This user may have left Wikipedia. Zafiroblue05 has not edited Wikipedia since October 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Zafiroblue05, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 04:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have corrected some parts (among which Rigoletto) in the Giuseppe Verdi article, but I know that my English is poor and rough. Please, give it a look, if you can. That article needs to be completely rewritten. Thanks, Francesco (I can read your answer here, in your discussion page).

• I cleaned up a few parts here and there, but in general it's a lot better. More details on the Verdi talk page... Zafiroblue05 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Thanks for cleaning up! Maybe I will make some more corrections/additions but I'm not sure since it needs much time, especially in English, Francesco it:Utente:Francesco Cesari 20:11, 2 November 2005 (CET)

Hi, I read your works on Paraguayan football. It's good to have in Wikipedia more Paraguayan users. Feel free to expand my Liga Paraguaya article, if you want. The history section needs to be expanded. Regards, Carioca 22:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Actually, I'm not Paraguayan :D I spent two months there last summer, and am interested in Paraguay, Paraguayan history, Paraguayan soccer (Olimpia!!!), but... yeah. As a side note - do you speak Guarani? The Guarani wikipedia could use some help. I created one "article" - http://gn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguarete, but, well, not knowing more that a few dozen words, maybe a hundred words, I can't do much there...

Sorry, I do not speak Guarani. Thank you for your edits on Liga Paraguaya. Carioca 00:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, when you create or a new page or link for a film, please use film not movie, i.e. Babel (film) instead of Babel (movie), see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Film_titles. Thanks Arniep 12:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please put the date first, i.e. Babel (2006 film). Thanks Arniep 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• • Sorry, missed that. Thanks. :) Zafiroblue05 23:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know that I expanded the African literature article and removed your request from the WP:RFE page. Let me know if you think that was premature. | Keithlaw 15:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Definitely not - good job. :) A few questions... should The Interesting Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Olaudah Equiano be just The Interesting Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Olaudah Equiano? Also, what is the difference between The Interesting Narrative... and "Gustavus Vassa, the African"? (The Equiano page says they are the same book).Zafiroblue05 20:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • Yep, looks like they are the same book. The article I had used as a source indicated that they were different books; they deserve a ten yard penalty for bad use of conjunctions :) I've also prefaced the link to the book with a link to the article on Equiano himself. Let me know if anything else looks out of whack. Thanks! | Keithlaw 20:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contribution on Guaraní Wikipedia...

When will you come again to Paraguay? huh?

--N0thingness 02:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

• When I can. :) Which means probably not within the next four/five years; maybe not the next ten. We'll see... plane tickets are expensive! By the way, I added some of your content to jopará and wikified Minga Guazú a little bit. Zafiroblue05 03:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding that to the 19th century. Even Grun's Timetables of History doesn't mention it! --Brunnock 22:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Sure. :) That's a shame, though, it was a huge conflict. Zafiroblue05 22:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually, i think the best place to find your uploads would be the upload log. BTW, if you upload free pics, maybe you can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). This way the files are accessible to other Wikipedia projects, too. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you, that was even more helpful. I've never seen these logs before; the things you learn each day... :) Zafiroblue05 04:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You were right when you said that you had different opinions to the majority of FPC regulars! I'm afraid I don't find the Clyde Dam picture visually appealing at all. Not that this is a bad thing; it's good to get people with a wide range of views in the discussion. You noted the "surprising use of color" of the Dam picture, and I was just wondering what this refers to. Raven4x4x 11:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Answered on Raven4x4x's talk page. Zafiroblue05 23:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. It is not immediately clear to me why you described your edit to the Fonthill Kame article as "grammar". As far as I can see, you have fixed any grammar, but instead you have reverted my last edit, removing relevant outgoing links and factual information in the process. I have noticed another similar edit, where you have removed wikilinks and a category by reverting. What is your motivation for these edits? Let me know. Thanks. --Qviri (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• You have every right to be upset. I changed the word "it" to "its," which is why I marked it as grammar. I have no idea in the least how the other changes appeared. Same with the stunt article - I changed one line - do not know how the other changes occur. I apologize. Zafiroblue05 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
• I found out what happened - I was at a list of "neglected" pages (which hadn't been edited for over a year. I clicked on the original version of the page, saw two minor mistakes, and fixed them - in the process eliminating the changes since then (because the pages were recently listed as neglected for a long time, in recent weeks there have been a few changes to each, including your edits to Fonthill Kame). I am sorry for what happened and will now go through my recent edits to see if I have done the same thing elsewhere. Zafiroblue05 00:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • We all make mistakes — I figured something like that happened, but wanted to make sure you didn't have any issues with my edit before reverting :) Happy wikiediting. --Qviri (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Michael Bates (athlete), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

(17:42, January 18, 2006)

Thanks so much for creating the Ibrahim Hussein Berro article! It looks really good. Well sourced, too. I don't know if you were looking at my wishlist, but it was on there. Keep up the good work! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yep, that's where I saw it! Zafiroblue05 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ibrahim Hussein Berro, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the compromise you made in the Ibrahim Hussein Berro article about the terrorist nature of Hezbollah. My biggest concern was NPOV. The Hezbollah article states that a big part of the world doesn't consider it a terrorist group, and your argument is also invalid: many wars aimed at destroying governments, but we never called Hitler or Julius Cesar a terrorist. CG 04:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Heh, there's a limit to the number of characters you're allowed to put in a edit summary. To clarify, I would at the very least add a clause about it being from "below"... At any rate, any definition of terrorist that excludes Hezbollah is, I believe, laughable. Zafiroblue05 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes you're right, I should've explained my point in the summary. But, just my opinion, you may find the fact that Hezbollah is non-terrorist is laughable, just as many would think that the Qana event wasn't a massacre (that's why the title of this article has been changed). If it is controversial, there should be no definite definition. Anyway, I'm just trying to argue on a dispute you've already solved. cheers. CG 06:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. If the replies to your question at the mathematics reference desk were helpful, please let us know by posting an acknowledgment there, so we'll have an idea of how well we did. Thanks. --KSmrq^T 18:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Heh, give me some time! You posted here a fraction of a day after you replied! :) Zafiroblue05 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ordinarily we neither solicit nor receive feedback, but you had a better question than many, and I was especially curious. Take your time. :-) --KSmrq^T 05:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh BTW, I added a bit to answer the sub-question you added. --Fangz 03:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've added links on each draft at for example Draft 6A to all of the other drafts, it's really the only way to make comparisons. If you think this is stupid then let me know, otherwise I'll keep it up. hydnjo talk 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I think it's very helpful. :) Zafiroblue05 04:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You forgot to sign your vote on the ISS FPC. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Whoops, indeed I did. :) Zafiroblue05 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please add chingy to list of rappers, instead of list of hip hop musicians.--Urthogie 11:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Fair enough. :) Zafiroblue05 03:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

In answer to your question, no because I couldn't determine the license. My edit would by no means equal the clarity of that rather awesome image but removal of the extra fish does take away the distraction. If you could do it with a better program than mine I am sure you would see the diff. It's awesome as it is though.--Dakota ~ ε 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Multisomic means that more than two chromosomes pair (sometimes called multivalent). Since the genome has doubled there are now four chromosmes and they can all pair together. This makes segregation of alleles less predicatable.

If the diploid has two chromosome pairs: AA and BB When it is autotetraploid it will be AAAA and BBBB. Thus four chromosomes together are multisomic.

Disomic means that only two chromosomes pair, the same as normal. Why the difference. Since alloploids are the result of two different plants hydridizing together (interspecific) the equivalent chromosomes are not identical and therefore cannot misspair with each other.

If the two diploids have two chromosome pairs each : AA and BB (species 1) and CC and DD (species 2). When it is allopolyploid it will be AA, BB, CC and DD. Thus four disomic chromosomes are characterictic of a allopolyploid. (the diploid in each case has two disomic chromosome pairs).

Hydridisation just means that species A mates with species B. What makes this special though is that it is only fertile if there is a duplication of the genome. if not the plant would be sterile. So two events are required to get an allotetraploid.

1) Interspecific hydridisation (AA BB cross to CC DD) to give A B C D (this is sterile since the chromosmes are not equivalent cannot pair and therefore cannot segregate correctly during meiosis).

2) Genome duplication of A B C D to give AA BB CC DD. This plant is now allotetraploid and fertile since all four chromosme pairs can segregate.

i pasted here to since i did not see your reply until now. David D. (Talk) 23:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:WhereRainbowRises.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. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 06:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for nominating my picture, and letting me know that it was promoted.--Wingchi 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zafiro. How do you made the background images? It's the CSS? Do you can explain me (step by step) this method? I am from PT, and in the PT, this option isn't popular. Regards. -- Slade _T 20:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Answered on talk page. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for supporting my successful request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsible use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 08:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I deleted Joshua Blahyi as CSDA7, after it was nominated for speedy deletion as "nonsense, joke page, bleh, end the silliness". I've restored the article per your request, and delisted from CSD. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You recently posted a copyvio notice at the article on the Balsas River, citing Britannica. I created this article a while back, and although I can't remember now, I may well have used Britannica as my source. Can you let me know what you think I need to do to the article to turn it into something which uses the material taken from Britannica (if that is the case) in such a way as not to be in violation of copyright, and I'll happily make those changes. Thanks SP-KP 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The page was basically a word-for-word copy and paste of Britannica. The Britannica was as follows (it's probably a copyvio to post it here, but for the point I think it's necessary):

Spanish Río Balsas, river in south-central Mexico, one of that country's largest rivers. It rises as the Atoyac River at the confluence of the San Martín and Zahuapan rivers in Puebla state and flows southwestward and then westward through Guerrero state, in which it is the principal river and is locally known as the Mezcala. It forms the border between Guerrero and Michoacán states and empties into the Pacific Ocean at Mongrove Point. Although its 479-mile (771-kilometre) course is unnavigable because it is frequently interrupted by rapids, the river is utilized extensively for generating hydroelectric power and for irrigation. Corn (maize), coffee, cotton, sugarcane, tropical fruits, and vegetables are the principal crops cultivated in its basin.

Meanwhile, the WP article said (taking out paragraph breaks),

The Balsas River is a river in south-central Mexico, and is one that country's largest rivers, forming a large basin called the Balsas Basin. It rises as the Atoyac River at the confluence of the San Martin and Zahuapan rivers in Puebla state and flows southwestward and then westward through Guerrero state, in which it is the principal river and is locally known as the Mezcala. It forms the border between Guerrero and Michoacán states and empties into the Pacific Ocean at Mongrove Point, adjacent to the city of Lázaro Cárdenas, Michoacán. It is 771 kilometres long. There are many rapids along its length. The river is used to generate hydroelectric power. It is also a source of water for irrigation.

Everything in italics is word-for-word the same (the last three sentences aren't italicized but are too close for comfort). Britannica is a very good source, but you need to phrase it in your words if you use it. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. Thanks for that - that seems like pretty conclusive proof that Britannica was my source! I've no problem with rewording this - however, I think I need some more convincing evidence that this is needed. The sections of text you highlighted above are all simply pieces of factual information - I think Britannica would have a hard job proving that they have copyright over, for example, the sentence "The Balsas River is a river in south-central Mexico". If you're arguing we have to play ultra-safe, I can see where you're coming from - in which case can you identify the specific sections which you think Britannica could claim as "theirs", and that's where I'll focus my attention. SP-KP 17:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, for example, the turn of phrase "It rises as..." is sufficiently unique that Britannica could probably claim that as theirs - and, anyway, it feels like a pretty awkward phrase in the first place. That entire sentence is exactly the same as Britannica's, and therefore I think they could probably claim it as theirs - just use the facts and say something like, "The Balsas river begins at where the San Martin and Zahuapan rivers meet and continues..." etc. Just rearrange the syntax - "Guerrero state" becomes "state of Guerrero (which sounds more modern anyway), and so on. Rearrange the sentences - you use exactly the same order of facts as Britannica does. I don't know anything about copyright law, but at the very least make it seem like it doesn't come from Britannica, even as it does (and even as you source it). zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi - there is a revised version now at Balsas River/Temp. Let me know if you think it needs further work, and if so, which passages. Thanks SP-KP 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Looks very good. :) I still I'd mention Britannica as a source, though, unless you know about the river from somewhere else. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have retrieved the deleted text for you and put it at User:Zafiroblue05/Jeniferever. Feel free to reintegrate it into the current article, which might be AfDed again in the near future. I hope not, though. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, I appreciate it. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see you didn't like my addition of the Ryan Schreiber picture to hipster doofus. I knew it was inappropriate, but it was just so ... appropriate.  :-) Since (as you apparently noticed) the article seemed to consist solely of unverifiable claims and material copied from Hipster, I redirected it to Cosmo Kramer, who is by far the individual most famous for being a "hipster doofus". Cheers, dbtfz^talk 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Heh, that Ryan Schreiber picture was one of the funniest things I've seen in a little while, but you're right - the entire article wasn't very encyclopedic. Cheers. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article Harry Potter and the Toenail of Icklibõgg has been nominated for deletion. I see that you left a comment on its talkpage some time ago, so I thought I'd give you a heads-up in case you'd like to participate in the AfD discussion. --Icarus 21:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Zafiroblue05. I have never seen you edit on Talk:Philippine-American War before two days ago, so it is a surprise that you continue to restore the critism of this page.

Unfortunatly, we disagree about whether this criticism should remain. I hope by this message that maybe you can understand why I continue to delete this critism.

Mwhite takes the wrong approach

Over the past few months of being an editor of wikipedia, I have noticed that there are some people who are unable, or unwilling, to work as a team on wikipedia. Some of these people become very bitter, and leave wikipedia, others go one step further and instead of moving on with their lives, start webpages decrying how horrible wikipedia is. This mwhite loser appears to be one of the later people.

If mwhite would have come to the talk page and wrote his criticisms I would have welcomed his suggestions as good advice, and worked with him to improve the webpage. Instead mwhite posted his criticisms on a no-name web blog which decries how horrible wikipedia is. Notice how the web blog has no actual opportunity for anyone to respond, and how his e-mail page discourages people from e-mailing him. This loser is not interested in a dialogue, he is interested in a monologue, which is counter to everything that wikipedia is.

mwhite uses wikipedia's popularity on google to gain an audience

Ironically, mwhite owes his infamy to the very web page he criticizes. Without the links to his web blog on wikipedia, his web blog would get no attention.

So Mwhite, is someone who:

• is someone who never learned to "play well with others" in kindergarden,
• is someone who does not know how to take criticism but dishes it out liberally, and
• is someone who uses the very organization he bad mouths for his popularity deserves no audience on wikipedia.

I think it is horrible that this loser is using Talk:Philippine-American War to increase his page ranking, and therefore, I continue to delete this criticism. Even in mwhite himself did not add this link to his web blog, mwhite is benefiting from the link.

Suggesting changes on wikipedia talk pages

In maybe two cases out of hundreds, i have seen a case where anyone actually does anything asked for on the talk page. A much more effective way to incorporate this losers criticisms, is make the changes yourself on the wikipage. No one is going to do it for you. I am proud to say that of all the criticisms of this loser, the only criticism that can be attributed to me is the Miller/Gates comment.

My appeal to you

I would kindly ask you to make the changes yourself, and please don't continue to help this loser's page rank by reverting my deletions. Travb 18:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Zafiroblue05. In the process of writing about of few palm species native to my corner of Argentina, I noticed you'd authored a stub about Acrocomia totai in this wiki. If you find the subject interesting, the article in Spanish is a bit more comprehensive, and there is information about Pindó, Yatay and Caranday palms as well. Best, Taragüí @ 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I think I'll translate a few of those soon. :-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zafiroblue05 - could you please check the article again and point out what other improvements are necessary? Your argument about jargon and "What is Sikhism" is reasonable, but in writing an encyclopedic article, complexities cannot be avoided. Nevertheless, we are working to improve the prose and need you to help us out a bit more. Rama's Arrow 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, note the importance of the lead in answering "What is Sikhism," which leaves succeeding sections to enter more complex content. Rama's Arrow 20:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely an improvement, now - almost there, I think... zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Zafiroblue05, I would respectfully ask you to reconsider your objection in light of the improvements. Please take a look! Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment. Large scale modifications have taken place since you made it. For more details, please refer to the link above, and to the article itself. :NikoSilver: 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Look good. :-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Update: More prose and full citation for everything. I really can't think of anything else we could do. 2 users already shifted to support. Kindly do the same! :-):NikoSilver: 13:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:125073721 2bb2cb0a05 o.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. 02:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just delete it, Mr. Bot! (See [1]). zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi -- I removed the stub tag from birthday party figuring that a DAB page doesn't need a stub tag, since by definition it's going to be short...maybe this page should just be merged into The Birthday Party so there's only one DAB page? Bookgrrl 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm just not sure that it should be a disambig page at all, which is why I put the stub there. I think it could be a viable article in and of itself. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah I see. Yes, you're right...I'll take a look at it tonight, shall I, see what I can do with it? Thanks! Bookgrrl 10:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Skronk" and "prog" are in fact legitimate descriptive terms applied to various forms of popular music. Badagnani 05:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Prog certainly is, but "sqwonk," which the article had, is not. zafiroblue05 | Talk 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The two links to the site portal.isiknowledge.com that you added as citations in the Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius article don't work for me. Do you by any chance know what is going on? Perhaps this is a subscription site? If so, it would definitely help to indicate what the linked pages are, instead of just providing blind URLs. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. It was/is a subscription site, but I didn't realize it, because I was on a computer already with the subscription. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted the unverifiable part of the Giles quote that you worked on. Please check out my revision and let me know what you think. Keahapana 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's better, but I think this information - "This theory is rejected by the compilers of the great Catalogue of Ch'ien Lung's Library, who represent the cream of Chinese scholarship in the eighteenth century" is necessary, because it gives the other side (that he did exist), and excluding it is a little biased. But I know little about this sort of topic, so someone with a little more expertise should decide, really. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I see your point, and it might be better to replace the full quote. Do you want me to do it? The reason for my delete was owing to the "this quote lacks certain facts and may be unverifiable", which seems counterproductive to a reader who would then logically ask, Then why was this quote included? I am familiar with this topic, and Liezi may have existed or not, but there's no historical certainty.

On another matter, I noticed you changed the Harvard referencing to footnotes. From what I've read at WP:REF and elsewhere, I thought in-line citation was preferred. What's the advantage of using ref tag footnotes? Thanks again. Keahapana 03:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

To me, I find Harvard refs very awkward. Basically, references are only needed in the body text, IMO, for experts or others looking to follow up; the general reader, on the other hand, only wants to absorb information, and so the knowledge that a reference is there (with a footnote) is all that is necessary. But it's a stylistic choice, and doesn't really matter either way - go with what you'd like! zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Soviet_super_test.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Soviet super test.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of '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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Slowking Man 07:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Stewart Earth Abides.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of '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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Slowking Man 07:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Uh, it's the book cover rationale. See the "Licensing" header. zafiroblue05 | Talk 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

...didn't you duplicate Military Commissions Act of 2006 on your list of articels? 68.39.174.238 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Lol, it appears I did. Good catch, I should pay attention more. :-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Zafiroblue05! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

May you and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well as any other Holiday you may celebrate. I hope that warmth, good cheer, and love surround you during these special days. May God bless you during the Holidays. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

File:Julekort.jpg

.

This file may be deleted.

The Sunshine Man 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

On 31 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lucy Brewer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Reply

This file may be deleted.

A tag has been placed on Matthew Quintal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for those references on the Miscellaneous reference desk, just what I wanted even if I wasn't the original poster. They're paint a very interesting picture of Wikipedia Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Early Years (DJ Danger Mouse) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.