User talk:Cernen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

clipboard with pencil The talk page has been archived,

Once again, I say to you,

Leave new stuff by clicking this link.

But no nastygrams accrue.

Birth to 03:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC) to 11:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Pastatutes

Your pastatutes links have scrolled. Can you convert the links to those in an archived/history version of Ref Desk misc? -- SGBailey 07:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Another user has fixed the links in your Ref Desk page. The explanations make as much sense as the topic deserves. Thanks all. -- SGBailey 21:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] possible in-joke

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#June_17

hilarious :D

--Froth 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Nothing wrong with June 17, but I remember someone answering to a date banner back in May, so it's not the first time it happened. I would prefer it if the first occurance was used as in-joke or at least referred to on your injoke archive. - Mgm|(talk) 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll let you know if I find an earlier link. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have a barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I, Michaelas10, award you this good humour barnstar just for being so damn funny Michaelas10 20:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When reading a constitution that demands a two-thirds majority vote, we are having some discussion as to the meaning. Because in some other spots, it refers to a mere two thirds vote, there is some debate, as to whether or not the extra word was necessary or meaningful. Now we know that there are some clear areas where the constitution must be re-written, but we would like to follow it until a new one passes.

Person 1 says, "A simple or 50% majority vote means that you need more than 50%, so a two thirds majority vote means that you need a majority more than 2/3."

Person 2 says, "Two thirds just describes the type of majority you seek, so an amount equal to two-thirds would be sufficient."

Person 1 replies, "Then why is the word majority inserted? There is clearly no such thing as a two-third minority."

Person 2 replies, "It is a poorly worded document, but that does not mean we should take an inane interpretation."

Now, I clearly understand that this only matters if the number of voters is exactly divisible by three, so there is a two-thirds (or is it two-third majority) chance that it will not matter. Nevertheless, what would your interpretation be?

Matt West


-Humour is bad. No good comes from it.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, mystery man. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 05:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No.

I have removed your "question" from the reference desk. Please remember that wikipedia is not a chat room. The reference desk is for users who are seeking information, not for chatting. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're really wondering what's happening at the reference desk, have a look at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk- this is the intended place for talking about the reference desk. Ned Wilbury 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Returned?

Good to see you back. I hardly ever go to the reference desk these days but I'm still around. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Have fun. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff

Yes, yes I have - for now. What's up? --HappyCamper 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to fill you in, this is the last significant conversation I had [1] [2]. Keep your Wikipedian soul healthy, hm? After the holidays, I might come by for some tea with you myself and catch up :-) --HappyCamper 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Me too. --HappyCamper 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Unknown_1.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Unknown_1.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ys-unknownbyte.ogg

I have tagged Image:Ys-unknownbyte.ogg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to ACK (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just so you know

Just so you know, WP:3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, as you implied it did here. I have protected the page. Cheers, Sean William @ 05:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People are right

When they think you're funny, I think they're right! Well, I can't write too much now because I am on benzodiapines (my mom didn't think it was appropiate to take zolpidem today... long story) Short story, everytime i take them, instead of sleeping I stay awake and do nothing... surf the web, who knows why. Tomorrow, when I can focus my mind, or some other day, I'll hopefully right again and we'll exchange some information about wikipedia and how these zolpidem work... (the ones you sometimes take, i can't remember the tradename). I liked your comment about that article, and your comments about your self and your role character made me laugh! I needed it, so thanx!

Maritxu. maritxu.m@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.78.185 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo 11

Haha! Indeed, this was in no way supported by the (otherwise very reliable) source provided. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, instead of "daring us" to ask what was wrong, why not just tell us what's wrong in the change message like a normal person?! Xezlec (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)