User talk:Kazvorpal

Previous talk has been archived at User_talk:Kazvorpal/2006-03-14 -- all history, including the part I pasted in here for continuity, is also included there.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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:

• 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. 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Makes sense. --Kaz (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Noticed a picture of what I assume is you at Wayne Bell. If so, would you like to help me improve the article (and probably WWIV article)? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Looking up David Letterman, and of course typing in david letterman, I noticed one of my pet peeves: an unnecessary redirect at David letterman. The thing is that MediaWiki automatically redirects between titles with homogenous initial capitalisation and thus those redirects are not needed. Since you established that redirect in 2005, I did a quick check to see whether or not you are still an active Wikipedian, and immediately stumbled upon another such redirect you recently created at Chaste tree (to be sure: the redirect at Chaste Tree to Vitex agnus-castus is valid and indeed necessary). I guess that many are not aware of how the MW search engine works and so there are probably a million such unnecessary redirects, and it's certainly no biggie but I decided to drop you a few lines to let you know. user:Everyme 08:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm afraid I had to remove this statement since it wasn't supported by the source, an article on extending the limits of light microscopy that did not discuss the size limit of life at all. As a comment on the idea, it might be true but I'd be doubtful since electron microscopes have been around for a long time and these can easily resolve such small structures. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the actual text, Tim? The electron microscope is useless for confirming the activity of life, because the conditions required to use one kill whatever you're examining. Electron microscopes can't be used to observe things real-time, but only to take still pictures of dead stuff. You can't watch a bacterium or nanobe grow and live, you can only coat one in gold and examine its corpse. --Kaz (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text in File:Open.primaries.gif is inaccurate. South Carolina does not register voters by party, so there is no such thing as a registered Republican. Carolina wren (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Changing-man.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 22:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Changing-man.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. — neuro^(talk) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ananym, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananym. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of censoring the page. Your sources for your edit are:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evony&action=edit#cite_note-guardian150709-5 which is a link to editing the wikipedia page for Evony.
• http://www.mechscapeworld.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11014 and http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3301096/Evony-Copying-RuneScape.html which are forum posts.
• http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en___US360&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=evony+%22not+really+free%22 which is a Google search.
• http://www.gossipgamers.com/evony-hands-on-review-formerly-civony/ which appears to be a gaming site. This one appears to be closest to an RS, but I've never seen it before, so I'm a little wary.
• http://www.nerdnology.com/post/2009/10/12/Why-Im-leaving-Evony.aspx which is a blog.
• http://bbs.evony.com/showpost.php?p=766049&postcount=8 which is a forum post.

None of those are reliable sources AFAIK, and so cannot be used to support the information you insist on including in the article. See WP:RS.

You stated in your edit summary Real editors FIX things, instead of just censoring them whole cloth.

Presumably you are a 'real' editor and I am not. I don't particularly care about what ideas you have about what 'real' editors do, but I suggest a real editor would find reliable sources, instead of using a handful of unreliable sources to support a hatchet job. Also, you're supposed to comment on content, not the contributor. See WP:NPA.

You also said That's probably why you are on probation for engaging in petty edit wars.

Well, again, comment on content, not the contributor, and quite frankly I have no idea what this means, Wikipedia has no probation system AFAIK. Geoff B (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were a real editor, you'd know that the source rules are not absolutes that must be adhered to on every page, but are generally only brought up for highly questionable claims, or unusually volatile topics, or when someone is wanting to lawyer the page to censor data.

Since these claims are fairly mainstream and the topic is simply some little web game, that leaves either you wanting to hide information, or you being such a lame amature that you don't actually understand how to apply the rules.

• If someone's source for a reasonably common cookie description links to a blog recipe, you don't delete the entry, because it's no big deal.
• If it's an especially noteworthy cookie, you might put a tag suggesting a better source.
• If someone is posting a claim that Obama used to get bad grades in high school, then you might put up a cite demand and watch to ensure that it's fixed or removed in a timely fashion. It's an important page, but not a terribly important claim.
• If someone claims that George Bush was once in the Klan, you would certainly remove it until a valid source is cited. It's an important page, AND a very significant claim.
• Then again, if you don't like the fact that your favorite politician was once charged with corruption, you might bring up every single technical objection to any mention of it in the article, always DELETING the text instead of fixing or tagging it...that's called lawyering, and it's the real reason half the rules exist. To censor.
  
  As far as I can tell, YOU are simply some lamer who is confusing that hierarchy of criteria with real editing. Either that, or you're shilling for Evony.

You are being a perfect example of really BAD editing...you are claiming a PARTIAL objection to a large block of text, and then removing the thing whole cloth. No ^{[citation needed]} tags, no removing ONLY the parts with tertiary sources, no actually taking ten seconds to FIX your objection yourself...just removing ALL of it. The Guardian isn't a valid source? Links directly to the information presented, as with the bullet list isn't a valid source? Nonsense. It's as if you deleted "the website's primary color is green" with a link to the website (which turns out to be green), claiming lack of a secondary source.

If you have a problem with an article, FIX it, or TAG it, unless it's a very important claim AND article. Don't turn into some anal-retentive git who lawyers even minor fluffy-bunny pages. And, if ever at all, ONLY remove EXACTLY what is supposedly violating a guideline, not the ENTIRE section that happens to contain it.

These are wiki editing basics that you need to learn ASAP. --Kaz (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you got an 3R Edit War tag stuck on your user page. THAT is the probation I'm talking about. You run around reverting stuff blindly, some lame, overenthusiastic wannabe, and end up in danger of having your edit privileges suspended. Again, you desperately need to learn how to be a REAL editor. --Kaz (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links to your 'sources' are there. None of them are reliable, so the info cannot be included. I knew you'd bring up the possibility of shilling for Evony (so much for WP:AGF eh) but unfortunately my removal of pro-Evony comments shits all over your insult. Find some reliable sources and then it can go in. Ad hominem won't save you. You also need to read WP:NPA I think. Judging by your actions, 'real' editors rely on unreliable sources and repeated personal attacks. I don't think I want to be a 'real' editor in that case.

As for that 3RR tag on my user page I put it there. LOL! Geoff B (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Matthew Hoh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to have lasting encyclopedic value. Is he notable?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bevinbell 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Matthew Hoh, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Hoh. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bevinbell 02:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Microhyla-nepenthicola.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Melamine.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microhyla nepenthicola, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide us with a reliable source when adding new content to the Conspiracy theory article (or any Wikipedia article) otherwise it will be treated as original research and deleted. --Loremaster (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I took a long, hard look through Google and I could not find any books or scholarly sources which connect conspiracy theory directly with pareidolia, explaining the connection. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Catalan or Spanish when we use the word "optimismo" we, 99% of times, are using it in the mood related sense. According to the correction you have just made in Leibniz article, I could thing that in English it is just the reverse. Nevertheless, maybe I should not take "classic" in the sense of usual or common? --Auró (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, in English, something is "classic" when it's used in the older sense. The term was first used to mean "most efficient" first. --Kaz (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information.--Auró (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating that article. It's been on my to-do list for months. I've got a bunch of thoughts about it but I don't want to go too far before you've commented.   Will Beback  talk  08:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Curator Barnstar
		It's good to see someone with a solid grounding in economic history contributing to our economics pages. Thanks! --LK (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert restriction. For more information, see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies. You have made two reverts. I recommend that you undo your second revert. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANEW#User:Kazvorpal reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kazvorpal. I noticed that you recently added a subsection about Night on Bald Mountain to the Modest Mussorgsky article. I would recommend that you reorganize that info into paragraph form, rather than list form. Lists seem to encourage editors to keep adding and adding to it, turning the section into a trivia section which are discourged by wikipedia. Paragraph form would simply outline your point that the Night on Bald Mountain is used widely throughout the media and in pop culture, avoiding the confusion and race to add any and all mentions of the piece in the media and every commercial someone might see on TV. Regards, and keep up the good work. (: --BoguSlav 05:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Kazvorpal! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 300 Workout. Since you had some involvement with the 300 Workout redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You commented in February at Talk:Choreia (disease) that the article name was incorrect. I agree and, after some debate, a move discussion is in progress. Please add your voice if you support it. Best wishes Dubbin^u | t 17:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize completely, believe me. I find myself lost whenever HotCat goes down (thankfully not often). Happy to be of help! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see issues about this DYK nomination.PumpkinSky talk 13:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Moultrie Flag at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

A tag has been placed on James P. Powell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SQGibbon (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Freedom-watch-protest.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Paleontology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Earlygirl.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hv bn noticed @ Yahoo News: LINK (in a bar graph showing the monikers of the users with the most edits during the U.S. Pres. Primaries so far to the Wiki blp pertaining to a Republican party candidate).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Audu Paden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable producer. Passing mentions only in news sources, only substantial coverage is on non-RS social networks. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Tea Party politicians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party politicians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – hysteria18 (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yellow.woolly.bear.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi there .. was "Paranormal paranoia" a typo? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apophenia&diff=next&oldid=423717837 I don't see what the section has to do with paranoia, and was just going to change it to "phenomena", but then thought i'd ask .. cheers, Doceddi (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kaz-yahoo-news.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Tea Party politicians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party politicians (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Tabasco.75x.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dorian Electra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent, reliable references outside of one Gawker article. Plenty of blogs and YouTube videos to be found.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Richard-timberlake.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I edit a lot of TV show articles and in just about every case where a show is cancelled any number of groups form (Facebook, various petition sites, fansites, etc.) to protest the cancellation and try to get their beloved show back on the air. Some of these efforts get thousands of supporters. We do not report all of these on Wikipedia unless there is something significant about that action. In order to establish significance we need secondary, objective, reliable sources to report on the effort or else it just does not belong. See the Jericho article for an example of a significant fan response reported on by reliable sources. Unless you come up with similar sources this section just does not belong in the article at all. It basically comes across as original research -- you think it's important enough to be in the article but, as you know, that's not good enough for Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started up a discussion on the talk page, hope to see you there. SQGibbon (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plugrá is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plugrá until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slick Willy. Since you had some involvement with the Slick Willy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Nice edits. I recognize you as a respected user. 1234567890Number (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Denationalization of Money is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Denationalization of Money until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kazvorpal. Thanks for your contribution to Coral. However, you have added an entire section to a GA-level article without providing a single citation. Can you please provide some reliable sources so the article can retain its GA status. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I commend you for leaving me a message. There are too many bad editors out there who, if they aren't going to take the time to add the sources, will just delete the information for being unsourced, even when it's obviously true. — Kaz (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind if I nominated Catalaphyllia for DYK (or were you planning to do it)? Thanks, Matty.007 17:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd love it if you nominated the page, and that's probably better than doing it for myself. — Kaz (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is at Template:Did you know nominations/Catalaphyllia. I had to remove a section I couldn't find a source for, but feel free to restore it if there is a source I missed for it. Thanks, Matty.007 11:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catalaphyllia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Catalaphyllia jardinei, known commonly as elegance coral, can reproduce either sexually or asexually? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Catalaphyllia. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Copper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much – we need someone to show that people are willing to bring others' GAs to FAs! (May not be a problem elsewhere, but it's a really serious one in WP:ELEM...) If you want, I can try poking my head into it... Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Alton-map.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Brandywine.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Citron.melon.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Common-nuts.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Most royal candidate theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most royal candidate theory (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Marcus Mastin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Inadequately referenced article for author whose works don't appear to be significant. He appears to be non-notable and the article appears promotional.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Respiration organ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Should be redirected to the far better article at respiratory system

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tdslk (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You set up Prelude to Axanar as a redirect to the article Star Trek: Axanar now at AFD. As the latter film has not yet begun filming, and even with its press pushing at WP:GNG, guideline WP:NFF suggests that we not have an article on it until actual filming can be verified. However, my own research shows the short prequel film does meet WP:NF through release and coiverage, so I just completed THIS. I invite you to look as I wish to overwrite your redirect with this new article. And too, the article on the released prequel will give us an acceptable target for the film article currently at AFD. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another article of yours has drawn a fair amount of attention. Maybe not the best kind, but the authors have read in your article a kind of distillation of the spirit of St. Louis. Fishal (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a friend of mine pointed that out to me. It's a website that's known for its petty toxicity, so I'm proud that they hate the article. I'd be worried if they praised it. Their approbriation is almost purely of the childish, superficial, anti-intellectual nature, more seeking something to attack than of any critical value or noteworthiness...so it's little more than a casual chuckle.

— Kaz (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kazvorpal, how about adding kalpak and bashlyk to List of hat styles. ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I get a chance, I will, but you're also welcome to add them before I get around to it. Lists are for everyone to edit, just like any other article. Remember, the single most important guideline for a wikipedian is be bold.

—Kaz (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BeenAroundAWhile. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Winifred Bonfils, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing Wikipedia for over a decade, and one thing we understood back then is that you don't have to source non-controversial information. The idea that every single clause not footnoted should be removed comes from dishonest people wanting to censor true information by wikilawyering it away. Removing non-controversial information entirely, rather than putting a "citation needed" flag on it or fixing it, is the sign of a bad editor. — Kaz (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide source for your recent claims on the article about Hayek? --AnulBanul (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, and thanks for being a good enough editor to ask. Too many just delete material instead of adding a ^{[citation needed]}, adding the reference for themselves, or at least asking. It comes from the ugly tendency of a few editors to use wikelawyering as an excuse to censor information they don't like, but it's spread to infect too many common or rules-obsessed editors. — Kaz (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:No original research. Your recent additions to Salt and History of salt had serious problems and have been (in part) removed. Please always base your edits on WP:reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazorpal: there is no botanical reference or scientific citation for Rubus leucodermis as the "blue raspberry". This is likely a marketing term represented in the references you chose as spam and WP:NOR. The content you have tried to add is also original and not supportable by a reputable WP:SECONDARY source. Lastly, please do not edit war; your reverts today on Raspberry put you into WP:3RR from which you may be blocked from further editing. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]