User talk:Oscarthecat/Archive 1

Google userbox

I see you are using my Google userbox. I am flattered. If you want one that isn't hand drawn you should use {{User Google}}. It uses text rather than an image, although there seems to be some question as to the trademark status. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 09:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly

This page does _not_ need protecting. We are more than capable of reverting 2 pieces of vandalism. Please undo. Thanks. Secretlondon 17:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, the page was not semiprotected. Just adding a tag to the page, doesn't make it so! Only sysops can do that - if you want to do one put it on Wikipedia:Requests for protection 80.229.39.194 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Horticubes

Please check if it has been sufficiently wikified. If so, then the call on the template is yours. Later. --Halcyon 23:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Willy Wonka

Horslypse

Hello Oscar,

The page at en.wikipedia.org/Horslypse has been blacklisted as containing a copyright violation. Please be advised that I created this page, and as the creator of the website at www.horslips.tk (www.comebackhorslips.com/tribute), I am the holder of the original copyright also from which the wikipedia article was taken.

If you could revert the page back to it's original form, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

Daniel McCormack

Geoff shoesmith

You beat me to the punch on deletion. I was going to AFD it, as there are a couple of people with this name who might be notable - an author [1]and a national youth band member [2]. exolon 21:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

G'day Oscar's owner,

I notice you don't use edit summaries very often when editing. Summaries can be very useful, because they tell other Wikipedians what changes you've made to an article without them having to go look. Changes without edit summaries can cause users to waste time, because some will rush over to ensure you're not vandalising anything (silly as it sounds). It's also kind of discourteous to make a really major change (like, say, tagging an article for speedy deletion) without explaining what you're doing in the edit summary. Anyway, happy editing! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, PLEASE read other editors' edit summaries on a page before deciding to revert back several versions on a page, as was done with Illinois State Toll Highway Authority. There are very good reasons for some things being changed to the way they are, and they usually DO get listed in the edit summaries. --JohnDBuell 15:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Power Page

Your modification to the introduction to the nuclear power page is poorly edited:

" The use of nuclear power is controversial because of the problem of storing radioactive waste for indefinite periods, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use in some countries could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Proponents claim that these risks are small and can be lessened with new technology. They further claim that the safety record is already good when compared to other energy forms, that it releases much less radioactive waste than coal power, and that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source. Critics, including most major environmental groups claim nuclear power is an uneconomic, unsound and potentially dangerous energy source, especially compared to renewable energy, and dispute whether the costs and risks can be reduced through new technology. "

The paragraph has the following structure: "critics say ... ; proponents say ... ; critics say ...". Further, your paragraph is redundant: it is "unsound and potentially dangerous" because of the reasons mentioned in the first part of the paragraph. The last sentence adds nothing. The introduction is not the place to debate the pros or cons of Nuclear Power. Chuck Simmons 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "remove redundancy" in my "edit summary" when I removed that sentence; not real clear, but... There has to be a better way to argue the pros and cons than by each side inserting sentence after sentence in a shotgun fashion. I think the place to do this is after the History and Current Usage sections. I think the Introduction section should just say what nuclear power is: fission, fusion, maybe micro-fission. The politics of nuclear are only interesting in the context of deciding what kinds of power plants we should build in the next few years, and what we think the relative costs of power plants will be about 30 years from now. That is the place to discuss relative costs, risks, safety, ... Chuck Simmons 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cumshot.jpg

Greetings! I noticed your edits to the above noted image's page and to the user's page informing them that porn is not acceptable at Wikipedia. This is false. We have quite a number of photographs here at Wikipedia that many would describe as pornographic in nature. We do not filter content at Wikipedia based on what might or might not be pornography. Please see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer where it says "Wikipedia contains ... content you may find objectionable". Also see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors.

However, the image did not have a source indicated or a license associated with it. I have now tagged the article appropriately, and informed the uploader on their talk page. Lastly, if you place an image for deletion you need to complete the process as per the directions at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Listing_images_and_media_for_deletion. You did the first two steps, but not the last. All the best, --Durin 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Please don't remove AfD notices until the AfD process is done. Thanks Tawker 08:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

20 to 1 vfd

Well if it is looking better now is there a chance of withdrawing the request for vfd? - Mike Beckham 22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PDI

Thanks for your help with my entry. Clearly I'm a newbie here on Wikipedia!

What was wrong with the perceptionweb link? The abstract was coming up OK for me, but it's entirely possible something could be going on because I'm usually working from a network authorized for full access to 'Perception'.

Cheers Amherbert 00:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Roger Carter

Hi,

Carter is included on a candidate list page -- I created the redirect before adding his entry (which is there now). CJCurrie 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes

Hello Oscar. Did you not read the talk page? I spent a long time wiki-ing all of the in-line citations so that they link to the references, specifically to keep the nature of the in-line citation, and you went and footnoted them all. I appreciate your being bold but it was not necessary. Secondly, please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Converting_citation_styles. It is preferable not to change footnote styles, especially if the issue of linking was already solved. Please carry on further conversation on Talk:Calvin and Hobbes. Thank you. -- Avi 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of.

By the by, it seems that the "talk" link in your sig does not link here, but to the talk page to a phantom Oscarthecat article (click on discussion). You may wish to investigate ;) -- Avi 15:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Brek

Brek (User talk:Brek) is having trouble placing a message on your talk page, could you visit them?--Commander Keane 23:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)