User talk:Kazvorpal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous talk has been archived at User_talk:Kazvorpal/2006-03-14 -- all history, including the part I pasted in here for continuity, is also included there.

Contents 1 DYK 2 Titan beetle 3 Australopithecus anamensis 4 Acronym Redundancy Syndrome 5 Turtles 6 paleo-template 7 star trek template project 8 Categorisation 9 Measures 10 BepiColumbo 11 List of basil cultivars 12 Edit to ICF 13 Your edit to US customary units 14 AfD nomination of The Great Equalizer

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Castorocauda lutrasimilis, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually quite proud...--Kaz 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titan beetle

Thanks for your improvement to this article. My only question is about the length of the grub - you state it as "perhaps as much as one foot long" which is twice the length of the adult. Do you have any reference for this? Is it usual for a grub to be larger than the adult? Richard W.M. Jones 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, beetle grubs are frequently longer than the adult forms, "june beetle" larvae can be twice as long, for example. They both lose mass while they pupate, and become shorter and thicker as adults. In this case, I was taking the text from a Titan Beetle article, let's see if I can find it...[1] here's one reference to the larvae. --Kaz 00:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australopithecus anamensis

Do you have a citation for the edits you made? Neat stuff! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in an Associated Press article, here's a link to a mirror of it: [2] --Kaz 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acronym Redundancy Syndrome

Hah! That's funny...probably shouldn't keep it though. -- Scientizzle 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd just gotten the letters backward, it's not ARS Syndrome, it's RAS Syndrome --Kaz 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that actually makes it slightly funnier. Thanks for clearing that up...Acronym Redundancy Syndrome had neologism written all over it, but RAS syndrome, a subject I'd not seen before, looks mighty entertaining. -- Scientizzle 23:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I like my version more, that's probably why my subconscious came up with it...--Kaz 23:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turtles

Hi, I just noticed your good edit to the turtle evolution section, and am hoping you have some good resources for this. Do you know if the extinct families listed in the turtle article are complete and correct? I want List of Testudines to be the next WP:AAR featured list, and don't have the resources to check them out. Also, what information would you suggest adding to the table (it will be seperate from the current table). All I can think of at the moment is "fossil range". Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] paleo-template

Would it be acceptable to use your paleo-template for creatures of Skull Island? They are fictional, but they deserve some sort of template. Example pages: Vastatosaurus rex, Venatosaurus saevidicus. Bibliomaniac15 19:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think it'd hurt anything. Once we finish up the paleo template a bit more, perhaps we can make a second version for fictional animals, in case there's some confusion when people use the "what uses this template" link. But for now, go ahead and use it. --Kaz 20:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] star trek template project

could you please remove the "star trek template project" link from the template, and the pages that it has been substituted into, as it isn't an appropriate place for such a notice? it should go on the talk pages for those articles, if you want to advertise it. --Gnewf 06:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation

As an article grows, others sometimes remove stub notices, thereby removing the associated stub categories. This leaves the article without a category. There's no harm in an article residing in both Category:Gardening and Category:Horticulture stubs for example. Some people might not think to check for your article in both. I added Gardening as the category, doing away with the need for the ugly template afterall. -- Longhair 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Measures

FYI, metric measures are used by 192 out of 193 countries, 95% of the world's population, and over 80% of the world's English-speaking population. You shouldn't be requiring the rest of the world to follow your US-POV minority imperial usage - MPF 10:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and 192 out of 193 countries (though, oddly enough, there are over 200 countries out there, so this is strange math) are socialist, and yet that economic system is self-destructive and nonsensical. What the hordes of authority-worshipping proles tolerate is irrelevent to what's right. A binary system of measurement, with key measures arbitrarily established where it's most convenient for the common user makes more sense than a base 10 system of measures which are easy for bureaucrats to convert, but nearly useless for everyday people.

But that's all irrelevent, because there are more native English language-speaking people in the United States than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED. This means that, if you want to play a numbers dick-swinging game, the English-speaking Wikipedia should use the system which is used by the majority of natively English-speaking readers...which is the English system, not the lame Metric system.

Note that the reason most countries use the metric system is that it has been FORCED upon them by their sociopathic bureaucrats, in those socialist governments I mentioned earlier. The one country where people are FREE TO CHOOSE their system have stuck to the English. And what people choose who are free to do so reflects most accurately what is best for them, not what other people are FORCED by bureaucrats to use. --Kaz 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BepiColumbo

On 1 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BepiColumbo, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On the main page now. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of basil cultivars

Just thought you might like to know that List of basil cultivars is nearing the end of what looks like a successful candidacy to be a featured list! It's evolved a bit since you first wrote it, but I'm sure you'll recognize your work if you haven't dropped by in a while. Waitak 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to ICF

According to current understanding/technology, Well actually, no. According to real world H-bombs these conditions are very well known. Maury 13:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because real-world H-bombs are far from the end of all available knowledge. TODAY we are unaware of any other means of producing nuclear fusion, except for pressure and heat...but this doesn't mean other ways to not exist. Not only do the rules of hard science say we must stipulate the potential that we're mistaken in general, but in the case of fusion specifically our knowledge is very primitive. --Kaz 19:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Today we don't know otherwise, and that's what the wikipedia is made up of, today's best knowledge. For instance, it's OK to state that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's not OK to say that it might not because "rules of hard science say we must stipulate the potential that we're mistaken in general". You can't simply put in comments like this, its misleading and confusing. And I really don't understand what it has to do with ICF; if there are alternative fusion mechanisms they would be discussed in the fusion article, not the ICF article. Even if they exist, ICF isn't looking for them. Maury 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to US customary units

The Wikipedia Attribution policy requires that editors who add information to articles to provide a reliable source if the new information is challenged. The burden to provide sources is on the editor adding the information, not the editor who challenges the information. --Gerry Ashton 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still a clear indicator of PoV on the part of the challenging editor, if instead of fixing the problem he perceives, he just deletes the added information entirely. This kind of unhealthy behavior is almost always conducted by someone who turns out to have a specific stance on the issue, which happens to find whatever was added inconvenient or undesirable. The guy deleting an embarassing new paragraph in the George W Bush article while complaining that it was placed in the wrong section -- rather than simply moving it to the right one -- is almost certainly an ardent Bush supporter. The guy deleting the list of awards Bush has received because it's not formatted clearly is probably a Bush basher. And the guy deleting the explanation of why people (the world over) find Imperial preferable to Metric is probably an advocate of forcing the Metric system on everyone, including Wikipedians. --Kaz 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No one should add information unless a reliable source exists. So is it more reasonable to expect that the editor who originally adds the information to provide the source, or for an editor who is unsure if the information is correct to add the source? After all, the editor who added the information to begin with has the source has the source right at hand, and can easily provide information about it, while the challenging editor would have to engage in a wasteful duplication of effort to find a reliable source. Of course, if it turns out the information is just your own opinions or observations, you should not have added the information to begin with. --Gerry Ashton 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A good editor does not automatically delete unsourced information. He either adds citations (which I do regularly for articles I find unsourced, myself), or he adds an "unsourced" tag, to both encourage the original editor (or some other responsible editor, like myself) to add citations and to let users know it lacks sources.

But, as I noted before, bad editors with a PoV agenda don't do this when they find something that conflicts with their personal biases...instead, they just delete the unsourced material en masse, as you have done with the references to US Customary measure as preferred by many Americans and seen as easier because of its binary/trinary arrangement. --Kaz 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of The Great Equalizer

An editor has nominated The Great Equalizer, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Equalizer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 21:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)