User talk:Azhyd

Physical constants
Hi, I see that you edited physical constant recently. I had a question about that. The edit history comment for your major edit says "reorder the constants - add a few constants and equations - fix some constants". Can you clarify what you mean by "fix some constants"? Which ones were fixed? Also, which ones were added? I looked at the diff but it's not easy to see what changed. One suggestion I would make is to separate major revisions into a series of smaller ones. For example, change numerical values in one step, add more constants in another, redo layout in another, etc. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia! Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 23:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rangeomorphs
Please read Talk:Rangeomorph. Thue | talk 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fish taxa
Hi, it's cool that you've taken up the banner on fish taxa! (I have a beetle book out of the library instead, so am temporarily redirected). It would be nice to have a sentence or two describing genera in plain English; one of the reasons we often link from family direct to species is that there isn't much to say about the genera, they're just byproducts of classification rules. The English info also prevents reader disappointment, who click on the link but don't get an explanation of what the subject is all about. Stan 00:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi from me too, and a welcome from me, too, to the unequal battle to get the fish pages sorted out. Just a note of explanation of why I reverted a rename that you did on Murray Cod - our usual rule is that if a species has a widely used common name, we use that as the title of the article rather than the systematic name. Nothing personal! seglea 04:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * no problem :) I'll make use of both advises. Thank you. Azhyd 16:00, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

taxoboxes
Hold off on using for a bit. I want to chat with you about taxoboxes, but I'm at work and don't yet have the time. Email me from my user page, please. - UtherSRG 17:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Please stop modifying taxoboxes until we have a chance to talk things out. You are compressing things too much. was the first compression i have serious reservations about, but i have reservations about others, and you are continuing to make more compressions. These compressed templates make taxoboxes less flexible, or require a larger variety of templates to maintain the level of flexibility. - UtherSRG 22:10, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks good
I found the taxobox on Salmonidae, I think I like it as it is even more flexible than the older taxobox with messages like that I introduced. I am experimenting, in stead of Kingdom you can put in there the regnum message; and it does work nicely. It is also a good vehicle to export taxoboxes to other wikipedia's. I think I really like it. Would it be possible to add two parameters to the taxon: "taxon" and "taxonname". This would reduce the number of needed messages even further. No need for a message for every taxon.. GerardM 22:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Gerard - Most of what Azhyd has done on Salmonidae was what others (mostly myself) have created and put through peer review on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Other aspects have not. I'd like him to slow down on making new implementations on article pages until we've had a chance to to discuss them. - UtherSRG 22:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * ... as you can see from the previous message, there is some controversy about my changes (that are still somehow experimental and I commit myself to fix them if there is some problem. And up to now I haven't found taxoboxes out of the range of the templates I've created.). To answer UtherSRG reservation, I'm stopping now to make more modifications to taxoboxes but I just simplified the set of templates I am using. Do you mean something like ? that would indeed reduce the number of templates to maintain but maybe a bit too verbose (it's also nice to have short taxoboxes, there are much faster/easier to edit). Azhyd 22:38, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * the Regnum thingie will not work (I found out) reducing the amount of message is a wothwhile thing. PS have a look at nl:Gebruiker:GerardM/kladblok4 for the result. NB the nl:Sjabloon:Taxobox divisio entry does hold a template.
 * GerardM 23:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some of my concerns:
 * is rigid. It either does or does not have a taxobox entry for Domain. sometimes it's good to have Domain, usually it's just extraneous and should be left out. Using and  as before allows the flexibility.
 * Removing and  so that  or  perform those functions as well as the binomial name section mean that there can be no discrepancy between them. However, it means having to have yet another set of endings for when you have a subgenus and another for when you have a subspecies and another for when you have both a ubgenus and a subspecies. Keeping the function of the classification section and the binomial/trinomial section separate allows more flexibility with fewer templates in our bag of tricks.

You've also made some changes to the taxobox format:
 * The binomial name should be bold and italic, but not a link to anything. You've made the genus portion of the binomial a link.
 * For non-species level boxes, the subdivision section heading should be plural and a link. You've unlinked it in several cases.

Some things I like:
 * You've done good to note that the templates now allow the pipe trick. I'm so glad that's been fixed.
 * is great! Do make sure to comment out the template when there is no image, though, to prevent the blank space between the taxobox title and classfication section.

I have mixed feelings about:
 * Combining and the Status templates.

Whew! *grins* - UtherSRG 23:34, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The status and the begin are best left alone as the status is not universal; a rare plant in Europe can be a bad exote in the Americas. The protection status is therefore not universal. A second reason is that they are not used in many wikipedia's. I think it is best to have the infrastructure without the need to _have_ to use them.


 * ok I've taken good note of everything you said and I admit that it mostly makes sense. I'm still feeling (for the Taxobox_binomial_name template) that shorter taxoboxes are much easier to deal with. I'll remove the "begin_status" templates and I will comment the empty image templates. I also don't agree that the title for subdivision section should be a link, after all the entries like "Kingdom", "Class", ... are not links. If somebody wants more information on Scientific Classification the link is already in the box... too many links are distracting imho. Btw I am also working on a html page with javascript (outside wikipedia but self-contained) that allows easy creation of taxoboxes... Azhyd 16:03, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! A lot of this has been hash out and discussed over and over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life (we have *seven* archives of dialogue!) so it's not that I'm trying to push my way on you. I think your spirit and energy are good and that you should continue to work to improve the taxoboxes. However, don't just come up with a change and start implementing it on the articles. Bring it to the ToL talk page and show off your work. your changes may insppire the rest of us to think differently and come up with even more changes, or we may have some constructive criticism that will help you improve your work. Good luck with the taxobox creator. I'd love to see it when you've got it going. - UtherSRG 16:42, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Taxobox update
ok the problem with the WikiProject Tree of Life page (that I checked at first) is not helpful on which templates to use and the talk page is simply impossible to read :)... Anyway here is an update: Azhyd 16:57, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Taxobox_begin_"status" templates have been removed
 * Taxobox_section_image will be phased out and replaced by Taxobox_image (commented if empty)
 * I'm still conviced that Taxobox_animalia & co are a good idea (replace two long template lines by a short one)
 * I still think that Taxobox_binomial_name is a good idea (replace three templates lines by one and remove duplicate entries). If there is a need for a discrepancy (which is rare), it's always possible to detail the taxobox by hand; this is similar to the begin_animalia problem; imho if templates are good for 99% of pages then there are useful. The Taxobox_binomial_name template still need to be fixed to remove the link in binomial name that you noticed.
 * I think that the Taxobox_end_placement template is not needed and just clutter.


 * We haven't "officially" rolled out the new templates. We're still working out the kinks, which is why you didn't see anything on the Project's page about them. It's not reasonable to expect you to read all of the talk, but there are certaily some relevant discussions going on regarding taxoboxes you should join. I think it's a good idea if you do, so that you can work with us instead of off on your own, making decision that might not align with the Project. Also - working with us on ToL you have a greater chance of changing our minds than if you are working independantly without communicating with us.


 * As for your wanting to keep various "compressions", think of each portion of the taxobox as parts of a train. Each is coupled to the one before, but should be able to have other sections put inbetween them. For instance, some taxoboxes have a range map section after the binomial section. - UtherSRG 17:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Azhyd, while your work on the taxoboxes is appreciated, please slow down and be more careful in what you are changing. As to Taxobox_end_placement, it should be up to all of us to decide its use, but in any case it is currently being used on species pages and not on higher ranks. This mixed standard is worse than both using it and not using it, and has already spread so quickly it will be difficult to fix. Some other problems are noted on wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Thanks, Josh 11:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've been convinced by UtherSRG that the current scheme is a pretty good compromise so I am using the standard templates now afaik. Sorry for my messed-up edit of the Ciliates taxobox... Azhyd 16:26, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

My compliments on the virology taxoboxes! This is really very useful, especially the hepatitis variants and the childhood exanthem viruses - very common diseases... JFW | T@lk  07:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting to like the "synonyms" taxobox footer. But don't you think that the synonym article it links to should be about the meaning of synonym in a taxonomic perspective? *grins* - UtherSRG 00:15, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Why removing links
''You recently recently removed links from taxobox subdivision sections (Hymenostome and Dinophyceae for e.g.). Could you explain why? Is it because those links don't exist yet ? Doesn't seem a good reason for me. Azhyd 19:55, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)''

For the most part I didn't manually clear links - I was copying lists from older versions of the page to fix redirects and get rid of bullets. But in cases like hymenostome, they're blank because the groups are small and technical, so are unlikely to have anything written about them that wouldn't fit better on the parent's page. Stubs could be created, but the taxonomy of protists is still unusually unstable, and I don't want to encourage creating empty pages if they're as likely to be obsoleted as filled. That's also why the boxes say "typical orders."

The Dinophyceae are a special case - the classification has already been contradicted by genetic studies, and is listed mainly because it's the most recent scheme. That's why its not in the taxobox. Not many people have taken any interest in the protists beyond their taxoboxes, but if one of the related pages does get created, it shouldn't be hard to link to it after the fact.

In short: in cases where the taxonomy varies, pages that are unlikely to have any content don't need to be linked. Does that sound fair? Josh 20:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * sounds completely reasonable. I would suggest that some kind of note about unstable taxonomy be added to this type of list, at least for editors that are not necessarily aware of the situation. thanks. Azhyd 21:17, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects to categories
I also appreciate the work you are doing on updating the taxoboxes. However, I am not sure we should be redirecting articles to categories (as happened at Whiptail lizards. If a subject is big enough to warrant a category, it will warrant an article too. Pcb21| Pete 07:47, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I also thought that it might be controversial. But from a conceptual point of view, in my opinion, a category and the corresponding article should be fused... Anyway this was intended to be a temporary solution since there is no article at the moment. Azhyd 16:51, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Redstart
Hi, thanks for all the good work you've done especially on taxoboxes. One query, though. As you know, all/almost all bird taxon articles have a taxobox, even when the group is only part of a family, so I'm not sure why you have removedthe box from this article. If the concern is that there are parts of the family not included, why not just add ...other genera...?

jimfbleak 05:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agrobacterium
Image copyright tags are attached to the image. The information in the page does not come from the USDA-FS, it comes from my understanding of my field. I'm looking for some basic references to add for peoples further reading, but I'm still looking--nixie 23:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * ok. I wasn't sure; I was confused by the (non-working) template you put in the article itself... Azhyd 02:14, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was trying to work out the template for the image- must have missed it when I saved, no harm done :)--nixie 02:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Re: Smallpox
The smallpox article was hit by a vandal 212.135.1.83 on 21 Feb 2005. The vandalism was evidently generally undiscovered by subsequent users, including myself. However, I finally read all the way through it today and caught the problems. Rather than simply revert, as others had made additions, I printed a copy dated Feb 12th and blocked the information back in, with some copy editing. As you had edited the article since that date, please look it over and make any appropriate changes. Thank you. WBardwin 05:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thank you
Thank you for creating Free game software. --DavidCary 23:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Taxobox template animal subdivision.txt
If you still have any use for this I think a subpage would work better. --Sherool 19:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Angstrom_pyranometer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Angstrom_pyranometer.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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Angstrom_pyranometer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Angstrom_pyranometer.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxobox begin synonyms
Template:Taxobox begin synonyms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kdeadmin


The article Kdeadmin has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable software component. Wikipedia is not a user manual.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pburka (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "BTSC"
BTSC, a page you created, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is nonsense or gibberish.

You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. David.moreno72 (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)