User talk:A lizard

Though very funny, your "page with the most links on it" is not appropriate, and I think you know it. Please stop adding it. I guess you can put it on your user page, but it will keep being deleted in the article space. Thanks. Academic Challenger 08:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To second Academic Challenger here, there's already an article on overlinking. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 19:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:David-cash1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:David-cash1.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barcoding Inc.

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them, and have edited the article and removed the cleanup tags. Please check it and feel free to retag if you think the article still needs more work. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made further alterations to the article to make it more in line with NPOV, including changing some language from "marketingspeak" into something more "wikified." User:A_Lizard 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polyglot (webzine)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Polyglot (webzine), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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. howcheng {chat} 06:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "{{prod}}" template

I have removed the tag and added information to the article which further justifies its importance. I thinkt here was already enough in the article to justify its presence in Wikipedia and notably, you have not explained why this article is about a "non-notable webzine."

What follows was also posted onto the article's Talk page.

The webzine Polyglot has been publicized throughout various news sites that are popularly read within the gaming hobby (e.g. ENWorld, Gamingreport, RPG.net) and this has been referenced in the article. Polyglot itself has more than 11,000 readers (according to the publisher's download statistics issued in statements). It is notable that there are languages that have Wikipedia articles about them which have fewer than that many native speakers:

While it is true that many topics are not notable enough to merit Wikipedia articles, this is not one of them. The webzine has a large following among tabletop gamers and as the article notes, some very important news in the industry has been reported in it. A lizard 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen V. Cole

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Stephen V. Cole, 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 {{dated prod}} 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}}. Gavin Collins 13:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Cash, Jr.

David Cash, Jr., and article you created, has been deleted as egregiously failing our policy on biographies of living individuals. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, please do not create similar articles in future without giving serious consideration to the overall importance of the suject and whether they can be covered more appropriately in an article about the single event in which they were involved. Cruftbane 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Polyglot-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Polyglot-logo.png. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed — A lizard (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ployglotv3i3screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Ployglotv3i3screenshot.png. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed — A lizard (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander conscripts

Not all Soviet soldiers. --HanzoHattori (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that there were Scottsmen serving in the Red Army in WWII? That's what a "Highlander" is. — A lizard (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen collaboration

Hmm, I think this criticism is correct, but I know that the article is far from complete. It VERY difficult to find any free sources in English language about that time, moreover, probably this theme is not clearely understood. The only text I found is written by Chechns themselves.: History of chechnya in 19th cent WWII in Chechnya. These writing seems to be an attempt to aquilt the collaboration. The theme is rather taboed. So, some relialible sources (in Russian) I found were not about the Chechens, so the current article consist of the different fragments, which give an idea about events, but not on the whole. Other sources are rather contradictory. And the last, my English, far from perfect possibly discomforts reading, such as in case of 62,000-men Soviet Army. Being translated into Russian this construction would be understood well :)--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the red links, the most of Chechnya's places have no articles on wikipedia.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two English articles are good but they totally contradict what is in the wikipedia article. They say that there was no widespread desertion by North Caucasus peoples from the Red Army during WWII. Are you saying that some sources that were written by Chechens claim that the numbers of Chechen deserters from the Red Army actually exceed the number of Chechens who actually served in the Red Army at the time?

No, those sources were written not by the Chechens: a book (Abramyan), listed in the article is about Caucasian collaborationist units, and it is rather neutral to reflect history of the war correctly. Possibly, those two articles represent popular Chechen beliefs, but the book I'd listed as source, represent data of archives. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the text of the article should be changed to reflect this, The text of the article should also be changed to reflect that there was no widespread desertion by Chechens from the Red Army during the war. Those sources instead say that active recruitment of soldiers in the North Caucasus ended once the Red Army realized that they did not have enough red meat to feed Muslims (who could not be expected to eat the pork that was a standard ration in the Red Army at the time). This completely changes the perspective of the article with regards to Moscow's attitude towards the North Caucasus peoples and the situation in the USSR at the time in general: some of the best fighters in the Red Army could not fed for religious reasons, that in and of itself is fascinating. — A lizard (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version with pork seems to be rather modern or to be an urban legend at all: for the most part Soviet soldiers ate porridge, sometimes they did not ate at all. You may add the point of view of the modern Chechen historians, but it couldn't be viewed as the main theory. The insurgency was not sporadic, it was a conflict, turned from the latent phase. So, any problems with feeding (that was before and after the insurgency) are not the main.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Polyglot v3i12p1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Polyglot v3i12p1.png. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 09:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with template — A lizard (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Polyglot-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Polyglot-logo.png. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 09:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been already rectified by another user through the implementation of a template. — A lizard (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Internet Defense Force

Hi A lizard. Could you take a look over my edits to The Jewish Internet Defense Force if you have a chance? I think this helps with the clean up but would like a second opinion. I also included two sources on the group in question unrelated to the JIDF, but backing up once of their claims. I have a declared interest in the sources (having written one and being quoted in the other) so I can't do much more than add them in as neutral a way as possible. Rewording might be possible. Thanks, Oboler (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A lizard Please check The Jewish Internet Defense Force And discuss what was wrong in reverting your last edit, after removing a comma--Puttyschool (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your statements here. The changes that I made were not reverted and they consisted more than removing a comma.

What I find rather disturbing is your obsession with this article. You have yet to demonstrate the lack of notability of this article or a compelling reason for it to be deleted that lies within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. One wonders if the article was about a Palestinian organization that did the same thing, whether you would be equally vehement in your opposition to anyone who attempts to preserve or improve it. — A lizard (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m removing word that promotes more violence; also I’ll do this if the article is about Palestinian organization or Whatever organization. My comments were clear, the article must be fair, and like other article related to the conflict issues not using words that promote denotation or one of conflict sides --Puttyschool (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A lizard
I want to replace “terrorism” by “terror” or any other word lower in tone, What are your comments?--Puttyschool (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stupid idea. Everybody knows what "terrorism" is but "terror" can mean something different. The word "terrorism" has a definition in Wikipedia and many, many, MANY articles in it talk about terrorism all the time. If you look up the articles about Gemaat-al-islamiya, Hamas, Hezballah, etc, all of them are referred to in there as "terrorist" groups at least once int he article, if not several times, and often right from the introduction. If the JIDF shuts down groups that are demonstrably in support of or at least willing to glorify terrorism, then there is no reason why that word should not be used in this article. — A lizard (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is better if you said it is a "bad idea" or it a "wrong idea"--Puttyschool (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A lizard
Please share your point of view--Puttyschool (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A Lizard, the article is now the aubject of a AfD request, it all looks a little improper too, coul you take a look at my comment [1] and at the AfD request? Also a general look at the article would be good as I think it has come a long way! Oboler (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jidf fb sample.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jidf fb sample.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. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Polygraff V1 I2 lores-1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Polygraff V1 I2 lores-1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

You're being talked about over at ANI:Wikipedia:Ani#user:Rodhullandemu. Just letting you know, seeing as no one else in the discussion did. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly didn't think you were any other editor, and I think this was an attempt by one of the IP-hopping trolls who tend to hound me to blacken you by implication- an examination of the contribs makes that plain. However, I didn't think your edit to Jimmy Wales helpful either, since it seems to be making a point without sourcing- and that is what WP:BLP is there to defend against. From my point of view, you have nothing else to worry about. Cheers, and Happy New Year! Rodhull andemu 22:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about the Jimmy Wales article is noted. The guy claims to be a follower of Ayn Rand's "objectivism" pseudo-philosophy and the articles related to Rand and objectivism clearly state that it is completely contrary to altruism. The fact that Wales is putting his face onto banner adds that appeal for charitable donations is plain to anyone who uses WIkipedia, so it's not exactly original research. Don't associate me with a troll just because a troll made some edits at the same time as me. Calling that a "sloppy induction" would be an understatement of epic proportions and it would be most helpful if you backtracked on such infantile claims, post-haste. A lizard (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jimmy Wales: Your edit was unsourced personal opinion and unworthy in a biography. And if you take a tiny amount of time to read what I wrote above, and perhaps go through the diffs, you'll find that it was not I that called you a troll, or associated you with trollish edits. Please take care. I won't apologise, because I think you will find that I have nothing for which to do so. Rodhull andemu 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jimmy Wales: Everyone here can see the banner ads. It's not opinion, but verifiable fact. Learn the difference. 69.157.228.180 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC) note Last signature should have been A lizard (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 07:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Polyglot-logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Polyglot-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, A lizard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at David Wolfe (nutritionist)‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, A lizard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A lizard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A lizard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you please continue to update corporate response to Russia/Ukraine here: Corporate_responses_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine DmitryShpak (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]