LAST ARCHIVED 05:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

View the archive of User_talk:Fresheneesz

What exactly are you doing to bird? I realise the page has a lot of refs but I don't see how puting breaks in helps. Could you discuss changes with the formatting of the page on the talk page with the editors who work on this article a lot? And what does an edit summary of rrr mean exactly? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally tracked down the origin of this concept (term), it is from German mathematician Carl Neumann (1875). If you know how to make a "d" (with a cross-bar hat going through the handle of the d), please add it to the article. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 05:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"However, both of these are as controversial as a debate over yawning can be."

ROFL. Pure comic genious! 81.156.79.119 19:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just saw your essay at User talk:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, and posted a lengthy comment at User talk:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy#Highly dubious argument. Please don't take my criticism personally - it's not directed at you, but at the essay, and the inclusionist/deletionist dichotomy I feel it promotes. Feel free to let me know if you have any comments in return. Terraxos 18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:CTscan.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CTscan.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish my twenty favorite fellow Wikipedians a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wage-labour.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. --OrphanBot 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:SkyTran_Seattle2.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 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is retarded as hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.54.139 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Impactful, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 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. Eskater11 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarindg Image:SkyTran_Seattle2.jpg, permission to use it on Wikipedia is not good enough. Those kinds of images were banned over two years ago. You must get Douglas J. Malewicki to license it under a free license – such as Creative Commons BY or Attributon 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0, the GFDL, in the public domain/{{copyrightedfreeuse}}. If he agrees to this, please have him send an email to permission AT wikipedia DOT org with a statement like this: "I, Douglas J. Malewicki, certify that I am the copyright owner of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SkyTran_Seattle2.jpg and license it under [so-and-so] license. I understand that the image can be used for commerical purposes and have deravatives without my permission or without payment." hbdragon88 08:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to permission for a free license; the page just doesn't clarify it. Fair use? To only be used under the direst of circumstances. The SkyTran image looks easily replaceable – that is, a Wikipedian in the Seattle area could take his/her own picture of it and put it under a free license. If it's at some special event, sure, fair use can be used, but otherwise it will generally be deleted. hbdragon88 09:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah – didn't know that it was concept art...that does throw more weight on it being used under WP:NFCC. hbdragon88 22:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a fair use rationale to the picture. A much smaller version of the picture should be uplaoded, but I think we're all set for now. it would be very nice as well if you oculd convince Malewciki to release it under a free license, but, like I said, I think we're good for now. hbdragon88 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of state machine CAD tools, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state machine CAD tools. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Anshuk (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Iomanip, 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 Iomanip.

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Emacs commands, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Lagrange's formula, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated List of Emacs commands, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "What Wikipedia is not").

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Bus (electronics).png 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:Bus (electronics).png|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. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your map, Image:The Low Countries.png, there are small enclaves of land in the Bishopric of Liege that are labelled "Redemptiedorpen." What does that mean? I couldn't find an article that referenced it and, unfortunately, I don't speak Dutch.

Excellent map, by the way. Coemgenus 19:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like some feed back on this Please send comments to wiki@profusionenergy.com --Regsoft (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fresheneesz, I deleted the UniModal article as purely promotional material which had then been whittled down by well-meaning users to conjectures based on hypothetical statements made by the organization in question, and having no actual, proven basis whatsoever in reality. No third-party references exist for UniModal's assertions about their products, except those that are based purely off of UniModal promotional materials. This should have been deleted long ago under speedy deletion criterion 11; that instead it was slowly whittled down to a few sentences and a fair-use (promotional!) photograph doesn't change that. You are free to request undeletion of the article, but I believe I was within the letter and spirit of the policy to delete it. Truly, JDoorjam JDiscourse 07:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my talk page, and for the link to your essay. I believe you're referring to a string of articles I deleted about a year and a half ago, when I deleted a number of porn stars' bios where the articles made no real assertion as to their notability. Of the hundreds of "pornographic actor" bios, I deleted a couple dozen, all but a small number of which stayed deleted, though it was mildly controversial at the time amongst the small circle of Wikipedians who tend to the pornography articles on the project. I do try to be as objective as I can in all of my edits, especially administrative actions, and most especially deletions, but they are sometimes controversial nonetheless, and my first priority is the good of the project, rather than trying not to step on toes (though that is a priority too). I commented at the DRV. Thank you for being polite as well. Truly, JDoorjam JDiscourse 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you have time any input on Clesh would be appreciated. It's a new article for a sister of FORscene. It is being proposed for deletion. Your ID is on the original discussion trail for FORscene and think the Clesh discussion would benefit from any input you can offer. Regards, mk (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that {{db-meta}} should not be used directly, as it will result in the tagged page not appearing in any of the normal deletion categories. If you wish to use a customized reason, please use {{db|reason}}. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to start merging Unimodal into SkyTran? Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image restored, happy editing! east.718 at 20:49, May 13, 2008

It's not worth it. Just ignore him and focus on the article. ATren (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. Now. Channel your energy into the article if you're frustrated. Firing back does nothing but get you into hot water. ATren (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - remember to be civil. And come and visit me when the Terminal 5 PRT is up and running :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does a probable scam really seem like it merits inclusion in wikipedia? Should Aquygen be able to use wikipedia as a tools to gain notoriety and credibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh, JDoorjam is essentially correct in his concerns. We can't just have claims that are unsourced or poorly sourced, even if we know they're correct for this system. I could swear there were some reliable third party sources for many of the claims, but I've been looking and I can't locate them. Maybe it was relying solely on the unimodal website as the source for technical details? I don't know.

Now, initially, JDoorjam appeared to react hastily, when he put up the AFD and then added the Malewicki quote. But since then he's been very accomodating, requesting citations and politely explaining his changes. This is not a whitewash, he has legitimate concerns - if you allow unsourced claims to describe the system, you open up the floodgates to all sorts of unsourced allegations, and we all know where that will lead.

So, I suggest you work with JDoorjam and try to locate some sources. One that I seem to recall was a Malewicki IEEE (or something like that) paper that described a hypothetical city in 2050 with SkyTran - that might be a source for system details, but I can't find it online (maybe you can get that issue from a library?). Otherwise, it will have to remain little more than a stub until sources document it. ATren (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Point of view forking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for missing your last message. It was deleted because an editor Proposed it for deletion, with the reason WP:WINAD. I don't know why you weren't notified - you'd have to ask the user who added the PROD tag. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cordite.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. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —teb728 t c 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Latin word" kes-; there is only a hypothetical reconstructed proto-Indo-European root kes-. No ancient Latin-language speaker could have reasonably deduced from the contemporary Latin language that the Latin word castus "pure" had anything to do with a word meaning "to cut". Furthermore, the concept of "caste" in its Hindu form was completely unknown to the ancient Romans; the English word "caste" originated from the use of a PORTUGUESE word in India in the 16th-century A.D. For these and other reasons, the "etymology" section was unfortunately very poor... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, YOU freely chose to add material to an article, so the clear obligation was on YOU to do so in a form that would be at least minimally acceptable for the purposes of Wikipedia, if you wanted the material to stay on Wikipedia. There was no real corresponding obligation on me to clean up after your low-quality confused mess -- I could have done so if I chose, but if I happened to choose not to take on that extra amount of work at that particular time, then the best course of action was to delete (which I did). Probably things would go easier for everybody all around if you refrained from writing extended "explanations" concerning a somewhat technical subject-matter many of whose significant details you clearly have not mastered (starting with the spelling of the word "etymology"). AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, whenever you add meaningless random personal insults to my talk page (in violation of WP:AGF, among other Wikipedia policies), then I will feel perfectly free to delete your comments containing pointless personal insults (irrelevant to the topic of under discussion here) from my talk page. I haven't yet looked at article Chastity (it's a task I'm not really looking forward to), but when I do, if I find that the section is still low-quality (and not easy to fix without very extensive throughgoing revisions), like it was before, then I will feel perfectly free to delete it from the article at that time. If you don't like this, then that would appear to be your problem. AnonMoos (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really rather useless and pointless for you to attack and threaten me ("and impolitic too", as Elizabeth Bennet might say) considering the origin of this matter: I edited your talk page to add a substantive factual message (not personal in any way) which very clearly explained in detail why your edits to the article Chastity were factually incorrect, and not at all easy to fix without very extensive and thoroughgoing revisions (peruse edit diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFresheneesz&diff=253365956&oldid=251844207 ), and you chose to reply on my talk page with a ranting tirade which contained absolutely no substantive or factual content whatsoever, but instead consisted purely of insults and personal attacks (peruse edit diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnonMoos&diff=253541782&oldid=253484281 ). There's a saying somewhere about the mote in your brother's eye vs. the beam in your own eye. Furthermore, I commonly remove remarks from my talk page which are vandalistic, or have no ascertainable meaningful relationship to the goal of improving Wikipedia -- and this practice is not "censorship"[sic], and I will feel perfectly free to continue to do the same in future, and if you don't like this, then that would appear to be mainly your problem. Also, I'm only allocating a strictly limited amount of time per day to the task of dealing with the effects of your aggravating behavior, so if my replies to you are somewhat delayed, that's why... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said you seemed to be having problem with spelling the word "etymology" because you added a section header "chastity etimology" to my user talk page. I never said anything about the spelling of "censorship" (though if I had been inclined to quibble, then I could have pointed out that the collective or mass noun "censorship" does not usually pluralize very well) -- the "[sic]" after "censorship" referred instead to the fact that you used the word in a manner which was not in accordance with its usual definition (and particularly meaningless when applied to Wikipedia, where extremely few edits to pages are truly "deleted" in any meaningful sense, as long as the pages themselves are not deleted). I haven't yet considered in any detail your more recent edits to the article "Chastity" because (as I said) I'm allocating a strictly limited amount of time per day to dealing with the consequences of your behavior, and so far (over the last three days) all of the allotted minutes have been taken up with user talk page discussions. In any case, I actually see little need for an extended etymology section on page "chastity", beyond saying that the word comes from Latin castitas which is in turn derived from the Latin adjective castus "pure". All the remoter Indo-European etc. stuff would only really be relevant if it added additional insight to the precise meanings of Latin castitas / English "chastity" (which as far as I can tell, it doesn't). AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look up the word "censorship", because currently you seem to have very little idea of its true meaning. If by "cooperating" you mean that in your view I am required to keep all comments on my talk page, regardless of whether they're abusive or irrelevant to productive cooperation in improving Wikipedia (and I would certainly include your remarks of "05:54, 23 November 2008" in both these categories, then you would appear to be out of luck. AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed your dispute and it seemed to play out in a similar manner as mine. Having had the experience I did, I pretty well knew how it would go from the moment you said 'Damn man, chill out.' I can see you were responding to the severely condescending tone of one who appears frustrated to have to explain something to the child you apparently are. Your edit on the article was sourced and it stayed close to the information on the page it was sourced from. That right there is enough to deserve respectful treatment. Your edit on Anon's talk page seems warranted and one most people would respond much differently to. I don't know what you hope to accomplish but reviewing this situation brought back feelings of frustration that are more than anyone should have from freely contributing their time to a good cause, and indeed, were enough to significantly lessen my desire to contribute. In hopes the result will be positive for everyone involved and will help to lessen these types of incidents in the future, I'll support your RfC. - - Lambajan 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys seem to be going down an ultimately losing road -- I certainly have little patience with certain types of foolishness, and can be abrupt and brusque at times, and if you dredge through all of my tens of thousands of edits, it's likely that you'll be able to find some which were "incivil" (rarely without provocation, however). But the original causes of the "disputes" (if you want to call them that) with both of you involved a certain amount of unattractive pettiness on your parts, and if you drag this through some kind of formal mediation process, it's highly doubtful whether either of you will end up having your own actions displayed in a very favorable light, even if you eventually manage to succeed in having some kind of formal rebuke issued to me... AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unattractive, perhaps (though tone is often misinterpreted in written formats because most of us are used to transmitting the better portion of it nonverbally; so most people will give others the benefit of the doubt when their interpretation is questioned online). 'Petty,' however, is not a correct characterization. Indeed, your efforts to trivialize matters that are unflattering to you are what escalated these situations from normal tiffs and frustrations that all editors experience to damaging and unnecessary quarrels. I'm aware that I'm indicting you and this must be very unpleasant. Please know I'm also aware that we all have problems and you are a better contributor to this project than I am.

I think it's interesting that you're trying to dissuade us by cautioning that we may 'lose' and our actions may be characterized 'unfavorably.' I can see how some of my comments may cause you to react defensively, but I made my reasoning clear for supporting the matter: a "positive [result] for everyone involved [that] will help to lessen these types of incidents in the future." And I mean that. Given the way Fresheneesz responded, it sounds like he shares my mindset. The only way I can lose is if this same scenario plays out again in the future. If this can be achieved without an RfC, all the better.

Just like you probably didn't mean to come across as shouting and a bit condescending to Fresheneesz in your initial post, he probably didn't mean to come across as genuinely angry, but as he would sarcastically yell at a friend to calm down. In a similar way, my initial section title had a misleading tone (if you haven't already you can gain some more insight into that matter here). Many editors here have grown to dealing with eachother in a highly colloquial manner. When we found out you seem to take negatively to that we both changed our writing styles to cater to your sensibilities. In both cases the initial incident was very minor and for this reason could have been very quickly resolved. Humor and sarcasm are problematic when not taken as such, but working that aspect of it out is a relatively routine procedure when all of the editors view eachother as peers.

This is a collaborative project and maintaining an atmosphere that is conducive to this is essential for its success. To help build this atmosphere you can keep communication channels open until it's apparent that all participants have finished the conversation. You can also be a bit slower to judge and a bit quicker to realize that you may have misjudged. I'm always happy to find out someone is better than I expected them to be in one way or another. I'm also happy when I find that all I have to do to fix a situation is revise my judgments.

Please take a moment to consider that I'm not your enemy; I'm not trying to tear you down or prolong unnecessary arguments. The things I've said, here and before, are worth considering.

I'm sorry this is long but I thought I'd take the moment to try to accomplish my goals without the RfC, and indeed, if you respond positively here, I'll gladly withdraw my support for it. - Lambajan 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the dictionary definition of marriage. Go to dictionary.com type in "marriage". The definition is the same one that I put in the article. Legokid (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been really busy lately, haven't been around here much. I'll try to get involved if I have time but probably not for a while. Things have been crazy in real life. ATren (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:14ilf1l.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind postponing it. I was hoping that the little diatribe I put there would help to solve the whole thing, but it seems when you say too much at once people either don't like responding or don't know how to. I honestly wouldn't mind throwing out the whole thing if Anonmoos gives some kind of positive response to this whole thing. Unfortunately he seems to be looking at it like some kind of competition or something... so, no I don't mind giving the whole thing some time, maybe we can all step back and learn something. - Lambajan 12:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm catching up with a few things. Is this still an issue? Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-wrote the above article,which you created as a redirect at 2006-05-28T05:37:26, so I thought I should give you the 'heads up'. :)--Thecurran (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to answer your question concerning resolution, see discussion: Talk:Resolution_(logic)#Literals

I have nominated Solid-state ionics, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solid-state ionics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SpinningSpark 22:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]