This is an archive of past discussions about User:PrimeHunter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

for blanking it. I think it solved the problem. However, does it mean I cannot fill my MB again? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; that makes sense. What's more, it worked! —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For coming up with the correct solution to fix my problem I thought had been forgotten.Jinnai (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I would like to give you this barnstar for helping out many users at the help desk. Schuym1 (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the requested moves discussion for that Kursk page? (UserMacGyverMagic) - 131.211.151.245 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I linked it at the HD. After the new move it's at Talk:RFS Kursk K-141#Move to Russian submarine K-141 Kursk. The discussion itself was not at requested moves. It was just linked from there for 5 days where nobody opposed.[1][2] PrimeHunter (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge my error. Must have been sleepy. —Tamfang (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Fuhghettaboutit
User:PrimeHunter
and,
User:Teratornis
in regards to:
[[3]]
Wikipedia:Help desk
"Question for Wikipedia regarding monetary contributions"
"I got this feeling, Wikipedians are watching me"
"language interwiki question (linkings)"
"language interwiki question (size and number of articles)"
and to,
User:Dcoetzee
in regards to
[[4]]
2 questions: one about contributions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yartett (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey just Came across your page and felt like saying hiIt's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I award this user with:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Being such a help at the Reference desk. --Melab±1 ☎ 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You're fast to respond.--Melab±1 ☎ 01:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. See how you fixed it and will try to remember.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. I checked the settings, but no joy. I was starting to have other problems with my system, so re-installed it. Everything else is fine, but still can't edit:-(( BugZilla informed. Cheers, --dick (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

SOLVED, so far. "External editor" was not selected, but in another discussion it was suggested that the time settings should be set to "No Preferences", & it has helped. Thanks, --dick (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyer^c 00:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added some additional information on the article for Defending Your Life but I unintentionally removed some vital info from the article and I would like to have it put back onto the article. Please help me. Thanks. Thanks also for the advice regarding infoboxes.Frschoonover (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of the stuff that I added to restore vital info to the article that was unintentionally removed when I tried to add the additional info. The vital info has returned but I would like to know what I did wrong when I unintentionally removed some stuff that was vital to the article. Thanks for any insight.Frschoonover (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.[5] Not closing a <ref> with a matching </ref> is a common error which can cause the software to think the following text is part of the reference. See also Help:Footnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the problem. Truly appreciated.Frschoonover (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am having another problem. I added some information on the article for Quarantine (2008 film) and I am getting an error message in the references. How can I remove the error message? Thanks for any help. Frschoonover (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.[6] Template parameters are separated by the pipe character '|'. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Sorry for the unintentional broken link. I was also working on this at the same time and I didn't know that you were also working on it as well. Thanks again. Frschoonover (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Helping Hand Barnstar

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thanks for your help. Metayel (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the quick response. i tried that plugin (among a few others) with no results. the wikipedia.org article content shows up in google search results with no problem, any idea what plugin they're using? Alexruimy (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Version should show what Wikipedia has installed. I haven't tried to install or run MediaWiki. I'm just a Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia:Help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. If you have your own MediaWiki installation then you can maybe get better help at mw:Project:Support desk. If your problem is that your wiki isn't indexed by Google then I don't think that should depend on the use of meta tags. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes the reason for the caps change is explained in the FAQ: User:Rich_Farmbrough/FAQ#SmackBot_capitalised_a_tag.2C_and_made_no_other_changes._Why.3F

The spacing shouldn't be changed, probably a side effect of the new way I'm running the bot. Thanks for letting me now.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:00 25 January 2009 (UTC).

PS. You can set your watchlist to ignore bots. Rich Farmbrough, 19:02 25 January 2009 (UTC).

Hi

"In the end the next Mersenne prime was found in 1952, at 2521 - 1" and that was on the Manchester Mark 1, by Alec Robinson --Chaosdruid (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying it was on the Manchester Mark 1? I found your quote on http://www.digital60.org/about/glossary/notes.html but it says: "In the end the next Mersenne prime was found in 1952, at 2⁵²¹ - 1 (by Robinson) though obviously finding out that numbers above 258 were not Mersenne primes (and checking those below) was perfectly valid research (if somewhat unrewarding!)."

That sounds to me like the Manchester Mark 1 only found that some Mersenne numbers were not prime, and later somebody else found the next much larger prime with another computer. http://primes.utm.edu/notes/by_year.html#2 says Robinson used SWAC. Even if it had found a prime, I don't think your edit [7] makes sense. It said: "Like several previously-discovered Mersenne primes, similar to the first computer program run on the Manchester Mark 1 in April 1949, it was discovered by a distributed computing project on the Internet, known as the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS)." My interpretation of that sentence is that the 1949 search was a distributed computing project on the Internet, which it obviously wasn't. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry - I was going to add more but lost internet connection.

Obviously I do not know enough about the whole history of the search, but felt that it was worth mentioning the the Mark 1

I could not tell from the text (due to lack of knowledge) whether the ambiguity leads to the same conclusion , that it was the Alec Robinson at Manchester, but I did just discover a reference that says the number was out of range of the Mark 1 (The Music of the Primes: Searching to Solve the Greatest Mystery in Mathematics (Hardcover) by Marcus Du Satuoy)

sorry to have wasted your time on that and thanks for at least looking in to it !

I would like to see the Mark 1 mentioned here though as it was the first programm as well as digital comp to be used for this purpose.

cheers---Chaosdruid (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a mention.[8] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Than you for your time and consideration -Chaosdruid (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my user page. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The links were hit and miss in Firefox, so I have relegated Jimbo to the land of the commented-out. Thanks for letting me know. – ukexpat (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, you don't know me (I'm pretty newish here), but I've seen your posts a lot around the site - and saw that you were on now. I was wondering, have you ever heard the term "sterile reverts"? I've seen several (other) admins use the term, and wondered how it applied to wiki edits. Thanks, ;) — Ched (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether people intend a difference from other edit/revert wars when they say sterile edit/revert war. You could make a search for the term [9] and ask somebody who has used it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there is already a page for the NAI, how should I enter the information that the organization wants posted in there without just replacing all of the information that is already there?Sri.dhyana (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used to promote your organization or messages it wants to spread. If you want to work on suggestions before requesting review from others then it's better to work on a user subpage than an article talk page, for example at User:Sri.dhyana/Sandbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

...for the tip about edit summaries. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems like bending over backwards for the lazy readers in my opinion. If a reader can't be bothered with the templates, they should skip them and start reading at the first line of regular text they come across, rather than force us into using ugly layouts. Alternatively, getting rid of the template in question is a good solution too. Having a "no references" tag is worse than bad layout. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• It feels like a relatively new rule, but the one about maintenance tags going on the very top has been something I stuck with for years. So it's quite possibly it changed something like a year ago during my absence without me noticing. I'll run a check and see when it was added. I'll be trying to get it changed, that's for sure. Putting templates on top no matter what makes the rules easier (hence less instruction creep). We shouldn't complicate the rules by catering to people who can't be bothered to read past the first line of a page. It would be pretty much akin to the idea of moving the search box to the top of the left-hand menu (and that idea failed miserably because having it 2 inches lower didn't make it less visible) - Mgm|^(talk) 22:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• I called it instruction creep because the current rules mean there is a rule with an exception (2 rules rather than just one). It would be simpler to just have a one rule fits all situation. I'm preferring templates on the top because it's more pleasing to the eye and helpful to the majority of readers rather than the few too lazy to read their entire screen. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter. Thanks for blanking my user page. Can you please let me know if I could have done this or how best to create an article in the future so I don't get the redirect problem.

Cheers

Kreiny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreiny (talk • contribs) 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for your help on the help desk. (linking to file on HD on wiki page). ;-) .. Cheers — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 04:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The WP:RFD for this has been closed as "restore content as an article" - not sure I've ever closed one like that. Anyway, I have restored the content before it was redirect, please feel free to add your material to the article to make it better. Thanks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the bot. In New York Yankees seasons, it repaired a dead link, but added the "static" to "sports.espn.go.com" links that were working fine and apparently broke them;[10] at least I can't load them. Who knows what other articles might be affected. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

PrimeHunter has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as PrimeHunter's day! For your excellent contributions at the help desks, enjoy being the Star of the day, PrimeHunter! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave a general "thank you" to everyone who answered this question, but I want to say how much I appreciate your work especially. You improved the article considerably, in my opinion, by augmenting the "dead link" tag for Cotton College's (former) website with information about that site from the Internet Archive. You checked Google's cache pages, too: I'm grateful for your contribution, thanks! - Ohiostandard (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My own version conforms to Wikipedia style and since the other one has next to no content I'll sort it out. --candle•wicke 01:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fired you off one :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and the pointer to the Washington and Lee entry for a notable. Normally I would be delighted to work with the person to help him insert a credible reference. Unfortunately, looking at his user page, it is jammed full of vandal warnings! I think whoever posted the original entry can insert a reference in his own good time to justify notability (no article) and validate a connection with Washington and Lee. The WP:BURDEN is really on him. I don't mind indulging the entry and even helping the editor, but not in this case. Student7 (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter,

Many thanks for your headsup on my talk page about your DYK comments. I have tried to address your concerns on the DYK page, and would very much appreciate it if you could take another look and see if I'm going in the right direction. Cheers.--Beehold (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I take it that you must be into primes, so are you interested in bringing prime number to GA or FA status? I recently did some tidying, so the article seems to be at a decent start level, but is still lacking essential pieces of information, references, and probably much more. I'd like to see this vital article at a good level. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I will look into it but maybe not make a big effort. I do more small fixes than big article writing. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Terrorist category definition requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Terrorist category definition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the redirect. I looked at the information you indicated, but I don't see where I can click to get to the redirected title to edit it. They indicate that it is something at the top of the page, but I'm not seeing it, and once I get there how do I remove the alternate title to free it and reuse it for a different article? There are currently several other article that i would like to do this to. Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. In my case it would be a move from one page to another. In this case I want to move Yakolev Yak-32 to the title Yakovlev Yak-32, which is already attached to the article Yakovlev Yak-30. Do I delete the "#REDIRECT Yakovlev Yak-30 (1960)" currently in the redirect edit screen and paste {{db-move}} there plus something redirecting the Yak-32 article to it, or do I place {{db-move}} somewhere on my current Yakolev Yak-32 article? - Ken keisel (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've done this to the article Yakovlev Yak-32 and Yakovlev Yak-43. Can you check and see if I've done it correctly? How long before they fix it? Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch!! This information will be very handy, as one of my activities is producing articles on lesser-known aircraft and military vehicles that are sometimes mentioned in passing in other articles. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hand with my talk page, appreciated. dottydotdot (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again!! Since you are the only Wikipedia staff mamber I know I am wondering if you can be of service? I'm currently having a problem with a fellow named ViperNerd on the F-35 article. In 1991 Lockheed-Martin paired up with the former Soviet Yakovlev design bureau to get assistance from them in developing systems for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. I added further details to the information that was already included in the article, and included inline citations to the soure. This ViperNerd fellow is going about deleting any reference to Russian companies participating in development of American military products, and immediately deleted the information from the article, and the reference from the bibliography. It doesn't matter if he doesn't like the fact that several Russian companies have worked jointly with U.S. corporations, he can't be deleting the information for the sake of his own political agenda. Please help!! - Ken keisel (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this user is stretching the truth (to put it nicely) to suit his story, and secondly appears to have never read WP:AGF. User has not found consensus for his edits and has refused to seek it on talk pages of articles where he is contentiously editing. ViperNerd (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Prime, can I direct your attention to Talk Page: F-35 Lightning II where a lively discussion has now taken the place of an editwar that was erupting in talk page comments and edit histories. Can I prevail upon you to cast another "set of eyes" on this "string." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

I am just a volunteer editor with administrator status. I have not been editing for 4 days and will not get involved in this. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other possibilities. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, the issue seems to have resolved itself on the talk pages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Pull the trigger ya blowhard <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.103.36 (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fingers^OnRoids 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it your position that the best unreferenced material a) should be removed, b) should be left as is, or c) should be in a differently titled or better introduced (or both) article? I have my issues with the current state of the article (not with its being carefully edited), and I will easily concede that the way I improved the introduction is still not ideal; but definitional criteria are going to be impossible to source, as indicated by the current introduction. Does that make the article itself wholly improper?Julzes (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Also, I am going to open a new section in the discussion on the strong law of small numbers. BKell thinks I am using weasel words to place it in question as a formal part of mathematics or as debatable or something, and I can understand that sourcing this implied notion would be ideal, but if you look at the wikipedia article you can see that it is not a theorem of mathematics.Julzes (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your contributions so far. That long one that you added is good. I thought there might be something wrong with the older version.Julzes (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC) You keep improving the article, by the way, and that's good. There is a good geometry example that I want to add from one of the sources already given, but I won't know how to do it.Julzes (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If the problem is how to reuse the source then see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, it's the geometry part. And it's in the "see also" anyway. The Mathworld article.Julzes (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which MathWorld article and example you refer to. Maybe I can help if you tell. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In the Almost Integer external link to mathematical coincidence is an example of a triangle dissection that has one edge equaling 7 to a very close approximation. A nice explanation can be made for it--it's not significant in the classical sense--but it's a nice example for the article. Since it's quite apparent that I don't yet even know how to put equations into a nice mathematical form, you wouldn't be surprised to know I also can't draw figures.Julzes (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I found it at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html. I'm poor at drawing but better people hang out at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your points on spelling out numbers, and i mostly agree. I have my tendencies, but i am also very new to this project, and i simply see a lot of inconsistent procedures from article to article. im going to join the dialog on the project page and say more before i do any more edits. feel free to revert, (i may), but lets all try to have standards in place first. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

10 months?, that's nothing. This in 2006 was responded to more than a year later with this!. SpinningSpark 02:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The effects of this edit were lost in archiving; hope that's okay. (Not sure what was going on there; you might want to check.) —Steve Summit (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit was in response to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 June 12#'Adult' picture on the Help Desk? If you have popups enabled and hover over a link to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 June 10 then popups shows a small image of a naked breast. It's not important when it's an archive but it could be seen as problematic by some when Wikipedia:Help desk itself (which is linked from the main page and lots of other places) was apparently associated with that image. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and stuck the shim at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 June 10. "HTH". :-)

Which popups tool is it that had the problem? Based on the feedback I got when I started this thread, I'm guessing it's a non-mediawiki add-on. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that.") —Steve Summit (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's WP:POPUPS enabled under Gadgets in preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is in reply to here. The templates used are not that insulting nor are they meant to be. They merely inform the editor of the inappropriateness of the recent edit and the reasoning behind it's removal. I believe that random insertion by an IP Editor with no edit summary and most importantly not following in the style of Wikipedia should be reverted. I feel that the first 'warning' has helpful links on how to write an article as well as allowing the editor to become better versed so they can create great articles. Again this is just my two cents. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your visit to the page. So is that the way the template is supposed to look, just braces and text? I expected a little box to pop up or something, like the one when the anon requested the edit. Abrazame (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did it right. Leaving a visible {{editsemiprotected}} after replying by adding tlc is just intended to show that there has been a requested edit there. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Abrazame (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You blocked 71.240.124.170 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with {{schoolblock}} in the block summary but User talk:71.240.124.170 was not edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. The IP in question hadn't edited for a couple of weeks at the time I made the block. Some of its edits came to the attention of OTRS, at which time it was discovered to be a static IP owned by a school, so I softblocked it. Since noone was active on the IP at the time, a talk page notice would have been superfluous. --bainer (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

		Wikipedia Administrator's Award
		I would like to present you the Admin's Award, for the help you'd have given me earlier at the help desk, as well as the work you've done to others. Kayau (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You deserve it, Mr. Anderson! Kayau (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

... for figuring out what was going on at Evernote! — QuantumEleven 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the refs on the NIWA page. I tried to do them myself after I successfully edited the new contributors' page, but it still wouldn't save my changes. What is this about an 'extra step' needed after hitting Save page? Also, do you know how to get rid of the bugs in the Reference list on the NIWA page (i.e. the blue superscript letters that appear before the ref titles)? Thanks, Fiona YDdraig (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I know it's hard to post, and I have now changed it back (I was going to, but I just couldn't be bothered before). It didn't turn out like I wanted it to. SummerHoliday 08:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot about that! Thank you :D SummerHoliday 07:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You removed my edits to the Paulose page for what you described as being "an unsourced conspiracy theory".

I respectfully disagree. Everything I wrote about is contained in my file at the United States Department of Justice. You have only to utilize the Freedom of Information Act to access it.

Beyond that, the information is first person -- I lived these events.

I am sure that from your unique perspective of being a citizen of one of the most liberal countries on Earth, Denmark, that you must have been appalled as was the rest of the world by the descent into hell that Bush led us into.

Something very very bad happened here, and if I am right about the US Department of Justice sending worms into WIKI to control the public information footprint of people that they indict, then this evil continues even under the current administration, though they cannot yet be blamed because all of the US Attorneys currently serving in the United States are Republicans appointed by George Bush. I am not aware of a single such US Attorney being yet replaced by Obama - and that is why they are covering this thing up and will do so until they are replaced by the Democratic administration.

I was in Italy two weeks ago and had the opportunity to stop by the Vatican. I prayed that God would allow these matters to see the light of day.

Will you be God's hands on this Earth, and contact Mr. Blagojevich or his attorney in Chicago, Mr. Sheldon Sorosky ? Because I cannot, I am not allowed to.

I.J. Grimm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are against multiple Wikipedia policies and could have been reverted by any editor. See for example WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP. Don't jump to assumptions about the identity of an editor who reverts you, and see WP:OUTING. I cannot help you contact people outside Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

I must say that I envy that you are a citizen of Denmark. The United States has become hell on Earth. It is become entirely unlivable except for a sliver of the population who are billionaires.

I understand your reluctance to contact anyone. My situation is not entirely hopeless. I will eventually get into a car, drive to Chicago, and walk into a court room in Chicago and walk over to Mr. Sorosky and hand him everything I have collected.

Beyond that, I hold a preliminary patent on a software method called "U-DIE", which is an abreviation for the phrase "Undectable Dithered Image Encoding" and is an alegory of "The Death Of Surveillance". What the method does is encode bits of XENO data (foreign data) onto the ends of segments of colors in images. So if an image has a segment which, after encoding, begins on offset 33 and ends on 101, then I can apply a MODULUS 4 to these offsets to yield values 0,1,2 and 3 -- so 33 MOD 4 = 1 and 101 MOD 4=1 so I have "11" for an index. The two modulus results then serve as an index into a table of 16 values, so I can in other words encode 4 bits on to each color segment of an image. The result is that I can smuggle bytes of data inside any image in the world. Imagine a picture of a forest -- can you tell me where segments of colors are suppose to begin and where they end ? The method is utterly undetectable, worth literally billions of dollars, and is an exquisite form of pay back against the United States Department of Justice for what they did to me, someone who has never ever even had a parking ticket.

Imagine what this method could do to the Chinese Government and their little censorship project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that per WP:COI you should not add things about your own method to articles. You can make suggestions on talk pages instead. I suspect it would be hard to get many users of steganography to pay royalties. Your theory that your access to Mr. Sorosky is being blocked does not sound likely to me. I'm afraid you will be disappointed if you take a long trip for the purpose of meeting somebody personally after they have not reacted to other attempts at contact. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article, this is a talk page, it is subject to patent laws, I am not releasing it into the public domain, and steganography is the least interesting thing it does. This method works, in an award winning high school freshman project kind of way, but it isn't the real thing. The real thing uses geometry and is genius. Believe me, the US Government began attenuating communications 4 years ago. Only the favored are allowed to participate and succeed in Interstate Commerce in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And another thing ....

When a guy with 20+ years of systems development and the essential equivalent of a doctorate detailedly explains to you that the people who developed the Internet based, time window dependent, energy auctions did so without a thought to the possibility of spoofing of port 13 time calls and purposeful slowing and speeding of frames of data in the Internet stream, and when you see energy prices spike to unbelievable heights due to what the SEC has now said were the actions of speculators -- I think my theories deserve a little more respect than to imply they are "tin foil" conspiracy theories. I have given you proof of how Internet based energy auctions can be manipulated, and that is God's truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to mention your method on this talk page. I was referring to mentioning it in articles which you have done before but shouldn't per WP:COI. I don't know how safe Internet based energy auctions are but a published verifiable and reliable source would have to be cited in order to mention anything about it in an article. Otherwise it would be original research which is disallowed in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you ever run into anyone from the US Department of Justice you might want to mention to them that this guy who has proficiency in 5 languages noticed that you compose your writing in a manner consistent with someone whose mother language is American East Coast English rather than someone whose mother language is germanic. What am I saying ? I am not talking grammer, I am talking content. I am saying that native English speakers of a particular education level invariably speak in a particular blend or ratio of latin/germanic rooted English words whereas people from germanic speaking countries, whether or not they are perfectly fluent, speak english in an entirely different blend. You would seem to be an anomaly for someone from Denmark, but if you are, then speaking on behalf of the American people, let me thank Europeans for submitting without complaint, to our many financial schemes to rip them off and leave them in ruin. Your efforts to protect our highly sophisticated global market manipulation mechanisms from seeing the light of day are greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

English and German are both West Germanic languages. Danish is one the North Germanic languages. I don't know how familiar you are with them. I'm not qualified to evaluate my English writing but I see many American films and television shows and have read many things by Americans on the Internet and in text books. Maybe something rubbed off on my writing. If you heard me speak then you could probably identify a germanic accent. My user page gives my real name and I can be looked up in Denmark. It also links to my .dk website with a .dk email address but I guess everything can be viewed as falsified evidence by a conspiracy theorist. I'm an administrator with around 12600 edits at the English Wikipedia. I think very few of them are about anything of interest to the US Department of Justice. If you are curious how I ended up at Rachel Paulose then I'm very active at Wikipedia:Help desk‎ where I have thousands of edits. I saw you posted there and clicked on your IP address which links to Special:Contributions/65.103.28.57. I saw edits which were clearly against Wikipedia policies and reverted them. That's normal behaviour for an administrator and many other editors. See for example Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. By the way, as an administrator I have the ability to delete page histories and block IP addresses and accounts from editing. I haven't done that to you and I'm not going to. And I was happy when Obama replaced Bush. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who is proficient in 5 languages I have some comprehension of the difficulty of learning languages. If you are who you say you are then I am truly in awe of your command of the English language, and the intellect that commands it.

It is a very true fact that English is actually two languages -- English which is actually latin (from the Norman Invasion and subsequent occupation which lasted hundreds of years) and English which is actually Germanic and very close to Dutch. Except for very scientific discourse, there is nothing that you can't say in Latin rooted English that you can't say in Germanic rooted English and vice versa. French speakers tend to seek out latin based words when speaking English and Germanic speakers tend to seek out Germanic based words -- that is an absolute fact. You can even hear it in people who have spoken English all their lives but who have parents who were born in Germanic countries.

I will be entirely honest with you. Much as I admire the work of Wiki and use it everyday, I am not here to post anything on Wiki. I am here to smoke out people from the US Justice Department and its associated entities who are attempting to control the global public data footprint of people they have indicted. If you believe in justice then you must find this practice of globally controlling information about people to be entirely evil, and if you believe in Wiki then you must certainly agree that governments sending their agents to control information on Wiki will eventually be the death of Wiki because no one in their right minds will have anything to do with an information source controlled by the US Government. I am, in other words, doing Wiki a tremendous favor by exposing this serious threat to your very existance. You need to go to the management of Wiki and have them purge government agents from their contributors and editors, for the same reason people with cancer need to see a doctor.

Please go back through what I have written. Doesn't it make sense to you that someone who has written a method to destroy the ability of governments worldwide to detect, let alone decode, hidden data -- wouldn't such a person be under surveillance ? Read about randomization. My method does not randomize -- and if it doesn't randomize then there is no counter measure to detect it.

This isn't Obama's Justice Department, it is George Bush's Justice Department. Check the records -- Obama has not replaced them yet. The same bad people as ever are still in charge of surveillance in this country.

Please consider contacting Mr. Blagojevich and his attorney to advise him that his public footprint may have been compromised by the US Department of Justice -- be in the good guy's side of this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

People editing with a conflict of interest is a serious problem in Wikipedia but I'm sorry to say that you were one of those people when you edited articles like in [11]. It would take a lot more than somebody reverting a clear policy violation before I would try to investigate or report an editor for suspected abuse. I will not contact people off Wikipedia on another continent about a conspiracy theory, and I wouldn't expect a reply if I did. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Curious if blocked... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you were blocked then you would see a message like MediaWiki:Blockedtext when you tried to edit. I only said I had the ability to block to show that if I really was a US conspirator attenuating your communications then I could have done a lot more at Wikipedia than revert your edits to one article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I only ask because one of my edits mysteriously disappeared this morning. The post referred to how republicans are blocking votes to allow various US Attorneys nominated by Obama from occurring. Five minutes after these votes take place these US Attorney offices are going to be flooded with people looking to settle scores with the Republicans -- so they will do anything possible to stop the votes from occurring. This blocking of voting has not occurred before -- you can either legitimately ask why they are blocking the votes, or you can acuse me of being a conspiracist. Get out your lawn chair and your money out of the stock markets -- you are about to see a US government scandal and meltdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about US attorneys but trying to block nominations is not a new thing. Maybe you know George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies (and maybe you will be suspicious that an allegedly Danish editor knows it). Special:Contributions/65.103.28.57 and Special:Contributions/Ivangrimm show no visible edits today ouside this talk page and as an administrator I can see no deleted edits either (but I don't have access to oversighted edits). Maybe you didn't save the edit, or maybe you made it from a different IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You will be forgiven for not knowing the difference between US Attorneys and Federal Judges. Huge difference. Federal Judges outlive the people who put them into office -- those are lifetime appointments.

US Attorneys are not lifetime appointments. These are people who serve the president. They are integral to the power of the President. Obama without his own US Attorneys is like a sitting duck. It has always been understood that every president has the right to install their own US Attorneys. The US Attorneys decide who will be investigated and indicted. In the scheme of things they represent the raw, naked power of the party in power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that a link to the secure server would fail for people not connected to it. I have noticed that most people creating links weren't using links to the secure server, which, as an aside, is often a pain, because if I use that link, I am no longer logged in.

I also knew there was a better way to link to a talk page, and forgot it - now that I see it, I should have remembered. --SPhilbrickT 11:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that forum shopping is not discouraged - I'd like to ask about switching from the secure to unsecured server at Village Pump technical, as I would like to think there is an easier way than editing the url, which I can't get to work. Is there a proper way to do this - should I just ask at VP and note my question at Help, or is there a better way?--SPhilbrickT 14:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and for restoring that content. When I checked the history, only the two sections were blanked. The IP must have blanked the others while I was reverting the first ones. Thanks again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Responded on my talk page. Valid point about discussion, though I see no harm. Not really outside use of hatnotes when you consider the CPAP "article" itself. I'm open to alternate suggestions, of course. Dovid (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal thank you for the tip about different skins. While I accept this circumstance and can do a workaround, I still wonder why simply changing the skin results in such a dramatic difference in the appearance of Navbar templates. And I cannot help thinking that there might be other areas where this applies, and other templates and such that editors have devised in another skin, and then did not check to see their appearance in MonoBook.

Anyway, thanks again, and best of everything to you and yours!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• PS. I also checked how the Skin diff would affect this problem in case you're still interested.

I realize that I called this "resolved" at the Help Desk; however, I since have learned how to embed a template within a table in order to make the Navbar easily editable (with the v-d-e at the top left). Your last note to me was:

Trying to align vertically by using multiple spaces (whether or not this is done with {{loop}}) can also be unstable, for example for readers with another font size in their browser. I think the only stable method for vertical alignment is tables with the vertically aligned elements in the same table column, but I don't know whether there is a practical way to do that for your purpose at Template:Charmed Companions. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I took this to heart and discarded the Navbox Template and went back to the table. This way there is no need to use the unstable vertical alignments of the Navbox. So I've finally accomplished what I set out to do: The Navbar, Template:Charmed Companions, is more easily edited from user articles such as Charmed, and this was accomplished without jeopardizing vertical alignment stability across skins. Thank you so much for your help and guidance!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks great in all 3 tested browsers and font sizes. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do wish I had your browser versatility. I'll definitely be more careful from now on. I still like to use the "simple" skin to edit; however, I shall keep in mind that most general readers use "monobook" to browse. Thank you for testing the template, and again, best of everything to you and yours!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  09:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a way to create links to how a page looks in different skins.

Template:Charmed Companions displayed in different skins: Chick, Classic, Cologne Blue, Modern, MonoBook, MySkin, Nostalgia, Simple, Vector.

You can also place {{Selectskin}} on the page (but should preview and not save in many situations). This page in different skins:

• MinervaNeue (mobile)
• MonoBook
• Timeless
• Vector legacy (2010)
• Vector (2022)

. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Elementary primality test Dear Prime Hunter

I developed a study about composite numbers which have a form Ip=6K±1. These numbers are expressed by K=6k2k3±k2±k3. How prime numbers also are expressed by Ip=6K±1, if we don´t have solution to equation, we found a prime number. I want show my contribution. This equation is correct. In portuguese wikpedia version has this contribution. What I need to do, if I want put on English wikpedia. I am writing from Brasil.

Thanks

Gonzagalaier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I understand users come from different parts of the world, and I thought it would be best simply to use UTC. I have removed the UI spoof (I was originally looking for something to replace it, as I suspected it was affecting users who were legitimately at my userpage). Intelligentsium 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I ask your precious help on mediating a conflict on the Mail forwarding page. Anonymous User:78.86.124.181 (with the help of the newborn User:CrestedEagle) insists on putting a list of companies to the article, what is against Wikipedia's policy. There have been several reverts on the page about the issue. The anonymity of that user just worsen their edits. Could you delete the list ("Providers") and protect the page? Thank you very much. --Algorithme (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the said User:78.86.124.181. I have not 'put in' the provider list, I've simply argued for this list to remain whilst others have deleted without question. Currently, 4-2 regarding this issue so there is no consensus. I believe the list adds context to the article and is valid, as does another user. The gang of four, are trying to shout me down because they disagree with my opinion but I have tried at every turn to discuss the reasoning in a balanced manner that the provider list is not a link farm as suggested. 78.86.124.181 (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I second Alogirthme's call for mediation. This has become a very unproductive exercise. Haakon (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that User:78.86.124.181 is now in violation of WP:3RR in Mail forwarding. Haakon (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"The anonymity of that user just worsen their edits." What does this mean exactly? That because I haven't made up a username my opinion is less valid? user:haakon, I can see you want to get rid of me because I have dared to disagree with you. I don't think you are balanced in the way you edit for the record, you are working to your own agenda. 78.86.124.181 (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a baseless accusation. Please be civil. Haakon (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to take the moral high ground on this issue user:Haakon. You have been quite rude and arrogant in your approach to other users, especially me. I've read some of you other edits, so this is not "a baseless accusation" as you put it, simply my opinion from discussing this issue with you. I have been nothing but civil when discussing this issue with you. 78.86.124.181 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to what Haakon wrote, Crested Eagle also broke WP:3RR. Is this an issue that we should take to ANI? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I see an RFC has started. I will stay out of it to avoid possible accusations that I have been hand-picked instead of following dispute resolution procedures. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the taxobox. Joe Chill (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As You suggested, I changed SGP Table. See this, Radziński (t) 12:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

oops, thanks!!! in my "clean-up" i took a little too much away Masterhatch (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for helping me out. Thanks mate! Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 17:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)