User talk:Kazvorpal/2006-03-14

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (on talk pages, Votes for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the test area.
You can get help at the Help Desk
Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

Dear Kazvorpal, welcome to the wikipedia. As far as i see, you are new here and that's probably the reason that made you write Ok, another pidgeon English article or the likes in the summary of Francis II, Duke of Brittany. In the course of your (i expect productive) stay in wikipedia, you'll find lots of articles in need of proof reading. In fact all of them need it, because there is always something to improve either in language or content. Thats the whole point of wikipedia. Your corrections are welcome, but i tell you that the kind of comment you made was not exactly polite, especially since you are here for just two days, you have hardly any right to sigh ok, another... Etiquette and politeness are the things that keep this community from turning into mud wrestling; you'll find this for yourself soon. All the best, Muriel.

Note to Self:

Format Thomas Aquinas' proofs, maybe table boxes...

Proposal to expand WP

Hi. I noticed at [1] that you went back and amended the timestamp by one minute (which won't actually change anything in the database) but at the same time you deleted a vote in favour of that proposal. Could I suggest you take more care in editing where voting is taking place. Thanks (the amendment was rolled back btw so that the vote will still count) --Vamp:Willow 19:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't even trying to amend a timestamp...I was trying to vote. The lag and the dense formatting of the votes were both giving me problems, and I may have messed something up. Oddly enough, a few minutes later none of my own votes were visible, perhaps because of cluster update issues, so I gave up voting entirely, as I was trying to go back and make sure I'd actually stamped my name on all of my votes...Kaz 19:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

nods WP timelag is a definite problem at times lately! --Vamp:Willow 17:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Private messaging

Re your query, (and this may depend on which skin you are using) but if you look to the 'toolbox' area where "What links here", "Related changes" etc are found you'll see "E-mail this user" which should be available on usertalk pages for those users who are registered and have valid email addresses. --Vamp:Willow 20:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dagbani language

Hi, hope you don't mind me renaming Dagbani to Dagbani language; the last format is the one generally used for articles about languages. Thanks for starting it, by the way — this corner of Wikipedia is a bit underdeveloped. Happy editing! — mark ✎ 01:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which is underdeveloped, linguistics, or just the Congo-Niger language group? Language is an interest of mine, and Congo-Niger languages something I'm currently dabbling in, so I can probably help Kaz 16:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great, your help would be much appreciated! Both linguistics and Niger-Congo (and other African languages and language families) are underdeveloped. Many of the bigger African languages are missing or underdeveloped (e.g. Fulfulde, Hausa, Kiswahili, Kirundi, Bambara/Dioula, etc., etc.). I'm keeping a to do list of articles that should exist or need attention; you might find some inspiration there...

As for linguistics, you could take a look at the 'Linguistics' section of the Countering Systemic Bias project. Many linguistic articles on Wikipedia suffer from a limited (usually Indo-European) point of view.

Hope this helps! Kind regards, — mark ✎ 17:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pigs in Space

Thanks for helping out adding Star Trek references. The reason I moved it is because Muppet Show is redirected to The Muppet Show, so I gathered that the full name is "The Muppet Show", and thus I moved it to its correct alphabetical place.

I'm curious about this reference, I've heard about it before, but never seen it. Is it in an episode called "Pigs in Space", or is it a segment of the show that has that name? I'd very much like to see it myself (the reason I created References to Star Trek was so that other would enter fun references I had not yet seen), how did you get hold of the episode?

About the quote, "Tune in next week for another adventure of PIGS IN S-P-A-C-C-E!". Is "space" supposed to be read letter by letter, or what does this formatting imply?

– Foolip 23:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking that, alphabetically, it should be ordered as if it were "Pigs in Space, The"...we're humans, not computers, and one advantage to human sorting is that you don't end up with all the "A something" and "The something" titles lumped together under A and T.

Pigs in Space was a running sketch, shown in many episodes of The Muppet Show. The most common episode I know of to be re-run and released on tape is the one where Mark Hamil from Star Wars guest stars, which of course involves them trottering out the Pigs in Space for an episode.

The quote was shouted very melodramatically by the announcer, with the word "space" drawn out like the "here" in "here's Johnny", from the Tonight Show.

There was also a sort of Muppet Show Reunion in 1996, which had the "Pigs in Space: Deep Dish Nine! The Next Generation of Pigs...in Space" sketch.

When I ask someone a question on their talk page, they seem to tend to answer me on mine, instead of on theirs...is that how we're always supposed to do it? Should I be posting this reply on yours? Kaz 23:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been able to discover which is more common, but I like to answer on other peoples talk pages so that they will definitely see it. But I also like having the whole discussion on one page, so that would favor answering on my own talk page. I've done both, and my messages have not been lost/unseen, so I wouldn't worry about what the proper thing to do is.

Alas, there isn't one. "Back when", the usual standard was that people replied on the other person's talk page. Recently, there has been a bit of a movement by some to do the opposite, to keep threads in one place. I don't suscribe to that religion, because I don't want to have to monitor 163 user_talk pages for replies to my notes. So I have a boilplate blurb which I insert:

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

but it's personal preference. Noel (talk) 13:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see, I will change "S-P-A-C-C-E" to something that (to me at least) more clearly shows that.

About Alphabetical order, I see your point. Would you favor resorting the list? My personal preference is to sort "The X" under T, but there is probably some wikipedia standard on how lists are to be sorted that we could follow.

– Foolip 00:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for following the standard, though I have no idea what it is, per se. If I come across it I'll make note. My personal preference is indeed for The and A(n) to be excluded from sorting, since sometimes half of a list can then end up under A and T...Kaz 00:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Please stop violating the Wikipedia:Three revert rule on the Cardassian and Bajoran articles; you can be barred from editing for doing so, and have already been warned. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the provisions of the aforementioned rule; please do not engage in this sort of editing pattern in the future. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bajoran

Comparing the Israeli Government to the Nazis is not acceptable on this (or almost any other) article. You will be blocked if you continue such trolling.-gadfium 05:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorbian languages

Your comments about Sanskrit on this article seem totally irrelevant. Why make a special point about Sanskrit in an article about Sorbian? I'm always hesitant to just revert something, so thought I'd ask what's up?

Sanskrit is one of the two most commonly cited archetypical IE languages, it's the best reference for an example of the dual number model which has been lost from most of proto-IE's descendants. Since the article specifically mentioned dual number, and that its use in Sorbian was significant, I felt that such a significant example was worth mention. I would agree with you if I'd been citing some completely unrelated IE family member, but Sanskrit is, of course, a prime source for guessing the foundation of the entire family, in a sense can be seen as a model of the ancestor from which Sorbian descended, if not an outright attempt at codification of the same parent language that also grew directly into Sorbian. In fact the two share a number of traits unusual to common, living IE languages. Delete it if you wish, but I think that some people might find the relationship intersting. Kaz 17:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess my point is in part that the dual number isn't as uncommon as one might think -- nonproductive versions of it exist in Hebrew and Akkadian, and I gather that a few other Indo-European languages retain vestiges of a dual. I'll do a bit more research on the subject, and will try to rephrase the sentence into something more along the lines of "Sorbian is one of the few Indo-European languages that preserves the dual number, along with X, Y, Z, and most notably Sanskrit"

I don't quite understand your statment about Sanskrit being "a prime source for guessing the foundation of the entire family", unless you're hypothesizing that Sanskrit somehow represents some sort of changless mother tongue from which all other IE languages are descended. --Ben 17:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- - The Indo-European tribes which conquered India in 1500 BC or so spoke approximately the same language as the people who became the Romans in Italy. The tribes soon acquired a written language, probably based loosely on the scripts they they encountered from the West, especially mesopotamia, though the people they conquered had their own.

Anyway, they seem to have become aware of the way their own language was changing over the years, so within a few centuries their leaders (religious leaders, apparently) set out to set down a "pure" version of the language. While they probably were not very scientific about determining it, what they did come up with was closer to proto-indoeuropean, it's thought, than any other language. And very close (considering time and distance) to Latin. This language was not allowed to change significantly, from that time on, though of course "living" descendants of it have changed considerably.

So it's not the hypothetical mother tongue, proto-indo european, it's one of the chief tools in the speculation about that language that is so popular among some linguists today. Even classical Latin is probably a little farther from their common parent. Kaz 18:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- - - Hmmm. That's pretty far from the main scholarly theories in the linguistics literature. See J. P. Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans for a good intro to the (mostly settled) linguistic issues, as well as a good introduction to the (mostly unsettled) Urheimat issues.

Briefly (and sloppily), the IE settlers moving into India and Persia probably represent the last in a series of waves of language speakers separating themselves from whatever PIE community existed/remained in any homeland. Their departure was preceded by that of speakers who would become the Tocharians, the Hittites, the Celtic and Italic speakers, proto-Germanic, and Balto-Slavic speakers (roughly in order from maybe 3000BC through the Aryan invasions). Features like reduplication to form the perfect are found in Greek, Sanskrit, Avestan and Armenian, and appear to be changes that those languages went through after the departure of the abovementioned languages, but before they split from each other.

The notion that Sanskrit is in some way "closer" to PIE than any other language is only true insofar as it represents a very accurate transcription of an IE language as spoken at an early stage. It's certainly closer than modern English, for example, but obviously farther than Tocharian or Hittite. I'd also be very leery of ascribing an explicit change-avoiding intentionality to the writers of Sanskrit, if I were you. --Ben 22:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

U.S./UK spelling on 2003 Invasion of Iraq article

Hi Kazvorpal, please see Manual of Style#Usage and spelling regarding your comments on spelling at 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Of particular interest, If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. —Christiaan - ☎ 02:03, 18 Jan 2005

Yes, and that's why I changed it back to American English. One of the Guerilla English trolls visited the site and converted some words to UK English, but the site started out as American. Kaz 02:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Van Wormer

Hi, would you please visit the text of the Van Wormer article and satisfy yourself that her analysis is based, not as your edit claimed, on "the premises of Alcoholics Anonymous", but on (in Wormer's own words) "all the classic patterns of addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book."

In the article you will note that Van Wormer is very clear that the term Dry Drunk "is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded." You misrepresented it as a pseudo-medical diagnosis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that article confirms my interpretation: She does not disavow the AA interpretation, but in fact specifically says she confirms it. She goes on to describe what a "dry drunk" is, in what are essentially AA terms, and to categorize the behavior of Bush in these terms. But many of the basic principles of the "dry drunk" concept, like one being required to act out and agree with the religious group's cult-like requirements, are founded in, if not exclusive to, parts of AA which have no basis in science and are being increasingly challenged in fact.

That challenge should be noted in the article. Kaz 20:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AA links in George W. Bush

Hi, just wanted to explain my edits to the van Wormer paragraph. If we accept that "dry drunk" is an AA term, I think it's enough just to say that instead of introducing disputed claims on whether or not AA is a "religious organization," etc. Stating the origin of the term as AA-based is enough; we don't need to bash AA while we're at it. All we'd really need is a link to the Alcoholics Anonymous article, which already discusses those issues/concerns.

Also, I wish you wouldn't characterize the edit as "censorship." I was just editing some statements I consider POV. Szyslak 21:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous has been ruled a religious organization by the Federal court system. Readers need to understand the context of the claims, which are not based on objective, mainstream psychology, but on the doctrine of AA, which says either you follow their rules, or you're not "recovering", and are bordering on crazy. It is imperative, if the analyses are to be included at all, that people understand both of them to be based on the doctrine of a religious organiztion, not objective psychology.

As for censorship, I was intending to refer to MONGO's blatant efforts to delete anything too embarassing to his man, not your coincidentally parallel efforts, per se. Kaz 21:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the basic issue re: court rulings on AA is whether judges can order people to attend meetings. I personally don't agree with forcing someone to attend an AA meeting, but that's beside the point. I think it's important to specify that "dry drunk" is an AA concept, but I also think that alone is enough to put it in context. It should be left up to the reader what the merits of that idea, or of AA, are; if they want to do more investigation on AA, they can read the article, along with different sources that have many POVs ranging from "it's the only way to recover" to "it's an evil, mind-controlling death cult." (In no way is my edit pro-Bush, in case anyone would think so.)

Re: MONGO: I totally agree that his edits cross the line, especially his mass deletions that go against community consensus. He's been keeping this up for almost a month now, so I'm starting to think maybe it's time for an RfC on that guy. Szyslak 22:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek template

Hello! I hope you're well. I commend you on devising a template for Star Trek ships and the like. It looks great! I took the liberty to make some minor modifications to the Galaxy class specs/template. For instance, replaced 'Career' (which may be obscure), with 'Galaxy class', as well, I included 11 phasers in the specs since one array is not exposed while both the engineering and saucer modules are docked, etc. Anyhow, let me know what you think.

In addition, and as you know, some of the specifications might be construed as originating from non-canon ('fanon') sources. While I do not necessarily disprove of including them (particularly if there's a consensus); others may be tempted to challenge or remove related information. Thoughts?

Lastly, I was wondering if I can use this template--or variant--for civilan and military aircraft types? Your thoughts are appreciated. Take care!

E Pluribus Anthony 17:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I based it on the one used for the contemporaneous USS Enterprise, which is loosely similar to some other ship entries. It's not clear if there was an official template for those, or if someone made a right side bar and then others randomly copied parts of it, spontaneously. I was thinking that it'd be good for modern aircraft, too, because I'd looked at some for inspiration when designing mine, and was disappointed to see that they didn't have a standard template of their own. Kaz 16:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there; thanks for your input! I've made a slight modification to the template (see the Enterprise-D template): ship name instead of class up-top, but ship class when used for classes); I would also suggest the following editions:

(1) organisation/'nation' (e.g., United Federation of Planets)
(2) service (e.g., Starfleet)
(3) small emblem of service (e.g., Starfleet communicator pin image or this pennant)

This template can also be used, with variation, to describe 'real world' objects.

At least for Star Trek items, (1) and (2) can be merged totally or mostly, as this may only be germane for Federation (Starfleet, civilian) and Klingon (Klingon Defence Force, civilian) vessels. For the real world, they'd be more relevant separately: USA (USN, USAF, USMC, etc.), UK (RN, RAF), etc.

Whatyathink? If you're OK with these, I'll incorporate them and spread the joy! Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 01:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Sorry I haven't managed to reply sooner. Just bought and moved into a new house. Kaz 23:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I hope you had a happy – and uneventful – move. Forgive my silence, as well (you can empathise); I've been similarly swamped with other matters. I will get on this and get back to you; ta! E Pluribus Anthony 04:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming Anon Entries...

How do we claim anonymous entries? Damned Wikipedia keeps forgetting who I am, at random intervals. Kaz 21:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote another small response to your question, under the topic of making it obvious whether or not you're logged in. Let me know if you have any questions! —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Russell

Hello. I found this article randomly and noticed that you created it. I added the "weasel" template, because in my opinion there are too many passive voice statments that make the article extremely difficult to verify. I explained my thoughts on the article's talk page. The article needs sources, I noticed that you mentioned a biography. Why not create a references section and list that biography? Take care.

TheRingess 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feathers Question

The debate is getting drawn out on the talk pages and this is sort o off-topic so I thought I'd ask you here. I'm just not really sure where your coming from, since you seem to be very strongly against the idea of feathered dromaeosaurs. So, quick question- If I were to state on the page for Hesperornis that "it is almost certain that all hesperornthiformes had feathers of some type", would you object? All your aguments for Velociraptor apply to Hesperornis as well (Confusciousornis, Enantiornithes, modern birds et could have evolved feathers seperately, there are no feahter impressions known for a single Hesperornithiform, etc.). If you would not object, why? I appreciate you taking the time to indulge me. Thanks. Dinoguy2 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to suspect that all dromaeosauridae were feathered, as well as the common ancestor of them and archaeopteryx, compsognathus/t-rex, et cetera. What is drawing my objection is the insistance on nearly absolute wording like "almost certainly all had feathers", when that is purely bad science. The chance that they did not all have feathers is still significant, even though I personally think they (except for the larger breeds) probably did. The difference between "probably/plausible" and "almost certainly" is gigantic. Not a single dromaeosaur, outside of microraptors, has been shown even circumstantially to have feathers. What if all of the non-microraptors evolved from a gigantic Utahraptor-like ancestor, which either never had or...because of its size...lost all of its feathers? This is a very plausible scenario. That one scenario alone, of many non-feather scenario, knocks down "almost certainly". Even with feathers being the most likely scenario, perhaps the majority likelyhood, it's still not "almost certain". --Kaz 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"because of its size...lost all of its feathers?" That's what the 'almost' is for in almost certainly. In my mind the possiblity of secondary loss is implied, by I concede that some re-wording is probably necessary to allow for this. Maybe something along the lines of "while primitive dromaeosaurids show evidence of feathers, it is possible that larger forms lost some or all of their insulatory covering." The only problem with this is that it's original reseach, I don't know of any papers that discuss that possibility (except when daling with tyrannosaurs), but I wouldn't object to it.Dinoguy2 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, and the problem starts in the assumption that they had feathers in the first place. As I said, I was presenting a single, obvious example of why it's not "almost certain". Another example is "they may never have had feathers at all", large dromaeosaurs do not clearly converge with microraptors in the existing fossil evidence. The similarity between the two groups is superficial, not one supported by signs of their point of divergence. Theropods and other large reptiles evolved to look nearly identical to crocodilians a hundred million years after their ancestors had diverged, simply because they retained the genetic potential and conditions eventually became conducive. Likewise we don't know how long deinonychus and its nearly contemporary cousin microraptor had been divergent. We know it was at least since long enough before the gigantic Utahraptor for the size difference to become common.

This is why an effort has been made to prepare for the possibility of separating them categorically. Microraptors may be more primitive than utahraptor, but there is no clear evidence that they are ancestors, which your wording implies. I would suggest something more like

"the entire microraptor line of dromaeosauridae almost certainly had feathers, as shown by fossil evidence; there is no similar evidence, yet, of whether any other dromaeosaurs had feathers or not, but if it turns out that their common ancestor had feathers, then they almost certainly either did, or evolved to 'lose' them" --Kaz 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"similarity between the two groups is superficial, not one supported by signs of their point of divergence" Cite? "they may never have had feathers at all", I thought you'd conceded that this is impossible. It is evolutionarily impossible that the raptor lineage *never* had feathers. The only valid arguments involve either creationism or convergant miracles, wherein suddenly, several lineages developed feathers in the early Cretacous (conviniently, in the one ecosystem that is geologically capapble of preserving feathers). Impossible. I don't have a cite because no scientist would even consider such an absurdity. "if it turns out that their common ancestor had feathers, then they almost certainly either did, or evolved to 'lose' them" Again, it is evolutionarily impossible, given that identical feathers are known from lineages other than microraptorians, that the common ancestor did not have such feahters. Anatomically, it would have looked like Pedopenna, a non-microraptorian, non-dromaeosaurid complete with hind wings.Dinoguy2 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedopenna did not have "identical" kinds of feathers. It was a maniraptor with fuzzy, symmetrical feathers, as similar as our hair is to that of the kiwi bird. And, again, we don't know when the two lines diverged. Pedopenna was only a few million years older than Utahraptor. As I've said before, it's possible for animals, especially with similar genetics, to evolve similar structures. The microraptors may have evolved from pedopenna-related ancestors after splitting off from Utahraptor's ancestors, yet also evolved to be much more raptor-like. You should not condemn these articles to a narrow, absolutist interpretation simply from lack of imagination. --Kaz 03:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a cite for any of that, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. Your imagination is not only an invalid researhc tool, it's an original research tool. Evolutionary biology deals with evidence and parsimony. The simplest expalination is accepted until evidence suggests otherwise. Is it possilbe that raptors are not dinosaurs at all, but evolved from mammals and just ended up looking like dinosaurs? Sure, but what on earth would lead you to think such a thing? Also, have you ever even seen photos of Pedopenna? Itrs feathers are in no way "fuzzy". Even the Wikipedia article states that they are pennaceous, so it seems like you didn't even bother to read that. "The microraptors may have evolved from pedopenna-related ancestors after splitting off from Utahraptor's ancestors" Science has ways of testing things like this. Until you bother to learn about phyologenetic taxonomy I'd advise you to stay out of articles dealing with classification. To simplify it greatly, Utahraptor and Microraptor are more similar to each other in their skeletal structure than either is to Pedopenna, and scientists can tell this with only the legs! This is published science, not some guy's imagination. "it's possible for animals, especially with similar genetics, to evolve similar structures." That's possilbe in theory, but studies of dinosaur feathers like Prum & Brush show that it is not the case in this instance. They analized not only the structure of feahters in various dino lineages, but used information from the cellular development of modern feahters to show how the progression from simple branched structure (Sinosauropteryx) evolved into fuzzy down-like feather (body feathers in basal maniraptorans) and then into symmetrical planar feahters with rachis and barbs (wing feahters in oviraptorosaurs and microraptors) into asymetrical feathers with barbules (like Confusciousornis). Just because you can imagine a different scenario doesn't mean that scenario is worth considering when writing encyclopedia articles.Dinoguy2 03:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D Images

Hi, I notice you removed a 3D image from Velociraptor. I have been trying to develop a guideline to suggest a sane way of incorporating 3D images into the wikipedia. I would appreciate any feedback you could add. If you know anyone else who might have an opinion on this please let them know about it. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 13:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convergent evolution

I noticed you added "pterosaurs" to the list of winged animals. Isn't it generally believed that birds evolved from pterosaurs? Or did they both evolve separately from other reptiles? If the former, it wouldn't be convergent evolution, right? — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pterosaurs were not even dinosaurs, though the guess is that they shared a common ancestor. They had membrane wings like bats, not feathered wings like the maniraptor ancestors of modern birds. In fact, most pterosaurs were displaced, apparently, by birds, except the largest breeds, which were bigger than feathers allow a flying bird to get. Definitely convergent evolution. --Kaz 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goanna

Tasmania is not part of Australia? I think you may have been misinformed here. --Calair 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I implied in the comment to which you're referring, it's a nearby island, not part of Australia itself.

It's like Madagascar is to Africa. --Kaz 04:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, it isn't. 'Africa' is not a nation; 'Australia' is, and Tasmania is one of its six states. In geographical usage, 'Australia' encompasses the mainland, Tasmania, and sundry other islands (not all of them necessarily part of the nation of Australia, but Tassie is).

See e.g. http://www.gov.au/sites/tas.html, the CIA Factbook, American Heritage Dictionary, and of course the articles Australia and Tasmania. --Calair 12:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes yes, but for the specific case of discussing the distribution of goanas, it makes more sense to consider "Australia" to be the actual land mass. --Kaz 14:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - so for these purposes, Manhattan is not part of the USA, the Isle of Wight is not part of England, and Labrador is not part of Canada? (Reynardo)

Only if all of those places have both grown, and moved away. Tasmania is 200 miles from Australia, over twice the distance of Cuba from the United States. It is comparable in size to Ireland and Cuba, 26,000 square miles, whereas Manhattan is 20 square miles, and is a few hundred feet from land. The Isle of Wight is only slightly larger, and only a few thousand feet from land. --Kaz 16:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you aren't from Australia. In ordinary usage, 'Australia' encompasses Tasmania unless otherwise specified. In this particular context, a great deal of mainland-Australian wildlife is also found in Tasmania (it was connected to the mainland by a land bridge up to about 10k years ago, IIRC). So it would be nonsensical to just say 'goannas are found in Australia' and assume that readers will guess that they're supposed to interpret that with a non-standard meaning of 'Australia'.

And Tasmania isn't even 200 miles from Australia. As per the article, it's 200 kilometres. My daily commute used to be more than that. --Calair 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We had better tell Hawaii that they are not really part of the US. Xtra 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar is a part of Africa btw, Tasmania is a part of Australia (the continent), and Taiwan is a part of Asia. Cuba is a part of the American continent, and the British Isles are a part of Europe. I think you may be misinformed about the meaning of "continent". --Sumple (Talk) 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the confusion here. When someone says "Australia" by itself, they are referring to the Commenwealth of Australia. When they are talking about the continent, they say "mainland Australia" or "the Australian continent." Tasmania is part of the Commonwealth of Australia, and is therefore included when someone says "all of Australia". Not to mention, that with distributions of animals, there is often species in both Tasmania and southern mainland Australia. --liquidGhoul 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when someone outside of Australia says "Australia", they're talking about the big island with all the kangaroos and guys who rassle crocodiles. Which has recently acquired its first piece of architecture, and now can't stop putting pics of the opera house on everything to emphasize this. Most of 'em don't even realize the Commonwealth of Australia exists. Tasmania, to them, is the place where Taz had his failed variety show, and the skies are always yellowin', rain or shine. Not that they have any idea what the hell that means.

Perhaps Australians know better...but their entire population is...what...less than that of the state of California. --Kaz 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should know, it is what the CIA factbook (link above) calls the short name for the Commonwealth of Australia. Secondly, it is an article about an Australian animal, and should therefore use Australian english. --liquidGhoul 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read your last comment, and that is the stupidest thing that I have ever read on Wikipedia. It is obvious you know nothing about Australia, and shouldn't assume your ignorance onto the other 6 billion people in the world. Tasmania is a part of Australia, end of story. Just because, according to you, the population of California believe Tasmania not to be seperate- does not make it so. I mean really... they elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as their Governer. --liquidGhoul 07:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Australians all know what goannas are, I would hope. They might not realize they're just mispronouncing the word "iguana", but other than that, I mean. Logically, it's the ignorant non-Australians who need to be enlightened. --Kaz 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not going to be done by pretending to them that 'tasmania is not part of australia'. (Can you produce any informed source - political, geographical, or biological - which endorses that claim?) --Calair 02:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to shout, but... A CONTINENT INCLUDES NEARBY ISLANDS! That's all there is to it! --Sumple (Talk) 03:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Castorocauda lutrasimilis, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite proud...--Kaz 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob McGrath

He has tended to present something of an "I'm a multi-talented performer, if I weren't here I'd be starring in Vegas" feel, akin to Monty Haul's demands to host variety show specials in addition his game show hosting work.

What source do you have for that? Please reply on my talk page. -- user:zanimum

Image Tagging Image:USSStargazerFore.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:USSStargazerFore.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 07:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of abortion and feminism

I have found no evidence (neither by following your link, nor through a google search) that feminists lobbied along side the AMA to outlaw abortion. I understand completely that some first-wave feminists opposed abortion. However, I haven't found evidence that they were responsible for the mid-1800 U.S. laws. Do you have any souce for this claim? If not, maybe a compromise would be a sentence mentioning the anti-abortion views of some of the first-wave feminists (instead of the current unsourced claim that they lobbied alongside the AMA for these abortion laws)? And could this information also go at the History of feminism article?--Andrew c 05:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While feminists did indeed lobby strongly for abortion prohibition...something which is rarely mentioned in primary source literature today today, quite naturally, because it's so unthinkable in contrast with the establishment viewpoint...it is (as I just implied) not easy to source with a quick search, so for now I'd be fine with a simple mention of the irrefragable fact that most of the feminists of that era were on record as opposing abortion. And I agree that it should be on the feminist page, as well, but no matter how correctly you word and cite such a thing, the fanatically PoV types tend to censor such heresy. --Kaz 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]