User talk:Scorpionman

/archive 1

Hey
Do you have any profiles on other sites? i sure do. go here too talk ok :) http://www.chatzy.com/195580427787 Amreatsf4620 (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ill be calling you in the next few days :D Amreatsf4620 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

i be sorrys ._. im so busy >< i got offered a job working for a hobby shop ect ect

if you have msn yahoo or aim let me know cause i have all 3

Amreatsf4620 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Zilla died. Period.
There is no proof whatsoever that Zilla survived. Godzilla's breath in Final Wars is far stronger than any human weapon used in "Godzilla (1998)".

Unless you can find official proof from Toho, Zilla is officially dead. 87.102.75.202 21:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He could have burrowed underground before Godzilla fired at him. Besides, the real evidence is from the series, judging from how tough and invulnerable he was in there. Scorpionman 12:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, I said nothing about there being proof. I said there was a chance! There is a chance he could have survived, considering his speed. And since Toho is racist and anti-American, there's no way you could get proof from them, not that we need it from them. Scorpionman 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Zilla from the film and the series are two different creatures. Whether or not you have an agenda against Toho is totally irrelevant. And, actually, yes, we do need proof from them. They own the character, they can do what they want with it. Unless something official is published by them, then Zilla is officially dead. Fan speculation has no place here. 87.102.75.202 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They do not own it! TriStar owns it! They invented it! Scorpionman 22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Tristar did not "invent" Zilla, as you put it, he was meant to be a new Godzilla, and as such was joint property, seeing as Toho owns the rights to what was officially meant to be the same character as theirs. Starring in Final Wars was a testament to that. Plus, not even Tristar has commented on the possibility of Zilla surviving. Therefore, anything you write regarding a theorized survival is nothing but fan speculation, which on wikipedia, is considered vandalism. 87.102.38.72 22:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, actually, somebody may of misinformed you about policy, but writing speculation into articles is certainly not vandalism, but rather, original reaserch. Both, of course, should be removed from articles, but unlike original reaserch, vandalism is done in bad faith, often with highly malicious intentions to deliberatly damage Wikipedia articles. Homestarmy 23:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Vandalism nothing! I wasn't even the first one to put it in. So who owns the Japanese version of Kong? Since that's just a new version of the original King Kong, technically we should own it, right? Scorpionman 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes nothing. Limit personal speculation to Discussion Forums where it belongs.87.102.38.72 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Zilla lives! Scorpionman 03:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've got nothing against Toho. I have everything against directors who continually portray Americans as slothful, slobbering pigheaded buffoons who sit around their cars and bellow at one another, and the U.S. Military as vicious monsters, and furthermore who refuse to use any CGI at all because it's not "traditional" and it's American! That kind of crap pisses me off. Scorpionman 15:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

'''Godzilla lived alongside man approximately 6000 years ago. The Bible gives us proof of this. Godzilla was created on the fifth day, possibly the sixth day. It's difficult to say, because Godzilla lives in the water as well as on land. But man was definitely created on the sixth day, and Godzilla and man lived side-by-side. Also, Godzooky was there. They were happy until Eve came and ruined everything.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.72.63 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm really not sure what the heck you're talking about, but it has little to no relevance to our discussion here. If you're anticreationist, please don't drag that silly debate into this discussion. Scorpionman 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your call..........Amreatsf4620 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Just sent the number to your email Amreatsf4620 20:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Punctuated Equilibrium
I'm not trying to be a jerk but I read one of your old comments regarding evolution and I felt compelled to respond. You seem to acknowledge that mutations and natural selection can occur over a few generations (e.g. a colony of bacteria developing resistance to a pathogen) but you also seem to think that evolution isn't powerful enough to explain speciation over billions of years. You may want to read up on punctuated equilibrium; it's a pretty convincing explanation on how speciation occurs. Punctuated equilibrium also explains some really interesting effects such as weird genetic defects which occur in the short-run (in evolutionary time-scales of course) to small groups that reproduce only within themselves (e.g. the Amish and other isolated communities).--Ambigera 05:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not trying to be a jerk but I'm through with this debate. Yes I know about punctuated equilibrium but really there's no proof that it exists because it's not testable. Scorpionman 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for participation in Asperger FARC :
As a member of Wiki Aspergians, I hope you'll comment on the Asperger's FARC. I am voting to de-list, as I believe the article has taken a drastic POV shift toward pure pathology and away from the dual nature - talent+disability - articulated by the leading RS's of the field. I hope you'll vote whether you agree or not with my assessment :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#FARC_commentary_10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CeilingCrash (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zilla98 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Zilla98 01.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sucanat
A template has been added to the article Sucanat, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Vectro 19:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contributions to Sucanat. I removed the "Notability" tag, as I believe Sucanat is notable, and I made some edits - I'd be interested to have you look it over and improve it further (or fix any errors I made) as you see fit. -- GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 16:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)


 * No problemo! I'll see if there's anything I need to do, although I think it's pretty good as it stands Scorpionman 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Image review
Hey Scorpionman, the WP:Dino image review can be found at WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. Look forward to seeing some new stuff from you! Dinoguy2 07:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Homeschool ALUMNI
A tag has been placed on Homeschool ALUMNI requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry about that. Thanks Scorpionman (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shelob.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Shelob.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alien01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alien01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EYE7.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:EYE7.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed
Hey Scorp-man,

I agree with you dude on the Great Flood talk article. But what can you do? People will be people and call things what they will. It's important that people see God's love for them but on you user page, I think you should reword what you say "we Christians should try to convert others." We humans cannot convert anybody. It's only God that shows people that light. We simply are his instruments at times to guide people along. It's not about religion remember and numbers; it's about relationship! Anyway, we have to make sure we are ready for Jesus' return - this planet's going crazy and will be over soon sadly. Chat with you later! God bless. (in case you are wondering, I'm Christian - just Christian: I don't believe in all these sects caused by man's constant bantering and bickering with each other - my religion is simply Jesus lol) ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Steel drum.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Steel drum.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and delete it if you want...I just wanted the page to look more colorful. Scorpionman (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ThisPresentDarknesscover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ThisPresentDarknesscover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Prophetcover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Prophetcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Birds
Hello Scorpionman,

In the reptiles article discussion page you said :

"In cladistic classification, birds are reptiles. In Linnean classification, they're not"

In fact birds never were considered reptiles in any classification system. In modern cladistic classification reptiles not even exist... So you are right: birds are not reptiles, they are dinosaurs, tetrapods etc, but not reptiles.

Cya !

343KKT Kintaro (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Peretti45.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Peretti45.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Peretti6.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Peretti6.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Visitation (novel).jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:The Visitation (novel).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Melted.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Melted.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Aliens.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aliens.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Baby godzilla hatching.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dark Forest
A tag has been placed on Dark Forest requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Dougweller (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Aliens.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Aliens.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Sucanat for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sucanat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sucanat until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Slashme (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Picture 025 edited.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Picture 025 edited.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  06:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Photo003.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Photo003.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dark Forest listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dark Forest. Since you had some involvement with the Dark Forest redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 02:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you!
ON Christianity.65.255.88.233 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of The Story Keepers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Story Keepers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Story Keepers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Door in the Dragon's Throat


The article The Door in the Dragon's Throat has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable book"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Dronebogus (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)