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Previous talk has been archived at User_talk:Kazvorpal/2006-03-14 -- all history, including the part I pasted in here for continuity, is also included there.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

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query 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

Updated DYK query 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] Your Opinion

I've noticed your edits on some pages we've both taken an interest in and I was looking for your opinion. I can't seem to convince Jayjg to let me contribute to the Israeli Settlements page and I thought you might want to take a look at the dispute. MarkB2 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We should all strive to be the former, not the latter

The latter should be forbidden, really... — Omegatron 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hoplophobia

I noticed your sig in the discussion of Gun politics. One other user and I are having a disagreement about Hoplophobia and I think that the discussion would benefit from more people than just the two of us. Check the lengthy discussion page first, if you are up to getting involved. Thanks. —BozoTheScary 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Abacus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Abacus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:LaurieBerkner.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:LaurieBerkner.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Heirlooms.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Heirlooms.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please upload a version to Commons without any labels? That way the photo can be used in other language projects. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-13t08:28z

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:DanCrow.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:DanCrow.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Permission for Image:DanCrow.jpg

You will need to email OTRS stating that you have permission to use that image, permissions@wikimedia.org, otherwise the image may be deleted. Thanks. CO2 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Permission for Image:Infini-T.jpg

on the page for Image:Infini-T.jpg you claim that you are the creator of said image and are releasing it under the "GNU Free Documentation License". Are you the creator of the original illustration used in the magazine, or just the scanned image that was uploaded? If it is the former, some confirmation should be included. If it is that latter than the copyright on the scan still belongs to the magazine and/or artist, and you can't release it. —MJBurrage • TALK • 02:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Money bomb

[edit] Money bomb

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Money bomb, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. While the article seems to have been created in good faith, the links make it clear that it is a neologism not in use outside Ron Paul's supporters, although the wording of the article makes it appear otherwise. Orange Mike 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you always this impolite when someone is courteous enough to point out a problem with an article? --Orange Mike 16:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you always advocating censorship? You ask if I'm impolite when someone "points out a problem with an article", yet as I said in my "impoliteness", it's the trick of trying to censor information wholesale, because of some alleged technical problem or factual error in a specific subset of it, that is poor editorship, implying a POV bias. You could have simply changed the article to correct the small objection you had, and yet you nominated it for deletion, instead, actually a more involved process, implying you prefer the wholesale censorship over simply fixing the problem. --Kaz 16:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
(Guess you can call me JohnUffish.) Kazvorpal, there are further similar attempts to Moneybomb by User:Elonka after I have built on your fine foundation. Note that User:Orangemike, who had initially weakly supported Elonka, has in my experience always come to a reasonable solution after both sides have expressed concerns. Since you are a primary editor, I thought you might want to consider commenting at WP:COIN#Moneybomb (you might also see Talk:Moneybomb#Third opinion). Thanks for your improvements to Wikipedia. John J. Bulten 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 15 bean soup

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article 15 bean soup, 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) 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Florida Republican primary, 2008

I reverted your edit, as it doesn't make sense to indicate Giuliani has withdrawn, since he withdrew after the primary was over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andareed (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Beelzebufo DYK

Updated DYK query On 21 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beelzebufo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I left some good comments about this article and it's hook while it was in the "DYK Waiting Room". I love that you made a mock-up showing size comparsion. Fun article. Ribbit. -- House of Scandal (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your comments

Please do not make comments such as "deleting things instead of fixing them is bad editing". Your edits were unsourced, unsubstantiated, and non-neutral POV, and they needed to be reverted. As for whether deleting things is bad editing, deleting is the most important kind of editing. I should know, I'm an editor in real life as well. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I will make such comments, because they are true. We are not editing a print magazine here, although if you wipe out "unsources" information in a print publication instead of having researchers verify it, you are incompetent. When valid, useful information is imperfect in wikipedia, the solution is to fix it, not delete it. To do otherwise IS bad editing. It is either lazy, PoV, or in some other way negative. Too many editors impose their PoV by lawyering away information they don't like. The policital stances of all nine justices are UNIVERSALLY acknowledged. There is no serious debate over whether Ginsberg is Liberal, or Thomas is Conservative. To pretend otherwise is absolutely laughable, and leads me to suspect that it's PoV that is the motivation for your censorship, not simply laziness. Either way, it is bad editing. --Kaz (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, your motivation is also called into question by your contradictory excuses for deleting, rather than fixing, the information you are trying to censor. You claim, in the edit, that "the political leanings are already mentioned"...and yet, now, you are claiming they are unsubstantiated and non-pov. These are mutually exclusive arguments. What's more, the ENTIRE GRID is mentioned elsewhere...the grid is a summary of the information, to make it quickly and readily accessible. Do you have some reason to think that the universally accepted political leanings of the nine justices should not be readily accessible? --Kaz (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that you were disagreeing with two different people? The person who said the political leanings were already mentioned is me. The person you were talking to above is SWATJester. Just because Swatjester and I both believed it was better not to have the column does not mean we agree on why or we somehow coordinated the edits. Magidin (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility, reliable sourcing, and NPOV are rules on this project. They are not negotiable. Edit warring is likewise unacceptable. Please stop doing so, or you will be blocked from editing.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Define edit warring in a way where my attempts to fix the ostensible objections is warring, yet your wholesale deletion and failure to seek compromise is not. --Kaz (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D'Artagnan

I have reverted your addition of the unorthodox "formatting rule" hatnote to this article. It's unnecessary (thousands of articles that have names that would begin with a capitalized letter only at the start of a sentence follow this "formatting rule", e.g. the many science and math topics named for John von Neumann). It's irrelevant that the way the hatnote was worded, no meaning could be construed from it—the hatnote is superfluous and the "rule" regarding the capitalization of the "D" is perfectly implied by the name's usage in the article. Robert K S (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Kaz (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Um. Wow. Really? Thanks. One gets so used to battling people over silly things, it's really refreshing when someone agrees with you right off the bat. I think I'm going to have to lie down now. :-) Robert K S (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
My goal is to present the best, most complete information, not to defend some specific stance...more editors need to be that way. --Kaz (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ur-organism

Hi, I have recently raised some questions concerning the definition of the term "ur-organism" at Talk:Ur-organism as part of a merge proposal (see also link1 and link2). I was wondering if you could provide some much-needed help in this area. Thanks so much, -Thibbs (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)