I do apologize for it, for what its worth (not much I know, but I still feel the need to own my faults and apologize for them). Anyhoo, thanks for keeping my feet to the fire here. If you didn't do it, I'd keep doing stupid shit like this and that's not good for anyone. --Jayron32 04:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I quote you on that? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. --Jayron32 04:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Man, all these month long blocks are really slowing down your progress towards a permanent ban. APL (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Jayron32. I don't mind waiting until the next time you autoflagelate because it is such a regular occurrence. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you do this? 76.254.20.205 (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Must have been an edit conflict with this edit. On rare occasions the WM software doesn't warn you about edit conflicts and just goes ahead and does it. It's a known, but rare, glitch.

I'll fix it if the original editor hasn't put it back yet. APL (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chuckle. :D --Jayron32 22:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I've included citations from Boing Boing and Gizmodo to its entry on List of steampunk works.--DrWho42 (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920&curid=1484308&diff=452292436&oldid=452292200#Support

In the absence of a citation, I should have looked the quotation up. I see it's reproduced in a number of places in its irksome form, although also in slightly different forms. You're right enough.

Why 'Flag' is capitalised here I have no idea, and in some versions of the quotation it isn't. And, in my view, it should be 'a . . . merchant marine' (lowercase), because the text doesn't read '*the* Merchant Marine.' You know, for the same reason that one would speak of 'an army,' or 'a fire department.'

Those words actually appear in lowercase here, for example: http://www.maritime-union.org/pda/index.php?page=archive&id=3311

Anyway, your revert can stand. I'm not bothered. I shouldn't have been hasty.

Cheers. Erik Kennedy (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes no sense to me, if we can post it in article space, WTF is the difference? Oh well - I'll check the image description before posting such in future. Thanks for the tip, man. Textorus (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wnt has raised a concern about your removal of a request for medical advice at the Ref Desk. Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#More "medical" nonsense. Looks like he's already getting ugly and personal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. APL (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - You have previously added some comments to the article on the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, so I wonder if you would like to comment on its nomination for deletion (suggested by myseflf) at [[6]] Best SkaraB 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your inputs on the rape culture page. I hope I'm making good edits and being fair, but sometimes it's hard to tell, and I'm grateful for what you've said. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors. 4 Points for consideration - Synonymic Usage, Quotations, Sources. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did a standard "plagiarism" check on the massive recent addition. It was a verbatim copy violation without any attribution, instead it was inserted without checking that the new material was redundant and introduced new errors into the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I hesitated when the check brought up an article from the U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission (2003), as this is a favorite reference source for many historians. However, the information is not necessarily public domain material unless explicitly stated. What was more telling was that the entire article from the U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission was simply a "text dump" into the Zeppelin article that caused an image to disappear and that formatting error caught my attention. Then noting that all the article uses U.S.-centric measures, led me to conduct a basic search for its origins. Anytime that such a massive edit is made without attribution or even superficial editing leads me to believe that the editor is unaware of policies on plagiarism. For that reason, I did not consider this as an example of outright vandalism and did not cite the editor for vandalism, merely placing a comment regarding use of sources on their talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

We still shouldn't have it though, regardless of what sources expose it. Then we are just furthering the exposure by spreading it.

- Kris

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your involvement in the ongoing discussion on Talk:Rape_culture#Request_for_comment:_Rape_culture_and_incidents_by_nation, I was wondering if you have any insight as to how to determine what edits to make that reflect ongoing consensus on the topic. Should we wait for more editors to weigh in? How do we handle User:Darkness Shines's disruptive behavior in the article and the talk pages? It's clear that he will ignore any consensus and keep edit-warring mediahound's POV-pushing edits back into the article, resorting to threats and bullying (as he has done here). My current approcah is to ignore him altogether, as he seems increasingly trollish in his behavior, but what to do when he starts to resist the implementation of consensus? I'm rather inexperienced in these matters and would appreciate some advice here.Handyunits (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You won't like my opinion.

I think that you need to take WP:AFG to heart. Discuss the article and the specifics, not whatever slant you believe other editors are taking to the table. Keep your half of the discussion as tightly focused as possible.

This may seem frustrating and unsatisfying, but in my (limited) experience it usually works.

When third party editors show up to help settle the dispute, you want them to see you calmly and respectfully keeping to only the issue at hand. Not only does this make the discussion much easier to follow, It also makes the crazy POV-pushers easier to spot.

As it is now, you both look like you've got some crazy axe to grind. APL (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why you assumed that I "wouldn't like your opinion". If I had pre-judged your opinion I wouldn't seek it. In any case, thanks for your input. As it is, it seems fairly sagacious. I'll certainly consider everything you've said. The one thing I do not understand about the rfC process is:

"When is it the correct time to evaluate consensus and start editing the article accordingly. Will it be after the RfC is officially closed (which, I believe, defaults to 1 month) or before?" Handyunits (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, you'll have to ask a more experienced editor for guidance there. I think you're supposed to wait on substantive edits to the disputed content. At least until enough outside editors show up that a good consensus can be reached. But what if the other guy doesn't wait? (Which he or she didn't.) That's the part I'm uncertain on. Policy-wise, anyway. I think that if you started edit-waring with him or her it would put you both in the wrong, regardless of who started it, but I'm not sure of that. Better ask someone with more experience editing hotly contested subjects. APL (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Rape culture's talk page. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you tell me if "Sharma, Nagendar (January 27, 2013). "Missing kids victims of rape culture: panel". Hindustan Times." is an opinion piece? DS used that as the second source on his rfc, first one is surely an opinion piece. How are these even credible in this context?
Wouldn't it be better if peer-reviewed sociology papers were submitted as references? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. It is not an opinion piece. That is clearly a news article reporting on the conclusions of the "Justice Verma panel". I don't know what that panel is, or if its credible.

In any case, an opinion piece by a noted expert, or even a popular commentator could qualify as a valid source in this context, since it's basically a question of academic opinions. It's a question of which opinions represent mainstream feminist thought, and which are fringe.

To be honest, I'd be surprised if a nation as poor and densely populated as India didn't have serious problems of this sort. I'm sure DS could find loads of good sources describing the cultural problems and biases that lead to rape in that nation.

If consensus decides that for some reason India should be singled out, I'm confident that a RS could be found to source it, even if the articles DS linked to turn out to be inappropriate. APL (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Probably disruptive RfC behavior on Talk:Rape culture. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to think I cussed at you, I did not[7] The "Do not fucking do that again." was for the second time it was closed, obviously the second closure made me a tad tetchy. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. Probably explains why I didn't notice it the first time.

APL (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your poking at Baseball Bugs. You've made your point, and there's no need to belabor it. I understand that you've been civil and not made any outrageous attacks, but the conversation is likely not leading anywhere productive. You've expressed your thoughts, and now it is up to the other person to consider those thoughts. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  19:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like the CO2ube automotive carbon sequestration gizmo failed its Kickstarter ($13k pledged, $18k goal) - but the passing shot in the last update from the Ecoviate team indicated that they're still going push on with it. From what I can see, most of the support for the "inventors" on the KS forum was from sockpuppets of the company itself. 3DGeek discovered that:

• one of the most vocal supporters is a venture capitalist who sank $20,000 into the project,
• it would be illegal to use US postal service to ship the finished devices to their customers because they contain a class 8 hazmat (NaOH),
• their patent covers the Algae technology that they've now publically abandoned,
• another high school science fair team beat them to the NaOH approach three years ago (and their project wasn't adequately thought out either!)
• another backer was told (privately) that the CO2ube removes 25% to 30% of the CO2 from a car exhaust,
• if a car with a tailpipe full of fine-particulate sodium hydroxide were ever to be rear-ended, the resulting cloud of NaOH dust would be lethal if inhaled by a bystander.

It seems that these guys are still planning to turn out some kind of a product - and if they truly did spend $20,000 of venture capital doing it - they are pretty determined.

Oh well. Life goes on!

SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at that. It did fail! The system works.

Maybe that's an indication that they're not an intentional scam. It'd have been easy to get that Mike fellow to kick up his pledge a few grand.

I would be interested in learning the real story behind Ecoviate. It's my understanding that Algae 'reactors' are becoming popular as science fair projects. But how did it go from that to VC and Kickstarter?

Are they cynically telling themselves "it doesn't matter, suckers will buy it?" do they really still think they're on the verge of a breakthrough? (Like a perpetual motion enthusiast who believes that all he has left to do is "balancing".) Perhaps they don't even have the equipment to measure the CO2 content of the exhaust, so they hope for the best. ...Or did they start off really enthusiastically without going through the math, and start a business before they realized what they were getting into?

That last would be the saddest. $20k might seem like a huge amount of money to a 18yo businessman. It would feel like they were completely trapped by obligation to the investors. (And their proud parents.) It'd be really tough to declare failure.

Going forward, if they're sticking with this, they should give up on car-mounted systems. You might be able to get a carbon-profit if you made cheap algae devices to set up in the sun in your backyard. Especially if it could somehow generate a little fuel. Lot's of enthusiasts working on stuff like that, an easy "Kit" would probably be a big hit on Kickstarter. (If I wasn't an apartment-dweller I'd consider buying one myself.) It wouldn't be as sexy as a tiny car-mounted widget that magically fixes everything, but it'd be a real thing at least. (And they could gracefully transition PR-wise by saying they're scaling up to make a bigger impact.)

APL (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, this discussion is in two places now. I responded here instead of at User:SteveBaker. APL (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea of growing algae in your back yard to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere is a possibility. It's hard to know whether you'd capture more CO2 than planting a few trees or even just a lawn. But the problem isn't growing the stuff - it's how you harvest it. What do you do with a bucket of algae to avoid re-releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere? If you could dump it down a deep mineshaft - or something like that, you're going to do OK - but you can't burn it or dump it into landfill because you'll just be re-releasing the CO2 as the stuff decomposes. It all comes down to the same problem. If you use a gallon of gasoline to go to the store to buy your algae tank - then you have to harvest (and somehow bury) more than 9kg of dead algae to break even. That's quite a lot of the stuff! Ideally, you'd want to turn the algae back into fuel for your car...but doing that without expending more energy would be quite a challenge!

Put up solar panels in place of the algae and use them to charge the batteries on an electric car - and avoid generating the CO2 in the first place. SteveBaker (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, of course.

I was just trying to think of what Ecoviate could do next besides give up. An easy-to-use algae-growing thing would at least be an honest product with an enthusiast market.

But, yea. Just growing algae is not a climate-fixing strategy. Any more than absorbing it with NaHO is!

Honestly, I expect Ecoviate will continue on with whatever bad advice they've been getting and keep trying to make the CO2ube. APL (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fozzie-bear.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I have enough documentation to go to SPI with Technotopia for block evasion. I've had enough of this attitude of theirs. --McDoobAU93 01:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

are you insane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carapiton (talk • contribs) 02:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not so far as I'm aware, but thanks for your concern. APL (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you and your friends are obvious being unproductive and disruptive of other wikipedians. I am going to report all of you for forming a gang to destory articles that even propertly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carapiton (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not familiar with any of the other people editing the article or the AfD. They are not my "friends", except in the general sense that Wikipedia editors ought to be friendly to each-other.

Your contributions to the article that I removed were not even remotely properly sourced. Only part of it was sourced, and the sources you did include, you obviously didn't read because they contradicted what you wrote. APL (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you start a thread on WP:ANI, you are expected to notify anyone mentioned in the thread. You forgot to notify me and User:FelixRosch. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh. Sorry. I either didn't realize that, or once knew it and forgot.

I apologize for the oversight.

APL (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the needed links to the answer in the title, look at the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=prev&oldid=639143318

That counts as providing two references, and advising the OP to read the text to which I had linked. No riddle. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I saw. I didn't touch that. I just hatted the intentionally unclear reply and all the arguing about that answer. APL (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My reply was not "intentionally unclear" it told the OP what to look for in the reference itself. We don't read references for people. I am going to move my valid edit out of the hat, I'll leave the arguing about it closed. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

10:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Attribution/When Should I Use Prose Attributions

The only way someone could verify that the descriptions of the methods exposed on "Magic's Greatest Secrets Revealed" in Wikipedia are accurate is if they tracked down the specific episode and found the trick in question.

If someone is citing a TV show, it is unacceptable for them, per Wikipedia policy, to have their description be based around their own viewing of the show. If an actual description of the method exposed in the specific episode in question of "Magic's Greatest Secrets Revealed" is found, then the method can remain. A prose citation is not acceptable in this circumstance according to Wikipedia policy.

If this was in any other context aside from Magical Method, a description of what occurred in a TV show cited only in prose, and based upon the viewing of that episode and ORIGINAL RESEARCH (see Wikipedia:No original research) by the editor who posted the statement, would be immediately removed. Please look at this from that perspective, and not the shaded lense of protecting the exposure of magical methods just for the sake of it while blatantly ignoring Wikipedia conduct and policy. — Preceding unsigned ShimmeryPhantom (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

You described my pointing to the anonymized Google as bizarre. I reject such claims as being not as polite as the wikiquette requires. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Shrug: Either it was a weird plug for your personal favorite anonymizer, or you were implying that I was too stupid to know where to find Google. Neither option is good. ApLundell (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ApLundell. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ApLundell, did you take these two photos: File:MagKid Slide Controller2.jpg and File:MagKid Slide Controller.jpg? If so, would you please update them to say so? Ideally, they should be transferred to Commons so other language Wikipedias can use the photos too czar 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've edited the file to that effect, but I don't know if there's some special template I was supposed to use. I don't normally post photographs. ApLundell (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Did you take this one too? File:Taito Paddle Controller.jpg czar 00:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup. That one too. I think there was one other ds accessory photo, but I can't immediately find it. ApLundell (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! And nope, looks like just those three czar 01:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok then. That explains why I couldn't find the fourth! ApLundell (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Care to explain why you did this: [8]. --Jayron32 16:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know I had done. Must have been an edit conflict, but it didn't send me to the edit-conflict screen.

ApLundell (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. It happens some time. Just making sure I hadn't done something that you thought needed deleting. The software is glitchy. --Jayron32 17:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have sourced the blog, but other sources as stated in the article suspect Voynich as having written it himself. This makes it clear that an early 20th century fabrication is a possibility, as Voynich lived then. That's why I put that in infobox. mezil (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Also, I recommend you read the blog, regardless that you might view it as irrelevant. Most of the theories that the Middle ages theory is based on fall apart if you read through it impartially and with an open mind. mezil (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have read it. Interesting stuff. But I've always been sympathetic to the idea that it's probably a hoax.

ApLundell (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ApLundell I can't thank you enough for you simply willing to hear me out and say something on my behalf. I researched my edit to the Stephen F. Austin page to death. I know that it's not an edit that makes the guy look savory...but it's accurate. And the level of pushback against it is...staggering. Beyond that, none of the reasons for the reversions hold. First my sources were no good. Now, the hint is that it somehow won't be "balanced and reliable." Not only is this fictitious, but even if it were true...according to whom?

I went ahead and added the edit. Just to give it a try. There's not a single sentence that isn't about Austin/his colony. Yet, I have every expectation that it will all be reverted within 24 hrs. And, I'll be given some "new" reason as to what's wrong with it. It's being held to such an unreasonable standard. In my last edit, to Cowboy, the same editor shifted reasons as to why she reverted it about six times, including saying that she found it to be "not very good." I had 54 sources...and she suggested they were all "nonsense." I didn't understand how 3 other editors found no fault in my edit, and supported it being added...but somehow, her word struck it all down.

A convo about this has been moved to a user's talk page. It's an interesting back and forth (if you care to take a look. One user just suggested that I shouldn't even be on Wiki. I guess...I'm wondering how to address these attitudes and push for accuracy? Especially when I don't have the authority of an experienced editor/admin. Feels like swimming upstream. Anyhow, no need to respond...I just appreciated your voice. Nice to have someone even willing to listen to me without rushing to discredit me. So again...thx :) Justbean (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best of luck to you. I think you'll get a lot of resistance on this. Texan pride is important to a lot of people, and reminders of unpleasant facts will feel like an attack to them.

I don't claim to be an expert in Texan history, but I know enough to know that questions about slavery were a core political issue in the time leading up to the revolution, and this article is a lot more "balanced" now than it was when it had exactly one sentence mentioning the issue!

You may find that making your edits in smaller, more widely spaced increments attracts less knee-jerk reactions. Increasing the size of an article by 46% over the course of a couple of days[9] is a little hard for other editors to digest, and hard for sympathetic editors to defend. ApLundell (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ApLundell reported by User:Legacypac (Result: ). Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ApLundell. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_6Pgk1Wd94aLpfoN&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I edited the [10] voynich Manuscript, which edit you removed with the same explanation as the Julietdeltalima. Yes, it's "just" a Youtube video. But then, it's a 55 minutes long Youtube video, which so complete that it can stand alone in front of any scientific evaluation. The publisher of this video merely doensn't have the possibilty to publish his work in some other manner which you are expecting here. I can easily accept the removing of this edit in wikipedia, if two person who have actually watched this video consider the source to be not reliable. Note, that I have no connection to this person whatsoever, I just watched the video years ago and now get back to it noting the comment there made by Taavi Viikman; "There is no reference to your work in Wikipedia. What the heck is going on?" -which made me do this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JouniJokelaJouniJokela (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 21:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Sealioning#RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning

(Notifying everyone who participated in the previous RfC.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ApLundell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ApLundell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi APL,

I have independent visual proof (backed by a lengthy document) of my edits.[11] I found no treasure in the woods, because none is in the woods to find. My statements are demonstrable facts, not opinions. The Fenn quest is solved and also exposed. Feel free to ask questions.

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bje1128 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just realized I stepped into a mess Bje1128 created. Orville1974 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I figured it must be a misunderstanding like that. ApLundell (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Orville1974. I'm here, and not creating a mess, I'm fixing one (the Fenn quest). Because I newly found the independent proof, I'm necessarily a minority of one, though I'm working on other constructive ways of changing that. The proof, which is visual, seems more controversial than I anticipated, but I suspect the sources haven't been read before my edits get rv. I regard this as a misunderstanding which will resolve in favor of the proof by one means or another, not a fundamental conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bje1128 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick follow-up / copy of another conversation:

Hi Bonadea,

Thanks for your message. Understood. Though I do have independent proof, I will cease to edit the page until the evident dispute can be resolved by another means. My intent was not to create an edit war, and the log of edit comments has value.

Bje1128 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bje1128 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment here is a personal attack, particularly the claim that I support abusers and exploiters. I don't appreciate it. Please refrain from speaking about me this way in the future. --Anomalapropos (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glass houses, dude. Besides, weren't you banned? ApLundell (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the period 13-22 April 2018 you contributed to a discussion on the subject of the Reference desk guidelines. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 130#Are all questions about the human body requests for medical advice?

This subject is now being discussed again in a Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Does this page reflect community consensus. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Dolphin (t) 13:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ApLundell:

Excuse me sir or madam but could you repeat your reasoning for the Ewoks films on Battle for Endor as well?

This Cindel is Phasma theory is going too far.

Maxcardun 11/30/2020 9:50 AM

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that the custom is for you to add additional comments to that original section of the request marked "additional comments by user making the request." I think this is also partially so that word counts are more easily applied to the request, so that all the words you've added to the request are added up together. I'm not 100% sure of this, but it's what I've seen happening on ArbE requests over the last few weeks. I went ahead and moved your comments up to that section. Let me know if you think this was out of order or whatever. Have a great day. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't realize that. Thanks for the fix.

ApLundell (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your absolute demolition of the BLP page has certainly not gone unnoticed. You will be sanctioned on this site. If I have anything to do with it!

V/r 174.247.193.23 (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas, free energy enthusiast. ApLundell (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The very first word of your (very sensible) comment here has a spelling mistake that you might wish to fix. (Incidentally, for your possible amusement, this.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aw, man. The worst typos are the ones that look stupid. ApLundell (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, - I think you used 5 tildes accidentally while signing, perhaps you should re-sign it? Thanks, HarryKernow (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. ApLundell (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]