Eequor

	Released into public domain
	I release my text and image contributions into the public domain. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same; if you want to use my contributions under public domain terms, please check the multi-licensing guide.

Toki Pona

toki! sina jan pona. ale li pona. <3 --Sonjaaa 06:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

FAC nominations

To quote the WP:FAC rules - "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to address objections that are raised, or at least make a good-faith effort." - on your current and previous FAC noms (Sewage treatment and Occam's Razor) you have made no such effort. →Raul654 19:27, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'm mostly impartial to them, but considered them to be better than most other articles. I have no further interest in their status, nor in defending them if they are considered by some to be inadequate. I do hope they'll be improved to featured article quality. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 21:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you don't have an interest in their status or in defending them, then please don't nominate them. →Raul654 22:01, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Surely they will be adopted by somebody if they are seen to be deserving of featured article status. This is a community effort, isn't it? No single contributor is responsible for any article, nor should the misunderstanding be made that only one editor is capable of advancing progress on any specific article. Be bold. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In point of fact - no, most articles *do not* get adopted, as you say. And for the most part, the community is good at finding objections, but not fixing them - that job almost always falls to the nominator. And to put it simply - it's not the job of the community to fix your nominations for you. Now, there is finite space on that page, and there is finite viewership - if you do not intend to fix objections to your nominations, then don't take up space that someone else who *is* interested in fixing objections could otherwise be using. And finally, 'be bold' does not mean break every community rule and standard just because it suits you. →Raul654 22:50, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Another related page is Ignore all rules. I'm interested in the overall improvement of Wikipedia, and one of the ways I can help is by nominating articles that show promise. Consider the history of sewage treatment. Following my nomination, four other editors became involved in it, with discussion on its talk page, and it is becoming less Americentric. This follows nearly two months of inactivity. Likewise, on Occam's Razor, six others have contributed since my nomination. Clearly strict adherence to the "rules" is a naïve and insular position which, had it been observed, would have prevented these improvements from occurring. Do you have Wikipedia's best interests in mind? Stop interfering. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tactical Muse

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ of the Wikipedians, I hearby promote you to the rank of Tactical Muse, with all the privileges and responsibilities it entails. :)

These are your ASCII chevrons: <<<< >>>

P.S. Please try not to give too many orders to Catherine... she might be upset when she finds out she has been out-ranked. ;-)

func(talk) 04:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks! X) ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 06:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Borges & The Glass Bead Game

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why did you interlink Jorge Luis Borges and The Glass Bead Game? It doesn't seem unimaginable to draw some kind of connection between the two, but just putting them in each other's "see also" list seems useless. I'd be comfortable saying that I'm pretty expert on Borges, and I read "The Glass Bead Game" some 30 years ago, and while I can see a certain intuitive connection, it seems more the type that is made by categories than by "see also".

Anyway, I'm inclined to delete this from the Borges article (which I have on my watchlist), but thought I'd ask you first in case there is a good explanation I'm missing. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:57, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I might point out that this sort of interconnection is entirely in line with the game. Doesn't it sound a lot like sth Borges would have written? It isn't a particularly surprising connection if one knows Borges translated some of Hermann Hesse's work, most likely including The Glass Bead Game, but it's a striking similarity that may be of interest to people who are familiar with Borges or with Hesse but not both.

It's difficult to think of a categorization that would capture the similarities between works analagous to The Glass Bead Game. What would appear natural and convey the subtle differences between these and other works? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gaps in the Borges article are not as urgent as are the surpluses...be that as it may, if there is reason to believe B. translated it, there's a place for that in the article (International Themes table). That information is probably in Efraín Kristal's book on Borges & translation, which I don't have. Otherwise, the meta-category seems to be intertextuality. To oversimply only a little, literature about literature. Borges and koans are both "natural" references for that stub. I'd say Hesse normally is not but the Glass Bead Game (which I recently reread) is a clear exception. -user:munge 27 Nov 2004

I saw these links, too, and was puzzled. I wondered: what exactly is the connection here? If it can't be described -- even in a few words in the See Also sections -- it should, I think, be deleted.--Macrakis 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Toward fairness

Indeed, it is true that I can be quirky, eccentric, and occasionally flat-out wrong; but, as I am fond of asserting, the vast majority of the complaints against me step entirely from trumped-up charges, propaganda, and a egotistic effort on the part of the cabal to avoid admitting that it might be wrong about some things. I was banned for arguing too much; but in a lot of cases, I was right (for instance, Columbus did work as a slave-trader, it is POV to state Wilhelm I was stupid, and DNA is a nucleic acid). Lirath Q. Pynnor

What is most distressing in all this is not that Wikipedia tolerates trolls and other "problem users", but that it is even more willing to tolerate rude admins who consider themselves to be somewhat beyond the laws of Wikipedia — users who do not share the vast tolerance of the community, especially not when they are criticized (and far be it from them to be critical of their own actions).

You got it right there, the issue here is not whether or not my actions are appropriate or not (i admit, sometimes they are deliberately inappropriate); the issue is that admins can get away with far worse behavior. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Pity the community doesn't seem likely to improve any time soon. =/

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yah, thats why I made my own wiki. Lirath Q. Pynnor

...Heh, I just noticed every page in it is protected. That's intentional? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 05:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, unlike Jimbo Wales, I am not the head of a massive porn empire, as a result, I cannot afford to host servers for 10,000 users. I figure if people want to join, they can ask me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I see. May I join? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 18:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Im a "Unkie" on Lirpedia, you may join us :)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick ]] 18:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Names in tsunami disaster

Hi there, I saw your post on the talk page for the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean (Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake).

You wrote "Yes. I don't see why the world's largest encyclopedia shouldn't try to list everybody." Exactly. very good point.

I was just wondering how to go ahead to be able to make a list of all the people that died in the disaster. I have beeb looking at the sep11 wiki, which I think is a wonderful project and just in the spirit of what I feel wikis can do. I think there should be some kind of system where people can set up similar projects for other disasters and I like the idea of the proposed wikimorial. There are some thinking yet to be done, but it would be good if we could have something up now as the events in the Indian Ocean are happening. any ideas what to do next? brandnewbrain 08:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Partial Nematode Incident

I'm dying to know what this is. :) func(talk) 04:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha, me too. Maybe it'll be an article sometime. ^_^ ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 04:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Award

"The Surreal Barnstar may be awarded to any Wikipedian who adds "special flavour" to the community by acting as a sort of wildcard." — Chameleon 14:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ^_^

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 18:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neologistification

I think we never met in the course of normal editing by I'm just dropping by to say that I appreciate your neologistic edit summaries and I have no idea why some people are falling over them. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 19:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W00T

That RFA was *DARN* close. Actually you deserved a lot better than that. Let's retry in one months' time. :-)

Kim Bruning 01:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Kim, as per usual. And pleased to have met you. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! It was nice to meet you two. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concur with the concurers, it'll be better next time, Eequor. :) func(talk) 29 June 2005 23:36 (UTC)

My commiserations, too.

Keep up the great work!

James F. (talk) 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)

Thank you for creating Aum.png

Hi, this is a german user from Wikipedia (link) and I would like to thank you for this little piece of love. Our portal of religions starts with this image and many of these fine things make the user smile and make me happy. Om, your's Bo (if you would like to answer, be so kind to write very simple english ;-)

You're welcome! It's nice to see this being put to good use. ^_^

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 7 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I noticed that you are listed as the only admin for the Inuktitut Wikipedia. I am off to a educators conference in Kugluktuk this Sunday and intend to promote Inuktitut Wikipedia as a resource. I was wondering if it would be possible to have the main page and all the other pages include Inuinnaqtun versions? I'm not suggesting that you do all that work yourself. I will pitch it as something that the high school students can work on. This way I can suggest that it would also be a valuable resource for those people who don't use syllabic. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather 09:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot I can do myself — I barely understand Inuktitut. Would you be interested in adminship on iu:? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 11:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sounds interesting but after 30 years in Cambridge Bay and Holman I don't have any Inuinnaqtun beyond the usual minor words. Can I wait until I get back from Kugluktuk as I may be able to pursuade some native speakers to be interested. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather 12:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Carcinogens

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Eequor, I noticed you've done a cleanup of the categorization of carcinogens, and made categories for each of the IARC groups. I've no problems with this, particularly as I don't want to get involved in the perennial Categories vs. Lists debate. I am on the look out for comments and suggestions for the coverage of carcinogens (in fact, chemical safety in general) in Wikipedia articles, and so I wondered if you had any! At present, I encourage the use of the IARC classification as it is international and because the assesments are published: the NTP (US) and EU classifications are also used in articles. Physchim62 00:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The chemical safety information as presented in the infobox looks good; I like the extensive information provided in Chloroform (and the NFPA 704 diamond is a nice touch). On the other hand, I'm not quite sure about the R-phrases and S-phrases; it would be nice to have the textual descriptions of these as well, since they're a bit tedious to look up. I suppose that would take too much space, though.

On the other hand, it would be possible to inline the descriptions using {{abbr}} (or <abbr> if it's ever made available). For example, the templates {{R1}} and {{S1}} produce {{R1}} and {{S1}}.

At the moment, that doesn't add information: however, if we could tweak the templates to deliver HTML pop-up boxes, that would be a real improvement, especially for the shorter articles. Physchim62 03:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh — that's what they're meant to do, actually. They should each produce a popup message if the mouse is held over them. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 03:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

So they do, I was just too impatient to notice! Thanks, I'll try and sort out the rest of the bunch (only a couple of hundred templates to write...) Physchim62 09:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the carcinogens, I was wondering how IARC Group 4 ought to be categorized. Is this group notable enough to be classed under the real carcinogens, and are there chemicals in the group that should be treated as potential carcinogens? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Group 4 only contains one compound at the moment (caprolactam), so it is not a major problem. I would suggest keeping it where it is until the Category Police come to bother you. In terms of article style, I would treat it in the same way as I try to treat Group 3 compounds: I read through the IARC assessment and try to summarise it and explain it with as little of my POV as possible. Group 3 contains some potential carcinogens which lack data (eg, iodomethane), and a lot of chemicals which are almost certainly not human carcinogens but nobody quite wants to say so (eg, limonene): caprolactam would need a explanation of why the IARC are fairly sure that it is not carcinogenic (otherwise no-one will believe them!).

I'm glad you like the longer version in chloroform, as I've had mostly negative comments about this style until now. The extra information will probably end up on the data pages for other articles. The safety section in the text of chloroform will also get a revamp at some point or another, given the fuss which is made about water chlorination on at least half a dozen different pages. Cheers for now, Physchim62 09:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Squaric acid??

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Haha. Squaric acid. That's a joke, right? If it isn't then "quadratic acid" definitely is. Either way it deserves some explanation of how it got the name, presumably because it has four carbon atoms in a square? And it treats warts? I don't know what's a joke and what's not! —Keenan Pepper 05:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hah, apparently it is real and it really treats warts and baldness. Still cracks me up though. Squaric acid... —Keenan Pepper 05:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yep, it really does exist, I would post the structure but my molecule editor is playing up. I've never heard it called "quadratic acid", but it is true that the molecule is not a perfect square... Physchim62 08:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, chemists have a (rather geeky) sense of humour too! Take a look at http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/sillymols1.htm and http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/sillymols2.htm Walkerma 15:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Carbon

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I'm researching the propagation of information through the web and how it's exchanged to and fro the wikipedia. I have a couple of questions about the Carbon article. You edited out some paragraphs with "lots of" isotopes. Could you tell me why and if it's possible to find out the origin of the deleted material? Jclerman 21:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that was a long time ago. The edit summary is actually in two parts; that's "lots of — strange, meaningless text". I deleted the paragraphs below because I haven't the slightest idea what they're supposed to mean. I suppose you could try googling some of the phrases to check whether they originated from some other site. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ratios of these isotopes are reported in ? relative to the standard VPDB (Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite from the Peedee Formation of South Carolina). The dC-13 of the atmosphere is -7?. During photosynthesis, the carbon that becomes fixed in plant tissue is significantly depleted in C-13 relative to the atmosphere.

There is two mode distribution in the dC-13 values of terrestrial plants resulting from differences in the photosynthetic reaction used by the plant. Most terrestrial plants are C3 pathway plants and have dC-13 values range from -24 to -34?. A second category of plants (C4 pathway plants), composed of aquatic plants, desert plants, salt marsh plants, and tropical grasses, have dC-13 values that range from -6 to -19. An intermediate group (CAM plants) composed of algae and lichens has dC-13 values range from -12 to -23?. The dC-13 of plants and organisms can provide useful information about sources of nutrients and food web relations.

Wow, that was superfast! No wonder for somebody interested in fractals and diverse dimension measurements. Yes, I saw that you did the deletions in two steps. Now, why did I ask yuo? First: thanks for the deletion, that text contained several gross errors (if you are interested I can later describe them to you). Second: there are many, I forgot whether 100 or more pages, which appear when googling; it seems that during the period of time those paragraphs were up in the wiki, many commercial "pedias" that sell reports, books, and supplies to high school and college students copied that material. Third: I call this effect a "virus like propagation and infection" and I'm trying to determine how such gross blunder originated and whether it propagated out of the wiki or into the wiki. Sort of forensic work.

It so happens that such paragraph was my Ph.D. topic in 1974 followed by grad students for a couple of decades. In fact, one of them suggested I reviewed the isotope stuff on some websites. One of the sites quoted the wiki as source. That took me to get familiar with the wiki and to dig into the history of the articles. Regretfully the paragraphs in question in the carbon article were introduced by an "IP number"... I was hoping that you would have some "inside knowledge" about her/his/it ID...

Anyhow, after messing around in labs I changed to mess around with computer experiments related to dynamical systems and chaos. All that in order to understand applied computational neurobiology of recurrent states. If you really have CSF and similar, I'd like to discuss some aspects, either on this page, on my page, or by email. I have a theory linking Shannon's Theory to neurobiological "bandwidths" and some insight into attention and alertness behaviors. Jclerman 23:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh, interesting. WikiWatch has a fair amount to say about the viral propagation; it's curious to me as well that there are so many mirrors. One would think a single hit on Google for Wikipedia's content would be enough....

Your mention of bandwidths reminds me of this discussion of mental speed... is that similar to what you have in mind? I'd be happy to talk more; that's quite a varied collection of topics you've linked together! ^_^

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

You amaze me! I'll tell you later why. I'll return with comments to all of the above. I'll write off-line because this page is so popular that it is being edited frequently ;-) Jclerman 00:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Pardon my intrusion (I drifted to Eequor's page via the Future Studies saga. A skim of the Carbon article finds that the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite section was introduced at this edit by a user who is still current, Maveric149 (talk · contribs). He cites the USGS as source for the isotope data: and a Google on some of the keywords finds it here, where there's further backward citation. 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Readers of your page amaze me also. Tearlach tracked down the origin of the "virus". I'll copy my reply to Terlach below. Being narcoleptic and not sychronized to circadian environments I can't predict when I can be alert enough. I'll have to defer for later the numerous other topics I was going to talk about. Meanwhile, here is the forensics info as replied to Tearlach: *Carbon forensics: Outstanding find! I hadn't gone far back enough and had assumed that the paragraph had been inserted short before its deletion. The info you found has even, in the tag line, info about the source of the paragraph. It mentions the USGS (US Geological Survey) as source. I'll do some more verifications, etc. before writing a report about "virus propagation". It now appears that the user you quote found the info in the USGS site, then lots of websites copied it, then it was deleted from the wiki but those sites keep quoting the wiki as source rather than the USGS. Now, from where did the USGS got the wrong info and why they didn't correct it since 2002? It raises interesting questions about the use of our tax dollars and the reliability/trustability of the USGS, in particular re hydrology studies. I'll try to track how such erroneous info was "created". Thanks a lot again. I'll let you know of my final assessment. It might take me some months. Jclerman 04:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tearlach"

User page

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for a cool user page with some excellent links. I liked very much where "The Practice of Compassion" took me. Blessed be! Denni ☯ 04:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Glad you found it interesting. ^_^

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 05:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for being

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As a relitive new comer(me), and a scientist-engineer ontologist, I think your user page is the greatest. You are an extrodinary contribution here.

I am personaly honored by your presence. Artoftransformation 00:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

...I'm touched. Thank you. o_o

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wikimood

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I really like your user page too, but more to the point, why do you keep changing the color of the groove around your wikimood indicator? Just a friendly inquiry. ~~ N (t/c) 04:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The color there is the part that reflects my mood, basically. The rest shows about how much energy I have — currently very little. I'd been very unhappy about some events on Thursday, so the groove changed to yellow; I'm in a better mood now, so it became light blue. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

ell?

Δις γιουσερ καννοτ αντερσταντ Γκρηκ.

Aτ ληστ δου υτ φονετυκλι, ου λασι ψουδο-Γρικ σπικρ ;) Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, that's what I was trying for. Which words are off? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello there. To sound in modern Greek, in a similar way to English, it would be "Δις γιούσερ καννότ αντερστάντ Γκρηκ". MATIA ☎ 12:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

...Thanks. By the way, "ύ", "ό", and "ά" each display with a two-em gap after themselves; do you know what could cause that? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 21:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Theobromine poisoning

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for merging theobromine poisoning from the article on chocolate!

I almost lost my dachshund to toxicity over Thanksgiving holiday (he ate more than his lethal dose in chocolate) and started researching the topic. Wikipedia, as always, has been a great resource — glad to see you're making it better! jareha 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh, scary. I hope your dog is doing better now. ^^;

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Buddhism and Zen

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am sure that you are aware of this, but Zen is a type of Buddhism and not some kind of mystical, stand-alone, new age phenomenon. On your user page, you list Buddhism and Zen as two different influences. As someone who studied Buddhism in college, and who now lives in Japan, this reads to me the same as if someone were to list their influences as "Christianity, Daoism, Catholicism..." or, in a better analogy, "Islam, Daoism, Sufism...", etc. I don't in any way mean to rain on your parade. Like I mentioned, I studied Buddhism in school and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think it is great that you are taking an interest in (the philosophical tenets of) Zen. Perhaps you are interested in other schools of thought within Buddhism as well. If this is the case... list them instead of just "Buddhism"! Enlighten the average wikipedian who stumbles across your page and perhaps they will research more obscure forms of Buddhism besides Zen, which has become so popular and (sadly) philosophically corrupted in the West. It is just my two cents of course, but everytime I read something like that I feel obligated to speak up. Anyway, keep up the good (and unique) work! -Parallel or Together ? 02:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh, heh. I'm not sure now whether the duplication was intentional... but it does seem to me that Zen stands farther apart from the rest of Buddhism than the other branches do, far enough that it may not necessarily need the context of Buddhism as such. On the other hand, its separation probably did contribute a large amount to that terrible perversion of Buddhist teachings during World War II. I think the fascination with Zen in the West is strange, but hopefully Westerners will misunderstand less with time.

If you're curious, I probably feel closest to Mahayana and the bodhisattva ideal, though I prefer Theravada's views of the canon. Zen is nice for its unique way of pointing to

. I'd like to learn more about Tiantai, while my dislike for esotericism will rather limit how much I can understand of Vajrayana. Pure Land and Nichiren worry me, but I don't know which of Amitabha or the Lotus Sutra disturbs me more.

Thanks for your comments! It's nice to hear from someone with your perspective. ^_^

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 03:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'm happy to offer my opinions to unsuspecting wikipedians, haha. It was nice to see what 宗 you were interested in outside of 禅. My familiarity is mostly with the Japanese sects, which are almost universally Mahayana, and by extension their counterpart Chinese schools. I agree with you wholeheartedly about 浄土宗, though Shinran's 淨土眞宗 is far worse. Coming from the West, it feels too much like Christianity to me. In fact, a funny story for you - when the Jesuits first came to Japan and tried to convert Pure Land practicioners, they complained to their superiors that the Lutherans had beaten them to it. Anyway, 日蓮系諸宗派 I don't have as much of a problem with, though the extreme nationalism it is associated with is sad. I didn't much care for 真言宗, Japan's main Vajrayana school, when I was in school, although the cultural implications made it interesting to study. 天台宗, which is the Japanese evolution of China's Tiantai school, is also extremely culturally interesting. From a purely academic perspective, it was probably the single most importantant school of Buddhism to be transmitted to Japan. It spelled the end for Nara period Buddhism, as the capital was moved to modern-day Kyoto and official imperial and upper-class patronage gave Tendai great political power in addition to its inherent spiritual power. Nichiren, Zen, and Japanese forms of Esoteric and Pure Land Buddhism owe much of their success (and ideology) to early Tendai Buddhism.

I'm afraid on the issue of whether or not Zen can stand alone, outside of the context of Buddhism, we will have to just agree to disagree. Though its precepts have been widely spread in the West, it is very much traditional Buddhism. Granted, it was heavily influenced by Chinese thought, especially Taoism and, to a lesser extent, Confucianism. However, through the supposed transmission of the Dharma to Mahakasyapa (and I will have to start editing that sorry excuse for an article soon), Zen specifically and purposefully traces its lineage back to the Buddha himself. Zen is also one of the most conservative Buddhist schools, with a strict focus on hierarchy in the form of the master-disciple relationship and an especially difficult set of practices outside of the well-known koan, such as daily chores and zazen (which is extremely difficult to do correctly for any significant period time). And though Zen may have a disdain for the study of the written word, it is still tied to Buddhist texts to a large degree. Of course, in common usage of the term "Zen," especially in the West, I can see how linguistically it no longer implies (or needs) Buddhism. I just disagree with that usage of the word I guess. But like (sorry pinyin, I don't like you) Chaung Tzu said, "We cling to our own point of view, as though everything depended on it. Yet our opinions have no permanence; like autumn and winter, they gradually pass away." If you want to discuss more though, this is interesting to me. -Parallel or Together ? 09:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking of it more from the "don't make thoughts, only sit" angle — as befits the name, Zen seems to have the purest distillation of dhyana among the Buddhist schools and the most direct approach to realizing emptiness. That's what sets it apart, to me; it seems as though Bodhidharma and his students have inverted the common portrayal of the Eightfold Path, with samadhi, dhyana, and sati of foremost importance; and with views and thought, in accordance with Taoism, becoming somewhat arbitrary or even barriers. Ideally it should be able to attain its goals without preconceptions of dharma, though in practice its record has been the worst. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Radix Economy

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is Radix economy? Please explain or start the article radix economy, which you link to in Base 36.

Karl Palmen 9 December 09:30 UT

Radix economy is the efficiency of expressing a number in a particular base. The economy for any particular number in a given base is equal to the number of digits needed to express it in that base, multiplied by the radix. For example, 1100100₂ (100) has radix economy 7×2 = 14, while in base 3 100 is written 10201₃, with an economy of 15. The decimal representation has an economy of 30 (larger numbers are worse), and the economy of 2s₃₆ is 72. In general, base 3 is the most economic of any base, followed by binary and base 4. This would theoretically allow computers to be significantly more powerful if they used ternary, but considerable development would be needed to reach the processing power of modern binary hardware. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 10:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Eequor, Thanks for being so prompt about getting the Nature-reviewed article talk pages tagged such as Talk:Dmitri_Mendeleyev. The template is excellent! We may have some flaws, but your swift response helps to show we can respond quickly, unlike our competitor! Thanks, Walkerma 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

up for another round at RFA?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi - If you think you might be able to stand it, I'd be happy to nominate you. Last time was 6 months ago already (right?). Let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just a ping to make sure you've noticed this. I understand you were away for a bit and perhaps haven't noticed this. In any event, I'm VERY glad you're back. Please don't take this as pushy. I'll simply make it a standing offer. Anytime you'd like a nomination, let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. This probably isn't quite the best time, but I'll let you know when I'm interested. ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey there

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just haven't seen you around in awhile. Hope things are going well for you; I've always had best wishes for you, and continue to. Hope that whatever you do, that you're enjoying it, and hope to bump into you soon. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I haven't been feeling very well lately, actually... but I think things may be starting to turn around. ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 04:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well done...

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think that this is the best answer I've seen for ID soapboxers on the Reference Desk. Well done! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! ^_^

‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey!

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Eequor! :D, thank you for your kindness about my problem. hey, I wanted to ask you something, what does Dzogchen feel like? I know it's hard to explain, but how does it feel compared to other states of mind? thank you. :) --Cosmic girl 16:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You're welcome. ^_^

Actually I don't really know much about Dzogchen — I don't follow Tibetan Buddhism. From our article, though, it sounds like something I've experienced before, which I've called satori (a Zen term). They may be the same.

Whatever the state is, it's of course very hard to explain. If it was easy to explain, everyone would know about it by now and we wouldn't need so many different ways of pointing at the moon. But, from what I know:

There are different degrees of this state. A Zen term for some of the lesser degrees is kensho. There are almost certainly higher degrees beyond what I've experienced, and I suspect there are some beyond what Gautama Buddha experienced.
The essential truth of Buddhism becomes crystal clear in states beyond kensho. Before my satori experience I'd developed my own philosophy that turned out to closely resemble Buddhism; that may have helped.
Kensho doesn't really help one to gain insight; it's just a glimpse of the higher states. It gives a sense of touching something profound, though, and it's a nice experience for the short time that it lasts.
The first paragraph of Dzogchen is essentially correct. The rest of that article will mostly not help one to understand the state.
[1] is the best description of the state that I know of. A particularly good quote is:

...in Satori there is always what we may call a sense of the Beyond; the experience indeed is my own but I feel it to be rooted elsewhere. The individual shell in which my personality is so solidly encased explodes at the moment of Satori.

that is, it feels like one's awareness is somehow "somewhere else" and detached from one's body.
I suspect Kundalini syndrome is caused by experiencing this state and not understanding it at all.

Unfortunately I don't know a reliable way of reaching this state, nor how to help others find it. I'd suggest reading Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, the Heart Sutra, and anything on Access to Insight, particularly the Kalama Sutta [2] [3], the Satipatthana Sutta [4], and the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta [5]. ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

thank you! :D.--Cosmic girl 20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know this is kinda weird responding to one person's question on another person's Talk page, but here's my input. First of all, the Dzogchen page is severly lacking. I have a collection of books on the subject and I hope to sit down and do a rewrite someday, but I also have a vision of rewriting the Buddhism page, and that just seems like a nice idea. The page has no mention Tögel or Trekchu (spellings are wrong, sorry) which are the actually practices of Dzogchen and the descriptions of the practices are pretty weak. As is common to the Nyingma tradition, the best way to learn and understand Dzogchen is with a qualified teacher who can "point out" the state of Dzogchen. As for what it feels like, all I can say is what my Lama always said to me: "You want to know what the experience of enlightenment is? Before enlightenment: you chop wood and carry water. After englightenment: you chop wood and carry water." He always was a crazy yogi. Csbodine 16:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

*nod*

There's a Zen saying a lot like that... "Before we study Zen, the mountains are mountains and the rivers are rivers. While we are studying Zen, however, the mountains are no longer mountains and the rivers are no longer rivers. But then, when our study of Zen is completed, the mountains are once again mountains and the rivers once again rivers." ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. "Its not the spoon that bends, its only yourself." Csbodine 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's great... I haven't ever studied budhism, but I have undergone MAJOR self introspection and meditation (but not traditional meditation, but a very personal one in which I only reflect...well I guess I should call it reflection then... haha). and I see what your Lamas mean! I have undergone that!... before I started to reflect I saw 'mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers' when I was in my period of reflecion everything changed and seemed really diferent because I'd never pondered anything before and it felt unusual...but then, when I finally felt the unswers... things are the way they where before, but with this weird understanding...that prbably isn't enlightenment but it's something...--Cosmic girl 05:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Thanks! ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Missing Wikipedians

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Err, do you think there is a more informative and less POV'ed way you could have added Radiant to the list? --maru (talk) contribs 05:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, but that description is entirely accurate. Addressing the details in full would take up too much space. ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Uh-oh

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

ohnoes! Don't be stressed! What do you mean we can't link to Wikipedia's criticisms? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see what you're talking about. It seems not that criticism of wikipedia might be blocked, but that the site might have been involved in vandalbot attacks or something of the like. Come on, cheer up :) Perhaps you can find a way to link to it otherwise? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought about that, like maybe adding HTML entities, but I really shouldn't have to do that. I think the whole kapitalism.net domain belongs to Lir, and there are very few pages there; I don't see any way to look at this that doesn't shout "censorship!" ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 02:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well if it were blatant cencorship I wouldn't support it, but I could guess there have been spambots that linked to it many times to annoy people. Don't be overstressed because of it though :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

BTW: Δις γιουσερ καννοτ αντερσταντ Γκρηκ. Heh transliterations are always fun :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tony's RFAR

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Yeah, Tony seems eager to get the "Jimbo is a God" portion passed, and I have little faith of the arbcom disagreeing with that. The best thing to do is to see that for what it probably is: an irrelevant, illegimate, predetermined back room deal. Karm a fist 03:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to discern what degree of legitimacy the items in the workshop could later be see to have. I'm particularly concerned about potential chilling effects that could come out of the mess — Wikipedia:User page is not policy now, but could it be strengthened? I can't tell how serious this might be and I'm worried a large part may be vitally important to the community. I hope this will be largely irrelevant. ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 04:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The best thing you or anybody could do with the arbcom in its current state is treat it like Abbie Hoffman would: treat it like the joke it is. Our goal is just to convince people that it doesn't work, that they ignore policies to enforce them, justifying any means to achieve contradictory ends in some sort of strange legal paradox. Karm a fist 06:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Y0

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Heya, replied to you about the document. You basically only guessed half right, and ended up attacking a strawman (sowwy).That's exactly the reason why I mailed and didn't put it on the wiki. In future, just ask first :)

Just in case you're wondering in what way you should take the above, please remember that I think you're a very cool&interesting person, but you already knew that. :-) Kim Bruning 20:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, thanks. I don't see how your argument is not equivalent to an argumentum ad nazium though. ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please check your WP:NA entry

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Danko Georgiev

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Eequor, I wish to ban Danko Georgiev from Wikipedia for his repeated accusations of Fraud to me regarding my experiment [6] on the talk pages. My experimental results were verified by faculty from Harvard and other schools. I will not allow this idiot to ruin my reputation. He must be repudiated by the Wikipedia community. Any help you can offer in this regard would be appreciated.-- Afshar 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject C

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The inactive WikiProject C is now refurnished into WikiProject C and is wait for your arrival! --De ryck C. 14:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Calorimetry

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You removed 'tangental' topic summaries from the Calorimetry article, but in doing so removed all the definitions of the terms used in the equations on that page. Can you add back the parts that define the terms in the equations used in that page? Cheers, --Dan|^(talk) 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Missing?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi - Just thought I'd let you know you've been added to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. I hope you're not gone for good, but if so I wish you the very best in whatever future endeavors you undertake. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Long talk page

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Proposal on Notability

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Proposed Georgia Move

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Edits by --Michael C. Price on Afshar experiment page

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Dear Eequor, --Michael C. Price insists on using unsubstantiated claims without proper references on the article page. Regardless of the nature of his claims, I have requested that he does so, but instead he has produced at best irrelevant quotes from non-peer-reviewed sources. His edit follows:

Though Afshar's work is still the subject of ongoing interpretation and discussion, a significant portion of the scientific community is of the opinion that Afshar's experiment does not refute complementarity.

Some general criticisms are:

Bohr's philosophical views on the Complementarity Principle are generally seen in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equation. Since the latter is obeyed in Afshar's experiment it is not obvious how complementarity can be violated.^[1]^[2]

The modern understanding of quantum decoherence and its destruction of quantum interference provides a mechanism for understanding the appearance of wavefunction collapse and the transition from quantum to classical. As such there is no need, in the decoherence view, for an a priori introduction of a classical-quantum divide as enshrined by complementarity. Any experiment that claims to violate complementarity needs to address this issue.

As Michael claims, those statments are supposedly "popular views" that preexisted my experiment, and as such must be present in peer-reviewed publication predating my work. All I have asked him to do is to provide such valid ref.s but he has persistently avoided doing so and instead engaged in personal attacks. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands to be on Wikipeida constatntly, but I don't. This is turning to oneupmanship, and I don't have time for such antcis. Maybe he would heed your request. Thanks!-- Prof. Afshar 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I will be discussing this issue with Michael Price on the article talk page, and would highly appreciate if you could monitor our discussion and interject when you deem fit. I'm afraid it might get a little testy, as Michael has been persistent on personal attacks. Thanks very much for your help. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Esperanto

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just curious, why do you dislike Esperanto?Cameron Nedland 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Eequor!

I've just added my name to the list at the Buddhism Portal. I'd like to get involved, creating, editing, whatever needs doing! If there's anything you think I could help with, please let me know, either on my talk page or by email (user dot rentwa at googlemail dot com). Rentwa 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:KamakuraDaibutsu1.jpg listed for deletion

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:KamakuraDaibutsu1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. howch e ng {chat} 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Leah-icon.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Leah-icon.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Swedenborgianism.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 14:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Riddle of the Universe and Its Solution

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article The Riddle of the Universe and Its Solution, 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. Oo7565 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unspecified source for Image:Arcticfox.jpg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:Arcticfox.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss 20:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Image:Flare EIT195 256px.gif listed for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flare EIT195 256px.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Jkelly 17:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unspecified source for Image:Flare_EIT195_256px.gif

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:Flare_EIT195_256px.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yonatan ^talk 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unspecified source for Image:Flare_EIT195_256px.gif

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:Flare_EIT195_256px.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yonatan ^talk 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

User Category for Discussion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies . This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

vector toki pona

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

thanks for the neat vector file of the toki pona logo! <3

--Sonjaaa 11:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Non-free use disputed for Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.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 after seven 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 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image (Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.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 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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Non-free use disputed for Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.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 after seven 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 01:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image (Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.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 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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Template:Antianginals

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A template you created, Template:Antianginals, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you have no objections regarding the deletion, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 00:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image (Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.png)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:A(namorphic) clockwork orange.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 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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Template:Darmstadtium

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A template you created, Template:Darmstadtium, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you have no objections regarding the deletion, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Image:Venus_symbol_(green).gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Venus_symbol_(green).gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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.