User talk:Brian Everlasting

Nomination of EXPIRE act for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article EXPIRE act is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/EXPIRE act until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 19:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andrea Power Plan
Hello, Brian Everlasting,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you:-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Andrea Power Plan, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit Edit the page]
 * 2) Remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) Click   button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, leave a comment here and ping me.

Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrea Power Plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watts ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Andrea_Power_Plan check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Andrea_Power_Plan?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hoax vandalism
Last warning. If you ever pull a blatant hoax like Andrea Power Plan again, I will do my very best to get you blocked not temporarily, but indefinitely. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrino
I really don't get you. If you wish to avoid having the large majority of your edits undone, why don't you desist from indulging in really pointless, disruptive crap like removing all instances of "only" from an article - regardless of local context, sense and sensibility? This behaviour really is tottering along the line between incompetence and sheer vandalism. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm too stupid to understand why neutrino article was just perfect until I arrived to screw everything up. Brian Everlasting (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it was perfect but you made it significantly worse. Let's use your first edit as example: All particles interact via the weak interaction, that is not special about the neutrino. The unique feature of neutrinos (out of all known particles) is its lack of other interactions. It interacts via the weak interaction only. Removing that word makes a statement that is still technically correct but that statement is missing the interesting content. Similar for the other "only" you removed. They are there for a good reason. In at least one case your edit made it factually wrong: "Proof that there are only three kinds of neutrinos remains an elusive goal of particle physics." is correct (we don't know if there are more than three), but "Proof that there are three kinds of neutrinos remains an elusive goal of particle physics." is wrong (we know there are at least three). --mfb (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Word "only" detracted meaning, confused readers, & redundant. Brian Everlasting (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)