User talk:Kuzetsa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:
Jump to: navigation, search

cookie redirects:
User_talk: redirects here -- [[Special:Contributions/]]
User_talk: redirects here -- [[Special:Contributions/]]
User_talk: redirects here -- [[Special:Contributions/]]
User_talk: redirects here -- [[Special:Contributions/]]
User_talk: redirects here -- [[Special:Contributions/]]
User_talk: redirects here -- [[Special:Contributions/]]
User_talk:Kuzetsa/cookie redirects redirects here too (more info at /cookie_redirects, which is a Sandbox / Subpage)

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Re: Your messages about sandboxes[edit]

Re: your message at Wikipedia talk:About the sandbox, you can have as many sandboxes and subpages as you want. It's much easier to test things on userspace sandboxes than places like Wikipedia:Sandbox. Graham87 15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Thanks --Kuzetsa (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane Intensity Index[edit]

The article had very, very little content in it, and rather than having a stub, we redirected to Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, where it is mentioned in the criticism section. There is very little information on it, and I don't see any links from any official places that say the scale is even usable or useful. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you redirected one term to another term with a seeemingly different meaning... The article on Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, in it's section "criticism" mentions that the "hurricane intensity index" (a deleted article) is based on dynamic pressure, implying that it not the same as Saffir-Simpson scale. I had trouble verifying the existence of the "hurricane intensity index" in that I am too lazy to check around for Reliable sources on the subject of the "hurricane intensity index". C'est la vie --Kuzetsa (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SPECIALIST B. Mannning[edit]

Thanks. I was just taking the easy route instead of using my thinking cap. Usually SlimVirgin catches these things (she may have been the originator of the gender confusion phrase) and I've seen her work up the article to GA status. As Diana is a new editor, I was also hoping she'd work out a solution. What I did not want was loose use of the diagnostic/medical term "dysphoria".--S. Rich (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Who is? What? I wouldn't know? So uhm, I'm sorry? I think? My own agenda is simple. Insert tons of misquotes, use random weasel words (or otherwise non-neutral points of view) and add lots of bad grammar. Wait, no, the other thing. Fixing them. (As you can tell by my the renaming of this section, the demotion back down to private is not one I care to acknowledge) --Kuzetsa (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
We are all pushing on a WP:POLE. It's fun! --S. Rich (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Marriage is not the same thing as monogamy.[edit]


Thanks for the spotting the problem and initiative in getting the RfC going. I think, it can be closed now. I'm happy to redirect the article one you close the RfC.

Cheers!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mootros (talkcontribs) time, 11:45, March 31, 2016‎

Thanks, I closed the RfC. I wasn't sure what (if anything) I should do with that article, since I have a personal bias / conflict of interest. Redirecting the article or otherwise (beyond the current revised templating) isn't something I have a strong opinion on one way or other. It might be seen as contentious, I think, if I were to insist on an action like that though? Then again, is all the SYNTH on that article really as bad as I thought it is? --Kuzetsa (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the RfC. I've now redirected the article to Monogamy. I think, it's not even "real" SYNTH; it's a random gathering of vaguely connected and tangential material that has no merits in terms of a link to the study sexuality or any established branch of psychology. I'm sorry to say, it's hard to seen any coherence and does not add any value or a more detailed inside to the topic of monogamy. Mootros (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)