User talk:Mrzaius/archive3

Just a heads up - If you leave a message, I respond here about as oft as not. I'm not quite so busy here anymore, but I'll get back soon enough


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #70

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you Mrzaius for welcoming me when I was editing using an IP address. I am now a registered user and addicted to Wikipedia. Southern Illinois SKYWARN 02:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice (economics)

On your very helpful Justice (economics) Edits & both sets of Talk p. comments, my thanks. This is the way Wiki is supposed to work. --Thomasmeeks 13:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid trivia is the guideline I am proposing.

It's still at Avoid Trivia in the LEAD - "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. In order to keep Wikipedia articles encyclopedic, unimportant information may be excluded from articles. Large sections of minute details only indirectly related to an article's topic should be avoided." That said, WP:NOT doesn't have to summarize each and every policy. MrZaius^talk 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Wikipedia:Avoid trivia is the guideline I am proposing. It is less than one hour old. / edg ☺ ★ 14:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on pump - Misread your comment and thought you were talking about Wikipedia:Trivia sections initially. MrZaius^talk 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutants and Masterminds AfD

While I agree that this particular AfD might be considered understandable, the nominator certainly does have a history of nominating clearly notable gaming articles for deletion:

And of course, the one that started it all:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set

Maybe people, including myself, have implied bad faith too quickly in this particular instance, but the prior history has given me reason to believe that the nominator would like to see gaming articles off of Wikipedia, notable or not. -Chunky Rice 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolcat

What??? Noe moar! - CobaltBlueTony 17:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also this. - CobaltBlueTony 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~You inserted it over another site and falsely attributed it to the other's source. Of course it was removed. MrZaius^talk 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I was following your revert over an anon's. - CobaltBlueTony 17:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I just realized I was in error in my own reverts. Anon was on the ball, and I let a bit of anti-vandal bias mar my judgement. Apology posted to Talk:Lolcat below the Scandinavian's commentMrZaius^talk 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the anon comments - didn't realize I had been logged out. Thank you for the note, and your patience! Desertdwell 04:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petro war

Thats fair. It is one of those subjects that is fairly interesting but most info on it is rather fringe... I totally agree that the source was iffy. I will see if I am lucky and run into something one of these days. The best would be official data from the Iraqui government but given the situation there I doubt it will be easy to find. Since the statement was not tagged for a long time perhaps we could leave it in, tagged, for a few days and then remove it? Up to you; it may be that some reader who speaks another language has some readily available source on it. Feel free to move this to the article's talk page. Take care, Brusegadi 02:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Answers article edits reverted. How to proceed?

Thanks for your help editing the "Yahoo Answers" article to address NPOV and WP:OR. I tend to agree with the edits you made, but it appears others in the community did not as most of them have been reverted. As someone whose somewhat new to this process do you have any suggestions on the best way to resolve this apparent conflict? Malpern 10:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkably, it got worse after that edit. One userwent so far as to use it to promote a .torrent of independent criticism. The section needs a rewrite from scratch. MrZaius^talk 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre De Geyter

I changed the lead again, since he DID compose other tunes (among them, practically all those in the Pottier poem bundle) but of course, the Internationale is the best known. Have a look whether you agree.

The picture is a problem. The reason is that Belgium (just like France, so getting something from Lille as I could easily do on my own, does not help) has a very restrictive law on panorama and copy right. The photograph fails two conditions: 1) it is not in the open air, people have to pay to enter the museum 2) quite simply, you cannot use anything obtained by panorama pictures (if this were one - again I could very easily get a picture which shows much more of the museum and much less of the statue) as the subject of a "public showing" (which Wikipedia is) if it is copyrighted. And this statue is unquestionably copyrighted: Tom Frantzen, its creator, is not even dead yet (he was born in 1954).

Note that Dutch Wikipedia is rather lenient on copyright issues, because there is freedom of panorama in the Netherlands - though as I wrote, even if the museum were in the Netherlands, by count 1 this picture does not qualify as panorama. On English wiki, we have the possiblity to introduce a fair use rationale. Unfortunately, this is not the best picture I would put in the article for PDG. Have a look here: [1]. I think this picture was taken close to his death. There is therefore a good chance that the photographer who made it, has not been dead for 70 years. And the photographer may have had kids still alive, so that it is really 78 years and six months (extension for the second world war in French copyright law). However, as a fair use photograph, it looks much better than a statue made by someone who is still alive. The book by Van der Merwe has a Soviet artist's impression of a De Geyter portrait for a Russian edition of his compositions - and a German Democratic Republic postage stamp with De Geyter (looks like the internet photo, cap and all). I could scan one of these, but it would have to fall under fair use anyway. Even if I could find out when the Soviet thing was published (basically, if it was published before 1945, it is probably PD), the copyright of Van der Merwe is still to be considered. Thanks for your attention, --Paul Pieniezny 10:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the substantive points, that's fine - I just wanted to ensure that the Lead accurately reflected the rest of article. On the image, all that we can really go off of is the Wikimedia Commons page's copyright assertion. If you contest its assertion that the image can be freely licensed under the GFDL, please do so there for clarity and openness's sake. Thanks, MrZaius^talk 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: At the dawn of time

I have absolutely no idea. I'm sorry. It's been too long for me to remember. :) Inter\^Echo 09:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moving scam

why you keep deleting my adds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene.n.cave (talk • contribs) 15:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Moving Scam, but the core problems were that they were badly in violation of our WP:NPOV guidelines, completely unsourced, and written in a rambling, incoherent manner that detracted from the encyclopedic tone expected from articles here. MrZaius^talk 17:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Pierre De Geyter

Well you can take it out of the wikipedia since i am not interested in copyright. it is to complex for me. By the way i really don't mind you writing in english since i appreciate the language.--Joostvandeputte 29 okt 2007 20:44 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joostvandeputte (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was more interested in a second opinion on the Belgian copyright regime - It's an excellent photo, and would be wonderful to be able to keep. MrZaius^talk 00:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Southern

I'm not sure that having the lyrics of a school's song in the article for that school could really be considered "spammy" and "offtopic".

You're right, that article is rather horribly written and needs a major fixup (I'd do it myself but I went to Princeton...I couldn't stomach the thought)...some new, but very well-intentioned editor, wrote it about a week ago. I'm hoping he or she comes back--clearly the individual has the potential to be an excellent contributor, once he/she understands just what an encyclopedia is (that same individual introduced colored section headers to articles on various local high schools, colleges, and high school athletic conferences). In the meantime...

Also, I know we've discussed this before, but do you have any new pictures of the area you could upload? I'm planning on spending this Wednesday (no class, yay) driving around Gibson, Wabash, and Pike Counties taking some pictures. I've already got a bunch I took around Princeton about a year ago; I'm going to expand my collection--I'd especially like to get one more picture (in addition to the one that's already there) for the Lyles Station, Indiana article I've written.

By the way, I thought you might be interested: Indiana-Illinois-Kentucky Tri-State Wiki Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't repost song lyrics except on articles that can deal critically with the song. See The Internationale. On the pics question, I just happened to grab that one while I was trying to get pics of the highways on a recent trip through the region. Unfortunately, I won't be able to return until Christmas at the earliest. Feel free to replace my picture if you find a better one - it was definitely snapped in haste, and in passing. On the other wiki, thanks for the link - MrZaius^talk 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution to the page "General matrix notation of a VAR(p)"

Hello

I saw you added warning on the page "General matrix notation of a VAR(p)". Could you please let me know how I can improve this page so that this warning becomes useless? The problem is, that this page was thought as an annex of the "Vector Autoregression" page, and so contains only some developments of formulas. Adding such big formulas on the other page would make it unclear to read.

Maybe is there a way to include it? Should I add an "annex" mention?

An other problem seems to be the lack of sources. The thing is, I just followed one notation of an author, and so only one source seems justifiable, maybe even better better than many sources who could be confusing for the reader searching the information.

Thank you for your help!!

Matthieu —Preceding unsigned comment added by EtudiantEco (talk • contribs) 14:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article was created as a separate piece, my main concern was that it should have a clearer assertion of the notability of the topic. Note that if your intent was more to provide insight into how to work with the notation rather than encyclopedic coverage, it might make sense to transwiki it to the relevant mathematical tomes at WikiBooks. Thanks! MrZaius^talk 04:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the intro info and links.DocBayless 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UnderFunded

Hi

I am new to Wikipedia. I noticed that you either started the article about UnderFunded or were one of the first editors.

I have a site called UnderFunded.com. It is just getting going and will soon have more Under Funded Projects.

Do you have any suggestions on how I can make another article about UnderFunded? There should be an article about things that are Underfunded.

Do you have any suggestions on how this should be done?

Peter

]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Underfunded (talk • contribs) 06:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a pr medium. When/if the organization meets our notability guidelines feel free to post a new article on the subject. Remember to maintain a neutral pov and to provide meaningful independent sources, or the apparent conflict of interest (given your personal affiliation with the site) may lead to deletion. Happy editing MrZaius^talk 16:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPMED list of open tasks

You listed an article at the Wikipedia Medicine project's list of open tasks some months ago. It's not clear to me whether your concerns have been addressed. Would you please look at the article you listed, and if it has improved, remove it from the list of open tasks? If you still have concerns about the article, please let me know, and I'll see if together we can recruit some assistance with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like little has changed. Megalomania still has a more wiktionary-esque feel to it. It looks like it's shrunk in size by 2/3rds, eliminating much of the OR and unsourced interpretation of fictional texts, a quite positive change, but there is still almost nothing there of substance. MrZaius^talk 02:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the psych project folks can help us here. I've left them a note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The psych project folks seem opposed to megalomania. I think that moving the dab page (with a Wiktionary link at the top, and perhaps a sentence about it usually being used incorrectly) would please them. Would something like that work for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - If the concept doesn't have any real medical validity it should probably only be given cursory mention. That said, I wonder where the term came from and what the history of the concept is. If it's not terminology currently used by practicing brain-menders but that formerly referred to what are now a set of ailments it should be covered in depth and not just a dab. MrZaius^talk 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's from Freud (possibly from "Psycho-Analytic Notes on an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia (Dementia Paranoides)"), but I'm not at all certain about that. These links looked like they might be useful, but I'm not sure how reliable (or useful) they will prove.[2] [3] [4] [5] WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedway Flag

I'm having problems with a bot constantly changing the licensing part of one of the images I uploaded. I'm not even sure what the licensing should be. Any way you could help? Here's the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Speedway_flag.gif - Jablair51 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like the bot's right. You didn't create the image or, if you did, you just created a copy of a corporate logo, right? You need to have a short fair use rationale posted to prevent deletion. See WP:FAIR USE - Drop me a line if you need any more help with it. MrZaius^talk 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Polk

According to the book "First Families," by Bonnie Angelo (William Morrow, 2005), an interesting element of Sarah's life was her 300 mile journey at age 15 on horseback from NC to TN to attend the Moraivan Female Academy in Salem, TN (page 285).

When I saw you involved in the discussion of her views on slavery and her post-Civil War living arrangements, I presumed you would be interested in this bit of information. I am new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if this is presumptuous.

regards, John Nelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigheadx (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay in my response - Wikipedia:Be bold and go ahead and make any additions you believe to be pertinent. Just make sure you provide references for anything that isn't common knowledge, and relatively little would be in her case. See WP:CITE. Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portable On Demand Storage

Done. You can find it at User:Mrzaius/sandbox/PODS. --Core desat 02:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diplopedia

I left you a note on your Diplopedia talk page. Mikebar (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Lolz.png

Replaceable fair use

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

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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I freely stated as much in the description - It's a placeholder. Feel free to replace it, as you obviously know how to generate a freer equivalent - Wouldn't be particularly hard. Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing merge of Geneva International Model United Nations , Harvard United Nations simulations, National Model United Nations into Model United Nations

Hi, I saw that you were discussing inclusion of articles for individual conferences, so I thought I would let you know that I'm proposing a merge of those conferences' articles into one section in the Model United Nations article. Thanks; Wikimancer (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of What the Wikipedia is not

That's fine - It's obviously not in use anymore. MrZaius^talk 17:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Networks

I noticed you disputed many of the articles under IRC Networks in the past. I just wanted to notify you I'm proposing the majority of them for deletion.

Reference My COI post for more informationVirek (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lathrop

hey sean, this is Matt Lathrop... i was looking around the MTC wiki and i saw your name... something sparked i clicked and it was you... small world. alright im done, i seriously have nothing...

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.27.177 (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that small - Shoulda seen me stumbling off the plane in Kathmandu this summer. Still takes a fair bit to get to the opposite side. MrZaius^talk 09:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drought in the United States

Beginning with the 'Drought in the United States' articles mention requiring cleanups, secondly the views regarding the articles may not represent worldwide view and thirdly the tone or style of 'Droughts in the United States' according to Wikipedia may not be very appropriate. What do these indicate regarding 'Droughts in the United States', please tell me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tropicalstormshirley (talk • contribs) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropicalstormshirley (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's talk page - better to keep it readily accessible to multiple editors. Talk:Drought in the United States MrZaius^talk 04:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...

Hello Mrzaius,

Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief.

Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying.

Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government.
You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace.
Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier.

Help us get the project off the ground and flying.

Drought Statement

Hello Mr Zaius-me and my friends by the name of User:tropicalstormshirley, User:marthaerin1812, User:amandajoan1872 are highly committed to editing Wikipedia in hundreds of articles on any subject.

Recently, some editor group from Wikipedia with whosoever we are unfamiliar accused us of vandalism, sock puppeting and abusing while creating edits for Drought in the United States and kept demanding sources. We kept giving these people sources, but somehow stupid editors kept rejecting the sources! We are from the Dane County part of Wisconsin and the truth states that droughts hit Midwestern States at very unthinkable times.

We are using info we think is reliable, major and very, very urgent. Droughts in the United States need to get an urgent look at far more often than is now.

Please give us the critical directions on creating edits that are properly sourced and right for Drought in the United States articles from Wikipedia.

mcmlxxxviii 11:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of hyperbole and overly emotional langauge generally detracts from the readability of the article - The Wikipedia isn't a place to make a position statement. Stick to sourced facts and you can present a much more compelling picture of the topic at hand. Likewise, common sense applies here just like everywhere else - Avoid name calling and seek out sources that can be easily verified. That said, if you're being accused of sock-puppetry though you are separate users and it results in a block, I'd advise you to find a way to post here and explain your situation: Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution - I've always found the mediators there to be extremely helpful. By the way, also check out Wikipedia:MEAT. The key word in the statement there is "agenda" - People working together to craft a well written, encyclopedic article are always welcome.

Sorry I can't be of more help on the specifics, but someone else at my office apparently got us all blocked from editing anything but our own user pages. MrZaius^talk 03:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note....

{{unblock-auto|1=169.252.4.21|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "[[User:Farthog]]". The reason given for Farthog's block is: " Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is a blatant violation of our username policy - it is obviously profane, attacks or impersonates another person, or clearly suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. ".|3=The Anome|4=1009064}}

Since when does a borderline profane username warrant a permanent IP block? His or her uninformative boilerplate explanation of the block doesn't imply anything in the way of a recurring issue. The admin in this case obviously overreacted even if the following weren't true, but:

This IP is shared by hundreds, including multiple editors with 1000-10,000+ edit counts. Please remedy immediately. MrZaius^talk 03:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've released the autoblock at this time; apologies. It would not have been permanent, in any case, but as you mention it can be problematic to leave shared IPs blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this so quickly! MrZaius^talk 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning

Wikipedia keeps saying the articles are needing edits or expansions for their sections; the problem with Wikipedia editing-the stupid editors that you don't know pop out of nowhere and keep telling "Please don't" these/those and keep demanding sources.

The problem with receiving sources is Wikipedia does not really realize how hard and very complicated getting the proper sources is.

mcmlxxxviii (but with different name)

You remember telling me about somebody using the systems that resulted in the blockage you told me about? The same thing may be occuring with us proud editors on Wikipedia and when we consulted the source of which we got told, they wouldn't listen. It makes us wonder if the Wikipedia is really free as they say! We editors extremely doubt Wikipedia is free as supposed to be claiming!

My partners Marthaerin1812, Amandajoan1872, Barbara1888 and Tropicalstormshirley were blocked out of editing all except our own talkpage, and when Marthaerin1812 tried to reason with editors, one of them had her talk page protected for "time-wasting"! Something is wrong here. Please help us out.

I am not an administrator. Please take this up with them/sorry, there's not a whole lot I can do - All you really need to do is demonstrate conclusively that you're different people, which you should be able to do on your talk page. MrZaius^talk 15:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive bail

Thanks for removing the CorenSearchBot's tag. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

Please assume good faith. At Category:Fraudulent micronations is says "Micronations which, according to reliable sources, are most notable for being fraudulent or criminal operations". To the best of my knowledge (and the article seems to back me up on this), Sealand has engaged in pirate radio, helicopter assault and kidnap. In future, try not to be too quick to point the finger. --Cameron * 16:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, the category itself seems to serve little purpose beyond POV-pushing. Nominated for CfD, although it is possible that a rename and rewrite might do the trick. I did assume good faith, but was primarily seeking to point out that the edit in question seemed indicative of potential issues that may complicate a bid for the tools. No biggy, though. MrZaius^talk 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SwiftIRC AfD

Should this be brought to WikiProject Video games on their list of deletions, since the article does deal with a network which deals a lot with online video games? MuZemike (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, go ahead - I'm not really that familiar with the specifics of its userbase. MrZaius^talk 08:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UltraBac Software

You redirected UltraBac Software to UltraBac. This is very confusing and I think should be undone. There is other UltraBac products by another company so your change causes confusion not clarification. OTher backup players listed on the Backup Software page have their own company name. I can't figure out how to undo your change. Please strongly consider changing it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UltraBac_Software&action=history Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.219.2 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to rewrite the currently rather spammy article to focus more on the software than the largely non-notable parent company. The company itself is confusingly named as well. That said, if you want to move it back, feel free to take it up at Wikipedia:Proposed moves - It'll take an administrator to undo the redirect. That said, if you can back up the existence of multiple companies selling products called "UltraBac", I'll be happy to do so myself. MrZaius^talk 03:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I can absolutely back up the existence of multiple companies selling products called "UltraBac". The other product on the market is ultrabac by Pfizer, a cow vaccination. http://www.pfizerah.com/product_overview.asp?drug=U7&country=US&lang=EN&species=DA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.219.2 (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That I was aware of - There's no other backup software using the name, though, so it's really not enough to warrant disambiguation without the presence of an article about the drug. The line's at pretty much the same place as it is in trademark law. I don't recall precisely where it is, but see the naming conventions within the WP:MoS, probably at WP:DISAMBIG. Thanks, MrZaius^talk 14:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me properly cite the inline citations of the Software 500 as I am still a novice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.219.2 (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The long and short of it is just put your citation within ref tags, like so:

<ref>[http://mycite.url Publisher/Article name] extra info, such as date of publication and author</ref>

That much was done with the SW 500 reference, per your request. You can also go all out and use the citation template that stores the above information in a bot-readable and standardized format. It just goes between the <ref> </ref> tags. This site is a clean and easy way to automatically generate the template text. Btw, here's a full guide to the process. . With this in mind it should be fairly easy to add a few neutrally worded paragraphs based on the potential sources listed in the External links section. Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 15:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the citations and modifications so that the flagging of the listing was removed! I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.219.2 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmarnock

Hi!

I saw your revert on Kilmarnock - good call, I'd already discussed it on the talk page and was inclined to leave it since 2001 is pretty ancient in terms of population growth. I've done some googling just now, though, and found a reference from 2004 which shows Ayr as (slightly) larger - though with a decrease in population since 2001 (and Killie with an increase). I'm moving towards changing the article, though I'm hesitating because of the changes in population - and 2004 isn't 2008. Put together it's possible that Killie has overtaken Ayr, but that's WP:OR so I'd like to (a) discuss further, and (b) ideally find a current reference. What are your thoughts?

Cheers, This flag once was red 08:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: should have looked harder on the GRO site - I've now found their latest estimates (2006), which still have Ayr (just) ahead of Killie.

Cheers, This flag once was red 08:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any better citations would be welcome - The old stuff and the reverted cite were both all but useless. Thanks! MrZaius^talk 09:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

list of apoc fiction

Many of those sources were questionable and other were just imbd, and though I may be in the minority I don't feel that just because you have a source from that site makes your entry notable. Still a couple appeared notable so when I get the chance I'll probably revert those but that may be a while as my time is limited during the week. Feel free to revert any of my edits in the meantime to those items that were notable. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you had a rationale for the deletion that extended beyond "this ref syntax is wrong" for the deletions, they're fine by me, especially if you're willing to review 'em. Thanks! MrZaius^talk 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help on One-China Policy

Thanks for your input there. We basically get the same few people running the same fights (pro-ROC vs. pro-PRC) continually, so it is good to get a neetral observer to interpret how edits conform to wikipedia policy.LedRush (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and Apology for Til Death

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I also apologize for deleting those messages on the Talk: Til Death, I didn't realize I had deleted them when I was copying my comments over from Word. Languageleon (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, MrZaius^talk 05:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Yea sorry that I sort of vandalized I was having an off-day and what better way to express your anger by hiding in the shadows and being anonymous!(sort of :D) Won't do it again though. thanks for catching that though. Eagle eyes lol!!! Aka Paradox (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming

Hi. I also wanted to say: "Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia" :-) -- DataWraith (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EFnet

thanks for the tips on lowercase Dboldt (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. MrZaius^talk 11:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of exurban towns

I saw in the discussion notes that you might have a list of exurban towns. If so can you email me the list or point me to a URL that would have it. Thanks.

Mitch KrissMitch kriss (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC) ~~:I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify your request. MrZaius^talk 02:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Perhaps you're referring to the old thread at Commuter town? If so, I was simply griping about the unsourced WP:OR and impossible to complete list deleted as a result of this discussion. An admin might be able to pull it out for you, but I assure you, it was of quite little value. MrZaius^talk 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yea, I was trying to close AFDs and block the vandal hitting my talk page last night. I've gone back and corrected my close. Sorry for the confusion, looks like you ended up redirecting it, which should be as good as a deletion. MBisanz ^talk 09:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see someone just moved the article for em-dash compliance. On a personal level, I'd agree it is a weak article that I would comment to delete, but the numbers and arguments at the AFD were so strong that it just wasn't going to happen. You might try trimming the Assists and Rebounds stats section, as they seem a bit too detailed for the article. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Fassad

Hopefully, your idea for where to put the Fassad info will stop all of those edits :) Luminifer (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much like America in the World Wars, I've always loved jumping in and killing an edit war with real edits. Always a pleasure, MrZaius^talk 12:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject for award articles

Hi I was looking for small old WikiProjects with award scopes, and noticed your name at WikiProject Hugo and Nebula Award Winners. I just wanted to let you know that I have proposed a WikiProject covering all award articles, whose scope would include these awards. Hopefully I can get this project up and running and provide guidlines on how to improve award related articles. If you are interested please sign up. Sorry to bother you, and best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly would make more sense, but I've got my hands full just watching my watchlist, at this point. No more thousand edit months for me, MrZaius^talk 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest guidelines

Hi, an attempt is being made to get consensus on the COI clarification issue. You might want to put forward your views at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Clarification. --Helenalex (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - Don't want to get too involved, though as I'm a federal employee now (although I wasn't when I hit the 10k edits mark). I'm not paid to edit this wiki in any way shape or form, but I'm still not an ideal person to be pitching a rewrite. MrZaius^talk 10:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need good redlinks!

You wrote:

there are more grave sins in this world than introducing a redlink, but

It may be that the particular redlink you referred to was not valuable, but I certainly hope you're not going around removing redlinks merely because they are redlinks or encouraging others to do so. That is against Wikipedia policy, which values good redlinks. See WP:REDLINK. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the chunk of my edit summary that you left out: "it adds little in this already bloated see-also." The article already had 20-30 blue see-also links, and the link to the deleted article was not found in the prose. Seems reasonable to link to articles one may reasonably expect to exist (per WP:REDLINK) in the prose, but it seems unnecessary and distracting to just dump them in without any real thought. The section needs a trim in the general sense, and redlinks seem like a decent place to start. MrZaius^talk 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, the part I quoted, read by newbies, was phrased in such a way that it could get construed as meaning redlinks are bad. That could easily have been avoided. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - Thanks for the reminder, MrZaius^talk 10:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lupus erythematosus revert

It's format was not right for Wikipedia. But hey, if you want to try and fix the additions to be suitable for a Wikipedia article, then I say good luck to you. -- Evans1982 (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That works - Thanks for confirming that it wasn't content related, and double thanks for the quick response. MrZaius^talk 13:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - it was a probable copyvio. Does little more than suggest a potential source for some real prose. MrZaius^talk 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother 3

Hey man, I've been working on Mother 3 a bit, could you gimme a hand by working on the EarthBound 64 and Reception aspects of the article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can, but I'm not sure I have access to any of the early print sources necessary to really polish up the Earthbound64 coverage, and I know next to nothing about Mother3 between cancellation as EB64 and the release of the GBA fan translation. MrZaius^talk 15:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some EB64 interviews - they can be found on Starmen.net's EB64 section, if you want to add any of them. Also, what do you think of an interview between a translator of M3 GBA? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a translator interview in the references somewhere, I think. Just got to be more careful with it per WP:PRIMARY. MrZaius^talk 01:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article sure has come far. I just wish I could find some development information for the Nintendo 64 version. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stop

can you stop undoing my shit on the undernet page ????

Thanks

Don't get upset about it - All I've done so far with regard to your particular edits was to remove sites that are hosted by the official site. Only one link per pertinent "official site" gets linked here to prevent the Wikipedia from becoming a linkspammer's paradise. See our external linking guidelines if you need more information. Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother 3 story

I finished a very long story summary, and if you've beaten the game, I'd like for you to help me trim it down to what's necessary. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Childress Polk

Could you please explain why you used Popups to revert Sarah Childress Polk from the version that I left it in, without so much as an explanation? What POV do you see in the article and why you don't explain the problem in the article's Talk page? And you are aware that using Popups to revert non-vandalism is extremely frowned on? AnyPerson (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you bothered even looking at the talk page? It was clear enough, even if I wasn't whacking people upside the head with wikilawyering language, before I explained the rv there a mere 210 seconds after my (only slightly) hasty revert. It is now explained again, using the magic "POV" word, as well, for those that lack the ability to interpret the first section. Its focus on describing the church going slave owner as some sort of socialite-saint, using language culled from the promotional style bios on Whitehouse.gov, rather than carrying any sort of nuanced discussion of her family's struggle with religious faith and her personal stance on and behavior towards her slaves, carries with it considerable NPOV issues. Again, this has been clearly explained (twice) on the talk page. MrZaius^talk 04:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the use of popups to revert a good faith edit with no edit summary. AnyPerson (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly did. Again, the rv was slightly rushed, but it was explained shortly afterwards. The edit was explained in more than sufficient detail on the talk page, along with an associated edit summary that would have so closely followed the actual rv that it was still nearly certain to show up one or two edits away on even a busy watchlist. Even so, edit summaries are not such a holy thing that correcting for their absence on the talk page is inadequate, especially when associated with a good edit summary there. I explained myself twice there and, now, twice here. The first two, to be frank, seemed a perfectly adequate correction for the minor error to me.

Any substantive points to make about the article itself? As you pointed out, the issues on it have been present for quite some time, so any help would be much appreciated. Sadly, this tangentially related discussion is only the second one that I can recall ever having anything to do with the Sarah Childress Polk article. MrZaius^talk 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed why you used Popups with no edit summary to revert a valid edit. Not using an edit summary when making a revert is the same as implying that you feel the edit was vandalism. AnyPerson (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is like pulling teeth. I acknowledged the mistake at the time and corrected for it with a rapid subsequent edit to the talk page and documented as much above. Take it or leave it, but keep in mind that WP:AGF runs both ways. Again, I corrected for this adequately at the time, let it go. Again, do you have anything substantive to say, or were you just trying to cleanup POV tags? MrZaius^talk 03:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow Fight League

Now in your userspace at User:Mrzaius/Pillow Fight League per your request. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Not much there, eh? All the same, thanks! MrZaius^talk 16:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Pillow Fight League

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pillow Fight League, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillow Fight League (2nd nomination). Thank you. Mhking (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there a minute before the above was posted, but thanks for the notice. Gotta expect a fight on something like this, but it seems worth it. Nice being able to pull a notable topic back from the jaws of previous deletion. MrZaius^talk 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the rationale for the article being present. I feel that it is non-encyclopedic, and that your additions have not salvaged that notion. So despite your request that I remove my AfD, I will allow the AfD request to move forward. --Mhking (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - As long as you've reviewed your stance, I'm happy, although I continue to disagree with it. MrZaius^talk 02:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make Compatible: reply to your comment

When I nominated the article for deletion, it had nothing to let the reader know what it was talking about. That is grounds for deletion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's why I acknowledged intervening edits twice in my comments. MrZaius^talk 01:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xe

The move request was to move Xe(company) to Xe and the disambig now being the Xe article to Xe(disam.) And I think this one is not OK. To move the Blackwater to Xe (company) is not theat problematic I think. --Stone (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There as an infobox left over from before the initial move that I had assumed was what we were talking about, and the bulk of the conversation seemed to be hinting at a need to revert the move. My comments, though apparently slightly offtopic, were probably still pertinent. MrZaius^talk 06:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rizon

I just finished the rewrite for Rizon. See if you think that helps. The lead and history sections still need to be expanded. Tothwolf (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those anonymous editors seem to be removing content from Rizon again so I've put in the request for indefinite semi-protection. Too bad they use so many different IPs in an attempt to make a block/ban unworkable. Tothwolf (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - Thanks for stepping in there. While it was spaced over far more time than it takes to make a real 3RR violation, I was getting uncomfortable being the only one trying to defend those few pertinent sources that existed. MrZaius^talk 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its vandalism, 3RR doesn't apply. They refused to semi-protect the article though. [6] Let's just keep reverting the vandalism for now and they'll eventually put indefinite semi-protection on it. Considering the use of proxies and automated scripts, they really need to.
Btw, Abjects is back now. I plan to get them all back by the time I get done. Tothwolf (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We got a week's worth of semi-protection on Rizon now so the vandalism should stop for a short while anyway. No doubt he will be right back at it just as soon as it expires though.
Btw, I've been working on stuff on the WikiProject again and finally started moving stuff into the to do list. I'm going to move the rest into the list in the next day or so. The to do list can be accessed via a template on WP:WPIRC or directly at WikiProject IRC/to do. Somehow I still need to make some time to finish documenting the templates too... Tothwolf (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the additional references that I mentioned to the article. One of the 5 or so references I'd mentioned previously wasn't usable per WP:RS so I had to leave it out. The rest seem fine though. Tothwolf (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Authbind

I have nominated Authbind, 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/Authbind. 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. §hawn poo 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Mkt2.JPG

File:Mkt2.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Mount Carmel Market.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Mount Carmel Market.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mt carmel.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Mount Carmel Welcome.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cherry St - Mount Carmel.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Mount Carmel Cherry St.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20030911-3 card-ask-515h.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Andrew Card (1).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

drought page

Sean/MrZ:

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and would like to work on improving the quality of some of the information on drought. Are you still serving as a voice of moderation and reason for drought-related content? I have posted some suggestions on the drought "discussion" page, as has someone else, as per wiki guidelines on how to play nicely, and no one seems to be responding so ... is it OK if I go ahead and make changes?

Thank you,

Kelly/Mercury34 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20030911-3 card-ask-515h.jpg

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image was either individually tagged or was in a category tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Andrew Card (1).jpg. During the move I changed the name of the image to better reflect Naming Conventions policy, duplicate file name and/or Commons naming restrictions. Any links to the image has been updated to reflect the new name as it exists now on Commons. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#F8. Cheers!--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prodding of Vadim Antonov

Can you clarify your reasons for the prod nomination of Vadim Antonov? There seem to be references available for an athlete of that name on Google News. If you could weigh in on your rationalle and say why you believe he doesn't exist at Talk:Vadim Antonov, it would help. Thanks! MrZaius^talk 04:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the player does not exist. This was set up as a joke by members of a Perth Glory FC fan supporter group to make fun of the then head coach Ron Smith. It made the mainstream media after starting out on the rumour section of the website of the Australian soccer magazine Four Four Two.The Hack 05:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the google results for various search queries - Vadim Antonov and soccer, Vadim Antonov and football and Google New Archive search for Vadim Antonov. The only references to a sportsman of that name link back to this non-existent person.The Hack 06:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - Seems likely that the hoax itself is noteworthy, however. MrZaius^talk 11:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Open source network management software

Dead end template

I have a question about this edit of yours. Can you please give me a link in the discussion that was decided that deadend is used only when wikify doesn't apply? Until now, I knew that both templates can be used; if the article was lacking internal links we were adding deadend and if additional work was needed we were adding wikify additionally. When did that change? Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the merge from Template:Internal links/doc. Clarified the language just a touch, though. What I'm sure the original author was shooting for was that these templates can be used to break down Template:Wikify into a more specific request, like the myriad cleanup templates preferred to Template:Cleanup or Template:Expert-subject to Expert. It's not protected, though, so feel free to tweak it however you like. MrZaius^talk 03:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M. Yousuff Hussaini

Hi Mrzaius, I have removed the {{notability}} tag you have put on the M. Yousuff Hussaini article. I think, the subject clearly paasses WP:PROF. See criteria 5 and 8 in WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by publisher's official site for his book in the edit summary? Please clarify. Salih (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to click through on that last, but the CiteSeerX link has even less content than I mistakenly assumed it did when I hastily glanced at it and falsely assumed it was a link to Purdue's publishing arm. Honestly, I really think that failing the existence of a surviving article for the journal the professor edits that WP:NOTE/the general criterion ought to apply. #5 seems like a cop-out/overly broad. Still, the primary sources template catches my main point/don't care enough to rv. MrZaius^talk 16:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Apparently I'm tired enough to way overuse the forward slash. Off to bed![reply]

Good Night! See you tomorrow. Salih (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church history

do you know who was the first preist of philadelphia if so type an article about him/her please thnx!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--69.249.229.177 (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Claire Hilson[reply]

William Penn says he was arrested for preaching in 1670, but beyond that I'm not sure I can be of any direct help. You might try narrowing your research, though - What are you calling Philadelphia? Are you counting earlier aboriginal and Swedish settlements that have since been subsumed by the city? Are you talking about a single church, or just the first Christian minister in the area? Hope this helps, MrZaius^talk 11:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback/help

Just wanted to say thanks for the feedback, new to wikipedia, cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.37.134 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drought Rewriting

On April 20, 2009, you declared the Drought in the United States needs to be completely rewritten. We, the UWEC class are in process of studying the weather, the climate and drought related topics; under address number 12.227.185.235 we represented sixteen citations to the article. For what reason does the area need to be rewritten?

The UWEC Class under 173.26.80.178 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has little to nothing to do with the citations. See my response at Talk:Drought in the United States, placed there for the sake of accessibility for other editors. Also, please consider pointing out your affiliation and listing usernames on the talk page to avoid accusations of sock puppetry, or using multiple accounts for malfeasance or POV-pushing. I wasn't directly involved, but I recall that User:Marthaerin1812 and others were flagged as sock puppets and blocked by other editors for lack of such a notification. Again, I don't recall being directly involved in the dispute at the time, but if the editors that started the article had been as open as you were above, even money says I and other editors would have risen to their defense and attempted to take more of a mentoring role.

Clearly stating your affiliations as you did above is immensely helpful in resolving and avoiding conflict of interest issues. As long as you're open about it, as I am about my affiliation with the United States Department of State, you and your colleagues should be able develop a more consistent, positive recommendation than you can while editing anonymously. Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Old bounty question

In reply to your message:

User:Splarka/watchimages.js was the end result of the bounty. It's far from a polished solution, but it works. I'm not sure if it will help with your quest for a multi-project watchlist, but it has struck my interests. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diego de Landa (Calderón)

Hi. I just noticed the Diego de Landa article move to Diego de Landa Calderón per your request. I'm uncertain this is the best title, and I don't understand the meaning of your comment "Which is it?" I've therefore brought the question up for further discussion at Talk:Diego de Landa Calderón; your feedback there is appreciated. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there, but I was just doing the NewPages patrol and wasn't familiar with the subject at hand. Was just trying to make article name match bolded name in LEAD - Changing either would have been fine, if the short version is more accurate. Not at all familiar with the structure of the title. MrZaius^talk 06:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I saw there is a problem with a link to a freenode article I added. I am sorry if there is a problem. I am not going to edit anyhing anymore. ... didn't want to cause troubles .. it is not spam. It is about free software ... Wikipedia is good! :-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Meandtheshell (talk • contribs)

Responded at User talk:Meandtheshell MrZaius^talk 16:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSXeven

I've made various changes with incorrect and relasping information. I've cleared up all invalid references and added real information, while at the same time patching up incorrect information. Considering Xeven's reaction to the page (see PSXeven's talk page) I decided to rework the whole article. Keep my version, and add edits to it. Using the old previous version, is pretty much scandalous. It has various incorrect notes and citations. Incorrect informations spans from the History section to the Future of PSXeven section. Most comments in both are incorrect, and as you've seen in PSXeven's talk page, Xeven has asked that all incorrect information to be patched up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XCore21 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we're looking for details. Your "fix" really has to be redone, as it rendered the page unreadable, hiding your intent - Hence the revert. The talk page entry you mention makes no mention whatsoever of the Gameshark workalike functionality that you removed mention of and no mention of even a single source. Please list specific examples of problems on Talk:PSXeven. MrZaius^talk 02:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Bounty

Hey there!

I am seriously interested in working on your Bounty request. I did have one question though: Would an external website work as a solution, or would you prefer a Wikipedia extension?

Cat1205123 (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either one would work, but a stand-alone tool would be a lot easier to install for other users than an extension. MrZaius^talk 16:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the bounty page: Done

Introducing Watchlistr - a transwiki watchlist tool. It can parse any mediawiki-based wiki, but currently only includes the Wikimedia projects (because I'm not sure what other wikis would be good to include). Does not currently mimic Popups, but it's only in Beta (so that might be a future addition). I'm still doing some testing on it, so you might encounter some error messages here and there - tell me if you come across any. Also, let me know if there's anything else you would like added to it.

Cat1205123 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks promising - Will be busy enough with work that I may be unable to test it till after the 9th of Aug. Thanks!

If you can continue development, here's a couple of sites that can give you ideas for other projects worth making available by default: [7] & [8]. Others are out there, but suffice it to say that there are only ~200 wikis over the 15,000 page mark. If you used that as an arbitrary cut-off for now, that'd work pretty well. The second link (s23's Wikistats) lists them by size, making it easy to select another mark. MrZaius^talk 09:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing references - AuroraUX

Thanks for the input into the AuroraUX page.

The AuroraUX project, is mentioned in Sun's own website, ref 1. The OS news article ref 2, and the ComputerWorld article on Falcon ref 3. It is mentioned in the Falcon article about 3/4 of the way down the page. Falcon and is helping in porting all the Falcon codebase to Sun platforms – AuroraUX SunOS distro has decided to adopt it as the official scripting language (along with ADA as the preferred heavyweight development language).

The article in Italian and the Electronics reference may be considered less reliable sources. I have added another from the creator of Falcon, although it is a blog. Please indicate if this is acceptable, as this is directly from him, in this case is it verifiable?

I have not done anything remove the citing reference (don't even know if I can), because I want to get this correct.

Craigvv (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Falcon sources are certainly worth keeping in the piece - The main problem, however, is that they only make trivial mention of AuroraUX, with the one just a direct quote from the other. I wouldn't recommend removing any of the citations listed already, but just wanted to point out that better sources more directly related to the article topic (rather than just those that make trivial mention) are necessary to meet our Wikipedia:Notability threshold. Wasn't able to find any, but will not nominate for deletion right away in hopes that there are print sources or something else of the sort that aren't readily available in a Google News search. Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 09:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied the above to Talk:AuroraUX for transparency's sake. Please post any further responses there, so that other interested parties may be able to see them. MrZaius^talk 09:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

finally I reply

Well, I finally replied to the comment you left on my talk page (regarding USB OTG). Sorry I took so long, I'm not logging in very often anymore. At any rate, I see you added some examples, so my reply is probably a moot point. -- Why Not A Duck 06:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that does help clear it up a little. Thanks! MrZaius^talk 07:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of WikiPoint

An article that you have been involved in editing, WikiPoint, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiPoint. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for "International Day of Climate Action" note on October 24, 2009, related to 350 (organisation)? See link ...

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009#350_.28organisation.29_.26_October_24.2C_2009 350 (organisation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.184.238 (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi - back in 2008 you made a helpful post on my talk page about criteria for speedy deletion, and I don't think I ever thanked you. Well, thanks! Luminifer (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest, Biased "editor" agenda...? Climate change denial

[10] Climate change denial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.156.118 (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our biases obviously cannot be completely subsumed, but the editor in question hasn't provided any reasons to think he's acting in anything other than good faith. Not everything is political, MrZaius^talk 07:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be just political, climate change (warming) denial is FUNDED for the short-term short-sighted benefit of individuals and corporations ... besides the links here, see the Union of Concerned Scientists for direct evidence. Goto the Source. Energy companies (coal & oil, i.e. big carbon emitters) used some of the same disinformation people and methods as the tobacco industry: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD). The mass media was significantly influenced. This evidence is now public record. Bureaucratic methods, bullying, bots, and loopholes are being used within wikipedia to suppress knowledge. It appears there are climate change denial "marketers" in Wikipedia; it appears that previously it was most of the "editors" of the 350 wikipedia page, and likely many many other pages: Beware. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest? [11] [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.136.98 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to defend myself and say that there is no one who believes more in climate change than I do. My only issue with the article in question is that it adhere to Wikipedia’s rules. It would seem to me that someone who did not believe in climate change would not have spent so much time cleaning up its citations, grammar, etc. Moreover, such criticism might be worth taking more seriously if it weren't being made anonymously. Just because I won't stand by and watch anons violate every WP rule, such as placing URLs all over the article, not editing correctly, not using references/citatations, not inputting them correctly, etc., doesn't mean I am a climate change denier. I find this a personal, unsubstantiated attack. Which is probably why it is being made anonymously because then I cannot bring the anon to task for the personal attack. It turns my stomach to be so accused! For goodness sake, I serve on my building's green committee trying to reduce our building's carbon footprint to as little as possible! We have so many recycling bins in our kitchen that we had to make a special cabinet for them all! I cannot believe that simply because some (anon) editors are asked to follow the rules that it must be the case that the people who care about the wikipedia project as a whole are climate-change deniers. Oh, anon editor, as for your Bianca Jagger thing, you are probably not entering it properly, or not putting in a citation as per WP:CITE, or it is a self-published work that runs afoul of WP:SELFPUB, or, you just do not know how to input properly in a wikiarticle. How about registering and then reading some of the essays and guidelines that tell you how to do all of these things. Stop blaming and accusing others because you don't know what you are doing. Finally, Mr. Zaius, thank you for your comments. It never occured to me that I could be thought to have an agenda, especially when I’m a big supporter of climate change initiatives (embarassed as h*ll that my country backed out of Kyoto and continues to pollute with its tar sands). Thank you also for letting me use this space to repond and, to some extent, vent. Sadly, I have to say, this kind of behaviour now makes me not want to participate in any 350.org events and even consider stopping our annual donations to green/environmental causes … these people don't know who their friends are. <heavy-hearted sigh> — Spike (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I find it interesting that these anons are spreading these accusations over everyone else's talk pages, but they won't bring the accusation to me directly, nor will they take it to the Wikipedia powers-that-be. This is what I mean when I speak of their "bombastic, belligerent, and overly agressive" behaviour. Most interestingly, I find it all the more puzzling given that, with this edit a few weeks ago, they were lauding me for my help on the article! (I only removed it because it made a mess of my talk page, which is typical of these anons' entries, given that they will not read anything on WP about how to use WP.) — Spike (talk)

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much" perhaps? Spike, you say you have no ulterior motives but I noticed that way you alerted Atmoz to my opposition to the merging of the 350 (organisation) article on the Talk page. You seem to be very cosy with editors who edit with a denialist bias. And you've made an impassioned case against the 350.org page ... apparently because of a technicality. Smells fishy to me, pal. ► RATEL ◄ 01:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love your logic! Or, lack thereof. The problem with most of the editors of that article is that they are so impassioned with its cause that anyone who dares to apply the rules of the Wikipedia project is automatically against that cause. That's hardly NPOV now is it? Playing the denier card every time someone gets in your way is just an attempt to chill any opposition, any alternative voice. The irony here is that I am not opposition: I just want the article to obey the rules/guidelines that every other article has to obey. And, I don't want to know what you mean by editing with a denialist basis. Does that apply to any of my edits? I think not since all of my edits to the article are orthographical, grammatical, and fixing citations that have not been entered correctly. You just do not like having it pointed out that the article's references/citations relate less to the organization than to its goals and objectives. I hardly think that suggesting, as I did today, that the article is primarily about the 350ppm protocol, which is what the references/citations illustrate, or about the International Day of Climate Action, is the same as denying the existence of global warming. Those "technicalities," as you call them, are vital to Wikipedia. Without those rules and guidelines there wouldn't be a single article on here worth reading. You think that just because environmentalism is a noble cause, none of Wikipedia's core policies (e.g., WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:ORG, etc.) need apply. — Spike (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help save this noteworthy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_the_Deal! Seal the Deal! [13]

Help save this noteworthy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_the_Deal! Seal the Deal! [14] [15] Talk:Seal_the_Deal! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seal_the_Deal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.151.149 (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Droughts and famines

Hello,

I just wanted to follow up with you about a possible move of the "droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union" talk page. I made a suggestion [[16]] and would appreciate your opinion. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of verifiable links is being blocked, Why? : [17], [18], ...

The addition of verifiable links is being blocked, Why? : http://www.350.org/messengers#bianca [19], http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bianca-jagger/yes-we-can_b_181542.html [20], etc ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Short History of Progress

I re-phrased your deletion and insertion to avoid tone/NPOV issues -: both yours and mine (the re-insertion is a summary of the author's argument in the intro for the casual reader who doesnt delve into the article proper. I will be back to research and resolve any citation issues. Please dont blindly delete or insert when a rephrase will simply resolve the issue you object to. (Though I understand I am anonymous, as I rarely bother to sign in anymore, which makes it a little difficult to do me the courtesy of a note before making radical changes as I have done: though you too can pass comment here...) Regards mattjs, 120.155.168.240 (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is America?: A Short History of the New World Order

Sorry, I am a little confused why you would add the first citation to the stub article and then add a fixup indicating the article needed to be correctly cited/referenced when you yourself had just added the first ref/citation to the article!? When you could simpky have correctly cited your own insertion in the first place!? (Note that the one sentence stub article was essentially a paraphrase of the books contents and/or back cover etc. and no existing citations were therefore of course needed for any editor who had actually read the book.) P.S. I agree: the book wasnt as good as it could have been and no where near as good as his last but neither of those reasons is a justification for a little walk on by vandalism. Might have actually been better to simply flag the stub article for deletion. Regards, mattjs 120.155.168.240 (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re both of the above, the citation cleanup tag was placed when I renamed two misnamed "references" sections that contained no clear citations and focused more on typical WP:EL material. The ELs should be moved into normal citations, but it's not a big deal. Looking back on my edits on both pieces, I really never made any substantive changes to "What is..." and my substantive contributions in the other were limited to striking a single redundant paragraph of pure POV - No harm done by the partial and cleaned up restore you performed, but it honestly doesn't have much of an impact on the piece. Not going to comment on the value or credibility of the work, as I've never read either, but given the tone of the above I would caution you to be careful to avoid a fanboyism-driven WP:COI. On deletion: If I'd felt the pieces warranted AfD, believe me: I wouldn't have failed to bring a nomination. A strong case for notability can plainly be made for both.

Again, the main problem was simply that the pieces (which only barely registered on my radar) lacked proper in-line citations to the myriad third party sources available in the external links sections. Feel free to clean them up - This will obviously have to be done before either article can be rated at B or GA quality levels. Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 13:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moto Droid / phones / hearing aid compatibilty

Hello.

I noticed your comment while looking at the history of the Motorola Droid page: "the hearing aid compatibility rating, if pertinent at all, certainly doesn't belong in the lead".

Regarding that, I would like to say that hearing aid compatibility rating is a very pertinent piece of information for people, such as myself, who need to use hearing aids. Thank you for keeping that information intact. I don't mind it not being in the lead paragraph.

I would like to see it listed in the infobox, as it is for "mobile phone" articles. Some phone articles, such as the Droid article, use the "information appliance" infobox which does not include HAC. Can you do anything about this? I already added a request on the template page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_information_appliance#Hearing_Aid_Compatibility

Dsh13 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Yes, I am the one who added the HAC rating in the first place.

Didn't mean for the "if pertinent" quote to sound derogatory - That was just me saying that I wasn't familiar with how the topic was handled in other pieces. Unfortunately, I have very little knowledge about the subject and don't recall ever editing any other phone pages. You might try finding a telephony or cellular comms Wikiproject that can give a more clear answer to your questions. Sounds like you're doing the right thing already, with the Template edit request. Good luck/happy editing, MrZaius^talk 10:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Abjects

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Abjects. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abjects. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Why was my page deleted?

AfD nomination of International House of Prayer

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is International House of Prayer. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International House of Prayer. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States

What is holding this back from FAC. I'll help out.--Iankap99 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nebula/Best Novel

Template:Nebula/Best Novel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hugo/Best Novel

Template:Hugo/Best Novel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Co2

A tag has been placed on Co2, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Mrzaius/archive3! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States

I would like to get this article up to FA status, I have listed it for peer review, but do you know of any problems off hand that can be fixed, please respond on the article talk page so that all editors can see. Thanks --Iankap99 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Mrzaius/archive3! 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

United States Article

I would like to get this article up to FA status, I see that you are listed as a source on the article, would you like to join me on this task?

--Iankap99 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Connect America

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Connect America, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can 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 a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. ukexpat (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]