User talk:Lorian/August 2006

You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner
GreenReaper 07:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I have thought about in the past but it's not needed. —  Fire Fox  10:06, 26 July '06


 * Not even temporarily? While that guy was vandalising your page... --LorianTC 10:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it really isn't needed :) — FireFox  ( talk ) 16:41, 26 July '06


 * Alright, your call. ;) --LorianTC 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield 2 Points
Hi. I was just wondering, why do you think it's 550 to rank up to a Lance Corporal? If you look here, you can see that the vast majority of people are already Lance Corporals, even though they've all got around ~525 points - I think there's only one still a Private First Class. I think it's due to BFHQ being horrifically slow that some people report not leveling up until 550 (indeed, I ranked up to Staff Sergeant the other day, and it took an hour or two until BFHQ said I ranked up). Give me a shout if it was changed in one of the patches or something. Thanks, Fin 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And can you let me know on my talk page when you reply? Thanks! Fin 15:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it happened to me at 550, and it happened to a friend at 550, and I wasn't the one to change it in the article to 550 in the first place. But it seems to be 500, so I dunno what's going on, it could be either. You can change it back if you want (if you haven't done so already). --LorianTC 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it at 500 until there's some definitive evidence on it. +Fin 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. --LorianTC 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I have thought about in the past but it's not needed. —  Fire Fox  10:06, 26 July '06


 * Not even temporarily? While that guy was vandalising your page... --LorianTC 10:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it really isn't needed :) — FireFox  ( talk ) 16:41, 26 July '06


 * Alright, your call. ;) --LorianTC 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield 2 Points
Hi. I was just wondering, why do you think it's 550 to rank up to a Lance Corporal? If you look here, you can see that the vast majority of people are already Lance Corporals, even though they've all got around ~525 points - I think there's only one still a Private First Class. I think it's due to BFHQ being horrifically slow that some people report not leveling up until 550 (indeed, I ranked up to Staff Sergeant the other day, and it took an hour or two until BFHQ said I ranked up). Give me a shout if it was changed in one of the patches or something. Thanks, Fin 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And can you let me know on my talk page when you reply? Thanks! Fin 15:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it happened to me at 550, and it happened to a friend at 550, and I wasn't the one to change it in the article to 550 in the first place. But it seems to be 500, so I dunno what's going on, it could be either. You can change it back if you want (if you haven't done so already). --LorianTC 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it at 500 until there's some definitive evidence on it. +Fin 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. --LorianTC 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Linux project
Why exactly did you need to be asked again? - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, what? --LorianTC 18:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

revert
hola he probado tu funcion revertir en mi monobook, sin embargo no consigo que funcione como un módulo aparte.

La idea es que en mi monobook pueda añadir tu función con la sgte linea de codigo:

// document.write(' '); //

Sabes si se puede hacer esto? . Saludos --Axxgreazz (consultas?) 10:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC) (i don't speak english very well, but if you don't understand spanish, let me know please)


 * Uh, sorry dude, I don't speak Spanish... --LorianTC 10:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

it's ok. I solved my problem anyway. Great tool your function revert !!. --Axxgreazz (consultas?) 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's good, thanks. :) --LorianTC 17:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

BB revert
Personally I couldn't care less and I'm not too bothered how it was originally as it's all drivel anyway. The point I'm trying to get over to you is that others will almost commence an edit war which will reult in the page being protected, probably by Firefox, again. So think about what you are doing by supporting a significant change without discussing it first leaky_caldron 22:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cut backs on the chronology section are normal because over the week it gets full of a lot of details, too much, so it needs cutting back, it's not a particularly significant change. About it being in sections, originally it was in 2 week sections, if you want to avoid an edit war revert it to how to was and bring it up on the talk page. --LorianTC 22:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I did revert it and you immediately jumped in and reverted what I did. If you are having second thoughts do it yourself. It is on the talk page leaky_caldron 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You put what he had cit back, back in the article and split it back into week sections, I have explained why I reverted that. If you have nothing more to say then please stop bothering me. --LorianTC 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"You put what he had cit back, back in the article and split it back into week sections" ?! High quality edit that, care to clarify? leaky_caldron 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To quote what I have already said, "Cut backs on the chronology section are normal because over the week it gets full of a lot of details, too much, so it needs cutting back" "originally it was in 2 week sections, if you want to avoid an edit war revert it to how to was and bring it up on the talk page." --LorianTC 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft
Hi. I'm Salvax...just a quick question. I noticed that you used the term 'fancruft' on the Talk:Futurama page. What does that mean?--Salvax 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Too much unnecessary information added by fans, such as specifics from episodes, the article is supposed to be about the show in general. --LorianTC 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanx 4 your time!!!--Salvax 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem :) --LorianTC 20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But some of what was taken out wholesale wasn't episode-specific. For example, each of the characters embodies one or more stereotype gag-contradictions: senile genius, Jamaican beaurocrat, Jewish lobster penniless physician, one-eyed pilot, filthy-rich business intern, vice-ridden robot. And you can read all those noted in the character bios, but since all but one of the characters is created that way, it's a general feature of the setup of the series. Where's the place for it as an observation? S  B Harris 21:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The re-write wasn't completely up-to-date with the current staus of the article, so some non-fancruft things will have been removed. --LorianTC 22:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello
You seem to have rolled back a query I made on FireFox's user page, having identified it as vandalism, which it was not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FireFox. Can you please remedy this? --Oreo Priest 02:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please show me the diff page where I did this. --LorianTC 06:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother
Hey Lorian. Just to let you know, I can't provide a written source, but it was confirmed on BBLB today that there will be a double eviction tomorrow, just to backup God...'s comments. Thanks, — FireFox  ( talk ) 19:16, 03 August '06


 * Use this template then: Template:Cite episode. Handy that one :). --LorianTC 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know it existed :P Anyway, just letting you know :) — FireFox  ( talk ) 19:26, 03 August '06


 * Well if you don't put it in it's gonna have to be removed until we get an official source (Ie. the website). --LorianTC 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put the information in in the first place, I am impartial to whether the information stays or whether it goes. — FireFox  ( talk ) 19:56, 03 August '06

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Big_Brother_2007_Sam_and_Amanda.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Big_Brother_2007_Sam_and_Amanda.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MER-C 11:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)