User talk:Grundle2600

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--Alex Marshall (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)==Welcome==

Hello Grundle2600! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Philippe 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Nuclear Power

Hello! Thanks for your edits to nuclear power. They are good points, but we can't put all the good points into the Intro. I've moved one of your paragraphs down in the article to an appropriate place, and will put the other into nuclear safety. Again, thanks! Simesa 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello

Hi, I've noticed some of the good edits you've been making. Thanks for helping out! I sorta have a concern about your name though... There's a policy: Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames. And I'm not sure if it's deliberate, but part of your name (explicit image warning: grundle) is also a term for a part of human genitalia, so it's probably not an okay name. I don't want you to get blocked because you're making good edits, but you might think about changing the name. If you go here: Wikipedia:Changing_username, you can get the name changed pretty easily. --JayHenry 17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, sorry! Hahaha, well, you should be okay then! I was completely unaware of that reference. Keep up the good work! --JayHenry 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--grundle2600

[edit] About my username

This is grundle2600. My user name is a reference to the video game "Adventure" on the Atari 2600. "Grundle" is the name of the green dragon in that game. See Adventure (Atari 2600).

[edit] "Accusation of vandalism

I'm afraid you are mistaken. I accused you of no such thing, I merely deleted (by reversion) your not-well-thought-out addition of an inaccurate statement that "The United Nations has come out in favor of nuclear power as a way to combat global warming", which 1. mistakenly conflates the United Nations with the IPCC; 2. does not "come out in favor", but rather is a far more nuanced position on nuclear power; and 3. was material that was inappropriately placed in the article. By consensus, significant changes to the GW article are discussed on that article's talk page first. I think mention of the IPCC's position on nuclear power is certainly worth mentioning, but you had it in the wrong place. Arjuna 09:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me. My addition to the article on global warming was accurate, and I cited my source. Just because you oppose nuclear power doesn't mean that my claim was not accurate. I orginally placed my statement right after a sentence that mentioned the Kyoto Treaty. If it's OK to mention the Kyoto Treaty in that particular section, then it's OK to mention nulcear power. Just because you have a personal opposition to nuclear power does not mean that my statement was not true. --grundle2600

For some reason, you think my position on nuclear power is somehow relevant to my deletion; it isn't. It was simply inaccurate and put in the wrong place. Aside from that (not that it's relevant anyway) you are incorrect about my opposition to nuclear -- I strongly support it. Arjuna 21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Well, I put it in a different section, as was suggested by a few people. Let's hope it's still there tomorrow! Grundle2600 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I hope this isn't necessary, but be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Grundle2600 13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Sabrina76.jpg

I fixed it.Grundle2600 12:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoebe Cates

Hi, regarding your question about the two images I removed. The first image is a non-free image which could be replaced by a free content image. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1. The second image, the screenshot from Drop Dead Fred, doesn't add significantly to the article. In the filmography is only mentioned that she plays in Drop Dead Fred. An image doesn't add much to that. See criteria #8. Hope this helps, if not, feel free to leave me a message on my talk. Garion96 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying it's not a great picture or that's not relevant, but it's not a free content image. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. We do use images (limited) under fair use (non-free) but only when it adds significantly to the article. If the article would go in detail about her role in Drop Dead Fred and that image was needed to explain something, then it would add significantly to the article. We also don't use fair use when it could theoretically be replaced by a free image. this image is a great example of an image which adds significantly to the article and which is irreplaceable. Garion96 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Scandal goodbye to you.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Scandal goodbye to you.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rory096 02:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I fixed it. Grundle2600 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FU

Your recent edit to Phoebe Cates was reverted. WP:FU prohibits us using anything other than freely-licensed images to depict living people. --Yamla 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Thanks for the explanation. Grundle2600 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

Please see Talk:Global warming for extensive discussion related to the material you added to the Global warming article. --TeaDrinker 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Schulz is also erasing my work. I think that it is terrible how we are being censored. It takes this guy only a minute to totally revert all that I've written. --Csn pilot (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. People shouldn't erase my stuff. Instead, they should add their own stuff. I never erase anyone's stuff. Grundle2600 07:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is your stuff is blatantly false. Stuff that is blatantly false should be erased. You're conflating the US with the world. Yes, the hottest year on record in the US, after the minor correction, is 1934 (during the dust bowl). Prior to this minor correction, far fewer than 9 of the 10 hottest years in the US were in the last decade. However, after the correction 9 of the 10 hottest years in the world were still in the last decade. Do you understand the distinction here and why your edit contained factual errors? If you were to fix your errors (essentially the same information, minus the errors, has been posted on Stephen McIntyre's article) it would not be relevant to global warming. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. But it's still relevant that NASA admitted to making an error. But I won't put it back in the article again. Grundle2600 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would think that we already have more than sufficient evidence that NASA can make errors. Anyone who thinks they are infallible is probably also illiterate. ;) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Maunyi ant, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Rjd0060 02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie Hayes

OH MY GOD! That's such great news, thanks - that was one of my favorite albums, and to have it on CD will be fantastic. Thanks again! --GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I just realized you were the one who started the Bonnie Hayes article. I spotted it ans user WWGB had flagged it for speedy deletion, so I embarked on my crusade to make it substantial enough to keep. GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy - already pre-ordered the CD at Amazon! --GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 19:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)

[edit] State Children's Health Insurance Program

I think your recent edit (which I did not revert) had some important information, and I think it's unfortunate that you chose to present the information in such a POV manner that it was deleted. It's important that readers see how Congress has handled SCHIP issues in the context of pork spending and other misplaced priorities. But to cast it as a partisan issue only invites its deletion, and justifiably so. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a source of unbiased information, not a political soapbox. I think if you look at other articles' discussion of equally controversial issues you will not see such thinly veiled partisan attacks. SCHIP is not a Democratic or a Republican problem. It is a problem with the powers of the U.S. government, including Congress as a whole and the President. I hope you or some other editor will try to write the facts without the political slant. I may do so when I have time. Ward3001 16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you rcomments and suggestions. Grundle2600 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xenoposeidon

Hi Grundle,

Thanks so much for the new article on Xenoposeidon. Your work is greatly appreciated. If you are interested in dinosaurs and editing dinosaur articles, please consider joining WikiProject Dinosaurs; we'd love to have you aboard. Please also consider expanding any of the short dinosaur articles on WP:DABS. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I love dinosaurs! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaekelopterus rhenaniae

Just wanted to be sure you were going to add more to this article. Otherwise, someone might tag it for deletion. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I am adding to it right now. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Blue Tree

A tag has been placed on Blue Tree requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page you created, you may want to consult WP:Your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrops candelarius vs Pyrops candelaria

Hi. I happen to be an expert in nomenclature and taxonomy. There is a formal, official Code governing the proper spelling of scientific names (the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). One of the rules is that the name of a species must agree in gender with the name of the genus. The name "Pyrops" is masculine, and all names in the genus must be formed to also be masculine. While it is true that nearly everyone in the world refers to the species as "candelaria", those folks who do so are all wrong, and their ignorance of the rule is no reason to perpetuate the misspelling. That's exactly why rules of nomenclature exist; so when there is a difference of opinion, there is one clear and definitive answer. The genus Pyrops is masculine, therefore, all the species names in the genus must also be masculine. I've made a note to the article to clarify this, and did so on the page for the genus, as well. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it. Yes, I agree with you - those other people are wrong. I was wrong. Thanks for teaching me. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animal

When you linked Agelas clathrodes in the Animal article, you stripped out the italicization. All species names must be italicized in Wikipedia. I have fixed it, but I wanted to remind you to be careful about that. -- Donald Albury 12:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health care in Canada article

Grundle2600, there is no consensus for your reverts. I have stated my concerns on the article talk page, but you have not responded there. Can you please seek consensus before reverting again? Also, could you please format your references as full citations? Inserting only a bare URL leaves work for other editors. Thank you! --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's better to have two conflciting opinions than to just erase stuff that you disagree with. I am looking up the stuff about how to format citations. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you also read up on undue weight. Here are quotes that apply to our dispute over the Sally Pipes quote: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Just because one biased person makes an obviously inaccurate statement in an editorial does not by itself justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. If you insist on its inclusion, I will continue to insist on pointing out the obvious inaccuracy and bias of the statement. And just because you can find a litany of examples to illustrate your obvious POV on this article, does not justify their inclusion in the article without balancing statements or examples. I will continue to prune and summarize and seek balance. --Sfmammamia (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But for the record, I never remove other people's stuff. I like to add to the articles. I never take stuff out. But I won't get into an editing war with you. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toshiba Micro Nuclear Reactor

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Toshiba Micro Nuclear Reactor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming and polar bears

I think the history of certain polar bear populations in the last 60 years belongs in the polar bear article, specifically this section Polar_bear#Conservation_status. As you can see from that section, there apparently isn't a lot of historic data, but there are a fair number of sources that show details of recent polar bear population dynamics. I strongly suspect that our knowledge of the danger of global warming for polar bears takes into account recent population dynamics, so recent population dynamics are a detail that is quite out of place in Effects of global warming. Feel free to organize and re-write the polar bear section, though, as long as you are willing to read all of the sources cited already. - Enuja (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith about other editors. It is not constructive to write about what you see as my aims. [1] Please keep talk page comments to things that help improve the article, and avoid writing about what other editors might be thinking or trying to do. For more information, please see the talk page guidelines. - Enuja (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coskata

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Coskata, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coskata

Hi there. At present the article reads like an add. It also only has references from the companies own website. These alone are not suitable for wikipedia. Also it had multiple categories that suggests to me the author was trying to gain higher levels of exposure. It was for these reasons I added the tag.--Alex Marshall (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diane Feinstein

Your edits to this pages have been reverted. Please see Neutral point of view and Biographies of a living person, which are listed in the welcome box. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

I have nominated Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help source it. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton lies

I agree with you that Clinton lied; however, the cited reliable source uses the term "exaggerated" and we cannot simply substitute the terms to satisfy our own points of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thermal Depolymerization

Hey! I saw your comment in your edit summary....while it is disapointing that more plants have not been built, the one plant is there, and is operating. The company appears to have made a business decision not to build lots of plants until they really get the operation of the carthage one down. This sort of process development always takes way longer and costs way more than it seems like it should. So, don't give up hope, though it may be a long tunnel until there is much more light.....(full disclosure: I work for a landfill that would be very interested in a plant, and I've contacted the company about it.) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

well, I really do think it is just poor business planning on thier part. It wouldn't be the first time someone screwed up a good idea because they were not a great business person (both Edison, and Tesla come right to mind). Eventually, the good ideas get moving. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)