User talk:Debivort

Please do not remove the section on his current troubles with Physical therapy + bills. Just skyped with him and it's really not good. Cap'n Crunch needs all the help he can get right now. Thanks. Object404 (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"vandalism"? lol...i am correcting misconceptions because unlike you dumb ass wikipedia users, i KNOW my facts...so stop sending me harrressing messages god leave me alone. i run the biggest fansite for tossgirl, so i dont know why ur trying to accuse my correctyions as vandalism

uhm, why did you delete my entrey on the red flame dwarf gourami theory of extinction for t-rex's? its a legit theory, with scientific basis, stop being such a nazi. why dont you leave the decision making to admins.

Hi RegaL - Thanks for joining and adding that section! You are owed a welcome message too so.. Ta daa. The great thing about WP is that if you felt I went to far, be bold and fix it! After your comment I agree, so I added a sentence in. Could you provide a reference to it, such as a link to the most reputable site discussing the controversy? Cheers. de Bivort 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RegaL_the_Proofreader"

Thanks for your message and adding the sentence. I think that did the trick. I would have changed it if it had been a big problem, but it only required a little clarification. I couldn't find any reference to the argument except old forum posts on TL and SC2, and those are just opinionated flames :P. However, I'm curious as to what your opinion is on this maneuver. Personally, I agree with Klazart that Bisu should have respected the block, but I can see both sides.

Also, on second thought, I bet if TL especially or SC2 was searched we would find some at least semi-reputable source. I can't do it at the moment because the school computers have a filter against TL and SC2. So if you have time could you look into that? RegaL the Proofreader (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debivort, thanks for editing my section on Bisu. However, I feel that you may have removed just a little too much, as the current section doesn't really justify the title (there is no or little reference to that fact that the move may be seen as "cheating"). However, I'm leaving the page as-is because of the fact that I'm new to Wikipedia. Just a head's up. RegaL_the_Proofreader —Preceding comment was added at 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debivort!

I just saw this message you left on the Dinosaur image review page. I absolutely love the image, and hope it will be used. Don't give up on us! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeast seems to be going well - must be getting close to nomination..Someone nominated Amanita phalloides for GA which is on hold. With some good articles I've been able to expand it quite a bit. Still need to get some more info on some of the toxins but am keen for more input. All feedback appreciated. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one - great work on the fungal barnstar!cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, and apologies it took so long to come back to you, as I just got blocked for vandalism – by myself! More haste, less speed, but the theory that Wikipedia's finest should be available for all to edit goes a bit astray when there's vandalism at one minute intervals. Anyway, back to normal in the morning. Thanks for your help, .. dave souza, talk 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

Hi Debivort. Thanks for the note. Actually, the whole little blurb on skin colour was just my way of saying it really doesn't matter. But I have known some people (from Africa) who really were such a deep shade of brown they look black - even blue-black in some light. (Really nice guys, too.) So, I'd say "black" is appropriate for some, even if most people are some flavour of "brown" (Caucasian, Oriental, and "Indian", too). At that point, honestly, it's more a matter of shade than colour - which would be preferable to me. (Oh, and it wasn't Geroge Carlin - it was a "brown" American comedian. Part of his routine was that he would always be brown, whereas "white" people could be pink, red (embarrassed, sunburned), brown (tanned), yellow (jaundiced) or gray (dead) - so who are the "coloured people", really?) I just really dislike "politically correct" euphemisms. Poor is not "economically disadvantaged", dammit, it's poor! Taking the edge off the words just serves to hide real problems. Anyway, not to rant on - thanks for the note. Made my day (my "diurnal timeframe" ;) All the best. Esseh 02:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debivort, and you did, just by linking this up. Since you've seen my userpage, you presumably know that I am looking for something. And now that I've checked yours, I know you're biologically-inclined and a photographer. I've been gradually working on totally re-vamping the article on anatomical terms of location (among other things). To complete that, I need a few of good photographs of human beings in standard anatomical position. Ideally, I need one male and one female, anterior and posterior, and one at about a 30^o angle to the camera. High resolution, so I can crop out regions and label them, and against a neutral or contrasting background. The photos must be available for me to modify (I'll label them, and leave blank copies for other language Wikis to use), and, of course, any models must agree to said free distribution licence, although requirement to acknowledge the model would be acceptable, I think, if they so desired.

They must be nude, with no tattoos, piercings other body modifications or scars (so as not to distract), and preferably with normal body hair distribution patterns (i.e. not shaved extensively below the neck - a clean-shaven face is better, though, for showing facial details). They should not be the (not so) standard magazine models that drive people to anorexia, bulemia or steriod use, but "real" people. (No anorexic/clinically obese/breast-implanted/penis-enlarged/body-building types.) And I put "clinically obese" because most people that think they're fat are quite normal. A real big bonus would be having "normal" people of different races! ("Normal's not the right word, and "average" is mildly insulting, but you know what I mean...) Age is not important.

So, there's your challenge du jour. Just so you knw I'm on the level, you can check the articles I've worked on, and my [1] on the Commons to see the pics I've modified. (Same username, in case I snafued the link again.) I have asked individual photographers on the Commons and here, have posted in the "requested photo" section of both, and am finding Wikiprudes everywhere. They're all willing to criticise, but no one is willing to step forward (see the talk page on the article on [Woman] - the best way to stop the bickering is to challenge everyone to do something about it, so I've discovered!)

Anyway, I've blathered on enough. If you can't do this, could you at least point me towards someone who could? Thanks, and all the best. Esseh 03:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (Oh, and [Jean Charest] is my cousin :) Esseh 03:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Debivort, but the information required for the mycomorphbox is not available to me. I'm not terribly familiar with mycology, even though I did an article on it (I do articles on almost anything). However, if the genus, family, or order of the mushroom can clearly indicate what should be in the mycomorphbox, I should be able to do that. I'll be waiting for your reply. Thanks, —ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debivort. Thought you might be interested in this AfD on Ethnostate. Seeing that you liked my take on skin colour, this is relevant, in that it goes beyond that. [Huf, huf]... I need to calm down now. I usually have a broad point of view and am fairly tolerant, but this really has me seeing red (no skin colour alluded to... OK, my twisted sense of humour is back...). Am I over-reacting? I could use some input. Thanks. Esseh 05:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb (we're on a first-name basis now, right? ;) Thanks, will check your post on the ethnostate AfD.

As per your other question, yes, the photo really should be nude, for my purposes. For the woman article, well... that's up for discussion, and I just posted another inflammatory thread there (on the talk page, of course). I personally really see nothing wrong with the human body - male or female - and think for both man and woman the lead photo should be a normal, natural, (and yes, nude) individual to show what that is. If Encyclopedia Britannica (or Americana, or Australiana or any other) think that's too obvious, or too rude - well, maybe that's where Wikipedia should surpass the others. MHO, as always, Esseh 06:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debivort, Good evening. I was just exploring and found a pg contrib by you. I am interested in your bug collection. Exspecially, wanting to know what are the specimen marked C60, and C63? Hope you can elaborate. Thank you so much. 65.80.15.74 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)LoHobbs[reply]

Hi - well, I actually see two named C63, which should be a mistake, but the brown eliptical one is a junebug, and the pointy ended black one is a pine borer. C60 is a lightning beetle. Hope this helps. Debivort 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added notes to the image description page that may interest you.Cuddlyable3 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debivort. Sorry to be bothering you again, but I'm having a bit of trouble with the glans article. Before I break the 3RV rule, I thought someone with a bit of a biological background might take a look at what's going on there. Thanks. Esseh 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

personal attcaks when and what are you taling about what article please offer some clarification on what i said and where and when that would be greatly appriceiated --Rebelscotts3 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

o yes i'm very sorry about all that hope there are no hard feelings won't happen again

I had seen the PG article as well, but the information about Bowie in it leads me to question its reliability as a source (which is also why I removed from Seymour in the same edit). If Mr. Roth just looked online to see who was listed as having the condition, it could cause a real problem. Thoughts? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cally shoots boomer screengrabs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmation has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Dalmation 05:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article gives the orbital components for the three planets (a somewhat less comprehensive and precise set of figures is in our article). I was looking for something kind of like Image:InnerSolarSystem-en.png, showing the relative size and shapes of the different elliptical orbits. Thanks.--Pharos 05:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image edited by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Plegadis falcinellus (aka) background blurred.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! YFB ¿ 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great bit of masking you did there :-) --YFB ¿ 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of Dschwen's female blackbird photo has also been promoted. --YFB ¿ 14:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Telmatosaurus sketch v1.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 08:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Most panorama shots in wiki articles are not (IMHO) worth it - but yours sure is. Great stuff. - DavidWBrooks 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debivort,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 28, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-06-28. howcheng {chat} 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Euro_coin_flaws.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Iamunknown 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I read your comments there. I didn't realize that in cleaning up the picture, I compressed it further. I have now included the original scan with the original spots and blemishes. Please take a look at it. Do you still see as many compression artifacts? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As discussed in the talk page, I would like to copy edit the whole entry, including the definition. The following would be better, as far as I think and would also have a proper citation to it:

GC-content in molecular biology is the percentage of nitrogenous bases on a DNA molecule which are either guanine or cytosine (from a possibility of four different ones, also including adenine and thymine)[2] .

What do you think? Should I just merge the topics or do a proper clean-up with a {{cleanup-copyedit}} tag? ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Debivort, thanks for "tidying up" that discussion thread :-)

Some people take FPC far too seriously! --YFB ¿ 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort and switching the images was a great idea. It does look appropriate there next to the face-biting stuff. I just think captions should be short and basically just refer to the picture. Not necessarily to relate the picture to the text unless there is an obvious direct connection. Others may disagree. (shrug) Sheep81 05:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apologies if my edit comment was too sarcastic. Sheep81 05:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the image in the taxobox, i'll change the writting tonight and remove the sig. thanksSteveoc 86 08:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur - hope you'll tag up all your approved images! I'm looking forward to seeing the gallery chockablock full of hundreds of approved dino images! Debivort 03:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started. There are hundreds of images that need tagging and I will do a bit at a time (Any help with this will be much appreciated ;). Thank you so much for tagging all your images!. There are also images that did not formally go through the review process but that are generally accepted as fine. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no list. That's the problem. A good place to start is to look through the image review archives. For the others, we might need to go through all the dino articles from the List of dinosaurs :P. ArthurWeasley 04:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err...i would suggest to tag only images representing dinosaurs and not the other prehistoric animals otherwise this will become very difficult to manage. Champsosaurus for instance is not a dinosaur. Sorry to be a pain! ArthurWeasley 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to bring this up to the wikiproject talk page. Personally I am a little reluctant to include the non-dinos as is part of the wikiproject dinosaur. ArthurWeasley 05:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 'twas easy in the end....you saw Amanita phalloides is now featured then?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Plateosaurus pic had passed review and been approved in June 2006, but yeah, you are asking an interesting question. Should images that have been approved in the past but appear now inaccurate in the light of new paleontological studies be retained? That's something to be discussed with the WP:dino team. As for the Camptosaurus pic, it's accurate as far as I can tell and it is actually artistically well done. ArthurWeasley 06:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmh, I take it you probably do not like this type of artwork either. Anyway, feel free to submit the Camptosaurus pic for review if you think it does not meet the criteria. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the general features (shape of the head, body, limbs) are well outlined in the Spindler's Camptosaurus pic (you can't really mistake the identity of the animal). I would say this is encyclopedic enough since most of the visible details of an extinct animal are unknown and therefore subject to artistic license. Would it really add something more to the image to show in great details things like the texture or the color of the skin, the shape of the eyes, etc... all those things that we don't know anything about, or are at most scientific guesswork. What would you say about a picture like this one? ArthurWeasley 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point there. I've just asked for a third opinion on this. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 17:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hypacrosaurus-v1.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 08:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not set in stone, but "referred" would usually be if a species or specimen was moved from one taxa to another. So you were right to change that, thanks! Sheep81 07:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Debivort! I saw your beautiful pictur of Amurosaurus, and I wounder if you could share it so that it can be used by other versions of Wikipedia. I would like to add it to the Swedish version if it is ok for you. Thank you very much! --Johan M 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Debivort. I'm quite fond of panoramas and yours is pretty good, but because of haze, it really isn't a great picture of the city, and there are already good overview pictures of the city in the article. However, it gives you a pretty good idea of the Bay north of the city. How about posting in th the SF Bay Area article? Do they have a good panorama like this?--Paul 04:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being a voice of reason on Talk:Atheism.

I've been editing Wikipedia for two years, and I have never felt nearly as frustrated as I have felt in this dispute. I find it quite ironic that some of these supposed freethinkers are more fundamentalist and dogmatic than anyone else I've dealt with here. -- Mwalcoff 23:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Champsosaurus BW.jpg, by ACupOfCoffee (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Champsosaurus BW.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Champsosaurus BW.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Champsosaurus BW.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Dimetrodon BW.jpg, by ACupOfCoffee (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Dimetrodon BW.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Dimetrodon BW.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Dimetrodon BW.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. I don't see any deletion tag on these images neither on the english wiki nor on common. Not sure what's going on...ArthurWeasley 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what happened now and the bot was actually doing its job. You received the notice of speedy deletion on these images because you edited those images' page by adding the "dinosaur approved image" tag on them. That automatically create a file in the english wiki with the same name than the image on Commons. This seems to be against some wiki policies and the file were speedily deleted. That of course arises a concern for us because it appears that we could in principle not tag Commons images with our "approved" tag. Not sure how to go around this. Cheers ArthurWeasley 17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the bot only delivered the message of speedy deletion to you, but the images themselves were tagged for deletion by an user. The problem is that some images like mine are only in commons, others are only on the english wiki and still others (the best case scenario) are on both (like yours, looks likes you have a fan club who is uploading your images on commons ;)). One solution would be to upload images that are in commons on the english wiki to be tagged approved. ArthurWeasley 22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wikiproject fungi barnstar.png. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to sign: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The First Telegraph.jpg. =) Jumping cheese 04:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...the pic can be scrolled, like in Wikipedia:Featured pictures#Artwork. Jumping cheese 04:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be thanking TotoBaggins, who made the image map (I just put it in a template). It's a really great image and really worthy of being a featured picture. I'd love to see some critically endangered species getting some drawings too, before they go the way of the dinosaurs, as, for obvious reasons, their photos can be hard to come by. —Pengo 05:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't seem like there is anything here worth merging which isn't in other articles already" - in which articles? What is your knowledge of the Soviet system? Xx236 11:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education_in_Russia was the article I had in mind. I have no personal expertise, but that is why Wikipedia depends on citations in articles - so that anyone can evaluate the article. Cheers, Debivort 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Hadrosaur-tree-v4.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debivort,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Hadrosaur-tree-v4.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 18, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-10-18. Also, I created {{Hadrosaur tree noframe}} that we'll use for the Main Page when it's time. howcheng {chat} 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debivort,
Sorry, I don't use illustrator much, in Photoshop I use "smooth" which usually works pretty well. --Fir0002 09:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed * Senator Stevens vs. The Ninja - Net Neutrality, a comedy audio mashup from Series of Tubes. You do not have to justify, but it is as relevant as the link above it. And you may disagree. But I am curious. - - - Good call on removing ALL the non-relevant audio.

Thanks- didn't see that. johnpseudo 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think this is a little more clear. Thanks as always, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your Hadrosaur family tree being promoted to Featured status - I've placed it in the Portal:Dinosaurs image cycle so that others can see. Great job! Spawn Man 05:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC). P.S. I love your user page, especially the map! Cheers.[reply]

HI Debi. I was wondring if you think its worth proposing this image for a feature -I'm usually way off so I thought I'd ask first ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 09:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like something from a fairytale but its probably not clear enough right? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 09:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this rule refers to all articles? There are thousands of articles without any citation. Many of them are labelled as such since ages but not removed.
• My article synthetized plenty of articles and contained links to them, where you were able to find sources.
• I personally believe that editing is more constructive than removing.
• You seem to be not aware - there is a group of people who remove informations about drawbacks of Soviet system. Some of them were involved in this removal. They call me anti-Russian. Is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn anti-Russian?Xx236 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to check your articles - Spatiotemporal gene expression, 0 inline quotations, Mount Wilson - 0. Do you agree that I remove them?Xx236 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of some anti-anti-Soviet group? Huh? Anti-Russian? What on earth are you talking about? I don't know who Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is. - no comments.Xx236 07:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debivort,

You recently placed a comment under my discussion section in regards to my updates to the "lingzhi" wiki subject which you deleted. I basically have 2 questions and 1 general commment:

1) Under what authority do you regulate the inputs? Do you work for Wiki?

2) An existing external link also offers products. What are the reasons this link can exist and not mine? I also offer an abundance of additional information on the subject and in fact, I supplied many useful references that are now part of the permanent references section.

So far this seems to be some sort of a preferential treatment. At least, be consistent, take both of us out or leave both of us in.

I await your answer.

Reishi Essence

Hi there. My name is Scott Taylor. I adding to my cast replica site: http://www.TaylorMadeFossils.com and would like to use some of your drawings. please let me know if that is ok. Thanks Scott scottaylor@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottaylor (talk • contribs)

If Birds are included with Dinosaurs on the Dinosaur page, than why does it say "Dinosaurs were"? It would make sense if it said, "Non-Avian Dionsaurs were" or "Dinosaurs are"! Also it would make sense if the fossil rage would say Trassic to the Present, if it included Birds!-westvoja

I have added the biggest, uncompressed version that i have. The remaining "artifaction" is in fact plankton. Around the wreck visibility is quite poor, the current doesn't help. I have also added the original version without the red filter in the hope that someone with a better filter/program can help improve it. Any further comments would be welcome. Thanks Woodym555 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debivort If you continue spamming Wikipedia, as you did to Lingzhi, you will be blocked from editing.

Debivort... Stay in your little world and let an administrator handle the situation on lingzhi ok? I am in contact with one. Don't interfere any further. Your threatening memos make me laugh. Save yourself some time. You are selectively allowing some external promotional site links to appear. One would wonder what interests you have with them.

Hi Debivort I was wondering why you removed Image:Cloudzzzzzz.jpg from the Mammatus Cloud article. I didn't see any notes about fair use and it looked like a good picture. I'm not challenging or anything just curious. Thanks! Zero sharp 07:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I answered my own question. mea culpa Zero sharp 07:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debivort,

The image Cloudzzzzzz.jpg DID show mammatus formations on the top right of the image. I have uploaded a closer photo that I had taken. If you still don't think that they are mammatus, then you need to read up on them. The images certainly show more mammatus then the "stretched out mammatus over tulsa" image....

Chrisg21090

Oops... I meant Milwaukee, not Tulsa. That one definately shows mammatus formations. And thanks for the fast reply! I am happy that the closer, more detailed image was a great use to the encyclopedia.

Hi Debivort, I wanted to discuss your removal of the www.vermontmushrooms.com link from the reishi wiki article because I belive that the link I posted goes along with the aims mentioned in both the Conflict of interest and External links pages of the wikipedia. Specifically, "When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict," however the above link helps "the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia" since despite being hosted by my site the information contained on that portion of my site is completely controlled by the people maintaining the HerbMed database. They charge a membership fee for people to access this database to help cover their costs, but since I believe it is important to get more unbiased information about medicinal mushrooms out there my company pays for them to provide free public access to specific medicinal mushroom records off of our site but we do not control the content at all in an effort to clearly differentiate our own interests from the interests of unbiased research and information. With that said since I added my link (a long time ago) now the linking policy has added "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." Which I can totally respect since there is a lot of pretty biased information out there and a lot of people just trying to grab links.

So my reason for including the vermontmushrooms.com link was because I think it should be included based as a site "that contain(s) neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Please take a look at it and discuss this with other wiki members and myself.

Thank you, David Demarest (reishidave)

Chrisg21090

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Polyphemus moth (debivort).jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Richard001 08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debivort,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Plegadis falcinellus (aka) background blurred.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 2, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-09-02. howcheng {chat} 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debivort

Thanks for continuing deleting the addition, 'However, Guang Wu does show how to deliberately make the correlation coefficient be larger than unity.' However, this remark is fully referenced in international peer-reviewed journal, which as all international peer-reviewed journals, has strong and strict reviewing process.

I really wonder why you do not read the reference before deleting, and the paper can be obtained by emailing postmaster@dreamscitech.com, as you know that the paper is copyrighted, whose contents cannot be put here.

Regards

Hongguanglishibahao

Re: the edit summary. No worries. But that article really needs some help, since Wikipedia is not really the place for information like that. Katr67 00:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has offered a source on David Bowie on the talk page, and I wondered whether you'd be willing to have a look at it and see what you think. You're familiar with the list, you seem to have pretty good horse sense, and I don't want to rule on it by fiat. Thanks, -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any edits on Wikipedia. I suggest you check your facts before I report you to the FCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.111.100 (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for commenting on my recent FPC image. I have completely fixed the tilt that you and other users talked about, with edit2. link to the discussion. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely sorry. I didn't make that edit intentionally. That day I was inverting vandal edits using TW script and made few mistakes while using the script. I hope it won't be repeated again. Kind regards, Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) . Regards, Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Debivort;

I was wondering if you add a 15 m lambeosaur to the scale diagram, perhaps with a scale bar or graph as well. Thanks! J. Spencer 13:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...someone would find a friggin' source for Mila Kunis already. Keerist. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and to top it off the connection was insanely slow...but seriously, fantastic work :( cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Debivort, I added 2 images of mammatus clouds I took tonight in San Francisco. In my opinion they are interesting, because San Francisco is very unusual place to see these clouds. If you believe the images should not have been added to the article, please let me know and I'll remove them. I've also noticed in Mammatus clouds gallery. In my opinion this image has nothing to do with mammatus clouds and should be removed from the gallery. I'd like to know what do you think about this? Thank you.--Mbz1 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for the response. I'm not sure how mammatus clouds form in San Francisco. They are extremely rare here. I saw them very few times and none was associated with any thunder storm activity (we have a thunder storm in SF once per year and not every year). Yesterday I saw the patches of Mammatus and drove to the Bay. They were moving with other clouds sometimes getting dissolved in them and then coming back. The clouds were moving rather fast, but there was not much wind on the ground. It was relatively cold in San Francisco. I'd rather you remove the contrail image yourself. Why am I blanking my talk page? It is a very, very long and very boring story. I'll try to avoid blanking my talk page in a feature. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the steller's sea eagle as the third largest eagle in the world having an avearage weight of 6.8 kg or 15 lb is incorrect or totally different to the next paragraph to the description of the bird. which are as follows;

"The typical size range is 86.5-105 cm (34-41 inches) long and the wingspan is 203-241 cm (6.8-8 feet). On average, females weigh from 6.8 to 9 kg (15 to 20 lb), while males are considerably lighter with a weight range from 4.9 to 6 kg (10.8 to 13.2 lb)."

It should be the HEAVIEST and not the other wa y around. PLEASE check carefully! It's very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informaticz (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Debivort . I added to sea urchin article. I believe you have removed it in the past, but it is the only image at Wikipedia, which shows sea urchin anus. I've changed the description of the image and explained what the ball is.I remember, how long it took to find out what that ball was for me. That's why in my opinion the image adds value to the article and is very much encyclopedic. If you believe otherwise, please, remove it once again and I will never put it back in again.Thank you.--Mbz1 22:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hello, de Bivort. Thank you for the response. Once my husband and me snorkeled at Madagascar. There were many of everything and most of all sea urchins. My husband and me got separated and when we met again, he told me: "Sea urchins looked at me and shot me with their needles." I explained to him that sea urchins have no eyes. "Then what are those spheres?" - my husband asked. I did not know. When we got home, I tried to find the answer at the NET with no success. Then I posted one of the pictures on diving photo forum and somebody explained to me what it was. After this I saw and photographed many different kind of sea urchins with anus seen. Thank you.--Mbz1 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your mycomorphbox thingie is very cool. We need a purple-brown and purple-black as spore print colors. If you do this, then somebody could update psilocybe azurescens to have purple-black sprore print. cheers, erasurehead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.164.48 (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, de Bivort,
I've changed the caption in Surfer. Do you believe it is satisfactory now? Thank you.--Mbz1 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm here because your name was on the template page, and I don't know how to alter a template or where the template talk page is. I tried to edit Laetiporus to change the edibility parameter in the mycomorphbox, but when I made it "caution", the box displayed "not recommended". I expected it to say something less negative, like maybe "caution"? It turns out that this mushroom can make you pretty sick, and the article says so, but the box says "edible" with a smiley face. A person who didn't read English so good might see the smiley face and chow down. It seems to me an additional category is needed so we can display something between "edible" and "not recommended", maybe "caution". I don't want it to read "not recommended"; so many people apparently eat it, and the article says so, that there would be a sort of credibility conflict. "Caution" would give them pause without sending them packing. "Edible" is a dangerous half-truth.
While I'm here, I should mention that the {{mycomorphbox-missing}} box at the bottom of the template page has a misspelling in it: "Mycomophbox". --Milkbreath 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put this comment on the template talk page and fixed the misspelling in "mycomorphbox-missing", so, never mind. --Milkbreath 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across image and it seemed pretty good to me, but seeing as I am an IP I can't submit it either to FPC or Peer Review, and since I found you to be a pretty sensible user from what I've seen in the FPC (and seeing as I don't know anyone here.) so I decided to ask for your opinion, and if you agree with me to submit the picture to the above mentioned projects. Thanks. --84.90.46.116 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Right now, I'm trying to learn about the basics of wikipedia and get accustomed to the community here before I decide to make an account, I'll probably be comfortable enough with the mechanics and rules in week or so and then make an account - and the only problem with the anon submission is that I can't create subpages for the submission ;). Also, thanks for pointing out that it had been nominated before, and tell me how I could know - I had no idea it was even possible. xD --84.90.46.116 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a plea for you to support the nomination of my photo as a featured picture at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portrait of a Turkish Woman! If you could I would be very grateful, Kitkatcrazy 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From this point on, 84.90.46.116 will be known as the Mad Tinman XD. If you're still interested in the adoptee program thing I'd be quite honoured to be your first adoptee XD. Cheers. --Mad Tinman 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, thanks for the boilerplate-yet-warm welcome XD. --Mad Tinman 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, and thanks XD. I'll be sure to have plenty of questions for you when exploring the wiki :) Cheers.--Mad Tinman 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check out Sónia Araújo and tell me what you think? I went and rewrote what was already there, added an infobox and researched and wrote a whole new section. Cheers. --Mad Tinman 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did guess correctly, I'm a native portuguese speaker ;) I have a pretty good grasp on english, but my practice with it is relatively limited - guess being around wikipedia for a while will help XD. I'll go work on those minor issues you stated, and let you know when I'm done. Cheers. Mad Tinman 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone and done the changes, I re-wrote that final sentence and integrated it into what it seemed to be a more adequate location mid-text (also dealt with the others). Cheers. Mad Tinman 21:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you direct me to the template for articles needing sources cited? I found a very poorly referenced article, but don't know the template ... Cheers. --Mad Tinman 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Used it for Mariza, a portuguese Fadist - article was pretty well written, but lacked an infobox and proper sourcing, it also had a bunch of peacock terms which I removed - if you could swing by and compare the latest version with the previous one and give me an opinion, I'd be much appreciated (no rush though). Cheers. --Mad Tinman 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and done those changes, and that infobox looks alot better. I also didn't know there were guidelines for the external links, thanks for pointing that out XD. Cheers. --Mad Tinman 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a lot of content and sourcing to the Praxe article, and if you could give me your opinion of it it'd be great. No rush though, it's probably my biggest edit so far. I'm going to work on getting some free license images of the praxe events, but it's difficult as photos are forbidden by praxe regulations. Cheers. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (PS: Customized my signature XD)[reply]

I must admit, not even to me those make sense! I'll go fix them right away - also, thanks for the correcting those typos and errors - much appreciated. I'll get back to you once I've fixed those more problematic bits. Cheers. Mad Tinman _{T C} 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone and rewrote those broken paragraphs - didn't solve any of the minor edits though (Will do it at a later point, or someone else will, who knows, hehe). Tell me what you think. Cheers. Mad Tinman _{T C} 21:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Weil's speculation about lunar energy can be found in chapters 7-9 of his Marriage of Sun and Moon: Dispatches from the Frontiers of Consciousness. (1980) (2004 rev.). While the actual quote(s) are from ch. 8. I'm adding the book to the ref. section now. Hope that addresses your concern, if not, or for anything else, just let me know. :) Azi Like a Fox 19:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good call on the move, debated putting it in that section myself. Later. Azi Like a Fox 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that people are fixing all the categories for the mushroom articles. I have been changing Category:basidiomyces to Category:Agaricus for example, should I instead be adding the second category and leaving in the Category:basidiomyces? I thought that since Agaricus is in the category basidiomyces, that it didn't need the seperate Category:basidiomyces.

Thanks

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move this conversation to WP:FUNGI since I have no idea! de Bivort 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Debivort, After your vote we've got 2 more versions. Could you please specify what version of this nomination you've weak supported. Thank you.--Mbz1 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for quickly noticing and reverting the vandalism of my user page. Hgilbert 18:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you're an admin and you can rollback the frugeble links spammed across a variety of pages? WLU 23:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in John Draper. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion of this story all about how my life got flipped, turned upside down. Now I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there, I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air.

In West Philadelphia born and raised, on the playground is where I spent most of my days. Chillin' out, maxin', relaxin' all cool, shootin' some B-Ball outside the school. When a couple of guys, who were up to no good, started makin' trouble in my neighborhood. I got in one lil' fight and my mom got scared, she said "you're movin' with your auntie and your uncle in Bel Air".

I whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said "fresh" and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I can say this cab was rare, but I thought "now forget it. Yo homes, to Bel Air!"

I pulled up at the house about seven eight, and I yelled to the cabbie "yo homes, smell you later". I looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, to sit on my throne, as the prince of Bel Air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.158.78 (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Frugetable, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frugetable. Thank you. WLU 14:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-drew the captions on the tugboat diagram here. Do they render correctly for you now? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regrouped the titles and raised them to the top layer, I hope this works. The edit is Image:Tugboat diagram-en edit3.svg. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks for your vote at FPC. I just wanted to inform you that two users have uploaded edited versions of the image. Would you please see them and perhaps reconsider your vote? Regards, Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debivort,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Mulberry Street NYC c1900 LOC 3g04637u edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 19, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-12-19. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Debivort, could you say why you think that this picture is of a Marasmius? Do you know a particular Marasmius species which looks similar? Regards, Strobilomyces (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Vatnsskarð_pass_to_Varmahlið.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. de Bivort 05:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...want me to ask with that? —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for a while now, i haven't been dedicating myself to wiki due to personal issues that consume large amounts of my time. just figured i owed you the explanation ;). Cheers. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks XD I'm still dealing with em, but yeah, things will be fine ;) merry Christmas and a happy new year! --Mad Tinman _{T C} 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a possibility that can be made larger? If so, would you be willing to help out with it. Its a nice pic. Redmarkviolinist ^(talk) 05:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the original picture. Redmarkviolinist ^(talk) 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the original (the only thing I have changed is lighting, sharpen, etc.). If there is no hope of bypassing this rule, how would I go about expanding it? Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I tried to translate this template (mycomorphbox) into Bavarian, but I'm not an Expert in creating templates ;-( So I dont want to explore the wheel as new and I need help to make your template, maybe, "international". I had the idea, to genereate variables which transform the national wording into the English. Is this possible? Example: hymeniumType is an Expression used in English, we call it something like "Fruchtköapa". I want to translate this inside of the template, take the Bavarian Expression from the Article. Do yout think this is possible? it would be great to do this, cause everybody can use this template in every language and its much more easier to control the updates. can you help me? thx 84.151.75.165 (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Series of tubes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Marmot-edit1-cool.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 [[Talk:Image:Marmot-edit1-cool.jpg|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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pumpmeup 01:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop messing with the sections at Talk:Gliese 581 c. de Bivort 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insane? I was obvious what was being done. You even deleted the complete explination of what was going on and the consenus to get away with what you did. There was nothing deleted. There is a horrible amound of redundant talk distributed all over. This was only a sort. I will spend another full day if I have to to restructure the 58+ plus entries into something more coherent and less contractictory and redundant. Nothing has been or will be deleted, I was in the middle of this and it took me all day and I was almost done. You have no idea. I swear. - 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have a cool idea for an award and I need to make use of your graphic abilities. I need some form of flaming wiki-thingy. Either something like the on a black background and all flame coloured with flames coming out the back or some other WP symbol with the same. My draft page has the beginnings of it...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my cunning award plan.. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pressie is a present, like breakfast is brekkie and mosquitoes are mozzies and the TV is a telly etc. PS: Award looks terrific -thanks! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Coors mountain.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. Mmmk? Bah. Don't make the troll gates open. Just quietly revert the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.160.167 (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, fellow Wikipedian. As the heading above suggests, I am here because of your recent move of a cleanup template I have added to the article of Benjamin Franklin. Although I do admit that they are often not useful to a casual reader of Wikipedia, article message boxes do have a raison d'être: to notify editors of an article's deficiencies, so that these can be quickly identified and rectified. These templates have been specially designed for the mainspace, and not for talk pages—something that can also be inferred by the boxes' style, as talk page templates have a uniform colour, usually a certain hue of cream or ochre (I am unfamiliar with the nomenclature).

I hope that you agree with me on the fact that the article's intro is too long, and that this situation must change, as long intros are unhelpful to the readers. I added the cleanup template because this is what is supposed to be done: when one cannot fix something, they ought to bring it to other people's attention. Talk pages are not regularly accessed by by-passing editors, and one should not forget about anonymous users as well. The faster the problem is fixed, the sooner the reason for the template's inclusion will be gone. As these templates do have their disadvantages, I have decided that, from now on, I shall try to contact the relevant WikiProjects and give them some time to correct the problems in question before I add the tags. However, this does not mean that tagging is something to be avoided; after all, everybody knows that Wikipedia is a project under construction, and that this is an integral part of the project's character. I hope that you understand this.

I shall remove the template from the talk page and give you one week to do whatever you see fit to improve the article's introduction. If the lead is still in an unacceptable state on Thursday next, I will re-add the tag, on the basis of the arguments stated above. I know that this looks like a deadline, but I firmly believe in the soundness of my position. And this shall be my policy from now on.

I hope that we can come to a agreement on this otherwise trivial matter. Happy New Year, by the way. Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[moved here from User talk:The Duke of Waltham]

Hello - I think you'd better go ahead and re-add the tag to the main article now, as you said you would in a week. I doubt that without a tag anywhere the intro will be shortened. That said ... why do you think the tag can only work in mainspace? Doesn't it accomplish its goal of harassing editors of the article in talk:space? Cheers, de Bivort 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the conversation here, so that it will be whole and intelligible. The truth is, articles are visited thousands of times more often than talk pages. Whereas all sorts of readers and editors will view an article, irrespective of the degree of their involvement in the project, and while an entire network of links, categories, lists, templates, succession boxes, and even the Random Page tool can all lead any casual reader to an article (especially one about a person of so high a historic significance), talk pages are linked to from virtually nowhere, with the exception of some maintenance categories and the involved editors' "What links here" lists, which are obviously not in the mainspace (with the exception of links in article message boxes, imagine that!). Editors visit talk pages solely in order to acquire information pertaining to the editing side of their corresponding mainspace articles, be that discussions about significant edits or the list of the article's milestones. Many readers even ignore talk pages, and are right to do so too. One will probably go to a talk page only if one intends to edit that article, or otherwise utilise the information found therein in the editing process. Therefore, it makes sense to put a template where it will be viewed by all people seeing the article—including those intending to go to the talk page anyway, as relatively few people go directly to talk pages. And, as a final note, if an article does not have enough contributors to make sure that it is in good shape, its talk page is most probably similarly deserted.

I know that I did not need to analyse my point so thoroughly, but... Well, this is just me. All questions answered, I trust? I shall re-introduce the template at once. Thank you for your cooperation. Waltham, The Duke of 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Telluride wilson logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's thrown up a Featured Article Candidate yet for the last award but I had another idea for wiki-immortality. An award for getting a Vital Article/Core Article up to FA standard - the graphic could be some trippy design incorporating, say, a heart and that wiki-jigsaw piece or something, red and maybe with blood vessels on it, though maybe that's too ghoulish. Folks liked the other design BTW. Lemme know what you think. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)