User talk:CallumBrowne

I don't think you are a vandal. Never the less I think your edit needs to be reverted because it adds nothing to the article. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually on looking into it more closely, no google hits for the mathematician, the book, or the quote? I have my doubts that you are here in good faith. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Graham's number
''Excuse me, but I don't understand why my edit to Graham's Number was considered by you to be vandalism. Everything I put in there was completely correct, and I had no intention to vandalise wikipedia. Plese if you have an issue with my edit talk to me about it, don't just call me a vandal. You might consider to read this Thank You.--58.169.166.143 (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)''

I have made a userspace hopefully now I will be taken more seriously --CallumBrowne (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't waste our time with immature pranks. Your edit was considered vandalism because:
 * No one claims that Graham's number is "the largest finite number". Everyone with half a brain knows that there is no such number.
 * You don't need to waste half a page copying the original formula just to show that G+1 > G.
 * There is no mathematician called Sam Kitchen--either 'English' or Australian, and if there were, he wouldn't be "proving" that you can increase a number by adding one to it, or calling other mathematicians an "immature twat".
 * Your insistence on adding this piece of nonsense is further proof that you are here to disrupt Wikipedia. If you continue this way, you will be blocked from editing. If you really want to be taken seriously, try editing productively, rather than making up silly hoaxes. Owen&times; &#9742;  12:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is why I reverted, and called your edit vandalism. Is was obvious you were being disruptive, and intentionally adding false info, which is vandalism. Landon1980 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I almost got away with too
If it weren't for you meddling kids


 * Uhh.... right.
 * Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.85.24 (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)