User talk:Bazzargh

Well done. I suppose I proved the point (unwillingly). JASpencer (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for completing the holes in my work on the Hydrocodone (esp. Vicodin, earlier Hycodan) History! --84.119.40.14 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bazzargh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Spellcast (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got one source that lead here:[1]. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry about that. I assumed the film was more directly from the book than it is.

Thanks

CaptinJohn (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my edits to morton high school district 201? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.216.2 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently, it's because this IP address is used by a public library. 66.99.216.2 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you would be right. My bad. I was under the impression hoaxes couldn't be speedied period, and extremely obvious hoaxes were nonsense if anything else. I'll G3 it. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont comment on my page ever again 216.107.227.138 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ooooh. scary. --Bazzargh (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you see it my way. 216.107.227.138 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh, puh-leeeeese. That tickles.

Watch it, or there will be a gullet slicing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.227.138 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – Gurch 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up the reference! BFD1 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll leave it in your capable hands. (I'd never heard of a coho salmon before, so that was my principle reason for the revert!) Waggers (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert looks good to me (thanks!). The guy should've just said something on the talk page. --Bazzargh (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No its not made up. Its a theoretical medical procedure. Whether it has been performed using that name, I don't know. The band annoyingly hogs all of the Google hits, so it is difficult to find references.

If an Appendicectomy had never been performed, it would still be a medical procedure, it would still be removal of the appendix. It is the same thing.

I thought that it would help to expand people's minds by having this interesting word in here. If people disagree, then delete it. Merging it is pointless. Dyinghappy (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying this is theoretical just because it is a grammatic agglutination? Wikipedia doesn't work that way; we'd be flooded with words that might one day be used for something otherwise - see WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms. In terms of reliable resources for a potential medical usage - head transplants are a reality (although not very successful), and Robert J. White didn't use the term. But it sounds like you had no sources other than the band's web page, hence the page isnt verifiable - so I'll change the merge to a proposed delete. It won't disappear for several days, people will have time to object. --Bazzargh (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the term from the band's webpage. I got it from a medical dictionary and terminology explanation. The reason why I thought of it was because I misheard one of my colleagues and thought that they were describing a cephalectomy, so I tried to find out what it meant. It does in fact mean what I said it means, to decapitate. This is proven by looking at the latin words, and looking through medical terminology books, references which I have given. The thing is that you never go in to hospital to have a cephalectomy. What would be the point? Go in with a head, come out without? I thought that it would be interesting for people to learn. If you are going to have such a problem with it, just delete it. I tried to discuss it prior to creating it, to see if it was okay, but got no response. The term has nothing to do with the band. Sadly, hits for the band make up all of Google's search terms, making it impossible (or at least extraordinarily difficult) to provide references for it that can be used on Wikipedia. It is very easily verifiable. It is just that it is a theoretical term. Go ask a doctor if you question it. Dyinghappy (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have it from a medical dictionary in print, why don't you cite that? Citations don't have to be available online. --Bazzargh (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it. This is pointless and stupid. I was trying to improve Wikipedia, and all of this nonsense has come up. I am not going to bend over backwards to "save an article" that I only wrote because I thought that people might want to know about these terms and expand their minds. All the citations and proof that the word is real are in the article. If you want to delete it, then delete it and lets end this charade. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the idea from User:Dihydrogen Monoxide by the way, because I was impressed by his clever username. Its an obscure word for water, just like how cephalectomy is an obscure word for decapitation. I note that there is an article for Dihydrogen Monoxide but yet you don't want one for cephalectomy. The whole point is that it would be on google if not for that band hogging up all of the google hits. I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to educate, not to just recreate things that everyone already knows. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, if it weren't for the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax, would you have an article about the perfectly valid and mind-expanding chemistry term? I don't know if you would, but you should. And just because the google hits for Dihydrogen Monoxide are filled with the hoax doesn't mean that that should be the encyclopaedia article - the correct article should be about water (which it is sort of). In a similar way, the article on cephalectomy shouldn't be about the band just because it fills up more hits on google. It should be about the perfectly valid term. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there wasn't any press coverage about Dihydrogen Monoxide, that article wouldn't be there - the hoax is quite well known, and its the hoax that's interesting; most chemical compounds can be referred to by many names, see e.g. the infobox for Phenol, and they don't get individual articles; in any case, simple word definitions belong on Wiktionary, not here. What makes the Dihydrogen Monoxide article different from the Cephalectomy one is that it has references which are verifiable. Please read WP:FIRST.

I have nothing against your article except that it lacks reliable sources; and I don't just mean for the prefix and suffix. Just because its a valid agglutination, whose meaning can be guessed, does not mean that it is a word in use. eg, I can make the word 'brachiectomy', but that isn't the word for an arm amputation - brachiotomy is.

I didn't just check google web search; I also looked in the medical dictionaries scanned into google books and amazon, and medical research on PubMed. You claim it's in a medical dictionary; it would take less than a minute to type in the name of the medical dictionary where it could be found. Then your article would have a reliable source, so why don't you do this, its far quicker than arguing the point here?

Re arguing the point here, both the proposed deletion and the proposed merge linked to the appropriate Talk page for this (which isn't here, because noone but me is reading this page). If you follow those instructions in future you might find other editors jumping to your defence.

By the way, I'm not an admin - I can't delete your article. It will be culled in 5 days if the prod label stays. If you want it deleted sooner, you just need to add {{db-author}} at the top - see Template:Db-author. --Bazzargh (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...that architect Otto Königsberger illustrated his uncle's popular Physics book, but he won international recognition from the United Nations for his contribution to human settlements development? by Bazzargh OK? Victuallers (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow, front page news :). Yes, both of those have good sources. I would say 'uncle Max Born's popular Physics book' - it'll get instant name recognition from any physics students; thats what got me interested enough to research and write the article --Bazzargh (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Otto Königsberger, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your welcome Victuallers (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already edited almost every section of this article, please review it and give comments, are there any mistake or there are still not fulfill the Wikipedia article requirements. Thanks. Ivan Akira (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, once again already edited almost every section of this article, please review it and give comments, are there any mistake or there are still not fulfill the Wikipedia article requirements. Thanks, again. Ivan Akira (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your editing in The Tortoise and The Geese, I already review it. I think the article is complete enough for Wikipedia standard. Thanks! Ivan Akira (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post that many requests for page protection in cases where there is not enough vandalism at the moment. We do not protect pre-emptively but only when there is a valid case of persistent vandalism. Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, so protecting pages is done only on cases where it is warranted, and generally for as short a period of time as possible (there are exceptional cases of course, that are treated differently). Thanks for your help and understanding. -- Alexf⁴² 12:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection isn't really necessary. We can just revert him and the damage will be repaired until he vandalises again, though the protection may get a bit of it off our back. Also FYI, the "'Kids Choice' vandal" already has a name, called The UPN Vandal. Thought I should add that. --AAA! (AAAA) 13:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Judging by your edit summary here it seems that you are in favor of the proposed guideline at WP:DOY. Please consider taking a minute to voice your support in the consensus discussion for approval of the guideline here. Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got 'em. Gave him 48 hours this time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you trouble? I reported him/her at AIV. B110 _{communicate (that means talk)} 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really trouble. Just 'the usual'. I normally steer clear of the wrestling cruft, theres too many junk edits to keep track of; but the WP:DAYS articles are kept pretty clean and thats where he trod on my toes. I was giving him the count of 4 - Didn't expect him to stop though, its clearly a SPA. Bazzargh (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just add that orders are to block on sight on this guy, and maybe add this link to the note as well. That usually helps. --AAA! (AAAA) 10:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, when you revert one of the socks, remember to check their contributions for any other edits that may need to be reverted. I saw you reverted an edit by this guy, but there were others that weren't taken care of. I've reverted them now, but just so you know for the future... --AAA! (AAAA) 11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. He usually seems to attack about once a day, or sometimes longer. He's not really a threat, as his edits can easily be reverted. He's just annoying, that's all. --AAA! (AAAA) 11:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bazzargh, I have searching the net and found that a picture that suitable for The Tortoise and The Geese article, I found it from http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=dutton&book=tortoise&story=tortoise, but unfortunately I can't find the license for that, can you lend me a time to help to incorporate picture from that source to yours article (to make it better)? Ivan Akira (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that image is out of copyright in the UK. Its from the Maude Barrows Dutton edition - she was born in 1880, but I don't know when she died. If it was before 1933, the image may be out of copyright, but otherwise its hard to be sure. Bazzargh (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, how 'bout it? Can we add that picture freely? Or we should ask a permission to use it, and from who if we should ask? Ivan Akira (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updated the image in The Tortoise and The Geese and User:Bazzargh/The Tortoise and the Geese to my image in Commons, sorry to bother you. Ivan Akira (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt edit anything on osmosis jones dumbass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.109 (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me Bazzargh. With regards to the above post I think it's likely that the above user is a sockpuppet of the UPN vandal and that he edited the Osmosis Jones article. The UPN Vandal seems to have an obsession with a giant evil toad called Thrax. Thrax also happens to be the name of the main antagonist in Osmosis Jones just in case you didn't know. I wouldn't let him get away with callin you "dumbass" either. He's a rude little twerp. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I know this guy. Is he the one who kept creating articles about CGI animated animal-themed films starring... well, just about everyone? I seem to recall taking a few of those to AfD. A real pain in the backside, and a good argument for the updating of the speedy deletion criteria to include "hoax". Steve ^{T • C} 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just a heads-up-- we need to present a consistent enforcement policy on all future items that have been entered onto the various Pixar-related pages regarding needing proper citations. For example, most of us knew that Cars 2 was coming for a while now, but we had to wait until it was announced this week before it could be added. Same thing holds for Presto, so if you can dig up those citations that would qualify per WP:CITE, that would be swell. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, "past future" tense. The sentence is talking about an item written in the past that is talking about something that will occur in the future... even though that future is something that is still in today's past. ie, in 2008 we're reading a document from 2006 that is talking about something that will be happening in 2007...." In this case, "will be" is correct, not "is", as it is referring to all future projects, starting with "Cars", which had not been released at that point. SpikeJones (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, if we're talking the same thing and agree that "is" was incorrect, then fix it to what it should be. While I appreciate the grammar lesson, pointing it out in that manner is just a wee bit of overkill. We both have better things to do with our time than nitpick what the definition of "is" is. No harm, no foul.SpikeJones (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give the Croatian guys a chance TylerDurden1963 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I stumbled onto the story and really enjoyed it too. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed the following text from the Evil Queen article:

"The evil toad, Thrax (Nat Wolff) has escaped from the zoo to raise the army of frogs (CGI version army) to destroy Lowe's Motor Speedway." Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_%28Snow_White%29"

It was added at 11:13 today by an IP named User:172.133.149.52. I really don't think I need to say anything else. Should we block him? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's probably the most prudent thing to do, Bazzargh. Just thought I ought to tell someone. You can't deny, the guy's insane. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted the UPN Vandal's recent edit to the Evil Queen article which is usually the brunt of his vandalism (Thraxita, lol!). Sorry to nag but if the Queen article is to make FA status I strongly suggest you get someone to block him. If he thinks he can get away with it he'll just keep at it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just a helpful tip for you: Don't bother warning the guy. He never listens, and changes IP very often, so there really isn't any point in warning him. All you need to do is revert him, and maybe ask an admin to ban him/her if you catch him whilst he is currently active. Hope that helps. --AAA! (AAAA) 12:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He changed his name from Vikrant Phadkay to Ultraviolet scissor flame, he has been blocked twice as a vandal for being a page blanker [Phadkay]. He also failed spectacularly when he tried to be a Wikipedia Admin Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vikrant Phadkay. He is also a master sock puppeteer, Paerduug, [2] and then when he realised he had given himself away, he tried to cover it up [3] 81.130.223.198 (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind going to Portal:James Bond. I'd really appreciate any criticisms or support that you could provide for this Featured portal candidate. Thanks. Ultra! 00:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting: "this thread will expire of its own accord in 24h if left alone.--andreasegde (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I am happy to inform that the article has been promoted to the GA status. By the way, I have renamed it as Polyclonal B cell response as I thought that sounded more appropriate.

Thanks for the help you provided with the citations, and your suggestions on the images. The article might benefit from your expertise in image-editing if and when (may be pretty soon) it is nominated for "A-class" or "FA-class".

Have a nice day.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 08:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:WRCBarnstar.png		The Wikipedian Red Cross Barnstar
		I award Bazzargh the The Wikipedian Red Cross Barnstar for all the improvements in citations and feedback provided on the images in the article Polyclonal B cell response. Thanks.—KetanPanchaltaLK 11:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
		Simply add {{subst:The Wikipedian Red Cross Barnstar|PUT YOUR MESSAGE HERE~~~~}} to award this barnstar.

It was my bad. Sorry I did not check it out. It does make me scratch my head a little when a an institution with a questionable reputation has an outright fraudulant institution trying to copy it. Its a strange world out there. Let the buyer {or prospective student} beware. Piercetp (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems someone is sharing the same IP as me or perhaps my connection has been compromised... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.188.92 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bazzargh, thank you for citemark, its fantastic. in a few weeks freebase.com will have its 'official website' schema figured out and i will fork this to get 'publisher' data from the url. great code, cheers :) Spencerk (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a most useful tool - thanks. Bets regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it! One unfortunate thing is that when it was originally written, linking dates to get autoformatting was in vogue, so it was simplest to output YYYY-MM-DD formatting. The practice fell out of favour, so the dates aren't reformatted now, and tend not to fit in. I should really fix this to do something better, but you may want to hack that to suit your preferences. Bazzargh (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants!
• You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
• The Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it very useful. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was told about your script - citemark, so I wanted to inform you that I developed a bookmarklet that generates references automatically, with a single click. The script is here User:Ark25/RefScript and I have announced it at Help talk:Citation tools#Bookmarklet for quick creation of references and external links. If a few people would involve into developing it, the script can learn how to handle the most important 50-100 newspapers (those who are cited the most). I hope you will find it useful. —  Ark25  (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]