User talk:Zzorse

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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

TheRingess 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, adding well sourced info to the fire hydrant article as your first logged in edit. Great start. :-) Kim Bruning 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hog oiler
"Used by hogs"? Could you clarify that, please? thanks. bikeable (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good edits -- that's amazing, I've certainly never heard of it. I'd love to see a picture; the picture on the patent should not be copyright anymore, so if there's one in that that illustrates the point, maybe you can upload it (to [commons.wikimedia.org|commons] and link it on the page?  Nice work.  bikeable (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

US patent wikilink
Glad to help, Znorse! I learned that trick myself a week or so ago. --Uthbrian (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, of the recent patent links you've been adding, I've yet to see one that is truely relevant. For example this one - bricks have been around for much longer than even the idea of patenting. The linked patent is just some small modification on the use of materials and really adds almost nothing to the article or anyone's understanding of bricks. In fact is worse than that, it creates the false impression that this patent is somehow important to the development of bricks.
 * It would be worth adding a link like this when the linked patent is in fact the first publication on the subject of the article, but in all other cases we are better off without them. -- Solipsist 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that we're better off without them. They at a minimum document ideas. Your caution that they could mislead some people may be true. That they hold the power to intrigue other people is also true.

Within these links are some true gems. The Matthias William Baldwin page has a patent that is an unexpected idea, one that ultimately did not pay off. But ingenuity it exemplifies.

Then there's the screw machine precursor,, which is mind blowing for the early date. Not to most, but to some of us.

The fire hydrant patents overturn a misconception online. (The page itself is in need of improvement, however)

Etc.

I WILL ponder your criticism. I've removed some patents, and will try to integrate some of the others in a way that may satisfy your concerns. Zzorse 21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And there I think is the problem - the link direction is the wrong way round. It is commonly the case that the relevance of a link is asymetric. If you were reading patent #97, you may well be interested to learn more about the history of bricks so a link to the Wikipedia article from there might be useful. However it is not the case that anyone reading about bricks would necessarily be interested in that patent. You are perhaps allowing your own interest in these early patents cloud your judgement as to their actual significance in the development of ideas.


 * Again, you provide an excellent example of how misleading these patent links are. If you were surprised that there is a patent for a screw machine dated 1836, you have been misled. A simple web search could give you a link like this, which says the first screw cutting lathe was designed some forty years earlier in 1797 &mdash; and by and Englishman, not an American. So inserting a link to an old patent gives a wrong and POV impression of when and where screw machines might have been invented. Similarly the other patent links there seem equally as dubious; I doubt that any of them actually mark significant developments in screw machine design. If one did mark a genuine breaktrough in screw machine design, then a link to the patent would be appropriate, but it should also be significant enough to be discussed in the body of the article.


 * Simply working through a list of early US patent and adding links to the Wikipedia article on the closest matching subject is going to do more harm than good. -- Solipsist 22:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The asymmetry of interest you note is likely true for most, but not for others who revel in the minutiae. I can't recall a time when I've found traditional encyclopedias very interesting to read, at least on certain topics that appeal to me. Wikipedia is different.

I understand what you're saying about the potential of being misled, but a screw machine implies automation; the I cited has a ratchet wheel that feeds headed screw blanks in succession to the screw cutting lathe as it cycles. Checking with Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th edition, their article "Tools" pegs the development of automatic screw cutting turret lathes at mid 19th century: they also reference the same screw cutting engine lathe you cite from 1797.

Your critique has been helpful to me. -- Zzorse 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact I've previously read a book that summarised notable inventions and included facsimiles of key pages and diagrams from their original patent applications and found it fascinating. But the asymmetry means that the links are better placed in an article such as List of notable patents, rather than scattered over a range of other articles where they are liable to mislead.
 * In anycase, I will go ahead and remove the generic/random patents. If I remove one that is actually critical to the history of a subject, feal free to restore it. -- Solipsist 19:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"RVV"
Hi. My edit was not vandalism. My first edit was a vandalism revert and the second one was a revert back to this edit (see expalanation). Thx. El_C 15:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I intended to revert user Wackojut's edit, but my slow connection apparently tripped me up. You made two good edit's in between!!! I thought the Wiki software is supposed to prevent such conflicts. Zzorse 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Yeah, the edit conflict function has been a bit wacky lately. Hopefuly, it'll be fixed soon. Regards, El_C 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Baduk
Salam! Thank you for your note. I will look into the article. Overall it is well-written and well-sourced. Nice work! I saw the film years ago when it was first released. I need to look for some sources in Persian. Siba 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Castrale
Glad to help out! Crunch 22:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Drunken Horses
The correct word is Horse not mule. The official Persian title in Iran uses Asb i.e. Horse, the Kurdish title also uses Hesp (horse).Heja Helweda 03:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Baran-lateef.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Baran-lateef.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 04:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Strangers in Good Company dvd cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Strangers in Good Company dvd cover.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 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barefoot to Herat
Hi, I am back! I've never seen the movie either. It's a good start, but I'll keep an eye on it for expansion. Cheers. Siba (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cinema of Iran article
Thanks for your note. I have changed the article's intro now. Not only was it misleading, but also I think it's disrespect to the audience both inside and outside of the country. Please edit it again if you think you can make the introduction to the article better. Thanks. Siba (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Baduk Jafar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Baduk Jafar.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) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Baduk dvd cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Baduk dvd cover.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) 19:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pedar dvd cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pedar dvd cover.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) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Zzorse! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Nuno Mindelis -

Invitation to join WikiProject Bacon !
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at WikiProject_Bacon!
 * You may also feel free to add the userbox - User Bacon - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
 * The Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

Blast from the Past
Hey,

you reverted my supposed "unsubstantiated claim" for no reason. what I wrote was true at the time and i knew this first hand.

here is the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pregabalin&oldid=54599508#Recreational_use

the "recreational use" section is what you removed and i believe it isnt right to arbitrarily decide what is real and valuable in this free encyclopedia without any claim. like i said, i know what i wrote from first hand experience and unless you were in switzerland during that time, i don't see how you could have ever came to the conclusion that i was wrong.

I dont want it to be changed back or anything. i just want you to know that it wasnt fair and to me or my friends. it seems like you have a thing against us.

We eagerly await some explanation

kind regards

friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.38.167.202 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Mehrollah.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mehrollah.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Low-noise block downconverter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acrylic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fire hydrant flag
In Ludington where I live in Michigan they have to have flags to mark where the hydrant is, because many times the snow covers the fire-hydrant. Do they have anything like that where you live?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, these help firefighters locate hydrants in an emergency. Zzorse (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * O.K. Do you have this much snow in your town (i.e. 4 feet)?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)