User talk:LGagnon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sigh 2 bias 3 Philosopher 4 Btw 5 You have got to me kidding me 6 Objectivism: most vs some 7 FAR... 8 Randall Flagg 9 FYI 10 Cults in Our Midst 11 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book) 12 The Tireless Contributor Barnstar 13 Your edit to Chuck Palahniuk 14 TfD nomination of Template:Stephen King short stories 15 Spoiler redirects 16 Apologies 17 Sorry I don't have a song with this! 18 ARI 19 Your Zinn paragraph is most definitely not NPOV 20 Signature 21 FAR 22 Hello 23 Thanks 24 Image:Candyshelf.jpg 25 Randall Flagg 26 Wikisource image 27 Randall Flagg is now a Good Article 28 CrimethInc. images 29 Guts in Playboy 30 Image copyright problem with Image:Chuckpalahniuknet.PNG 31 Libertarianism

[edit] Sigh

I've blocked AOluwatoyin a couple of times. I don't quite understand what else you want here. I told you that if you wanted help, just ask me directly on my talk page. I would recommend toning down your message here. You aren't helping your cause any with it. It comes off as hostile. And reverting others comments like you say you are going to is probably going to get you blocked. Again, it doesn't help you any. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bias

LGagnon, I appreciate your concern with keeping wikipedia npov. However, your editing of the Ayn Rand article seems to indicate a strong negative bias. Some of your edits and concerns I agree with, despite my being an Objectivist, and therefore likely to have a favorable view of Ayn Rand. I think good criticism and controversy inforamtion shold be included. I think many of your edits though are very npov. I suggest you take a step back and think about this before proceeding.Ethan a dawe 21:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Ethan Dawe

[edit] Philosopher

What are your thoughts on "Lay Philosopher" versus "Non-Academic Philosopher?" Someone is suggesting this in regards Rand and others? Ethan a dawe 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Btw

Any more anything from AOluwatoyin and I am going to block him indefinitely. Honestly, the legal threats should've gotten him blocked indefinitely but someone beat me to it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And it looks like his comments on Jimbo's talk page were reverted. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And I do apologize for not being up on this more. I've been hit by more yahoos than usual lately, including someone who said that they "liked me" and who turned out to be a sockpuppet. Not making excuses. But not enough hours in the day to stop everyone. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have got to me kidding me

Look at this and this. Good grief. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to readers: Please be aware that the two examples accessible by the links above were not written by the same individual but by two different editors. --142.161.184.39 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a moot point since you admitted on my user page that you are the same person who added to the box first posted by wolfstar. As we say in Wisconsin, it's the same difference. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, A writes a piece about C the contents of which C insists are libellous. B indicates only that the piece ought to have been published because it speaks the truth. Is B guilty of libel? Of course not, he didn't write the piece in the first place. A murders C. B testifies that C was a bastard and "deserved it". Did B murder C? Of Course not. Are you starting to see the difference now? I hope so because clearly it's not the "same difference". Just out of curiousity is this why you are called Cheeseheads? --209.115.235.79 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending. My point was that you obviously agreed with it. So you were basically agreeing with a sockpuppet who has been blocked 7 or 8 times. It doesn't exactly speak highly of you. So what's the difference really? --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I blocked AOluwatoyin indefinitely due to sockpuppet use. If anything else, it makes blocking these socks easier. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivism: most vs some

Hi I noticed that you changed the Objectivism article to state that most academics rejected it, I started a topic on the talk page to discus this point.--Dylan Lake 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR...

Hi there, because the "Writing style" and "Fandom" sections of Chuck Palahniuk are not refed and are possibly OR, I've listed it at WP:FAR. Thanks, Mikker ^(...) 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Flagg

Just wondering, do you think the article is good enough now for a Featured Article nomination?--CyberGhostface 15:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

• You may wish to voice your opinion/vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Yours, Smeelgova 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
  • On a related issue, What is your opinion regarding the "non-compliant" tag that User:Jossi placed on the article Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous ? Yours, Smeelgova 07:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Cults in Our Midst

I have updated the Cults in Our Midst article entry. Take a look and let me know what you think, on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I present to you this award for your hard work on the Randall Flagg article. CyberGhostface 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Chuck Palahniuk

Your recent edit to Chuck Palahniuk (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. // AntiVandalBot 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Stephen King short stories

Template:Stephen King short stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --CyberGhostface 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler redirects

Should I make spoiler redirects for Walter's and Marten's redirect pages? Someone new to the DT series might look up Marten or Walter and find out he's Flagg before they get to that part.--CyberGhostface 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I put Category:Critics of Objectivism on CfD, but I think I should've told you first as you created it. I did this mostly for consistency with the decision on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 13#Category:Critics of Islam.--T. Anthony 04:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry I don't have a song with this!

Trampton 06:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] ARI

You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Zinn paragraph is most definitely not NPOV

Your Zinn paragraph is not written to express a summary of different views concerning whether or not the Supreme Court is politically motivated. It offers no differing viewpoints from a variety of sources and chooses to emphasize only one interpretation. Its only goal is apparently the injection of a Marxist critique concerning the structure of the United States' federal judiciary. That is definitely not NPOV.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

BoBo 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The addition of a Marxist critique to a description of what most in America regard as a necessary democratic institution in a three-branch government system (see the Federalist Papers if you don't believe me) is in and of itself controversial. Therefore, you should've taken a more cautious, objective and common-sense approach to introducing the topic you wish to present. It appears that you only wish to introduce ideology and not have a balanced discussion of the politicization of the judicial branch.

BoBo 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

I just wanted to inform you that in your signature preferences, I believe that you may not have "raw signature" checked. Make sure that to check that box so when you sign your ~~~~s, it will work in the way that you intended. Cheers! —Curran _{(talk | contibs | random)} 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Grunge music has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. NSR77 ^T_C 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Just popping around today and thought I'd say "hi" since I saw you also go to a UMass. Nothing more to say, really. Looks like you've done some good work, so keep it up! — The Storm Surfer 08:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey, thanks for removing the book "Scandalous Hegemony" from the Noam Chomsky page. I didn't even notice it! [1]--Jersey Devil 02:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Candyshelf.jpg

Hi LGagnon, please add the original link to the picture on burningwell.org since I wasn't able to find it there. Regards, --Flominator 10:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Flagg

I'm trying to get Randall Flagg's article to either GA or FA status. I've put a lot of effort in the article in the last couple of weeks, expanding and reworking various sections along with adding sources and external information such as quotes and analysis. I put it up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Randall Flagg. Any suggestions you have would be welcome.--CyberGhostface 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource image

Hi, I'm a new administrator at Wikisource, and a more experienced admin has been talking me through some admin tasks. See here. I made a mistake in that I dealt with the first part, where he was telling me about deleting images from Category:Orphan media, before properly reading the second part. I assumed that the second part related to other images. The reason I'm mentioning it to you is that an image uploaded by you was in that category, and he suggested that I might want to chat with the uploader before deleting it.

Anyway, I went ahead and deleted it before realizing that that was the image about which he had said that I might want to chat with you first. It had no licence. If I've done the wrong thing and if it's public domain or available under some kind of free licence, please let me know. Apparently it's possible to restore things that I've deleted. The image, in any case, was not being used. I'm posting here because you've used this account more recently than the Wikisource one. Regards. Cowardly Lion (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Flagg is now a Good Article

Just thought you'd like to know that Randall Flagg has now passed Good article status.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CrimethInc. images

Yo, I was wondering if you were the same individual as Flickr user LGagnon? And if so, is there any chance you would release your CrimethInc.-related images under a free or Creative Commons license? I'm thinking specifically of this image, but any others would be fantastic also. Regards, Skomorokh 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. In any case, if you do have/know of any other usable images, they would be most appreciated. Thanks for your response, Skomorokh 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guts in Playboy

Hey, in the Haunted article you wrote about 'Guts' being in Playboy in March of 2004, and that Chuck offered another story to be in Playboy as well but it was too gross and got turned down. Do you happen to know what the other Palahniuk story was that he submitted to Playboy? Thanks in advance!!! Also, your political views and interests are spot on good sir. -Tubeyes (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Chuckpalahniuknet.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Chuckpalahniuknet.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarianism

I hope you continue to assist working in the Libertarianism article. I've made significant edits which most have been removed trying to bring context. They barely let me keep what I added on the word's origins. Thanks q (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)