User talk:Dr Zak/archive1

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --DV8 2XL 19:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Your name
Hi, I am glad that someone new is able to join in. Please could you tell me are you at a university which has a plan to relocate the chemistry department. I know someone with a real life name related to yours who is at such a place.

I am one of the wilipedia chemists.Cadmium


 * Thanks for the reply, For a while I thought that I knew you in real life. I was then about to start asking questions which only my friend would be able to answer correctly. I hope that you enjoy yourself here, what we need on wikipedia is more input from neutral editors who can write about chemistry and other related subjects.Cadmium

Question
Recently you removed the following passage from the article on depleted uranium:


 * However, those studies ignored uranium trioxide gas ( uranyl oxide gas, or UO3(g) ) which is formed when uranium burns (R.J. Ackermann, et al., "Free Energies of Formation of Gaseous Uranium, Molybdenum, and Tungsten Trioxides," Journal of Physical Chemistry, vol. 64 (1960) pp. 350-355, "gaseous monomeric uranium trioxide is the principal species produced by the reaction of U3O8 with oxygen."

You said it is nonsense. Could you elaborate, please? Michael Glass 23:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See Uranium trioxide for the facts and most especially Talk:Uranium trioxide for the context. To sum up, at high temperatures solid U3O8 is in equilibrium with UO3(g). James insists that this UO3 vapor is persistent, does not condense when the combustion products cool down and gauses damage (as the gas!) far away from where DU ammunition was used. The facts are themselves OK, they just don't support that assertion. Dr Zak 03:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not bad at all
It's quite an improvement, actually. I only wish I could be back at a library like that, though. I shall be again. My summer vacation will likely be spent in rare book rooms. There's nothing like it...the chance to really be an intellectual magpie, to chase down every interesting fact, to read things no one has read for 100 years or more.... Good times! Geogre 21:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Dr. Z,

I think you might enjoy reading this: Dr Nancy Standler's comments on James Salsman
 * --DV8 2XL 15:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
It's my impression that Elsevier is about as reputable as you can get. Also, the Sokal Affair comment is inaccurate - Social Text was peer reviewed. Phil Sandifer 01:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe in your corner of the woods (literary criticism) Elsevier are reputable. In mine (chemistry) they are about as disreputable as it gets. Whoever you talk to says they are asking extortionate prices for really really inferior content. Here is the outcome of the well-publicised negotiations of Cornell with Elsevier; any librarian you talk to will have his own horror story to tell, some of which are out there on the web.


 * But what is the perception of Elsevier amongst people in the humanities? What is your own experience with Elsevier?


 * As far as the Sokal affair goes, our own article in Wikipedia states that
 * Social Text had dispensed with peer review, hoping that this would promote more original, less conventional research, and trusted authors of prospective articles to guarantee the academic integrity of their work.
 * That is what I remember, too from an annount of the case I read somewhere. If it is true that Social Text had its papers peer-reviewed then this ought to be corrected in the article. Either way, the assertion needs checking - with sources! Dr Zak 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

University of Miami campus photo
I read your note about the possible copyright violation on the University of Miami campus photo. I was not the source for that photo originally, and, looking into it, it appears that the photo comes originally from some UM recruitment material. It certainly is a better photo than the one you put in there. Is it definitely a copyright violation? If not, I'd like to put the old one in for appearance sake? Thanks. MiamiDolphins3 01:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the philosophy behind Wikipedia is that it is the free encyclopedia, that is the aim is to have as much material as possible available under a free license.
 * The fair use policy says "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." and "Always use a more free alternative if one is available". Since the picture isn't crucial to have and is merely used to give a "feel" of the campus my interpretation of the policy is that Wikipedia policy does not permit copyrighted material in this case.
 * (Yes, images are a sticky case. People somehow are attached to what material they upload. Dr Zak will do penance now for the beam in his eye.) Dr Zak 01:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Neptunium decay chain
Thanks for catching my typo. Thallium/Thorium, I must need some sleep. Give Peace A Chance 03:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium
This arbitration case has closed. James S. is banned from depleted uranium, placed on probation, and placed on general probation. Those opposing editors who have made personal attacks on James S. are reminded of the policies regarding courtesy and personal attacks. TDC is placed on revert parole. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Petticoating
Hi, I see you're having the same trouble as myself in that both our edits keep getting reverted by 207.200.116.6 often with little reasoning other than "vandalism". I was wondering if you had any thoughts on my edits and the issues I've brought up on the talk?

Also just to let you know, I've brought this article up for Requests for comment, so hopefully we will get some other editors to look over this. Mdwh 15:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Admittedly I know nothing about the practice, so these are just some random thoughts to be disregarded at will. The article doesn't distinguish fact and fiction, reference is made to just one random private website, it's all very much hanging in the air. Dr Zak 15:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dr Zak, Could you discuss the redirection of Petticoat Discipline on its talk page please? Thanks. :-) Deepak 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your user page
You're welcome. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh no
Badagnani channeling for James. Jesus weeps. --DV8 2XL 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We must be conspiring to hide the truth about uranium trioxide with the blessing of Arbcom. Any way this can be turned into a wikilaw? Dr Zak 23:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Badagnani needs to stop pushing POV, I have noticed that he seems to be a bit chemophobic and is trying to paint a suspected carcinogen as being as bad as BeO or dimethyl sulphate.Cadmium


 * Raul's 23rd law, anyone? Dr Zak 17:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not understanding but what does that law say ?Cadmium


 * Extreme Unction's first law: If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy. Aren't we all conspiring to cover up such things as gaseous UO3?

My rewrite of the Legal issues section of depleted uranium is being reverted. please look it over and judge if it should stay. Thanks --DV8 2XL 20:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The old version is far too rambling to be decent. Dr Zak 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

LI GRAPHIC
Please remove your tag from the Long Island, Maine Graphic. This dispute has already taken place and copyright permissions have been granted. Please provide and e-mail address and I'd be more than happy to forward it to you. Respond to my talk page. Almost Famous 08:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That isn't how it works. The procedure is on the Copyright Problems page. In short, the copyright owner would either have to release the pictures under the GFDL on his website or would have to send a release to the Wikimedia Foundation. Dr Zak 11:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, I KNOW the copyright holder. You don't.  I think you're mis-understanding what I'm doing with my town's page.  Delete if you want, you'll be making a big mistake.  Almost Famous 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you know the copyright holder please ask him to follow the procedure that has been pointed out to you. Thanks. Dr Zak 17:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And don't edit my user page please, I consider you a vandal now. Almost Famous 16:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Lists
The vote for deletion of Lists of farms in Oppland ended in nonconcensus. As a result, I propose moving forward after considering the varous comments in the discussion. As you were one who voted for deletion, I'd be interested in understanding what you think appropriate criteria to merit inclusion of a list on Wikipedia might be. Thanks - Williamborg 21:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, original data isn't encyclopedic on its own, an encyclopedia aims to organize the raw data to allow the reader to extract the relevant information easily. Official data is particularly pointless to have here, whoever keeps the records will keep them current.
 * Also, unless a list is heavily annotated is has no advantage over a category. Categories maintain themselves, lists have to be looked after by hand.
 * As a corollary, huge lists attract suspicion as they are probably poorly maintained. Dr Zak 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

superthanks


Hi Dr. Zak - I'm very sorry to have disappointed your expectation in me, but it had become impossible for me to compromise my principles. I don't covet adminship at all, so it wasn't a difficult decision - I simply cannot accept misrepresentation and nonsense. However, I cannot tell you how greatly joyous I feel at the enthusiastic, wonderful support you expressed for me. I don't know how hard it will be to understand that your supports means extremely a lot to me. I thank you from my heart, and please let me know if I can ever be assistance or help in anything. Rama&#39;s Arrow 21:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my subpage. --Durin 12:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
, thank you you so much for validating my RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

Deizio talk 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank You!
Thanks Dr Zak,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much
Thank you very much for offering to look through those AFD nominations. :-) I was at a loss who to ask! Kim Bruning 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr Zak will buy a set of fireproof underpants and go through those deletions tomorrow. A fair number of those are still open. Dr Zak 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because Slimvirgin left them open, I think. Do as you see fit. Try not to fan the flames too much :-) Thank you! :-) Kim Bruning 22:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll close those that SV left open after dinner (Mmmm, chicken in orange sauce) and try not to be offensive. Best tell SlimVirgin, too. Dr Zak 22:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doc: Best you hold off until people get a chance to VOTE ! I would not advise hasty action on your part given the present circumstances. Thanks. IZAK 23:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to list those again with a conciliatory note. (Hey, I meant to say that and forgot!) But what do you suggest? Dr Zak 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole stack of articles is now listed at Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations. Dr Zak 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Dr Zak. Can you provide some elaboration on why you are concerned with the encyclopedic merit of the articles please? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 04:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not giving any rationale for listing the articles is intentional, actually. I'm re-listing what was User:PZFUN's attempt at stub-cleaning. (You have read the introduction at Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations, right?) The idea is to encourage folks to read and think on their own before casting their lot, maybe that will prevent name-calling and groupthink. I'll add my own statements later. Dr Zak 04:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, no, I missed that. Sorry.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 04:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Alkyl nitrites
User:201.224.70.230 wrote the following in the reference section yesterday:
 * "(but only when administered in doses greatly exceeding those of typical use). These results cannot be reasonable extrapolated to the human being."

This and the other edits are identical to what Allabout2006 kept posting on this page for months. It is wrong. The doses used in these investigations weren't higher than in normal inhalation and the testing was performed in the same way as for medical drugs. So the ban and the warnings should be stated in the same way as for medical drugs. You cannot just add such a sentence and suggest that all the scientific results are invalid just because you say so. This has been discussed over and over again and with each new sockpuppet of Allabout2006, the discussion restarts. This is annoying. --DenisDiderot 12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm worried about your own lack of neutrality. You know yourself that Duesberg's view are considered fringe theories and you can't just blindly revert anyone who feels that his position has been given undue weight. Dr Zak 13:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Rational for AfD relisting
Hi. People have expended time and energy prior, providing sources and rationals, and now they have to repeat themselves – to what end? El_C 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the last round some people were busy wondering about the rationale behind the nominations instead of discussing the merits of the articles themselves. Actually, re-listing them seems to have worked. The second round of AfDs is less bitchy. Dr Zak 14:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Bitchy"? I am less than satisfied with that answer. Have you discussed this reslisting option with anyone prior to implementing it? El_C 17:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No one was protesting there, nor did I get excessive amounts of flak here on my talk page. Besides, re-listing the dubious nominations is IMO preferable to re-opening the old nominations - after SlimVirgin closed all of PZFUN's AfD nominations someone went round and re-opened some of them. At least like this there is a clear pointer to the renomination from the old AfDs. Dr Zak 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that does not respond to my question at all. Should I take it to indicate a no? El_C 22:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The articles were re-listed at the suggestion of a respected Wikipedian and the intention announced in the appropiate place. But you know all that already. The lack of uproar can be taken as support. Suitable alternative suggestions here, complaints that lead nowhere to /dev/null please. Dr Zak 22:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that you've told me, I know that. Could you please link the announcement (diff to said appropiate place). Thanks. El_C 22:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Erk. It was on AN/I. At any rate, this was the compromise we agreed on with Slimvirgin, and the best course of action to both meet wikipedia policy, and not make too many people mad. Please come yell at myself or Slimvirgin. Thanks :-) Kim Bruning 22:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what Erk is, but I'd prefer to see a diff, and spare my throat. El_C 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ,, . You have seen that exchange, haven't you? Now, what would El C have suggested instead? Dr Zak 22:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I seem to have entirely overlooked it, somehow. Had I seen it, I would have suggested not curtailing those discussions which were still active. Thanks for taking the time. El_C 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The situation was an awful mess altogether. When I suggested re-listing the obvious re-list candidates I was still under the impression that PZFUN's slew of nominations had been closed as "speedy keep" by Slimvirgin. In fact the debates then got re-opened a day later by User:HOTR. SV and Homey disagree over New anti-Semitism, right now the issues are being mediated. User_talk:Mel_Etitis/New_anti-Semitism_mediation. Sorry, re-listing was politest to everyone involved. Dr Zak 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD discussions
Hi, i don't know if you and User:IZAK are the same person or not, but he has removed some of your comments from some of today's AfD discussions. I restored one or two, but thought that with the similarity of the names, it might have been you changing your own comments. Just wanted to give you a heads up. -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 18:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there, no, IZAK isn't me. Seems he removed a couple of my "no vote yet" statements when I did vote later. Reduces confusion to take them out, I guess. Dr Zak 18:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw later that you had added a vote afterwards. He still should have put a note in the edit summary, though.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Old Photograph
I saw you tagged an old post-card photograph of Long Island. I'm positive it's a public domain image, but if it isn't then you may want to check on this one as well: as they are from the same era. Kind regards. Living Large 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, the intricacies of copyright law! Image:Old Photograph.jpg was an obvious case, it was clear where it came from and that the copyright notice had been removed. So up goes the listing at WP:CP.
 * In the US photographs taken before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain. Anything after that is still under copyright (but one could quite possibly claim fair use for historical images). No idea when Image:Peaks Island, Maine, Boardwalk, postcard.jpg was taken. At any rate, the license ttag on that is wrong, one can't release a scan of a copyrighted picture under the GFDL. I'll ask the uploader.
 * Life would be easier if people would source and annotate their images properly. (Hey, this wants to be an encyclopedia, so why don't people do that?) Dr Zak 19:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Postcards
I changed the license to the other card (that one dated from 1909). When I originally uploaded the scans, I wasn't sure if the license applied to the scan or the image. Thanks for the help. Econrad 22:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Packistani A-bomb
I have put this article up at Articles for deletion/Packistani A-bomb. Your opinion on this matter would be appreciated. --DV8 2XL 01:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

are you stalking me now?
First off, never tell me to do anything on my talk page. This is a wiki. People do as much or as little as they want. and stop tracking me before I report you. --MateoP 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is in relation to Image:Locationofwitchtrials.JPG, then note that "I scanned it off of an old paper I found" isn't a proper attribution. It is poor scholarship, too, and quite unsuitable in an article as it is as unverifiable and any other unsourced fact. Dr Zak 03:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What have you done to find the copyright information? --MateoP 04:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You uploaded the image, it's in your domain of responsilility to tag it properly. Dr Zak 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Typically laziness seen from delete-happy wikipedians. The image is unquestionably good, great even.  Removing it will hurt wikipedia.  The author will not be found.  But you don't care.  Never respond on my talk page again, and do not track me, as I suspect you are currently doing.  --MateoP 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are shooting the messenger. Your own laziness isn't my fault. Sorry if you feel otherwise. Dr Zak 04:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My laziness? i've made every effort to find the information.  What effort have you made? None.  You don't care that this will made wikipedia worse.  I'm done with lazy deleteaholics who trolling image categories looking for stuff to delete.  i won't be responding to your poor excuses for doing nothing (by the way, a cursory look at your contributions reveals that you rarely if ever contribute anything that includes writing, as expected).  --MateoP 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
This is your only warning. Your recent vandalism to Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard was profoundly malicious. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Computerjoe 's talk 14:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, haven't you recognized that Cat Yronwode left partly because of this? Just put the page out of its misery, it was a bad idea to begin with and by now is completely dead. Dr Zak 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility Noticeboard
You are more than welcome to add a speedy tag. What I object to was the coupled removal of content, and then labling the page as nonsence. It was only nonsence because it had been vandalised in such a way. Anyway, there is an MfD is progress, I don't think it is the time to modify the page so dramatically to a picture of a duck (or whatever it was). Ian13/ talk 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let it die in peace. Please let it die. Don't invoke process on a page that has become a trollden. Dr Zak 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS and Electronic Mailing Lists
Would you take a look? I need an objective opinion since User Doright seems intent on an edit war over this subject. --CTSWyneken 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you clue me in about the background? Haven't looked into the history it in the last few days as I was travelling. BTW, how did the paragraph on arXiv creep in into the guideline? I really really don't like it as it is now. Dr Zak 18:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for replacing the photographs on the Sligo page vandalised by User:Together&forever earlier today. Please continue to watch out for the antics of this user. --Maelor 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Enjoying babysitting?
I see you have joined me in the task of keeping copyright violations and other nonsense out of the articles related to Letterkenny. Together&forever and The Big Brain are doing a massive job trying to... ehh... I don't know what they're trying to do. Anyways, cheers! Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 08:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember you found the actual source for the image of the cathedral in Letterkenny yesterday, resulting in three duplicates of the images being deleted. There's a new one now: Image:ThelkCathedral.jpg. Do you remember where you found it? I've already tagged it for speedy deletion, but those admins are a wee bit twitchy. It may be deleted, and it may not. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my email
Hi, Dr. Zak, thank you for your assistance on Martin Luther, and please see the Wikimail I sent you.--Drboisclair 20:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC) And we need to be careful not to vio the 3RR. --Drboisclair 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Heaven & Hell Illustrated
Great addition to the Lazarus & Dives article. When I wrote the article, I wanted to just make sure that the Vaughn Williams tune had a reference, and then someone with a burr under his saddle about "soul sleep" wrote a questionable paragraph of questionable prose. I thought I'd try to discuss the theology, and then someone on a parables of Jesus project (there is a project for it, despite having the whole KJV at Wiki-source) had a dupe, and then.... The illumination is great, and perhaps it would be worth it to get precise scriptural citations for the other "rich folks don't get into heaven" and "as you treat the least of these, so you have me" passages and do a mini-paragraph on the morality of the parable in context. Maybe, except that we really don't want articles on Bible verses with interpretation, IMO. Thanks for the illustration. Geogre 13:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you see, I do what I can. If I knew more about the subject matter or had the literature I'd fix some of those parable articles up - instead I'm just adding pictures that are already out there. Dr Zak 21:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You caught me in a strange spelling, too. The strange thing is that I know that Jesus Christ is in the Pharaseean tradition (in the Pharasee vs. Saduccee battle going on at the time), which is one of the reasons the Pharasees were especially angry at Him. The thing about interpretation is that it's really easy to get referenced interpretations that, basically, declare open war on each other, and picking how the article will express the various views takes people with sanity. If we have lots of sanity, there's no problem. I just haven't been impressed with there being very much sanity. Geogre 10:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ACIM cruft
Yes, and there is more of it too, but time for me to take a break from that place. I just thought I'd say hi since you voted on that nom I made and let you know. Your comment made me laugh and it's been a long day. Thanks. Ste4k 18:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Statues, sculptures etcetera
Hi. The template seems ok to me. We should put it up for discussion at Village pump (policy) (or maybe somewhere else?) Sincerely, Kjetil_r 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:ICT tells you to propose new tags at the talkpage to make sure they are sound. So that's what I did. Dr Zak 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Copyright Allegation
Dr Zak,

Thanks for reading my article. As you might note via the historic logs, the article on Astaxanthin was a complete rewrite. Aside from possibly one (1) table (Amounts of Astaxanthin Found in Food), the entire article is a original. True, many sentence were taken from various articles, as listed in the footnotes, but they were re-written for continuity. As such, I respectfully and formerly request that you revert the article as was the last copy previous to your first editing.

Even as such, your allegation should have taken some the form of some form of tag with complaints. Again, I am asserting that the entire article is original and your allegation is wholly incorrect.

Best Regards, meatclerk 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there, the problem is that the text of the article when you were done rewriting it is identical to what you have here  on your website. On the website you say "didgood.com © 24-May-2006". The question is what came first. If the website was the original you must release the text under the GFDL and say so on the website. On the other hand, if the Wikipedia text came first you released it under the GFDL when you uploaded it, so all later revisions also fall under the GFDL and you can't simply claim copyright on your site. Hope that helps. Dr Zak 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? I am quite certain that as author of the work he retains the right to release his work under any licenses he chooses to. By submitting his work to the wikipedia he agrees to release it under the GFDL, whether it was released under the GFDL (or any other license for that matter) on his website is irrelevant. Now you would have a point if User:Jessemonroy650's ownership of the content at the website was in contention, but as I understand, this is not your argument (you say as much in the preceding comment).
 * — Mobius 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought a text that you insist you retain copyright on cannot be released elsewhere under the GFDL - the GFDL was designed to prevent that. Then again, I may be wrong - tell me if I am! Dr Zak 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The author (Jessemonroy650) is allowed to license his/her work under several licenses. He retains copyright even though the text is GDFL licensed, but he gives us the irrevocable freedoms of the GDFL over his this version of text. Jessemonroy650 is also not allowed to distribute wikipedia text written by somebody else under anything except GDFL. (Unless all the other authors agree to that.)--GunnarRene 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify the matter, I did both pages at the same time. My intent was to create a NPOV for wikipedia and a slightly different one for myself. As there is some confusion as to the ownership and rights, then I will plainly state:


 * The work presented and saved on the wikipedia is for wikipedia with all rights and those associate belonging to wikipedia. Those other rights deemed necessary to comply with wikipedia policy for "free use" and/or copyright status are hereby granted. Further, should a decleration other than this be needed I will gladly make such availale.


 * Thanks, meatclerk 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See your talk page about establishing your identity with wikimedia foundation. --GunnarRene 20:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for the cooperation on this matter. I will in the next day or so accomplish the requested tasks - as outlined on mytalk page. Once completed, I will remove this comment. Thanks again. --meatclerk 06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Copyright permissions should now be in place. Please, revert article at your leisure. I'm removing this talkpage from my watchlist. Thanks again for your cooperation. --meatclerk 05:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop it
I have absolutely no idea what you are doing, but I have reason to believe that you are targeting certain editors. I have had a fellow editor ask for help because they are friends of the editor in question. It would be greatly appretiated if you were to leave User:TheEditrix alone. If I do hear of another complaint left on my talk page, I will be inclined to request that your account be temporarily suspended. False Prophet 03:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You must be referring to this incident of talk page spamming. Talk page spamming to solicit AfD votes is discouraged, creates factiosn and makes the place even more unpleasant that it already is. It would be helpful if we could restrain ourselves to discuss the merits of an article, disregarding personal loyalties. The present group of articles was nominated as content forking, and guess what? The majority of disputants agrees!  Besides, User:TheEditrix has been here long enough to know that forking is discouraged and is man enough to handle herself. h Cheers! Dr Zak 03:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not talk page spamming. That is trying to raise awarness of your actions and attacks.  You have been targeting recently created articles.  Let the author finnish creating the article, and then  judge the article.  When you prospose the deletion of 5 of a users articles that are under a week old, when there is no reason to believe that they could not be improved and show reason for being kept.  Try the article cleanup tag first, and if it does not improve enough, then nominate it for deletion. False Prophet 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Look mate, have you read the excellent argument of User:Em-jay-es at Articles for deletion/Lost Book of Enoch for deleting the article at all? Have you read what User:BigDT has to say at Articles for deletion/Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture? And you have nothing better to say than "Now if in a month or so, there is nothing important about htis article, then we can delete it then"?  It's insulting to your reason, and you should be ashamed. Dr Zak 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * False Prophet, please read WP:AGF. As far as I can see, Dr Zak has not engaged in any personal attacks.  He has nominated for deletion articles that he, in good faith, does not believe meet Wikipedia's standards.  Specifically, the concern is that they are content forks.  It is inappropriate to create a new article in order to push a point of view.  BigDT 05:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I made some assumptions here, on User:TheEditrix' talk page, on what I thought what viewpoint she was editing from and some suggestions how she could edit more productively. Things spun out of control from there on. :-( Dr Zak 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I had read that ... I got a similar reaction when I said on one of the AFDs that every new "Christian or pseudo-Christian" group didn't need to have its canon listed in a table (that would make one really big table) and she took that to be an attack on Mormonism (which it was not and I clarified that - the distinction is time, not theology). At any rate, I didn't see anything you said that was a personal attack and I really think a little dose of WP:AGF would do wonders. ;) BigDT 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is very unfortunate how this AfD debate has turned into something else. I fail to see how your act of nomination constitutes "harassment" - each of the articles nominated deserves to be deleted for reasons varying from NOR / NPOV and (of course) forking.  These valid reasons outweigh any argument that would allow for the articles to be completed.  If an article is wrong from its inception, allowing it to be completed will not fix it - it will only make it completely wrong.   ''Em-jay-es  08:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note - User:Ptdecker has decided to remove the deletion prompt from Lost Book of the Covenant and Lost Book of Jasher. I've reverted this, but you may want to fix it.    ''Em-jay-es  03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. He removed two more tags and, strangely enough, left the Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture alone. Strong words he uses, like "vandalism", when this is nothing but nominating a stack of forks for deletion. Unlike Ptdecker suggests, I believe that POV forks should go straight to AfD without discussion on the talkpage; the AfD page has enough space for discussion. OK, it might be upsetting for the original editor to see her contributions go away, but then someone who has been here since March this year should know better than to fork to see her own viewpoint on Wikipedia. Dr Zak 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr Zak - Thanks for explaining about the AfD tags. Sorry I caused problems, but just was "being bold" as the motto somewhat goes.   Seems strange to me that an article would have AfD tags added to it without any reason published on the article's discussion page as to why it was nominated.  I know that if I personally nomniate something for deletion, I'll at least leave a comment as to why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptdecker (talk • contribs)


 * Boldness of of value only in editing. For maintenance tasks it's more sensible to follow procedure to keep everyone in the loop. As far as removing the AfD tag goes - unless the nomination is evidently frivolous people will just stick the tag back on and point to the ongoing discussion. I also would have appreciated a notice that you did remove the AfD notice - both to be kept in the loop and to be able to explain myself. You are right, AfD isn't a substitute for cleanup, but for the reasons given in AfD the articles are beyond salvation. Dr Zak 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting on my request for mediation. I apoligize for my earlier comments.  I was not completely aware of the situation that was taking place.  I was contacted on my userpage by a user who was seemingly accusing you of wikistalking.  I have since re-examined the situation, and believe the articles are not necessary.  I will change my vote on the nominations pages.  Once again, my apologies. False Prophet 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther on Grace Alone
We have two editors insisting we document the obvious. Would you weigh in, please? --CTS Wyneken (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "it needs to be written it doesn't sound so religious"?  Huh? This is a theological subject, and theological literature are by nature religious. If someone could spell out what the unacceptably religious bits are we could work around them, but I can't even see them! The reference looks fine, though.
 * The big problem I have with the article is the section "Luther and the Jews". Sorry, this isn't science, that is cherrypicking. Someone was looking for sources that speak in favour of him and against him and then put those in the paragraph. A serious effort would detail the development of his ideas from his early work to his death and the reception during his life and afterwards and instead of five Distinguished Professors Emeriti and some popular historians would cite an authoritative review. Especially worrying is to see an contextless quotation from Richard Steigmann-Gall cited, whose work  has been reviewed as "question[ing] the scholarly consensus that Nazism was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it." Dr Zak 22:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Petticoat domination
Your recent edit to Petticoat domination (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

tb2 bug
Sorry bout that. I fixed it. WIll try and figure out what went wrong. josh buddy, talk 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)