W1k13rh3nry

I feel confused by your post to Talk:Jeopardy!

I feel confused as to how you considered Reyvas92's edit to be vandalism, especially when his edit summary clearly said "I don't believe that this information is relevant". Also, the edit summary of your reversion is "yes they are" which is not "revert vandalism" (which is what is normally used). I took "yes they are" to mean that you had an opinion on the subject and I was inviting you to share the reasoning behind that opinion on the article's talk page, in order to avoid an edit war on the article itself. Thanks for your time. Andy Saunders 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, what the cock is that shit? -- User 68.192.56.88 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are implying that this is techojumbo? It's not. W1k13rh3nry 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am implying that you have AIDS. You do. 68.192.56.88 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

It is considered very rude to blank your talk page. -- RHaworth 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well, what have we here? -- User 68.192.56.88 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not argue with you, but I'll say that those blankings were done in good intent, and I reverted them. Your blankings made it seem that you were trying to hide the fact that you committed a crime. Where do you think I learned that that is considered rude?W1k13rh3nry 10:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A crime now, is it? When exactly was the last time you set foot outside of your mother's basement? -- User 68.192.56.88 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In defense of myself, I would like to remind you that I am fourteen years old, as my user page says and has said for a while. I am 130 pounds and 5 foot 7, not your average idea of a nerd. You imply that I am currently in my mother's basement, which, as you should have gathered from the above information, is simply not true. In addition, I will be frank and say that the only reason I said "crime" is because that is easier then a phrase like "violation of policy". In addition, I would like to remind you that these personal attacks can get you banned, and I request for you to apologize before I report you. W1k13rh3nry 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't imply a thing. You took it upon yourself to draw your own twisted inferences. -- User 68.192.56.88 23:44, 15 June 2007 (EST)

As a source

Now why should anyone want to delete Wikipedia as a source? The only problem is that it is far too self-referential for the (Main) namespace. Unfortunately the title Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a source has already been taken, so I have moved yours to User:W1k13rh3nry/sandbox. But do feel free to move it into the Wikipedia: namespace and see what happens to it. -- RHaworth 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia: Why use Wikipedia. -W1k13rh3nry

Your edit to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/W1k13rh3nry

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/W1k13rh3nry (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 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was blanking my adminship nomination page because I was withdrawing. W1k13rh3nry 20:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the withdrawal procedure, all you have to do is type 'I withdraw this RfA' and sign the comment on the actual policy page. Another editor or admin will make the necessary changes to preserve the page for future reference in order that a proper record is kept of the proceedings. Blanking pages achieves nothing, as previous versions are retained in the edit history. (aeropagitica) 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, good luck Henry. :-) Leave me a message if you ever need any help. Regards, Anas ^talk? 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your decline to Parkway Central Middle School's IP unblock request

I can arrange for the libarian at my school to check my user talk page occasionally. From the date and time on the vandalism diff, we can see who was in the libary/ computer lab at that time. They will be suitably punished. :) W1k13rh3nry 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that won't help unfortunately. The IP address isn't limited to your school library, but it's shared by your entire school district! If you want the district-wide ban lifted, refer your network administrator to the meta:XFF project so that we can identify editors on a school by school or terminal by terminal basis. At the moment, Wikipedia sees everyone coming from 198.209.13.253. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm no it is not. My friend at Parkway Northeast Middle School (feed school to Parkway North High School) tells me her school has a different IP dress. W1k13rh3nry 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure Network address translation isn't in use? What's the IP address so I can check it out myself please. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Could I please ask you, when reporting vandals in WP:AIV, to use the correct format. You are failing to do so, and significantly wastes time. The instructions are on the AIV page.--Anthony.bradbury 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

latin

<Sigh>

1. loqui is not past tense, it is an infinitive of loquor which is the proper word for "speak", as in "I speak blahblahblah". You need a complimentary infinitive after possum...even in English, you can't say "I am not able I speak", you must say "I am not able to speak". The way you say "I am able to speak" is possum loqui or if you need (you don't really) to have the verb at the end, loqui possum.
2. loquo is not a word. loquor is a deponent verb.
3. When you speak a language, and you absolutely crave to put it in the form lingua Xxxa, you speak in the ablative case. Think of it differently than in English...we say "I speak English". In Latin, we say "I speak with English" or "I speak by means of English". HOWEVER...
4. The best way to do this however, is to drop the word lingua and change the last letter of the ethnikon to e. Therefore "I speak Latin" = "Latine loquor". "I am able to speak Latin" = "Latine loqui possum". If you really want to put the lingua in, you can write "Lingua Latina loqui possum".
5. We usually just say Vicipaedia Latina, or Vicipaedia Latine scripta. Note, unlike above, you have not made an error so to speak with your construction Vicipaedia linguae Latinae, but it looks a bit weird.

Please see your Latin wikipedia account, where, I'm afraid you've made other errors.--Ioshus^(talk) 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is why I am not contributing to the Latin Wikipedia. I tend to like the sentence structure with the verb at the end... isn't that the way it was supposed to be? Because I heard something about how the Romans didn't use spaces or puncuation and they could tell where the sentences started and stopped by the verbs. W1k13rh3nry 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To put it in terms of a reductio ad absurdum, I like cheese. This does not mean I will have cheese with every meal. You may tend to like to do something all day long, but it doesn't make it right. Verbs often come at the end of a clause, but at the end of a paragraph? In every case? Is English this rigidly structured? The Romans didn't ude punctuation, but that doesn't mean verbs were always the period. They were often the comma, or not involved at all in the end of the clause. What textbook told you final verbs were the end all be all?--Ioshus^(talk) 01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge Latin Course textbooks... Without exception, the verbs are at the end in this textbook... http://www.cambridgescp.com/page.php?p=clc^top^home Example: http://www.cambridgescp.com/ws2_tlc/explore/ws2_ets.php?p=^256^ W1k13rh3nry 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, flipping through Cambridge, I see many verbs are final, but your rule of without exception is deliberately exaggeratory. Book 3, Cena Haterii, line 21 : "convivis laetissime bibentibus, poposcit Haterius silentium". There's an ablative absolute and the structure of the verb VSO. Same page, line 32 "iussu meo huc venit Athenis, ubi habitant philosophi notissimi". Here is another ablative absolute, follwed by an adverb-verb-dative of approach, then in the second clause, you get an adverb, then a verb, then a subject. I just flipped the book open to a random page... does this convince you or shall I find more examples? If you don't believe me or Cambridge, put down the text and pick up some real Latin literature, you will see for yourself. Opening lines of De Bello Gallico from Caesar "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam". Here we have S-V-adj-verb compliment-adverbial phrase, then in the next clause we have relative pronoun-O-V-S. What do you think? --Ioshus^(talk) 12:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

PS...I think textbooks stress this final verb thing just to make it easier to teach. If you know to look at the end of the sentence for the verb, it saves students alot of time. CF in English, we teach children to read "See Spot run" long before "Check out Spot running" and waay before "Observe as Spot covers a large distance in a short amount of time by exerting his muscles to a full gallop". The later Cambridge books are more like the second choice, but almost all Latin readers start out with "See Spot run".--Ioshus^(talk) 12:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you have no more questions on this, since I have seen you active, but you haven't responded to this, even though i have invited your feedback. Please don't take anything personally. I'm a Latin teacher, this is what I do. There is an altogether careless use of Latin on Wikipedia (both en and Vicipaedia) and I try to fix it where I see it being misused. As I said, please don't take offense or feel bad. Everyone makes mistakes when learning this language, because it's a difficult thing. You just have to remember them once they get pointed out, and learn from them.--Ioshus^(talk) 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanity

Discuss my sanity as per my user page here. :P W1k13rh3nry 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Without making a comment on the underlying coverage of the site being down, your edit comment here indicates a WP:OWN violation. Under what logic do you propose that you have authority to set policy over the article? Georgewilliamherbert 03:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just enforcing policy. WP:CITATION is a big one. But espically WP:NOR.

Besides, since Wikipedia is associated with Uncyclopedia, people (the media) would think that whatever is put here is actually what Jimbo said. W1k13rh3nry 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What does Jimbo saying anything have to do with it? And you seem to be misinterpreting the citation policy. Georgewilliamherbert 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, anything posted here would appear to an outsider to be a statement from Jimbo. Plus if you take WP:OWN this far, then would rewriting articles be a violation? How about claiming that you wrote a large majority of the article? (which some people do) W1k13rh3nry 03:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, nobody takes anything written here to be a statement by Jimbo, unless it's by user JimboWales... What on earth gave you that idea?

There's nothing wrong with saying "I wrote most of this" if that's factually accurate. The difference between authorship and ongoing control or authority over an article is immense. Just because you may have written something doesn't mean you can veto who adds what, if the additions are encyclopedic, referenced, etc etc. Trying to veto other edits which are proper is WP:OWN. Georgewilliamherbert 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

People here don't think that, but others will. Ignoring your defining of WP:OWN, how about the fact that Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and we don't talk about stuff that happened a few hours ago. Again, I am just supporting common sense. W1k13rh3nry 03:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We talk about things that happened almost immediately after they happen in quite a few cases. Articles exist for any major current event, we note it within minutes of when anyone notable passes away... Your common sense isn't how Wikipedia actually works. Georgewilliamherbert 03:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but when someone dies you know he/she is dead... Uncyclopedia redirecting to Wikia does not mean that it is down for good. W1k13rh3nry 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ron Luther

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ron Luther, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Luther. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

I thought I'd let you know that I reverted your recent edit to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Stating that she is "ex officio" Queen of the countries other than the UK implies that she holds those positions by right of her position as Queen of the UK. That isn't the case. All of those countries now have separately established monarchies, and a hypothetical unilateral change in UK succession law wouldn't affect the other countries.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 03:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your WP:AIV report

You listed a user, HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAME, recently at WP:AIV stating they had an offensive name. I believe you may have mistakingly posted the name at WP:AIV instead of WP:UAA. Just thought you should know. Icestorm815 20:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Category Tool-using_species eror

• Your page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:W1k13rh3nry/Human

• Shows up in Category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tool-using_species

Maybe you can comment out category tag on your page? Best. Darked (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

masterofsuspense

remember masterofsuspense? the pro sockpuppet? or SteveNash11? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.46.100 (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!