User talk:Radical Mallard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Anarchism related edits[edit]

Thanks for your edits on anarchism related articles. Good work. An An 7 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)

"Anarchist communism" Entry[edit]

Yes I agree with you over that POV essay (!!).. I can't believe all that stuff was left up there for so long.. --maxrspct in the mud 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OS and LHC[edit]

Regarding your two comments on my talk page. Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you.

I've had a brief look through a handful of OS's contributions, and can't find anything particularly bad in there. Their user page is a bit soap-boxy, but Wikipedia policy tends to be pretty lenient in user-space for active contributors. If there's something specific you think I should see, or if there's a conflict with the user you want help addressing, feel free to email me, and I'll see what I can do. Please do let me know if there's anything I can do to help. -- Mark Chovain 01:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh - I just noticed some of your recent edits that give more details of the problem. I'll take a look (hopefully within the next 24 hours), and send you my thoughts by email. -- Mark Chovain 07:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you regarding the LHC stuff. It can be really frustrating when one or two users with a clear agenda start editing while putting their own goals ahead of the project's.

I reported one of the anti-LHC POV-pushers for having a particularly nasty conflict of interest here. Since then, the user appears to have chosen not to edit the LHC articles. The other user really does mean well (he genuinely believes that we have mere months to live), but unfortunately came to Wikipedia with the sole intention of making his point and "educating" the masses.

The LHC articles need work, but you need to keep in mind there are real-life scientists working on the LHC articles, so in time they should improve. Having alternating viewpoints (regardless of whether they're right or wrong) keeps editors on their toes, and promotes rigorous research and flawless presentation of the facts. If everyone goes into a dispute with their horns locked, things tend to get worse over time, not better.

As a side note, I strongly feel that adding links to papers without context is not the right way of improving the articles. If a paper includes some details that are relevant to the discussion, then those details/points should be added to the article, and the paper should be cited. These kind of science vs. pseudo-science disputes have a way of degrading into a pissing contest to see who can find the most papers that support their particular view. -- Mark Chovain 01:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, would you consider changing your signature to include a link to you user page and/or talk page? It makes it heaps easier for other editors if they can just click on your name to get to your page. -- Mark Chovain 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For a long time I had no idea that four tilde (~) symbols in a row was what you had to use for a signature in a Wikipedia "Talk" page. --Radical Mallard (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits to "Fandom" Entry[edit]

I've removed a couple of these. The connection to Tijuana bibles is tenuous to non-existent; they were clearly produced with commercial goals rather than fannish, thus making them not all that similar to dojinshi. D&D was created by gamers who were not part of any organized fandom, although it spread rapidly through SF fandom (and the SCA): that's how I got to be a DM and TSR writer myself; but the connection, again, is too tenuous. The "See also" section, if anything, probably needs to be trimmed back a bit more. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Innovis" Entry (Prevented)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Innovis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Kopf1988 (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I updated the article and added verifiable information references. I also made it less messy and less of a "shill", and tried to make the article purely informational. Radical Mallard 7:15 PM EST, 09/25/2008

Individualism sidebar[edit]

I don't understand your objections. Do you deny that Objectivism, for example, is a highly individualist philosophy? You say you're deleting because it makes the sidebar biased? That doesn't make much sense. Jadabocho (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is true the creators of objectivism claim it is individualist. But if claiming something is individualist is all you need for it to be individualist, then there clearly are many more things that are individualist. In reality, it offers individualism only for a small number of human beings compared to the majority: those who are capitalist supermen of some kind. Is it individualism for workers, for peasants and farmers, and for the dispossessed? No. It very clearly stated that corporate leaders are the champions of it and the epitome of it. I would argue that since it is an elitist type of "individualism" that in reality only betters a small number of people, just as Lenin's Bolshevism only bettered a small number of people, that it isn't individualist. It also is very clearly biased to one type of thought, and one side of an argument, while individualism itself is far broader than that. To say the Hungarians and Czechs and Chinese who rose up against the communist party, yet still believed in a libertarian form of communism were not individualist, is the type of thing a Rand or a Rothbard would do, and this is also elitist and exclusive. Those people WOULD say they were individualist, or would agree with most nonpartisan individualist statements. The fact that Randists and Rothbardians have already made up their minds for us what we are or aren't based on their own set of criteria makes them very similar to Leninists. No one has even bothered to address the issue of how un-individualist working for someone else is, even if you "agree" or "contract" to it.. and nobody has talked about how un-individualist it is to use force to keep someone from using some land or factory equipment. Individualism is not synonymous with capitalism, and Objectivism is a cultlike, somewhat bizarre ideology that many people even on the right have rejected as a relic of Rand (who wasn't even an American, yet we are told capitalist individualism is an American phenomenon - Bastiat wasn't American - what about that? (And Rupert Murdoch (a champion of the right wing media and supposed "individualist" thinking") is not an American either.) And if we are to respect claims that individualism is by nature "capitalist" in America, why have capitalist ideologues created capitalist oriented anarchism entries in the Spanish Wikipedia? Respect (or lack of it) for your opposition is a two way street.) We also see little attention paid to the socialist and worker oriented Individualism of the Bohemians, Beats, Hippies and various independent leftist such as Orwell or Hunter Thompson. --Radical Mallard Feb 25, 2009 7:12 PM EST

Replaceable fair use Image:MEI HELLHOUND Product Guide Page.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:MEI HELLHOUND Product Guide Page.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 11:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimacy of Terms: Left Anarchism, Anarcho-Socialism/Anarchist Socialism, Socialist Anarchism[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Libertarian socialism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Since you obviously have no intention of listening to reason or engaging in a respectful discussion, I will go this route. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the long comment at Talk:Left_anarchism To see where I explained this issue at length. Edits are constructive if they remove information that gives a misleading picture of a subject (even if they are accompanied by references as the references often pointed to the misleading people's posts in the first place)... as you have been editing for a while I am sure you are aware of this. You cannot simply be selective on how you apply this logic. I also see that you harassed people last year about this issue-- while it is true we must *assume* good faith, there has to be something we do when it can be proved that a person is acting in bad faith. Do you think the person who stalked you was acting in good faith? Why, for example, would you assume I am acting in bad faith? Isn't it possible that my position looks tenuous because there is no organized group dedicated to makign sure these errors do not become accepted by the public? That is in fact the problem right now. --Radical Mallard 6:11 PM EST, June 23, 2009

Re: Please do not simply revert, blah, blah, blah...[edit]

Yeah, I am going to go ahead and simply revert your edits, every single one of your edits, from now 'til doomsday, given that you have clearly indicated an unwillingness or inability to engage in constructive discussion. You have raised your points in the past, and have received thoughtful responses. This has not moved you in the slightest, apparently. Your edits have been against consensus, against policy (for example, your clearly biased changes to the anarcho-socialism and anarchist socialism redirects), and most definitely not helpful. So, until your attitude and approach changes, I am going to revert every bloody damn thing you do. Do not leave any further messages on my talk page, as they will be removed without comment. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies then. Sorry for being so rash with attempts to make changes. I'll have to work harder at more acceptable means of making any such changes in the future, which will be backed up with research (not simply by me but also by others) and references. --Radical Mallard June 25, 2009, 4:34 PM EST
Your apology is accepted, and I apologize for my tone in the message above, as well as for taking so long to respond. I think we are all better off if we work together to seek agreement in the future. Cheers. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "WarBirds" Entry[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

Fails WP:N/WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable game with no references from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this entry was kept and the conditions satisfied. Radical Mallard (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"1:700 scale" and "1:350 scale" Entries[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article 1:350 scale, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed! Radical Mallard (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"1:144 Scale" Entry[edit]

Hello, you've done some good job expanding on the scale model coverage on here, but one or more of the external links you added do not comply with the guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. In addition, the manufacturer section with a long list of external links you added to 1:144 scale is not appropropriate. I would suggest you convert the external links to internal wikipedia links for companies that have articles, and remove the rest unless you can find independent reliable sources to assert their notability. Happy editing, Siawase (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed! Radical Mallard (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! It looks much better now. Siawase (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Face of Battle (game)" Entry[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Face of Battle (game), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thefaceofbattle.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed! Radical Mallard (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Berlin-cityofstones-jasonlutes-cover.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Berlin-cityofstones-jasonlutes-cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The image hasn't been deleted, And I am glad people understand that this image simply represents the cover of a book, and is a tiny image, so it is well within the realm of "fair use" for a Wikipedia page about the book, as this is a common and frequent occurrence on Wikipedia. The problem is that Wikipedia makes it confusing and difficult to upload fair-use or free-to-use-for-wikipedia-copyright-free images, but perhaps that bureaucracy is intended to help keep Wikipedia from becoming a yet another spam-ridden unreliable web site on the Internet. --Radical Mallard (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Micro Armour: The Game – WWII[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Micro Armour: The Game – WWII has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Makes no claim of notability

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did end up adding the reason for the game's notability. The company made the term "micro armour" a trade marked term, yet this term is one of the most widely used terms in the English language to refer to table-top wargaming using small model tanks. The fact that the same company created a game called "Micro Armour the Game" Is therefor notable, even though the game itself has not gotten the best reviews, and other games have ended up being more popular. --Radical Mallard (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Could you explain to me what the category definition of Category:Novel names of non-fictional places means? What are the criteria for adding something to the category? I do not understand what you wrote there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Essentially names of places that are used in fiction or in public speech in a fanciful way. When the name of a place is used as an example as some place exotic, eclectic sounding, distant and unusual, with the name itself used as the emphasis for these qualities. It is a consistent occurrence in English. Radical Mallard (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I see; that makes sense. I wonder if there is a better name for the category? Or are they referred to this way in sources? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I am quite open to a better name or format.If you have any ideas please feel free to implement them.Radical Mallard (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Novel names of non-fictional places[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Novel names of non-fictional places, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like even though this is a real literary and pop culture phenomenon there is no easy way to create a list of this type and people from a given city are likely to object to their own city being referred to as having a funny name that is used a lot on TV shows or in books, even if it is a real phenomenon. For example, Timbuktu or Abu Dhabi or Kuala Lumpur. Or town names like Springfield. Too bad. --Radical Mallard (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:FredWoodworth EthicalAnarchism TheMatch Issue103 BackCover 150DPI.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FredWoodworth EthicalAnarchism TheMatch Issue103 BackCover 150DPI.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Inflation talk page[edit]

Although I share some of your views, I have reverted your edit on the Inflation talk page, as it doesn't appear to directly contribute to the improvement of the page. Per not soapbox, article talk pages are not a soapbox for views, and talk there should be restricted to concrete discussion of how to improve the page. Thanks, LK (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I updated it so that it wasn't soapboxing and instead focused on improving the article itself. --Radical Mallard (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Anarchist stamp[edit]

The villagers are restless at the talkpage; you might want to respond. Cheers, Skomorokh 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Unimat DB-200 Unimat SL-1000 and Unimat 3.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Unimat DB-200 Unimat SL-1000 and Unimat 3.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. 07:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NEO mission[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article NEO mission has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is little more than a definition and a list of links. It contains no useful content

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GW 22:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Antifascist Circle BW.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Antifascist Circle BW.jpg. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Antifascist Circle BW.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Antifascist Circle BW.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that there's already another version of this File:Antifascist Circle BW.svg, I'd let this one get deleted and use the preferred format/verion in the future. Skier Dude (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Use "e-mail this user"[edit]

To contact me privately. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:The Match Issue103 Cover 75DPI.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Match Issue103 Cover 75DPI.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Southern Gothic, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Beloved, Son of Dracula and Two Soldiers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bisphenol A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man-made (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Crustaceans[edit]

Why are you categorising decapods as crustaceans? For example, you added the category "crustacean" to shrimp, when shrimp had already been categorised as decapods. Decapods are crustaceans. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not add the category "Crustaceans", I added the category "Invertebrates", which is needed, just like this has category "Edible crustaceans" -Radical Mallard (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I meant invertebrates. But all decapods are invertebrates, so your category is redundant. "Edible crustaceans" is not redundant, because not all crustaceans or decapods are edible. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The applicable guideline is WP:SUBCAT. William Avery (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yertle the Turtle[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I did in fact see numerous references through Google search where people cited "Yertle the Turtle" as an easy way to understand Lock's "Social Contrtact" before I added any change, but I did not feel up to citing one at the time (too tired). I had felt it was obvious, and I hope others will as well and will say something about it on the wiki entry.Radical Mallard (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)