BozoTheScary

Welcome!

Hello, BozoTheScary, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  - BanyanTree 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really an expert in the field and just thought the template would be helpful. Thanks for fleshing it out more. I have taken all the extra info and swung it around and also added a rough time line which I find useful when looking at these engines. It could probably be shrunk a little (font-size? or line height?) Let me know what you think... --Deon Steyn 07:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Linking isolated years has never been a recommendation, though some editors do it. There's a discussion of this in the Manual of Style at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates. Most editors feel (and so do I) that linking isolated years provides little or no benefit (after all, what's the likelihood that anyone will ever click on that link, and what would they learn if they did?) and distracts from the readability of the article by visually emphasising the years over other parts of the text. (Complete dates are another matter, of course - they should be wikified in order to allow users' data preferences to work). Colonies Chris 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Mr. Bozo, I need some help with uploading photos, because the Staunton, Virginia page needs some more photos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weatherdude (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

k thanks

Hello Mr.Bozo, ok, i need some help. I found a picture on a website. which thingy do i pick?

I think my excursion into gun poltics was a mistake. I assumed that a rational debate was in progress. I would avoid Palestine and evolution for similar reasons. JMcC 10:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

BozoTheScary said: I don't understand your rationale regarding the other articles either. Are you saying that because there are other articles that deserve deletion for the same reasons, this one should not be deleted for consistency's sake?

No. The point is that WP:NOT#DICT is often applied as a justification against articles on political and social issues in instances where terminology reflects more than just a word, but often an entire ideology and intent to ridicule an entire class of people (a point you yourself apparently recognize as evidenced by your remarks on Talk:Hoplophobia).

This rationale, if extended to its natural conclusion, could apply to a whole host of other articles, even mundane ones that few or no people oppose, simply because the article subject relates to a single English word or Neologism, (some of which cannot be found in any Dictionary).

I consider this justification to be commonly over-applied, and tend to consider that promoting "comprehensive coverage" sometimes requires that Wikipedians "hold their nose" and accept that some articles may be appropriate, even though they explain terms or concepts that many consider to be offensive or invidious.

I consider WP:NOT#DICT to preclude clearly routine content that could be adequately covered in any average abridged English dictionary. Over-applying this to cover political and social topics invites inconsistent treatment as people "pick and choose" which topics they happen to find favorable to their own personal views and values. Over-application would also prevent articles that are covered in Dictionaries, but still warrant treatment in Wikipedia and result in quite useful articles that cover content that is not likely to be found in a Dictionary entry on the same or similar item (see e.g., Semicolon).

Of course, you may disagree with my analysis and conclusions, but I don't see disagreement in itself as a detriment ... as long as people accurately depict the basic underlying rationale (of their own statements, as well of those of others). dr.ef.tymac 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Image:Harley-Davidson.svg ¡Gracias! -Indolences 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

About two weeks ago, you posted a request for editor assistance; unfortunately, due to some clutter on that page, I missed your note. A request has now been posted. --Aarktica 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bozo. Thanks for all the copy-editing you did in the Heuneburg article. It's so hard to spot one's own typos... I undid one of your changes (from jewelry back to jewellery), as I prefer British spellings. Hope you don't mind. Thanks again. athinaios 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bozo. To be honest, I know little about image policy. I only ever bother to learn enough to cover whatever I am dealing with (Plato would probably despise me for that, Socrates would understand). In any case, what article uses that image? I', pretty sure it's wrong to include it on wikipedia, but it's perfectly alright to link its coordinates through google maps. athinaios 23:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I asked another user for advice. Here's nhis reply. athinaios 07:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Google earth images are not free and have no business being here unless being used on the article on Google earth. The uploader can seek a similar free image from NASA archives. Google earth images can be speedy deleted by using {{Db-copyvio}} -- Cat ^chi? 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The template looks fine to me, but then again I don't have any clue what's going on with any of the flag templates.   You might get better help from somebody who's involved in flags, such as Andrwsc. east.718 at 20:08, March 4, 2008

 

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of statoid name changes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of statoid name changes. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 06:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This was bundled in the same discussion. I wasn't aware of your article when I first sent Statoid for AfD and then someone linked it. Statoids was deleted as spammy and non-notable. The issue with yours was that it was, as I saw it, incomplete and unreferenced original research. I prodded it once the closer didn't delete with statoids since I didn't see it as a plausible search term. If there's citable material, it could probably be added to the Statoid redirect. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's very common to bundle these together. If you object to the deletion, you can take it to deletion review but it's proper procedure, although unofficial to speak with the deleting admin first. I did not delete the article but rather proposed it for deletion via AfD and PROD, which is the procedure for non-admins. Normally with bundled deletions someone will say delete/keep if they think one should be kept, but that wasn't the case here. I think many had participated in the original AfD and may have seen the linked discussion. The cached version is still available and you can see the content, or lack thereof if you want to add the content somewhere but it would need to be verified from reliable sources or it's likely to be removed. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's a lot cleaner and referenced. I think the content from the cached version could be added there if sourced. To be totally honest, I think Administrative Division has become a de-facto name, see Administrative division for example. Statoid.com as a reference is fine, but it didn't warrant an article here as the website is not notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You were right to revert that site - I know the people involved with the site, and it is indeed based out of Staunton, but it's not sufficiently Staunton to go with the article. However, I think some parts of the site (like the bit about DeJarnette) might be linkable from other articles. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely nothing in the text of Template:Prod says the article will be deleted if the template isn't removed in five days. AnonMoos (talk)

These discussions have been moved to /Johnjoecavanagh.

 

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hangout, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 07:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, the place to bring up questions about WP:RS regarding a specific source would be the reliable sources noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, BozoTheScary. You have new messages at Star Mississippi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StarM 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

again :) StarM 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I know it seems odd but McX and MacX names are sorted as Macx. See WP:MCSTJR. --Cavrdg (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry, I didn't know. Thanks. –BozoTheScary (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi BozoTheScary, you were interested in the source of the flag on the Empire of Benin page? The Curator of Antiquities at National Maritime Museum has responded to an email. She says although the flag appears to have been captured during an 1897 expedition against Benin, best current guess is that it originates with the Isekiri people and is possibly one belonging to an Isekiri chief called Nana Oluma - they have 3 other flags definitely associated with him and very similar in style. More stuff on the Empire of Benin talk page. RLamb (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Shane Lacy Hensley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no sign of his individual notability.. only claim is that he worked on some video games that won awards.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tracer9999 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, where does the 20mg/l sea water come from? I looked for some data and found numbers ranging from 1 to 2 µg or in another publication of 30 nmol/l. From this numbers the 1.5 mg/kg Vanadium found in some blood cells make more sense, but it is not the million quoted right now. I will try and search for better numbers with references.--Stone (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

For the blood the Blood cells of Ascidia nigra 26,760 +/- 8900 mg/kg dry weight is given here doi:10.1016/0305-0491(79)90252-9. Would be 26g/kg or 2.6%--Stone (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The 20mg/l comes from a study of high vanadium concentrations in parts of the North Sea. I could dig it up again, if you'd like, but it doesn't seem important to me. The vagueness of the comparison to a varying value seemed to invite hyperbole and that is what I'd like to address in the vanadium, tunicate, and pyura chilensis. — BozoTheScary (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Awesome citations. Thank you. Still, I am concerned that there is some "heavy metal mania" going on here. If the vanadium is concentrated in the blood in the tunic of the creature, could it be more than 10% of the mass of the prepared pyura chilensis? Given a 100g serving, 10% is 10g. Given a concentration of 1.9mg/kg, that's a dose of 19mcg, which is only just above the daily average dose. Likely, I am missing something, but there doesn't appear to be a legitimate danger of vanadium poisoning from eating tetas, based on the data you've dug up. Any objections to me removing the "no studies" sentence and doing some restructuring? — BozoTheScary (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, BozoTheScary. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

BozoTheScary (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19654 was submitted on Nov 01, 2017 19:23:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply