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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Debivort!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Telmatosaurus sketch v1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi Debivort,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Hypacrosaurus-v1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Debivort,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debivort,

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

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

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

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

I await your answer.

Reishi Essence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debivort,

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

Chrisg21090

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

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

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

Thank you, David Demarest (reishidave)

Chrisg21090

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

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

Hi Debivort,

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

Hi Debivort

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

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

Regards

Hongguanglishibahao

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, Debivort;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Debivort,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:Marmot-edit1-cool.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pumpmeup 01:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Coors mountain.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Telluride wilson logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I'm a little confused by your comments here and here; I don't participate in FPC often, but I'm still sort of confused.   jj137 ^♠ 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aah, yes, that answers my question. Thanks.   jj137 ^♠ 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take a look at Space Shuttle Discovery, for FPC. Will you reconsider? - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Debivort, I've uploaded an alternative picture of the Cape St. Vincent site on Mars for an FP nomination. It basically shows the same site in much greater scope. I'd appreciate if you'd check it out at the nomination page. Thanks!—DMCer™ 17:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like the title says, it's been a while. Slightly more active now, doing tidbits of editing here and there (mostly cleanups and style changes and such. ). I had an idea while surfing around tho, and it was to go to commons and search for good pictures the extinct in the wild articles without any. This fell short, however - but I came across [3] which seemed like a very good pic for Albinism, perhaps good enough to be featured. Then it hit me tho, that I have no idea if there's any particular way to transplant that image from commons to here, so, I decided to ask. Cheers. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey deBivort! I just went to yor userpage for the first time and noticed the cool Image:User_debivort_travels.png. Did you manually draw that? Or did you use GPS traces? --Dschwen 13:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Deb, thanks for taking care of the nomination. I've uploaded the high resolution versions for the two ceratopsian posters over the low res one. The species are actually in order from left to right and from up to bottom in chronological order (see the faunal stages). Phylogenical trees are a little bit tricky and they tend to change with new discoveries. I've tried to do that but could not come up with anything satisfactory. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As per your comment, I have now replaced the earlier (1,280×800) version by the full version (2,272×1,356). --AlisonW (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:CeratopsiaI BW.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good work, Deb. Thanks! :D ArthurWeasley (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi, could you change the hands on this[4] drawing, per this[5]? Funkynusayri (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:A_Naestu_Grosum_vegetarian_restaurant.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Nv8200p talk 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sections that I removed are poorly written, heavily biased, inaccurate, and need to either be deleted or completely rewritten. They certainly are not up to the standards in the rest of the article. Since I do not have time to rewrite them currently, I chose to delete them rather than mislead unwary readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.154.144 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No information > bad information. If you have no expertise in the topic, then please do not advise others on how to edit the article. All the statements are absolutely fallacious and FBH does not even warrant being mentioned with all the other players on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.154.144 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for improving them. The entries are much better now, but still carry heavy bias and contain inaccurate information. For example, "Nicknamed 'Carrier Master'". I have never heard anyone even use that term. If anything, he is called "Bird Toss". "[Stork] plays currently on the Samsung Khan team where he dominates in the league". In what sense does he dominate? He has not won first in a single individual league and statistically is not the best player in team league "[FBH is] Well known for his micro control" is not even a true statement. He has solid play overall, but his micro certainly does not stand out. Also, his significance pales to the other players on the list in the sense that he has not accomplished much or done anything else to greatly influence the professional scene. Furthermore, the players should be entered in roughly chronological order based on when they first became famous, while Stork and FBH were inserted without regard. Also, do you plan on updating the rankings each month? Quality is more important than quantity. If the entries are not well-written or correct, then they should not be included altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.154.144 (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:2000.TELLURIDE.FESTIVAL.POSTER.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Debivort, I just noticed you invoking good faith [6] in what I perceive to be a marginal case. W.r.t. good faith, and leaving aside the issue that it the corresponding Wikipedia namespace document was downgraded from policy to guideline for unrelated reasons, to keep this short, I'd recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 22#Template:Civil1, which is just one case where it was established by community consensus that accusing the opposite side of incivility or bad faith (which I see as closely related, and I suspect others would as well) tends to polarise an issue and build walls that make it difficult to maintain a constructive discussion. Perhaps you'll reconsider your use of GF as an argument in the light of this.

Best regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new alternative has been put up for this FPC. Perhaps a change of opinion? Dengero (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to know why you deleted my external link enteries (Fertilizers, Kelp, B. Subtillis ect.) the page I linked them to has lots of valuble information and offers FREE telephone support to farmers, as well as education and training all over Australia and the world. (is it because i only linked to the home page?) frankiebeddington (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.15.204 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I really liked your evolution tree for hadrosaurs, and was hoping to use it for a somewhat scholarly paper, but I can't cite wikipedia as a reference. Is there any chance I could get your name and use that as a reference? Otherwise, if you have a suggestion for something to cite that's a little more formal than wikipedia, it would be really helpful. I'm at rumphel@hotmail. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.15.204 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been sitting on my to-do list for too long, I am making a final effort on Amanita muscaria to get it to GAN then FAC at some stage..all input much appreciated...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Geysir,_now_inactive.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Nv8200p talk 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm curious where you took your pic of starry night at. I took a photo of it at MOMA recently and yours and mine are substantially different enough that I imagine of them is a fake. I've always wondered if a museum might put reproductions of particular works on display instead of originals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.95.51 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't take the photo - it was taken by another wikipedian, but I did an attempt at color ballance of it using gray points defined by other photos of starry night that were available online. How do our photos differ? de Bivort 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Champ_de_Mars_from_the_Eiffel_Tower_-_July_2006_-_cropped.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the ((GFDL-self)) tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 04:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Debivort. Thanks for your comments and vote when this went through FPC talk. There was a pretty clear consensus for Option 2 which involved setting up the project here. I have developed a trial version at User:Jjron/VP Trial. I have put up a discussion at PPR talk - Wikipedia_talk:Picture_peer_review#Valued_Pictures_Proposal for comments. Feel free to drop by and give your thoughts. --jjron (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Achelousaurus dinosaur.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Afrovenator abakensis dinosaur.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi de Bivort,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:CeratopsiaI BW.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 16, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-06-16. howcheng {chat} 05:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many Thanks, Deb! ArthurWeasley (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Debi, my name's Melanie. I work for the TellurideStyle magazines and was wondering if you would be interested in publishing a copy of the mountain photo, with the mountain legend, in our adventure guide. I have no idea how to get in touch with you, so if you could please send me an email my address is melanie@bushpublications.com. Thanks!71.216.72.204 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hya Debivort. I was wondering if you could tell me the procedure involved in making a new fungi spore print colour in the mycomorphbox. I have tried to cut and paste an existing code, and then changed the colour details, but it doesn't work. I see that the images are in 'Commons'. Thanks a lot.Luridiformis (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info, but i might have to attend evening classes to learn how to do that. Also i may not live to see it finished. There have been several occasions when the spore print i need is not listed, and i tend to just mention it in the text. Thanks anyway...Luridiformis (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to be a nuisance...Some Boletus are listed in PHILLIPS as Olivaceous Walnut-Brown, and an Ochre would be good.....Cheers.Luridiformis (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ha Ha! It's just that it appears in Roger Phillips Mushrooms, quite often, and he is one of my references. He's a field mycologist, so it must be subtly different. Could you do olive/brown, i would think that should be close enough. Thankyou very much for the 'ochre'. Stay chilled.Luridiformis (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou very much...that will do many Boletus very proud. Luridiformis (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I ask what you mean by jpegy? And the image is not fake, it is still taken by satellite. There are plenty of other featured pictures taken by satellite. --Meldshal 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mike Malloy did say he sent his daughter to a Christian day care during NOV-DEC2007.

Don't remove edits that you know nothing about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.75.85 (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for this excellent diagram. I've extracted it and modified it for use in paleontolgy articles: increased contrast for radula and odontophore; removed labels as we've found Template: Annotated image more scalable and adaptable. You can see the result at Halwaxiid. -- Philcha (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to use the leaf and mushroom morphology charts found here at Wikipedia and want to attribute correctly. Can you help me with this? I'm working on a small field guide for wild food foragers and I think both of these charts would be very helpful.

I need to know who to attribute these to and how the attribution is supposed to read.

Any help is appreciated.

Carla R. Herrera maturehealth@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.175.92.144 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Long_exposure_of_the_tunnel_under_Hvalfjörður,_November_21_08-50.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Nv8200p talk 16:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, here's one you can go to town with. I liked the Image:Flaming-wiki.jpg so much, I thought another interpretation would be cool. I think it would be great to have an award for resurrecting or reviving old Featured Content, or the Brilliant Prose category that preceded it August 15 2001.

Now, where one could really go to town is how to alter a gold, silver or bronze wiki-jigsaw piece - cobwebs, resurrected zombie-style, 1950s 'back to the future' kitsch, 19th century look, be creative/surprise me ;). Anything that captures the idea of revival/spring cleaning/resurrection etc. Sound like fun? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind, if you're too busy or if you missed this, don't worry, it's cool, there are plenty of artists about the place to ask. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good gosh, did that typo stay there that long? How embarrassing. Guess I'd better stop (for a while) bragging about being a born proofreader. THANKS! - Hordaland (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Leaf morphology disposition.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Leaf morphology-incomplete2.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:No_hunting_sign_at_Haukadalur.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Nv8200p talk 02:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Amurosaurus-v1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Amurosaurus-v1.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thumbs-up-icon.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/T-37 student pilot. Fair enough, I suppose. It was taken on a bright, sunny day. The blacks are going to be brighter and the whites are going to be a little washed out simply because of the sun. Can you assist in making tweaks to the photo? If not, can you recommend someone who can? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...yeah...I don't have photoshop. Do you? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about the black areas? If it's a bright white jet, it is going to be FF FF FF. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, with the exception of the rivets, these are smooth areas painted over in white. There is no texture to speak of and, in the sun, extremely little variation in the coloration of the fuselage (except near the shadows). In short, I think it's fine and representative of the subject of the photo. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, My name is Margaux Triplet, I've been using Wikipedia for such a long time that I forgot my former account ..

Well I have a request for you. I am studying publishing (how to edit books) and I am working on a common free project with all my classmates about Italy. A kind of little encyclopedia about Italy. I'm the author of the "Little Italy" section and i need an illustration.

The picture of Mulberry Street you've uploaded two years ago would be perfect to illustrate my section and I would like to know if I can use it FREELY (i mean without paying any taxes about copyright and authorship) because my book about Italy will be free, it's not a book that will go to libraries but a kind of "excercise" for our class, to practise before the "real world". I mean, you won't have to pay to get one, just ask one of the classmates !

If you are not the author of the picture, can you tell me who is the real author so I can ask for its free use ?

Thanks very very much by advance

Margaux TRIPLET (margauxtriplet@gmail.com)

I've nominated a picture you created for valued picture status. You're welcome to comment on the discussion above- thought you may want to know. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to valued picture status Your image, File:Mushroom cap morphology2.png, was nominated on Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! jjron (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh. I was researching zooplankton, and I was shocked to see "Zooplankton is a stupid categorisation..." I logged in to edit it, and discovered you'd beaten me to it. Thanks.CorneliusSneed (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NA gills icon.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:NA stipe icon.png. 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:NA stipe icon.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090430/full/news.2009.422.html?s=news_rss

Used your pic. -Ravedave (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey DB, somebody brought this up on another board and it prompted me to compare your skeletal to Scott Hartman's, here: [7]

Among other things, the hip is too big, should be the length of the sacral neural spines, and more rounded. The caudal verts are way too skinny, and the pose of the forelimbs makes it look like it's playing the elbows out, which was not possible. The hands also should be completely vertical. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the thing is, skeletal diagrams aren't art, they're schematics, so there's virtually no room for interpretation in a well-studied specimen. Compare any bone you like to Hartman's and if it isn't pretty much identical it needs to be fixed ;) A few more that pop up as I look at it: The feet need to be more columnar, not flattened. he scapula needs to be broader, and the femur should probably be a tad longer. The neural arches on the sacral vertebrae should be taller (they should reach about where your black outline is). The pubis looks pretty off, did you base that on a different specimen? Might just be variation. This is more biomechanical, but the shoulder girdle and forelimbs should probably be brought posterior a bit, so that the scapula covers up the first rib. I think that's about it, except maybe the posture of the tail. If you notice the joints between the caudals are slanted on yours, whereas most skeletals and mounts I've seen have them vertical. The slanting is necessary to make the tail curve at the base in yours, but it's likely the tail just couldn't do that. Oh, and the skull looks a little too elongated, you might want to squish up the posterior end and shrink the orbit. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What did you use as your original reference? I think Scott copies his bones directly from published figures in most cases, you could always go that rout for the problematic elements in yours. I believe he has a tutorial up somehwere but I can't find it... Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I wonder how much you CAN actually mimic a copyrighted diagram. Aside from the black outline, the bones themselves are a known data point with no artistic interpretation. I wonder how people deal with things like graphs, etc.? Seems like that would be more a parallel. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO I want to thank you for your hard editorial work. Feel free to display the following userbox:

This user helped promote Rise Against to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the award. Just doing my bit to help wiki :) --Muhammad(talk) 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page has been started to review, discuss, and propose changes to the current closure process of Wikipedia Featured picture candidates. The need for this discussion has arisen following complaints and suggestions raised at the FPC talk page in May 2009. This time I believe we are getting somewhere and would appreciate your participation. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Debivort. Your bee image, File:Bee pollenating a rose.jpg, is listed for delisting for Featured pictures. You can find its entry here. ZooFari 03:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I noticed you reverted an edit to Adam Ant yesterday, and I think you might have been mistaken. One particular user has recently started changing the name 'Marco Pirroni' to all kinds of things and it seems you reverted a correction of this. I'm sure it was just a mistake, but I just wanted to let you know about it. I've corrected it now. Best wishes, Jammycaketin (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Leaf morphology no title.png has been nominated to be delisted and replaced by File:Leaf morphology no title.svg. wadester16 06:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Rub' al Khali (Arabian Empty Quarter) sand dunes imaged by Terra (EOS AM-1).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. wadester16 06:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hallgrímskirkja and statue of Leifur Eiriksson.jpg, 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. --JD554 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Please take a look at this. It's looking like a delist & replace, but some reviewers have requested a few fixes. Do you think you can make the changes and upload a new version? Personally, I think the misspelling is all that needs to be fixed, but if you'd like to add the suggested "Leaf Arrangements" section, go for it. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Park Yong-Wook, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sk-gaming.com/group/11555. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

addressed. de Bivort 02:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Debivort

Not used talk before so this may not work.

I'm working on an exhibition on Edinburgh for the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, I'd like to use your image of New Orleans/Katrina (on google images called KatrinaNewOrleansFlooded).

Only problem is I need it pretty big as it's being blown up to approx 2750cm at 72dpi.

Just wondered if you had it available and would be OK for us to use.

re: payment, no problem (just give us an idea of what you might be thinking), also can credit as you require.

Hope that's OK.

Just drop me a line back if you can.

Cheers

Mickannie (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why on earth did you make it green? Green does not convey a sense of danger! I changed it to a magenta red, and strengtherned the sad mouth. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 10:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Remember that green is "GO" and red is "STOP" in any country... "Poison green" isn't something you'd think of when seeing an icon... --Janke | Talk 07:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you thought it might be useful to add a bruise/stain color to the template?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripeypants (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Debivort,

i saw that you originally uploiaded a picture of the beaufort scale ^[1]. I'm publishing of a pretty cool Non-Profit magazine and we would like to use the picture scale 1 as a cover for the next issue, that is going to the printer end of next week.

Please check FROH! here:

http://frohmagazin.de english: http://emilymade.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/luftpost-froh/

Can you give us a hint, who got the rights for this picture? and do you know where to get a better version in higher resolution?

Thanks for your help, greetings from germany!

Micha schmidt (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, he will not just come good, he is a bored side of another wiki member who will remane un named. I managed to get the fight back onto the Topix forum and i will sort it out from there and hopefully Giga Fan wont bother Wikipedia. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"It is hard to think that your persistence in this effort does not reflect your own personal skepticism about evolution, and if it's the case that you don't believe it, you may want to hold off on editing the Darwin article."

Debivort, I am one of the people who is most in favour of the theory of evolution. But it is a scientific THEORY, like the theory of gravitation or the theory of relativity. It is FACTUALLY a theory.

A scientific theory is different to a "theory" as it's used in common parlance. A scientific theory is simply a model that is used to explain all known phenomena, it says nothing about the veracity of the theory.

In your example the word "correspond" is important, he's not saying it occurs for EVERY element, some of which we may not even know about, just that he realised that they 'correspond'. I'll leave it for now, but it's not correct usage of the term and Dave souza, is clearly wrong to state that what he thinks other people might think should play a part in what words are used. Anonywiki (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Debivort! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,798 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the list:

1. Park Yong-Wook - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Kim Dong-Soo (StarCraft player) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Hong Jin-Ho - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Jung Myung Hoon - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Seo Ji-Soo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would you remove the Mike Malloy quote, especially without talking about it first? Mike Malloy said it. It's documented. It's referenced. I can get more references for you since the quote is everywhere. It sparked controversy. You yourself said you like having a lot of quotes on his page on the discussion page. You also said (on the discussion page) we should use Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Randi Rhodes pages to compare how Malloy's should be formatted. All 3 have quotes from there show that sparked controversy. I don't see what could possibly be the problem with having this quote on Malloy's page. We can continue this discussion on Mike Malloy's talk page. Thank you. Kgromann (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

panorama II.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.98.44 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

once gain, u do not own that article. u are lucky that all ur progamer artivles havent been deleted becaused very few of them contain ANY cites. if u dont want that to be reported then stop reverting my edits!!!!!! xx amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.189.100 (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IP is removing information, but the sources could be considered not reliable, and the people themselves may not have a large impact. I agree with you on the fact it should be kept, but I don't feel that your reverts are purely removing vandalism per se. Watch it, it might be necessary to bring this up at WP:AN3 if the IP does not try and discuss his removal. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User just attacked you above, which makes it a bit harder for me to assume good faith. On a more positive note the TLPD would seem to a be a reliable space for your unrefed BLPs by the way. I might get around to helping, but am quite busy. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The last long list section in Starcraft professional competition should probably be split off to "List of winners of professional starcraft tournaments". I might try to do so, but I'm not sure if I have the time currently. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 21:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usage by other sources is the section that applies for teamliquid, not sure about the others. It's extensively cited by the korean media (at least enough to make it considered reliable) The information on wins etc is not self published per se, it is factual information, backed up by reliable sources. It could be considered a secondary source. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 01:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you have a point, however i thought all importances should be the same (is there a difference between top an high? Pohick2 (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Debivort has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Debivort's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Debivort! Peace, Rlevse 00:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a typo in one of the labels of File:Mushroom cap morphology2.png. Under Adnate, it says "gills widely attached widely". Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debivort, sorry to have to do this.... but I must for reasons you will understand. I have just left a very critical comment on Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2009/Committee about your adjustment of the Vincent va Gogh's Starry Night picture.

To put this fully in context for you, Wiki Commons has just been plagued by an editor who has used an automatic colour adjustment, and has digital enhanced more than 100 files, many of them with very destructive impact, and has uploaded the enhancements over the original. This person has also editted out cracks from frescos, and has uploaded drawings done in sepia or red chalk in black and white, over the original image. I have just corrected a very large number of these.

This drew my attention to what appears to be an ongoing problem, the colour adjustment of images, often by peole who are not familiar wih the true colours of the paint that the particular artist used. I'm sure that you edit to the Starry Night was with an aim to imporovement. Luckily, in this case the colour errors are very easy to spot, because van Gogh mixed his colours only very minimally. If you take a close-up view of the two pics that I have put side by side, You'll see immediately what I mean. Remember that with almost all old paintings you are looking at it through a slight yellow haze. That is the present state of the pic. It is always interesting to try to get back to the appearance of the pic without the layers of varnish, but if you do this, the pic ought not be presented as a primary image, but as a small, experimental reconstruction, clearly stated as such. In this cse, I must emphasise that the adjustment does not represent the image as new, because the colours are altogether inaccurate and don't show that paint as Vincent squeezed it out of the tube and slapped it raw on the canvas.

Can you draw my attention to any other adjusted pics that I ought to look at? Amandajm (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you are telling me sounds like a systematic way of going about it. Unfortunately, the results are not right. If you compare the details of the images in the light of the comments that I made on the page above (which I expected to connect, but it didn't) you'll see the problems immediately. The green is dumbed down. The black has turned to dark blue, the burnt siena (reddish brown with an intense colouration) has become a muddy nondescript colour, pale green and pale yellow have become indistinguishable, the clear dark crimson has gone muddy brown and the blues, which included Prussian blue, Ultramarine, Cobalt Blue and Cerulean (all clearly distinguishable in colour, not just in tone ie lightest and darkness) have all turned into shades of just one blue- Ultramarine (a bit purpler, actually).

Look here [8] Amandajm (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's decent of you! I'd love to replace it, but that file is currently on that list. Maybe I could, when the vote has finished. Amandajm (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Debivort,

You deleted my link to www.modecube.com saying that it provides an in-depth example but no new insight.

I don't completely agree with that.

First of all, when I was a student, I would have loved to benefit from such a simple explanation.

Second, I would have thought that there was some new insight as the article explains where the covariance and correlation formulae come from. To me that's quite new (I've never seen why the covariance should be calculated as E ((X-E(X)) * (Y-E(Y))) before...).

May I ask you where you think I'm wrong?

Thanking you in advance, Philippe Vergnetp (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, You can read the policies at WP:EL. This wasn't a clear call for me, maybe it should be included, you are welcome to restore and see what other editors say, but I thought the site went against the policy point in that it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." de Bivort 15:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debivort,

Thank you for your answer. Clearly my first point doesn't hold against this policy. I however reckon my second point may stand.

Anyway, I will do as you suggested and see what other editors say.

Best Regards, Philippe 81.144.152.66 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:300px-Ass tilted.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi de Bivort,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Rub' al Khali (Arabian Empty Quarter) sand dunes imaged by Terra (EOS AM-1).jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 22, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-08-22. howcheng {chat} 09:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for contributing so much to small-world networks and defending it. I edited it to make it slightly easier for a nonspecialist reader. On 17 Jan 2006 you'd cited an article on the topology of mammalian transcription networks in JSBI as evidence that these networks have small-world properties. The link's now broken: "Page Not Found （ページが見つかりません)" My knowledge of the genetic topology literature in Japanese isn't up to the job of finding the article. :) I searched and found a plausible alternative reference for the same claim. Please revise if that seems ill-suited. Econterms (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the Vinland article, you titled an edit "RV, consensus is to use CE on WP." You are mistaken. Please note both you and the IP user violated the last point given in the Manual of Style. I will not revert either as there is no point in it, but in the future please keep in mind that there is no consensus, and we mustn't go "fixing" articles that have the form we don't prefer.

Year numbering systems

• Years are numbered according to the traditional western Dionysian era (Common Era).
  • AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style.
    • Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it (e.g. "The Norman Conquest took place in 1066" not 1066 CE or AD 1066).
    • BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, unspaced, without periods (full stops), and separated from the year number by a space or non-breaking space (5 BC, not 5BC).
    • Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).
    • Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.
      

--Yopienso (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently mistakenly placed the photo 'Microforest' on the Fungus page. I now realize that it goes under the Moss page, but could you help me clarify exactly what type of moss it is? I'm more of a Macro Photography person, and I'm not the best when it comes to defining the scientific elements of my shot.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanXplorer13 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Elton-brand-duke-sign.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Elton-brand-duke-sign.jpg. 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 or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As you created the sign, it should be possible for you to either use the same one or re-create the sign, take a photograph on your own camera, and then upload it. In this way, the image would not be from a copyrighted screenshot, but of your own sign to which you own the copyright -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I saw you made some edits to the cricket article and was hoping you can shed some light on this strange question and perhaps add it into the article. I work at a pet store where we sell crickets. Sometimes they escape from the bin. Today, I accidentally stepped on one of these escapees and noticed a stream a red matter that appeared to have squirted out of it when I stepped on it (I didn't see it when I stepped on it, so I'm not sure whether it actually came from the cricket). I did some research, but can't find an answer as to whether it could've been blood. If crickets do produce red-colored blood (sometimes) I think it may be interesting enough to add in the article. Do you have any idea or can you point me in the direction of where I might find an answer? Thanks. Geeky Randy (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for replying. We don't gut load them very often. So I'm sure the food this particular cricket was on was tan sandy food we give them, plus clear jelly-water. Here (http://www.pangeareptile.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46753) someone mentions seeing little red droplets in their gecko's cage from the cricket; but this person is feeding CGD (Crested gecko diet, I assume is what this food stands for) which we don't carry. So I'm not sure what I saw that was red. Hmm. Geeky Randy (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, here (http://www.pointsincase.com/columns/andrei-trostel/buggin-over-cave-crickets) if you scroll down to the comment section, the writer of the blog adds that he stepped on one and saw red too. So, I wonder if there are either exceptions or if that was just food the cricket had eaten. Geeky Randy (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there; the edit you just reverted at Dinosaur ([9]) was the product of a discussion on the article's talk page. Perhaps you can provide us with a source explaining the significance of using Triceratops over other ornithischians? We await your input at Talk:Dinosaur. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Debivort dilliff stitching error temp.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. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi!

Excuse me, can't you help me, please? I made my own template - "dinobox"( with dinosaur size, diet and distribution), but I have problems with it. John Troodon (talk)

I can't display all of this data, except for the dinosaur's name. There is it:Template:Dinobox. John Troodon (talk)

File:No stipe icon.png (someone created it as a derivative of your work for the hungarian version of Template:Mycomorphbox) may be speedily deleted because it is a compilation of two works that are published under different, incompatible copyleft licenses - unless a little wonder will take place like your file becoming available under a compatible (may nevertheless still be [weak] copyleft, i.e. LGPL) license... ;-) --Natr (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Debivort. You have new messages at Template talk:Mycomorphbox.
Message added 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Debivort. You have new messages at Template_talk:Mycomorphbox.
Message added 08:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 08:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Debivort. You have new messages at Template_talk:Mycomorphbox.
Message added 04:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

He eh, a wall of TBs. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Debivort. You have new messages at Template_talk:Mycomorphbox.
Message added 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Another TB... Sven Manguard Wha? 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replied on my userpage.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your efforts to combat vandalism. You may already know about them, but Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace are useful to place on user talk pages to let them know their edit was inappropriate and educate them regarding the rationale behind your change. Most users just didn't know. In the worst case of a persistent vandal, the talk page messages lets future editors know that the user has a questionable track record and that administrator intervention may be needed. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies if this came off like a template, as I consciously attempted to personalize this. In any event, you have things under control. Thanks again.—Bagumba (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sculpture in Akureyri.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. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Debivort! I am sorry for messing up the page on Norse Gaels and It must be a Gaelic name ,but I feel that the Clan Donald should be included somewhere on the page. I'd appreciate it if you could include it somehow :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctus2kX (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Decordova1.jpg, 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. MGA73 (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sign at Seljalandfoss.jpg, 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. MGA73 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a message on the talk page at Talk:Nicolas Plott challenging your revert. Please feel free to stop by and engage in dialog. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"RV, reference does not support heterochromia" Look at the picture of her eyes in the link. It clearly shows she has central heterochromia - blue with a thin band of golden brown on the inside. Other images are consistent with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.126.116 (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are probably right that she has it - but a photo can be doctored and isn't considered a reliable source for under WP:BLP standards. Also, deciding yourself that the amount of color variation she has constitutes heterochromia, is probably WP:OR. de Bivort 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In Sea urchin, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Urchin (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.