User talk:Kumorifox

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


Hello, Kumorifox, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issues[edit]

If you made the map, just add {{PD-self}} to it, look at the old one to see how it should look. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how to edit a png, try asking user:AxG. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

February 2010[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Transition metal has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about the warning. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lanthanoid and other names conventions on wikipedia[edit]

are a not a straightforward matter, and blindly following IUPAC doesn't work. Please ask at WP:CHEM before changing names (some conventions are even written in general guidelines, such as WP:CAES). In case of lanthanoid, please see this thread. Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

August 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, -- Doniago (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the article you created, Broadband Acoustic Resonance Dissolution Spectroscopy[edit]

Hello Kumorifox,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


surprised by your edit -- there's no more straightforward attack on SSM ban than in Michigan. And if you want to change the statement now in place, please get a current citation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Michigan is DeBoer v. Snyder now in sixth circuit and headed to Supreme Court. Nebraska had a small case that seems dormant, but the ACLU plans to file a new case there on Monday. Kentucky is also in sixth and headed to supreme. Just because the Michigan and Kentucky cases have not been appealed is no reason to pretend they are over. they are very much alive and ongoing until their deadline for appeal passes.Thats not for weeks and appeals have been promised. BTW I hate maps like that one. What you have in red should be 4 states with decisions reversed pending appeal to Supreme Court. No cases are really in litigation in the Supreme Court until accepted.
As I suggested above, if you don't have a good citation for this, you're out of step with how everyone sees the current map. No one anywhere thinks that there's no MI or KY live case. Sorry if this is messy or unclear, but by Amtrak ride is a little bumpy. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Second thought. As a depiction of where and what litigation is under way, the map assumes that once SSM is legal, that's it. But there's litigation to reverse SSM in idaho and Arizona. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

U.S. same-sex marriage map: status quo[edit]

I don't know if you saw, but in response to your "I do not appreciate having my words twisted. I said that, with the new information in the link provided by Mw843 above, my support shifts from striped red/blue to solid blue. I never said anything about a previous agreement on Kansas colouring." I said "When I said 'Some of you guys claim that there was an agreement' I was not referring to you.. The main reason I tagged you is because of the last sentences of the paragraph. I was wondering how you felt about an RfA and whether or not you would be willing to consider solid precedent the actual status quo. Sorry, I didn't want to respond to you individually; there was 5 of you! :/" Anyways.. I was not trying to twist your words. Prcc27 (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

I know how easily the tables in the Same-sex marriage in the United States article get their syntax thrown off, so when a state comes on board like Alabama is, I pay close attention to the tables to keep them neat. The stayed table has one more column than the legal tables, and the bottom row has three lines of coding, and those were why Alabama was showing up with the red error text in the partial table. I think they should be good now, and the focus can be on what the best description of Alabama will be. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)