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)
- To second Academic Challenger here, there's already an article on overlinking. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 19:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:David-cash1.png
Thanks for uploading
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
- Wikipedia:Image use policy
- Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
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)
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)
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)
I have added a "{{
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)
Stephen V. Cole
A {{
David Cash, Jr.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Polyglot-logo.png
Thanks for uploading
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
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ployglotv3i3screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading
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
Highlander conscripts
Not all Soviet soldiers. --
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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?
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)
- 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)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Polyglot v3i12p1.png
Thanks for uploading
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
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Polyglot-logo.png
Thanks for uploading
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
- Appears to have been already rectified by another user through the implementation of a template. — A lizard (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The Jewish Internet Defense Force
Hi A lizard. Could you take a look over my edits to
Hi A lizard Please check
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- It is better if you said it is a "bad idea" or it a "wrong idea"--Puttyschool (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi A lizard
Please share your point of view--Puttyschool (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jidf fb sample.jpg)
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)
Orphaned non-free image File:Polygraff V1 I2 lores-1.jpg
- 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 WP:BLP is there to defend against. From my point of view, you have nothing else to worry about. Cheers, and Happy New Year! Rodhullandemu 22:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)]
- 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)
- Re Jimmy Wales: Your edit was unsourced take care. I won't apologise, because I think you will find that I have nothing for which to do so. Rodhullandemu 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)]
- 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)
- Kindly review ]
- 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)
- Re Jimmy Wales: Your edit was unsourced
- 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)
Orphaned non-free image File:Polyglot-logo.png
Thanks for uploading
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, A lizard. Voting in the
The
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)