User talk:Evercat

PlaneShift article

Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Gorules ko.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gorules ko.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx

The definition of "bird" does not depend on ability to fly. Many "birds" are incapable of flight, are they not?Grammarmonger (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten?...only two months after your post? Heh heh. It was about an edit I made to Archaeopteryx. Anyways, someone else objected also, and satisfactorily overruled me with a stronger argument. Keep questioning everything, everywhere! :) Grammarmonger (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddhabrot

I've updated the discussion of your buddhabrot program User_talk:Evercat/Buddhabrot.c ; listing all known bugs, provided fixes for most of them, and categorized it for easier reading. Michael.Pohoreski (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Buddhabrot

Just a heads up: I have used your code plus Michael Pohoreski's changes to generate File:Buddhabrot 20000.png. Enjoy! Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasi'chu Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Farmer

The Farmer information I deleted was cited to a non-RS (the web site) and that's why I deleted it. Citing that same information to a reliable source would work. Unfortunately, Farmer's viewpoint about Mark having access to Matthew and Luke, is pretty far outside the mainstream. WP:WEIGHT tells us to give less coverage to scholarly conclusions that get less coverage in the mainstream sources. But that's a separate issue. Leadwind (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Partyg.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Partyg.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ear-red.sgf missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Ear-red.sgf is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:UK Parlaiment 2010 Key.png needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:UK Parlaiment 2010 Key.png is missing information as to its authorship (and or source) , or if such information is provided it is confusing.

Although images may not need author information in un-controversial cases, or where an applicable source is provided, such information aids those making use of the image, and helps verify the copyright status of an image.

If possible, please consider updating the media information page to make the authorship (and or source) of this media clearer.

If the media is your own work, please consider explicitly including your user name or using the {{own}} template on the media information page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Masterofgo.sgf needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Masterofgo.sgf is missing information as to its authorship (and or source) , or if such information is provided it is confusing.

Although images may not need author information in un-controversial cases, or where an applicable source is provided, such information aids those making use of the image, and helps verify the copyright status of an image.

If possible, please consider updating the media information page to make the authorship (and or source) of this media clearer.

If the media is your own work, please consider explicitly including your user name or using the {{own}} template on the media information page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ac.spainmap3.png needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Ac.spainmap3.png is missing information as to its authorship (and or source) , or if such information is provided it is confusing.

Although images may not need author information in un-controversial cases, or where an applicable source is provided, such information aids those making use of the image, and helps verify the copyright status of an image.

If possible, please consider updating the media information page to make the authorship (and or source) of this media clearer.

If the media is your own work, please consider explicitly including your user name or using the {{own}} template on the media information page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Chronology of Star Wars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chronology of Star Wars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars(3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Anthem 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

NIV and Metzger

In response to your inquiry, "Do you really feel it's unreasonable to say that the NIV's treatment harmonises?" First, I want to apologize if that was your edit. I was not trying to stamp it out but there was a clarification notice from another editor. Second, I'm not really sure so I sought out the NIV side.

Barker, who originally precised over the NIV translation committee for the just translation in Jeremiah 7:22 said this in his book Accuracy Defined and Illustrated which I have, "One of the features of Hebrew sentence structure is a frequent use of elliptical constructions (the omission of one or more words that are obviously understood but must be supplied to make the construction grammatically and lexically complete). Our committee was convinced that there was an ellipses in this verse. But since our goal in the NIV was to make the meaning clear, we filled in the ellipsis with the word "just."

I can't find anything from the NIV translation information that states they were doing any harmonizing. If we are going to enter information that disputes what Barker stated, shouldn't we have a solid source? I would be fine with a quote from Metzger. Basileias (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where did you first read the idea was to harmonize? The NIV creators seems to be unique in their focus on "elliptical constructions." Basileias (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

“Is the protection necessary?”

Hi Evercat, I would be grateful to hear suggestions as to what else can be done in cases such as this — the user just keeps reverting and ignores the discussion on the talk page. If he is unwilling to discuss the issue, and just reverts out of principle — but is savvy enough to fall short of 3RR — what else can I do other than protect? — Timwi (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Evercat! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

---

Farrer hypothesis

My question doesn't really relate to the encyclopedia article itself, but I see you've done a lot of editing in the general area and I assumed that you'd probably know the answer to my question (I shudder to think of what the Yahoo Answers people might say if I asked there!).

Farrer seems pretty secure that Luke comes after Matthew, but is there any reason to dismiss the notion that perhaps Matthew came after Luke instead? It seems odd to me that most scholars seem to ignore this potentiality, which would - at the very least - explain why Matthew is generally more linguistically polished than Luke. It's probably some very fundamental, obvious answer that, being green to the field of Biblical Study, I just haven't yet stumbled upon.

I'm genuinely curious, not trying to pick an editwar or something silly like that - just trying to expand my horizons :)

Happy holidays! 96.241.54.85 (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)