![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
But in case you don't, your contributions to Wikipedia will be around for a long time. Take care-- ragesoss 03:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont blame you. I hope you do not mind if I try to marshall a few forces to stop this outrage-- Filll 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This site was snuck into the Evolution article, and led me to ponder heading in to politely point out all the failures in the eye lecture (as one I feel well able to tackle). They claim to want debate, eh? Would you care to join me? Vanished user talk 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the lovely award of 'exceptional newcomer' on my talk page! :-) ! Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 10:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar :). That's quite kind of you. Regards, ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This is now no-longer a redirect, as this material being merged into AGF proved controversial. See also my own essay on a similar topic, which I made before realizing there had already been something along those lines: User:Friday/Competence. Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to your attention in case you didn't know your essay is now back as a seperate page. Friday (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Done, reverted, warned and posted about at [1]. pschemp | talk 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
OMG! Have you been following all of this! Let's see now ... Ah, Yes ... I'm supposed to accuse you of stalking me right about now! In fact, um, ... I better not mention it. Save it for email or another day ... ;-) ... Kind Regards, Keesiewonder talk 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you please look at
Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 12:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the title. Frank van Mierlo 00:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent sugestion; I will express my support for the automatic solution to redirects Frank van Mierlo 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest & contribution. I did see your comment on the layout and I subsequently shrunk the images from 450 to 350. I hope this is acceptable to you. It took a long time to make these images and I would really like to see them at a readable size. I know the collumn format is a bit unusual it does keep the layout orderly and it solves the bunched up edit links problem. Mierlo 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
You voted for
Natural selection and this article is now the current
Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article. |
NCurs e work 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey there! Welcome back! Glad to see ye again! Vanished user talk 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Samsara, I wondered if you had any comments or suggestions? The FAC page is here. Thanks. TimVickers 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Samsara!
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team has recently been working on Compsognathus in an effort to prepare it for a FACing. Your copyedits and suggestions for Tyrannosaurus, months back, were incredibly helpful (because perspective from someone who hasn't been working on the material and isn't sick to death of it by the end is always helpful), and although you had officially joined the team, we haven't seen you around since then. You wouldn't have to do any editing or anything, but if you could perhaps give the article a look, make a few recommendations (getting as thorough/exhaustive as you want to get), we could then start incorporating your ideas/suggestions/etc into the article. As a FAC reviewer, your perspective is very valuable. If you haven't the time, I understand, but your observations on Tyrannosaurus were spot-on, and I'm just hoping to duplicate that article's success. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey! I guess you thought I dropped out forever. Been really busy at work so had to lay off for a while. Just wanted to say 'hey' -- Carold e rmoid ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not (yet) aware of any tools for tackling these. I bet if you can describe what you are trying to do or identify a problematic one that you are trying to fix, one of the following users would be able to help. You've got me curious now too ... User:Rich Farmbrough, User:Jayvdb, User:EdJohnston. -- Keesiewonder talk 12:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I do believe I have a strong case that Zoe violated the wikipedia's policies and procedures. I didn't make that case out of respect for her fans.
Yes, I do believe my comments on her page are a positive contribution to the wikipedia. I believe there is a lesson to be learned from where she lapsed. Her most serious flaw was an unwillingness or inability to acknowledge she may have made a mistake. This is a bad flaw in a wikipedia editor, and it is a terrible flaw in an administrator.
I question whether you should have excised my comment without contacting me first. I think I am a respected contributor to the wikipedia. And I believe that my record shows, that I comply with important wikipedia policies and procedures, like WP:CIV, which Zoe did not.
Wikipedia is not a hagiography. Let's learn from our mistakes. Let's willingly and graciously acknowledge when we realized we made a mistakes. Let's willingly and graciously acknowledge when someone is civil when they point out we made a mistakes. Let's learn from others mistakes, even if they are our mentors, who we generally admire. You don't think Jimbo Wales is above criticism, do you? Do you think he would claim he was above criticism?
Then why are you suggesting Zoe should be held up as some kind of perfect example? She made mistakes. And anyone who insists on characterizing everyone she acted against as a vandal, is also making a mistake. -- Geo Swan 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I'm just fed up with the bullshit that you collectively produce. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Do me a huge favor and re-read the article, I've made a laborious effort to address your concerns, also please do me an even more huger favor and go into the process with an open mind. The readable prose is 34 kb which is well within reason and I believ the other issues have been addressed. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 18:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just a little note. Although the person who included fungi in the animal kingdom was wrong, they were not that wrong. Not that long ago, fungi were classed as plants. When they were moved into their own group, there was a lot of discussion about them being more closely related to animals than plants, more animal-like than plant-like. So while it was wrong, it was not so wrong that it deserved your dismissive edit summary. Hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but edit summaries are brief and can easily upset people. I thought it would be a good idea to mention this now, since I know I sometimes need people to point out when I sound a little mean. Skittle 15:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
My intent was just to add that hybridization appears to be prominent in plants and fungi, but in reality I would rewrite the whole section. But why bother!!!!!!!! GetAgrippa 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice going Samsara, go and look at GetAgrippa's user page. In future please keep your opinons, with respect to an editors worth, to yourself. GetAgrippa happened to be one of the better editors involved in this encyclopedia. David D. (Talk) 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK I'm retracting the previous edit and going back to editing the encyclopedia. Nothing good can come of furthering this discussion. I think we have all learned something from this and hopefully that will guide us in our future interactions with users. David D. (Talk) 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't helpful. Blaming people isn't going to help. The edit summary was rude, and an apology would have been nice, but that point has been made already. What's done is done. Being rude isn't helpful, neither is being overly sensitive. But fighting over this just makes matters worse. Guettarda 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That was a bored vandal-user from Calicut – [3]. Someone we have both dealt with before. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI; right after I posted to Clockworksoul's page, I noticed he hasn't contributed for a bit ... so I may need you as a backup (or a primary!) -- Keesiewonder talk 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's another, more controversial one. Is copying my sandbox to the FAH page, again, all I need to do? i.e. I don't have to worry about all the things that currently link to Folding@Home? (like this that I caught before putting TBT in place) -- Keesiewonder talk 02:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is here. And BTW, am I the "it" you don't agree with? :) -- Anonymous44 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[5] Can't have folks fighting over who gets to be Germany now then can we? ;) pschemp | talk 16:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Samsara,
You've recently changed the wording on Compsognathus with the edit summary "fenestra is plural; fenestrum is singular". In fact, I get no results for "fenestrum" on dictionary.com [6], and the American Heritage Dictionary indicates the singular form is "fenestra" "1. Anatomy - A small opening, especially either of two windowlike apertures in the medial wall of the middle ear." [7] American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines "fenestra" as "1. A small anatomical opening, often closed by a membrane." and the plural as "fenestrae". Firsfron of Ronchester 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You added summary notices to the G&S article as well as Gilbert's and Sullivan's. Are you sure this is right? Only select parts of each article are referred to in the others. I think it might be misleading? -- Ssilvers 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for explaining. -- Ssilvers 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
...it excruciating that every single bit of progress you make on Wikipedia is antagonised by people. I can never figure whether this is because of envy or just negative attitude, but it hurts and I can't stand it. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that there were pages that were improperly tagged for deletion in your userspace. The pages were most likely broken redirects, which are normally automatically removed anyway. I will make sure that I do not mark any more of your pages in the future. --Willy No1lakersfan ( Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse-- ragesoss 03:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to read that you're feeling stressed. If there's anything you need or anybody particular problems (or users) you might need admin assistance with, just drop me a note. I was visiting your talk page to ask for your input on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metabolism where your comments would be both welcome and valued. TimVickers 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have missed this question on the tree of life figure talk page. i have transcluded it below?
In the Eukaryota ellipse, shouldn't Fungi cladistically be closer to Animalia than Plantae?
128.112.204.158 ( talk) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess this image is the representation of Woese' research (1990) of which I know little. But based on Keeling's research (2004) Fungi are closer to Animals than Plants. The former two are part of the kingdom of Unikonts and the latter is a separate kingdom itself. And of course all of them are in the empire/domain of Eukaryotes. Do you want me to go ahead and modify it? David D. (Talk) 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for not cleaning up properly after the deletion. Seems the click template confused the tool I was using. I just saw that there where no remaining file links for the image and asumed everyting had been removed properly. Didn't occur to me that anyone was using as a navigation tool. As for the deletion itself: The image was licensed for non-commercial use only, normaly that is a criteria for speedy deletion, however because of the " grandfather clause" in the criteria it was listed at WP:PUI for over 14 days instead. No hint that it was actualy freely licensed was provided and no one attempted to make a fair use claim, wich makes deletion the only option per Wikipedia policy. Doesn't matter if anyone has complained or not, the Wikipedia policy is that non-free material must be deleted unless it fits the narrow fair use criteria. This one had simply slipped though the cracks for a bit longer than usual. -- Sherool (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the hassle factor, my silly suggestion of the day is that if you could try coming back for only a quarter of a day at a time, then giving it a break before you want to leave, that quarter will be greatly appreciated. Good luck and all the best anyway, ... dave souza, talk 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think You would be interested in this user's RfA. Best, feydey 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Please remove this. I believe Auschwitz survivors will tell you that their plight was oh so subtly worse than Ragesoss. Pascal.Tesson 23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Samsara, I'd love to have your thoughts on history of biology overall. I've done all I think I can without some serious critiques and suggestions from other knowledgeable people. It's on peer review and WP:GAC.-- ragesoss 06:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Please learn to keep a running tally to determin a true consensus. Incase you can't count, I did it for you.
For those having difficulty seeing what the group consensus on this topic is, I've compiled a list for you. Remove the unnecessary pictures: Abeo Paliurus, 63.166.224.67, Pontificake, 4.154.53.242, Phefner, Bytebear, Zora, myself. Keep the clutter: pschemp, Duke53, Haikupoet, Eloil. Neural: Rodparkes That's 8 for removing them, 4 for keeping them. Please don't distort what you think the consensus is.
If you continue to revert articles against general consensus I'm going to have to give you a vandalism warming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.2.198 ( talk) 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
It's obvious that you don't natively speak english, but please quit implying that I have not clearly stated my reasons for removing the cluttered pictures from the "undergarment" page. I have written them in many comments and explanations. I know that you are still learning english, so please keep trying and don't be discouraged. Go back and re-read my notes and you will hopefully be able able to see my reasons. Good luck. 71.237.2.198 13:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Samsara, Happy 12k! "...And many more!" :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel I'm sticking my neck out. [8] I respect your contributions but the bristles don't help your advocacy. David D. (Talk) 21:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Your use of the Evolution talk page to have some sort of pissing contest with other parties is absolutely inappropriate. Please, PLEASE don't presume to tell me to keep my comments to myself after that display. Try to show some decorum. Graft | talk 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
But in case you don't, your contributions to Wikipedia will be around for a long time. Take care-- ragesoss 03:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont blame you. I hope you do not mind if I try to marshall a few forces to stop this outrage-- Filll 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This site was snuck into the Evolution article, and led me to ponder heading in to politely point out all the failures in the eye lecture (as one I feel well able to tackle). They claim to want debate, eh? Would you care to join me? Vanished user talk 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the lovely award of 'exceptional newcomer' on my talk page! :-) ! Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 10:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar :). That's quite kind of you. Regards, ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This is now no-longer a redirect, as this material being merged into AGF proved controversial. See also my own essay on a similar topic, which I made before realizing there had already been something along those lines: User:Friday/Competence. Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to your attention in case you didn't know your essay is now back as a seperate page. Friday (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Done, reverted, warned and posted about at [1]. pschemp | talk 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
OMG! Have you been following all of this! Let's see now ... Ah, Yes ... I'm supposed to accuse you of stalking me right about now! In fact, um, ... I better not mention it. Save it for email or another day ... ;-) ... Kind Regards, Keesiewonder talk 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you please look at
Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 12:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the title. Frank van Mierlo 00:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent sugestion; I will express my support for the automatic solution to redirects Frank van Mierlo 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest & contribution. I did see your comment on the layout and I subsequently shrunk the images from 450 to 350. I hope this is acceptable to you. It took a long time to make these images and I would really like to see them at a readable size. I know the collumn format is a bit unusual it does keep the layout orderly and it solves the bunched up edit links problem. Mierlo 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
You voted for
Natural selection and this article is now the current
Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article. |
NCurs e work 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey there! Welcome back! Glad to see ye again! Vanished user talk 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Samsara, I wondered if you had any comments or suggestions? The FAC page is here. Thanks. TimVickers 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Samsara!
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team has recently been working on Compsognathus in an effort to prepare it for a FACing. Your copyedits and suggestions for Tyrannosaurus, months back, were incredibly helpful (because perspective from someone who hasn't been working on the material and isn't sick to death of it by the end is always helpful), and although you had officially joined the team, we haven't seen you around since then. You wouldn't have to do any editing or anything, but if you could perhaps give the article a look, make a few recommendations (getting as thorough/exhaustive as you want to get), we could then start incorporating your ideas/suggestions/etc into the article. As a FAC reviewer, your perspective is very valuable. If you haven't the time, I understand, but your observations on Tyrannosaurus were spot-on, and I'm just hoping to duplicate that article's success. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey! I guess you thought I dropped out forever. Been really busy at work so had to lay off for a while. Just wanted to say 'hey' -- Carold e rmoid ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not (yet) aware of any tools for tackling these. I bet if you can describe what you are trying to do or identify a problematic one that you are trying to fix, one of the following users would be able to help. You've got me curious now too ... User:Rich Farmbrough, User:Jayvdb, User:EdJohnston. -- Keesiewonder talk 12:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I do believe I have a strong case that Zoe violated the wikipedia's policies and procedures. I didn't make that case out of respect for her fans.
Yes, I do believe my comments on her page are a positive contribution to the wikipedia. I believe there is a lesson to be learned from where she lapsed. Her most serious flaw was an unwillingness or inability to acknowledge she may have made a mistake. This is a bad flaw in a wikipedia editor, and it is a terrible flaw in an administrator.
I question whether you should have excised my comment without contacting me first. I think I am a respected contributor to the wikipedia. And I believe that my record shows, that I comply with important wikipedia policies and procedures, like WP:CIV, which Zoe did not.
Wikipedia is not a hagiography. Let's learn from our mistakes. Let's willingly and graciously acknowledge when we realized we made a mistakes. Let's willingly and graciously acknowledge when someone is civil when they point out we made a mistakes. Let's learn from others mistakes, even if they are our mentors, who we generally admire. You don't think Jimbo Wales is above criticism, do you? Do you think he would claim he was above criticism?
Then why are you suggesting Zoe should be held up as some kind of perfect example? She made mistakes. And anyone who insists on characterizing everyone she acted against as a vandal, is also making a mistake. -- Geo Swan 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I'm just fed up with the bullshit that you collectively produce. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Do me a huge favor and re-read the article, I've made a laborious effort to address your concerns, also please do me an even more huger favor and go into the process with an open mind. The readable prose is 34 kb which is well within reason and I believ the other issues have been addressed. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 18:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just a little note. Although the person who included fungi in the animal kingdom was wrong, they were not that wrong. Not that long ago, fungi were classed as plants. When they were moved into their own group, there was a lot of discussion about them being more closely related to animals than plants, more animal-like than plant-like. So while it was wrong, it was not so wrong that it deserved your dismissive edit summary. Hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but edit summaries are brief and can easily upset people. I thought it would be a good idea to mention this now, since I know I sometimes need people to point out when I sound a little mean. Skittle 15:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
My intent was just to add that hybridization appears to be prominent in plants and fungi, but in reality I would rewrite the whole section. But why bother!!!!!!!! GetAgrippa 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice going Samsara, go and look at GetAgrippa's user page. In future please keep your opinons, with respect to an editors worth, to yourself. GetAgrippa happened to be one of the better editors involved in this encyclopedia. David D. (Talk) 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK I'm retracting the previous edit and going back to editing the encyclopedia. Nothing good can come of furthering this discussion. I think we have all learned something from this and hopefully that will guide us in our future interactions with users. David D. (Talk) 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't helpful. Blaming people isn't going to help. The edit summary was rude, and an apology would have been nice, but that point has been made already. What's done is done. Being rude isn't helpful, neither is being overly sensitive. But fighting over this just makes matters worse. Guettarda 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That was a bored vandal-user from Calicut – [3]. Someone we have both dealt with before. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI; right after I posted to Clockworksoul's page, I noticed he hasn't contributed for a bit ... so I may need you as a backup (or a primary!) -- Keesiewonder talk 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's another, more controversial one. Is copying my sandbox to the FAH page, again, all I need to do? i.e. I don't have to worry about all the things that currently link to Folding@Home? (like this that I caught before putting TBT in place) -- Keesiewonder talk 02:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is here. And BTW, am I the "it" you don't agree with? :) -- Anonymous44 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[5] Can't have folks fighting over who gets to be Germany now then can we? ;) pschemp | talk 16:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Samsara,
You've recently changed the wording on Compsognathus with the edit summary "fenestra is plural; fenestrum is singular". In fact, I get no results for "fenestrum" on dictionary.com [6], and the American Heritage Dictionary indicates the singular form is "fenestra" "1. Anatomy - A small opening, especially either of two windowlike apertures in the medial wall of the middle ear." [7] American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines "fenestra" as "1. A small anatomical opening, often closed by a membrane." and the plural as "fenestrae". Firsfron of Ronchester 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You added summary notices to the G&S article as well as Gilbert's and Sullivan's. Are you sure this is right? Only select parts of each article are referred to in the others. I think it might be misleading? -- Ssilvers 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for explaining. -- Ssilvers 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
...it excruciating that every single bit of progress you make on Wikipedia is antagonised by people. I can never figure whether this is because of envy or just negative attitude, but it hurts and I can't stand it. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that there were pages that were improperly tagged for deletion in your userspace. The pages were most likely broken redirects, which are normally automatically removed anyway. I will make sure that I do not mark any more of your pages in the future. --Willy No1lakersfan ( Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse-- ragesoss 03:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to read that you're feeling stressed. If there's anything you need or anybody particular problems (or users) you might need admin assistance with, just drop me a note. I was visiting your talk page to ask for your input on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metabolism where your comments would be both welcome and valued. TimVickers 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have missed this question on the tree of life figure talk page. i have transcluded it below?
In the Eukaryota ellipse, shouldn't Fungi cladistically be closer to Animalia than Plantae?
128.112.204.158 ( talk) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess this image is the representation of Woese' research (1990) of which I know little. But based on Keeling's research (2004) Fungi are closer to Animals than Plants. The former two are part of the kingdom of Unikonts and the latter is a separate kingdom itself. And of course all of them are in the empire/domain of Eukaryotes. Do you want me to go ahead and modify it? David D. (Talk) 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for not cleaning up properly after the deletion. Seems the click template confused the tool I was using. I just saw that there where no remaining file links for the image and asumed everyting had been removed properly. Didn't occur to me that anyone was using as a navigation tool. As for the deletion itself: The image was licensed for non-commercial use only, normaly that is a criteria for speedy deletion, however because of the " grandfather clause" in the criteria it was listed at WP:PUI for over 14 days instead. No hint that it was actualy freely licensed was provided and no one attempted to make a fair use claim, wich makes deletion the only option per Wikipedia policy. Doesn't matter if anyone has complained or not, the Wikipedia policy is that non-free material must be deleted unless it fits the narrow fair use criteria. This one had simply slipped though the cracks for a bit longer than usual. -- Sherool (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the hassle factor, my silly suggestion of the day is that if you could try coming back for only a quarter of a day at a time, then giving it a break before you want to leave, that quarter will be greatly appreciated. Good luck and all the best anyway, ... dave souza, talk 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think You would be interested in this user's RfA. Best, feydey 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Please remove this. I believe Auschwitz survivors will tell you that their plight was oh so subtly worse than Ragesoss. Pascal.Tesson 23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Samsara, I'd love to have your thoughts on history of biology overall. I've done all I think I can without some serious critiques and suggestions from other knowledgeable people. It's on peer review and WP:GAC.-- ragesoss 06:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Please learn to keep a running tally to determin a true consensus. Incase you can't count, I did it for you.
For those having difficulty seeing what the group consensus on this topic is, I've compiled a list for you. Remove the unnecessary pictures: Abeo Paliurus, 63.166.224.67, Pontificake, 4.154.53.242, Phefner, Bytebear, Zora, myself. Keep the clutter: pschemp, Duke53, Haikupoet, Eloil. Neural: Rodparkes That's 8 for removing them, 4 for keeping them. Please don't distort what you think the consensus is.
If you continue to revert articles against general consensus I'm going to have to give you a vandalism warming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.2.198 ( talk) 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
It's obvious that you don't natively speak english, but please quit implying that I have not clearly stated my reasons for removing the cluttered pictures from the "undergarment" page. I have written them in many comments and explanations. I know that you are still learning english, so please keep trying and don't be discouraged. Go back and re-read my notes and you will hopefully be able able to see my reasons. Good luck. 71.237.2.198 13:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Samsara, Happy 12k! "...And many more!" :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel I'm sticking my neck out. [8] I respect your contributions but the bristles don't help your advocacy. David D. (Talk) 21:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Your use of the Evolution talk page to have some sort of pissing contest with other parties is absolutely inappropriate. Please, PLEASE don't presume to tell me to keep my comments to myself after that display. Try to show some decorum. Graft | talk 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)