User talk:Lazyquasar~enwiki

UO

The UO is back! Thanks for your support of the article LoopZilla 10:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Computer-generated Midway Airport (British Columbia) ALSA (Linux) Chitra indica Gridiron Classic Force multiplier Ground warfare Electronic warfare Whitewater Valley Railroad Ski warfare Skirgaila Recreant Eighth Air Force Information-bearer channel 3D computer graphics software Network-centric warfare Schloß Artstetten Freedom of information legislation A Hard Road

Cleanup XMax Uncanny Valley Order of Aviz Merge Geodesy List of computer algebra systems Alpha compositing Add Sources Ephebophilia Attrition warfare Mohammad bin Sulayem Wikify Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office Chiefly warfare cult Industrial rendering Expand USA PATRIOT Act, Title III Voyager 2 Oregon v. Mitchell

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion.

P.S. Manually posted because for some reason SuggestBot doesn't want to post to your talk page. -- ForteTuba 14:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Learning trail

Re CisLunarFreighter -- why not use Wikiversity, or an existing article, rather than creating test pages that will just have to be deleted later? Thanks, NawlinWiki 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bizplans and education

Thanks for the wikiversity example! Egfrank 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jargon tag at Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects

I removed smackbot's Jargon tag. The article looks good to me. Words that might be considered technical jargon are links to information in other articles. Might need to tune smackbot's algoryths or selection/threshold criteria a bit if possible. Lazyquasar 03:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Re: Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects Hi thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 07:11 25 September 2007 (GMT).

From T3Smile

Hi LQ, thanks for dropping a note in my userpage, which I'm cleaning up at the moment. Glad to see wikiversity is now up, but I'm not sure If I can add the article on chidiac on it. My thesis is to do with Pioneers in Australia in Computing and Digital Innovations - how they bacame such. Specifically, the thesis is heavy on dealing with describing a pattern of early behaviour that a person that achieves industry notability has. I picked two subject people with the help of my lecturer - a person that impacted the entertainment and technology industries in a revolutionary sense but lived reclusively and had been determined by educational authorities as having behavioural, social, and educational difficulties; and the second - a person that was described as "gifted" when young, and got the A Grades through their education and had good social skills - and is now in fact, unemployed/unemployable after a quite illustrious career at a European oil refinery as a scientist. Best part is, both lived in my area so I could get to interview them at depth. The aim of my thesis is to contribute to education in identifying, understanding and nurturing students that display the characteristics of future fathers of innovation/innovative nature. What signs to look for, and how their childhood affected their enthusiasm and determination to succeed. Chidiac was just an eye opener. The achievements were simply fascinating. His childhood recollection was amazing to the verge of freaky. He did so much in his career in such a short space of time and contributed so much to changing entire industries that he is an "unsung hero" of the technology and entertainment industries. When I went about writing a bio of the guy on wikipedia (with some help to start with) - it was met with scorn and unbelieveability. I had failed in properly conforming to wikpedia and worse still, did not properly write about the subject. My research in my thesis has some astounding facts that can contribute to changing the attitudes to teaching methods that allow for greater outcomes of students achieving illustrious careers, and it also covers why some areas/schools do succeed more than others (its not how much you pay for a good school, either. One school I studied that has amazing outcomes is in fact, a Government school in a average suburb.) From a thesis point, I probably would want to have my complete work published at a place were I can get compensed professionally for it as a more expanded study into how society can create more innovative thinking individuals without changing the earth or spending money to do it, before I contribute it for free. The other issue being an addition to wikipedia of the interview subject - Anthony Chidiac - eludes me and has been met with personality clashes and controversy. Understandably, I've lost faith in the accuracy of such publication and its "different rules for different things" as it notes racehorses (that win no notable races) higher than people who have shaped/changed the entertainment/technology industries, but you cannot compare a horse to a person can you? Your thoughts would be appreciated on such, but thankyou so much for making contact with me. T--T3Smile 13:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC) T3Smile (talk · contribs · logs) - Blocked as sockpuppet. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/c 15:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

List of wikis

Hi,

Thanks for adding wikiversity to the list of wikis page, I've shortened the text and removed the external link to keep its formatting in line with the rest of the page. I've also removed the redlink you added to the page - as noted at the top, the page contains notable wikis, as defined by having a wikipage. If you were planning on creating a page for the wiki you added, please wait until after the page is created to add it to the list.

Thanks, WLU (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Formatting

Really? I thought that the heading wasn't needed for the intro (just what I thought). Could you point me to where it says so (maybe in the style guide). Thanks! Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 23:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, too. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 00:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, see you around! :D Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 05:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL

Especially the part about making threats, also you may wish to read WP:AGF before you continue editing. You may also want to read WP:CITE on how to use the ref with a reflist as opposed to filling up a section with a bunch of links like that.--Crossmr (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to read Wikipedia:MOS#External_links Refrain from using too many links in articles: a sea of speckled blue often looks messy. whether these were pasted quotes or not, the extra links were unnecessary and don't change the quotes in any manner whether its meaning or otherwise. In fact it would be much more appropriate to turn those in to wikilinks like Wikibooks and Wikisource--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please show me how removing those links from the quote changes the quote in any manner? The site they reference are still there in name, just the URL for the site is not. That doesn't change the meaning, intent or content of the quote in any meaningful manner. Those links appear to provided solely in text for the convenience of the reader, and have nothing to do with what the source was saying. But I think I will take your advice. I raised concern about the text, no one else has bothered to address it other than you to demand the links are returned, so I will remove it as nothing more than advertising.--Crossmr (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Improving articles can include removing content from them. We do not just endlessly and mindlessly add content to articles. As for improving the works of others I made a solid suggestion on the articles talk page on how that section could be improved. An article whose content consists mostly of quotes isn't really an article at all. Wikipedia was never intended to have articles consisting solely or mostly of quotes. It was intended for editors to take sources and create their own words based on reliable sources. You said the author included those links for convenience, hence why they should have been removed and replaced with wikilinks. Its the preferred method of linking on wikipedia and provides the same convenience as I had previously and initially suggested to you.--Crossmr (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so". Except using external links in that manner is not acceptable, its discouraged by the MOS. Hence that statement doesn't apply. If you felt those links were there solely for convenience you were free at any time to put wikilinks in those quotes. No one was preventing you from doing it, and I even suggested it. Also, its not acceptable on wikipedia to write an article so that it reads like an advertisement, so again, your style of putting the information in the article wasn't appropriate and that has no meaning in this context. Which is also irrelevant, because when they discuss style, they're discuss formatting. e.g., how you format citations, whether your use American or British english, not if you create an article which is over 50% just quotations rather than your own words. If you want to take those sources and create your own words on the applicability in modern learning of wikiversity I'd highly encourage it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Deleting the information gathered is not creating your own words and citing reliable sources. It is merely obstructionism for others who work on articles partime." The quotes are still available in the article history. they're not deleted permanently. If you want to use them to work on the article, feel free, no on is stopping you. "I spent hours collecting that information and providing it to others who might wish to use it in improving the Wikiversity article in response to detractors claiming there was no third party verification of Wikiversity's notability. You deleted them from the article after a couple of days with a few seconds effort." You may wish to read WP:OWN, once you add it to the article, it is no longer yours. it is everyone's. If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.. Perhaps you could mitigate your damage by providing a link to the diff file where the quotes are archived in the comment where you state: no one has expressed any interest in discussion for a day or two so I shall delete entire section, header and all. If you think this is appropriate, you can go ahead and do it. Drop a comment on the talk page with the link. Again, no one is stopping you.--Crossmr (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Rockpocket#Thanks_for_Using_Wikiversity_Appropriately

I have uploaded star image to en.wiki and formatted, I trust as you intended. Tyrenius (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has passed away

Rest in peace. See the top of User talk:Mirwin for verification that this account belonged to Mirwin, and this page on Meta. Graham87 07:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Lazyquasar. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Lazyquasar~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

01:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

15:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Art of Illusion

The article Art of Illusion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of actual notability as a product, very skimpy referencing, promotional tone, flagged since 2011

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)