User talk:LizardWizard

'''I will respond here to comments made here. If you want a dialogue, I suggest you watch this page or ask that we conduct the dialogue on your own talk page.'''

Deletion of the Antibacterial Airlock
The antibacterial airlock is the most significant advancement in airlock technology for the last 200 years and therefore warrants a significant input on the fermentation lock page. Further, the information detailed is not only relevant but completely factual and if Wikipedia is itself to be relevant, up to date and factual, inclusions of such monumental importance to the home brew industry should not be arbitarily wiped on spurious and unfounded claims such as those you cited, especially if all relevant photos have been approved by Wikipedia themselves - see below:

To: Director - Odour Lock Ltd. From: Permissions  Date: 24 November 2013 14:37:48 GMT To: jim@odourlock.com Subject: Re: [Ticket#2013111010003129] Images on Wikipedia - our permission is granted. Dear Jim Hodnett,

Your permission has been accepted. I have made the necessary modifications to the file page.

Thank you for your contribution to the Wikimedia projects. Yours sincerely, Leon Haanstra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.63.67 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to keep Wikipedia up-to-date. However, we need to be careful to keep a neutral point of view, and not throw around phrases like "most significant advancement ... for the last 200 years" casually.  Do you have any news stories (not press releases) discussing the advance?  If it's as monumental as you claim, it must have been covered extensively in several of the homebrewing magazines. LW izard  @ 21:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Get the Swastika off
I don't think that a swastika is appropriate decoration and I don't think that devotion to the rules of grammar dictates the use of the symbol of evil. That's why I "vandalised" your page (under my own name)' and I reckon that you should do it to yourself.Acmthompson 16:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The swastika is not "the symbol of evil." It was once used to represent a disagreeable ideology.  It is that ideology that is evil.  Systematically eliminating all of certain types of people is heinous.  However, systematically eliminating all of certain types of grammar is not.  LW izard  @ 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OKCupid problems
I'm not sure why you think I wrote an unsourced rant about OKCupid. I wrote a factual description of problems they have. How am I to proceed with editing the article to highlight their problems? rrcatto 08:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll respond on that article's talk page, where you also left a note. LW izard @ 09:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello & Thanks
I saw today's vandalism of Anal sex, but you fixed it before i could. I saw in the page history that you've been watching that page very diligently, and reverted quite a few vandalisms. Thanks for your watchfulness! foobaz&middot;&#10000; 04:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I don't watch that page in particular. I mostly patrol the recent edits, but I can be pretty sure that every time Anal Sex is on the list it's vandalism. LizardWizard 04:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

The female side of the penis size debate
I see you deleted my entry but only provided me acronyms to justify your reasoning. That entire article is a complete mess, my entry was one of the only valid items! The other three paragraphs are the ones that should be removed for lack of statistical validity.--66.32.76.230 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Human Bioacoustics
Hello Lizard Wizard - your name is associated with a copyvio marking on Human Bioacoustics entry, claiming it's the same as the article found at http://www.lifespirit.org/SHRI-string-theory.htm (it is a slightly different version). There is no copyright violation since I am the author of both and have permission from SHRI - Sound Health Research Institute - to post it on Wikipedia. What do I need to do to get the "copyvio" removed? Ralph Fucetola ralph.fucetola@usa.net - 12:41 10 February 2005 (UTC)

If you and the SHRI understand that by posting the information to Wikipedia, it is released under the GNU Free Documentation License, you can repost it, with the stipulation that "if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates)." (quoted from Copyrights). LizardWizard 22:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) Note, however, that if it is reposted I will list it for deletion, since it appears to me to be pseudoscience. If you plan to defend it, finding media coverage or peer review would be a good idea. LizardWizard 22:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dear LizardWizard. Just read your comments of 10 February 2005. I am consulting with Ms. Edwards as to whether she wants to release the copyright. If she does, we will certainly defend Human BioAcoustics from the erroneous charge of "pseudoscience." Ms. Edwards is the recipient of a number of legitimate scientific recognitions, from both "alternative" and academic institutions, but, as in any relatively new area of study, it sometimes takes academia a while to catch up. This area of study qualifies as a Protoscience. - Ralph Fucetola ralph.fucetola@usa.net - 2:52 23 February 2005 (UTC)

BTW, as a previous short-time BioAcoustics researcher, I would like to point out that beginning in 2002, very restrictive & confidential yearly "contracts" were demanded of anyone who was to be part of the BioAcoustics or "HBA" flock. These contracts demand that the student / researcher cede ownership of all things bioacoustic derived from the study of alleged confidential intellectual property, all of which is publicly available and offered by others IMHO. That's right, if you sign the contract, you forfeit all your rights to your information and developments to the person you pay large dollars to study with. In 2003 a stipulation for significant Liquidated Damages was added to the "contract" for any perceived misbehaving. Whether HBA is proto- or pseudoscience pales next to the contract. Wlmeyer 21:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
I see no-one has welcomed you yet ;)!

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Eleassar777 13:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Actually I think someone did welcome me and I just wiped my personal pages clean, but I still appreciate the sentiment =). LizardWizard 06:21, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

IfD Vote
Hi LizardWizard, I recall that you voted in favor of keeping the photograph inline at autofellatio. Well, its subsequent linkage has emboldened the anti-photo people to put it up for deletion on WP:IFD. I'd appreciate your views on the subject. Thanks, T IMBO  ( T A L K )  22:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rafael Cordero
Holy Moly! you're right! I wrote that article (Rafael Cordero (educator)) a long time ago and nobody, not even I noticed that BIG blooper! I'm glad that there was a LizardWizard around to notice it. I fixed it, thanks! Take care my friend Tony the Marine|talk

Autofellatio vote
Greetings. I'm contacting you because you voted to keep Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but you indicated that part of your reasoning was because the image was not demonstrated to be a copyright violation. Someone recently found the image on http://www.wowboy.com/welcome.htm, a porn pay site, with the notice "&copy; WowBoy 2001-2004, All rights reserved". I don't know if this changes your vote or not, but I thought you might want to know. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

127.0.0.1
oh! sorry, i was trying to test something related to editing anon users' talk pages, and that was the first one i thought of that wasn't likely to be a real user. i meant to change it back when i was done, but forgot. i've reverted back to how it was now. &mdash;kate

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Who's next (song)
I'd like to invite you to come back to Votes for deletion/Who's next (song), and reconsider your vote. I'm advocating a vote of Redirect per Harmil, and you can see the recommendation that I'm making on the vote page (it's big and detailed). Yeah, I know this guy is a troll, but the fact that he's a troll doesn't mean we shouldn't have this information point to the right place. I hope that makes sense, and happy editing! -Harmil 23:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Pro circumcision POV pushers are attempting to censor wikipedia
Thank you for your input on the proposal to use the term intact rather than uncircumcised in the main circumcision article. I thought it was very balanced and fair. Not to sound melodramatic but its become clear that pro circumcision POV pushers are censoring wikipedia uninhibitedly, which can be seen in their attempt to remove the article Aposthia and removal of the disambiguation page at uncircumcised to eliminate any other interpretations of the word supported by the dictionary that they feel improves their political agenda. For the sake of intellectual freedom I implore you to look into these matters and make choice about how you will respond. Thanks again. Sirkumsize 23:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I just want to chime in with my agreement. I'm actually fairly apathetic about circumcision, so the amount of hostility I've gotten from the pro camp has surprised and bothered me.  I think Wikipedia is best served by honest, complete articles, even if that means stating some simple, well-supported facts that distress one side or the other. Alienus 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That stupid degree thing
No. It's still not done. I changed my major from software engineering to a comprehensive computer science degree in December of 2004...which meant that I still had to take a class in operating systems. Well, I took the class this past spring, and ended up getting bacterial pneumonia (and a subsequent sinus infection from hell), and was out of school for over 6 weeks total of the 16 weeks of class. So, I took an incomplete, and my tenured professor has his own ideas about what taking an incomplete means, and I'm certainly in no position to argue with him over it. So, I'm stuck in limbo until Dec. :-\ As for archiving my talk page, I'm waiting until it gets to 80 sections...and you helped it one step closer. :-p Tomer TALK  02:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Anon revert
The anon just committed his 5th revert. Thanks for your involvement, it's bedtime for me. I added it to his 3RR vio section. 'night! -- RyanFreisling @ 04:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
I would like to thank you for your support on my RFA. Your comment made my day :-). Rl 09:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Another Poll
Just thought you'd like to know that another poll (this time official) is taking place toward the bottom of the NAMBLA discussion page in which users are asked (yes or no) if NAMBLA should be categorized in each of the pedophilia organizations, pederasty organizations, and LGBT organizations. Corax 22:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Axe versus Axis

 * An axe chops wood :) SirIsaacBrock 10:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Smith
You are giving too much credit to Smith. The problem is not Smith - Despite him being a lunatic completely oblivious to all arguments that the opposing faction brings forward, he could be worked with. It is the equally uncompromising attitude of a number of adherents of a faith, that have no regard for WP:NPOV whatsoever or a factually correct article, that unfortunately are very high ranking in the power structure of Wikipedia, and support Smith's every move, that are the problem. Smith himself, if kept under control, and prevented from WP:OWNing the article, could with his -albeit biased- expertise be very helpful to the project - The faction of religious zealots supporting him does not have any such expertise, and without Smith would be completely at a loss trying to keep the article the biased way it currently is. Notice how Smith did not remove me: The faction of religious zealots did. I never wanted to remove Smith just because of his expertise, and if he has to be removed, I would regret this. 85.25.141.60 11:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Pre-ejaculate
Profanity: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." A picture of some exhibitionist's penis is indeed profane and, judging from the discussion page and frequent deletions, is clearly offensive. It does not add to the article at all, since "clear lubricating fluid that is issued from a man's penis when he is sexually aroused" pretty much tells the whole story. Clearly, you have this on their watchlist, choosing to ignore the link at "Wikipedia is not censored" to Profanity, and re-add every time someone deletes. And many people will not be convinced by Wikipedia policy that violates their own ideas of what Wikipedia should be. But I hope that you will respect not only what Wikipedia rules say, but also what Wikipedia aspires to be. People who insist on unnecessary explicit photographs will make Wikipedia something avoided by teachers, students, the press, and the general public, since it enforces the popular image of Wikipedia as a Wild West where smut and lies are easily promulgated, rather than a self-regulating source of information that is just as reliable and relevant as a traditional encyclopedia. 192.68.228.4 22:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision
I would respectfully suggest you read all of the history, including USer:Nokilli's personal attacks against me, and his refusal to engage in reasonable discourse as opposed to using Wikipedia as a platform for his distinct POV. His edits are against any consensus, and only serve to, as he puts it, paint circumcision in as bad a light as possible. That is not positive editing, but vandalism. -- Avi 00:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would respectfully assert that I've read more of Circumcision's talk pages than you have. I've been watching it for many months (though I admit I don't read all of it).
 * Anyhow, what Nokilli is doing is not vandalism. He is one of a long line of editors whose position on circumcision is more moderate than Jakew's who have come to the circumcision article, tried to save it from the deplorably POV state that it's currently in, been rebuffed by Jakew's misapplication of various policies, and then recognized Jakew as a wolf in sheep's clothing and become (understandably, I think) uncivil.  Every so often I chime in just to let them know that they're not alone. LW izard  @ 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to you LizardWizard. Avi is pro (being Orthodox) circ. Jakew has been quite persistant and extremely pro-circ. All I really want to do is have parents read facts. I am sorry that I have gotten carried away, but it's been frustrating (Jakew's objective).

I hope parents will know that estrogen receptors are being removed (men have cycles too), that smegma has beneficial properties or easily rinses away, and that the potential preventative medical benefits of a circ can be gained if you practice safe sex, pee and wash with water after sex, and wash your penis daily with water (just like any circ'd SHOULD DO).

I hope parents will soon have the facts to know to ask for an experienced operator (it's usually relegated), demand anesthesia (still the minority), and demand that the surgeon leave all the frenulum ... if they choose to have their neonat circ'd.TipPt 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ejaculation image delete debate
You may be interested in participating in the discussion. Atom 21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation.
Hey, I saw you edit to Day of Silence and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. Would you be interested? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

you caught me
yes yes you caught me... but the specifications I wrote were true... i decided the average will be 6 cm less than mine...

i wish no one had noticed though All.ya.little.triksters 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I herby give you the...

 * Hear hear! Well done. Subsolar (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. LW izard @ 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Old vandalism My error
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. -- Avi 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This was not vandalism. I have reverted your revert.  See the article's talk page. LW izard  @ 02:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct; you have my apologies. -- Avi 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Best thing ever
Maybe this is already common knowledge in your neck of the woods, but I can't tell you how happy I was to find it. Definitely easier than tweaking Privoxy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jpgordon/monobook.css&diff=prev&oldid=166393408 Blahaccountblah 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Eubot bug report
Thanks for the report! For the moment, I'll tell Eubot to skip all hatnotes with an equals sign in them. Fortunately, that's only a very small percentage. I've also checked all pages that have already been changed; NP-hard was the only one affected. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rocky Horror Plot change
OK....you are correct. I missed that part in the logic. --Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

re: "wacky vandalism"
Upon seeing your note, I had to go see what such wacky vandalism consisted of. I wonder who "the awesome one" is? Do I know them? It's probably like a 10-yr-old, actually. -GlamdringCookies (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacjks on other editors
The template exists for the cases of true conflicts of interest (employees of organizations editing articles about said organizations, etc.) it is not meant to be used to defame anyone, especially living people (which is covered by BLP). Per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA please do not replace the tag. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So anyone who sees a conflict of interest is trying to defame in a non nuetral way another editor which you see as a personal attack? I think you should recuse yourself from this Avi. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Struggle against extremism
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel
Thanks for your suggestions for rewrite the Lede of yesterday's Today's Featured Article. I always knew it didn't flow wonderfully, but it was never brought up at any of the peer reviews and FAC nomination. I've updated the article, but it's too late for the blurb now. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat  00:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits at Circumcision
Hi there. I've just declined a protection request for Circumcision at WP:RPP, as at this stage, I don't believe it's an edit war. Whilst you haven't reached WP:3RR, please make sure that you engage in the discussion on the talk page. Thanks, Ged  UK  11:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good job
Hi LizardWizard. Thanks for your edits at Circumcision, especially the 2010 KNMG policy source. I feel its important to keep a policy summarization in the intro so readers can quickly gauge a fair assessment of prevalent medical opinion. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Jakew is contending that the KNMG medical summary you added back in July never had consensus. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lizardwizard. A new editor is trying to rewrite the lead (and doing a pretty good job) but wants to remove the KNMG medical summary stating it is not a good or nuetral source. I hope I'm not bugging you but thought you might be interested. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Australian Cattle Dog
Well picked up!"Queensland Heeler" is explained in the history - should have been in the taxobox. Marj (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Arui" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Arui. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)