User talk:LizardWizard
Hello & Thanks
I saw today's vandalism of Anal sex, but you fixed it before i could. I saw in the page history that you've been watching that page very diligently, and reverted quite a few vandalisms. Thanks for your watchfulness! foobaz·✐ 04:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I don't watch that page in particular. I mostly patrol the recent edits, but I can be pretty sure that every time Anal Sex is on the list it's vandalism. LizardWizard 04:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Human Bioacoustics
Hello Lizard Wizard - your name is associated with a copyvio marking on Human Bioacoustics entry, claiming it's the same as the article found at http://www.lifespirit.org/SHRI-string-theory.htm (it is a slightly different version). There is no copyright violation since I am the author of both and have permission from SHRI - Sound Health Research Institute - to post it on Wikipedia. What do I need to do to get the "copyvio" removed? Ralph Fucetola ralph.fucetola@usa.net - 12:41 10 February 2005 (UTC)
If you and the SHRI understand that by posting the information to Wikipedia, it is released under the GNU Free Documentation License, you can repost it, with the stipulation that "if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates)." (quoted from Wikipedia:Copyrights). LizardWizard 22:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) Note, however, that if it is reposted I will list it for deletion, since it appears to me to be pseudoscience. If you plan to defend it, finding media coverage or peer review would be a good idea. LizardWizard 22:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Dear LizardWizard. Just read your comments of 10 February 2005. I am consulting with Ms. Edwards as to whether she wants to release the copyright. If she does, we will certainly defend Human BioAcoustics from the erroneous charge of "pseudoscience." Ms. Edwards is the recipient of a number of legitimate scientific recognitions, from both "alternative" and academic institutions, but, as in any relatively new area of study, it sometimes takes academia a while to catch up. This area of study qualifies as a Protoscience. - Ralph Fucetola ralph.fucetola@usa.net - 2:52 23 February 2005 (UTC)
Welcome
I see no-one has welcomed you yet ;)!
Welcome!
Hi LizardWizard! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! --Eleassar777 13:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually I think someone did welcome me and I just wiped my personal pages clean, but I still appreciate the sentiment =). LizardWizard 06:21, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
IfD Vote
Hi LizardWizard, I recall that you voted in favor of keeping the photograph inline at autofellatio. Well, its subsequent linkage has emboldened the anti-photo people to put it up for deletion on WP:IFD. I'd appreciate your views on the subject. Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 22:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rafael Cordero
Holy Moly! you're right! I wrote that article (Rafael Cordero (educator)) a long time ago and nobody, not even I noticed that BIG blooper! I'm glad that there was a LizardWizard around to notice it. I fixed it, thanks! Take care my friend Tony the Marine|talk
Autofellatio vote
Greetings. I'm contacting you because you voted to keep Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but you indicated that part of your reasoning was because the image was not demonstrated to be a copyright violation. Someone recently found the image on http://www.wowboy.com/welcome.htm, a porn pay site, with the notice "© WowBoy 2001-2004, All rights reserved". I don't know if this changes your vote or not, but I thought you might want to know. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
127.0.0.1
oh! sorry, i was trying to test something related to editing anon users' talk pages, and that was the first one i thought of that wasn't likely to be a real user. i meant to change it back when i was done, but forgot. i've reverted back to how it was now. —kate
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Who's next (song)
I'd like to invite you to come back to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Who's next (song), and reconsider your vote. I'm advocating a vote of Redirect per Harmil, and you can see the recommendation that I'm making on the vote page (it's big and detailed). Yeah, I know this guy is a troll, but the fact that he's a troll doesn't mean we shouldn't have this information point to the right place. I hope that makes sense, and happy editing! -Harmil 23:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Pro circumcision POV pushers are attempting to censor wikipedia
Thank you for your input on the proposal to use the term intact rather than uncircumcised in the main circumcision article. I thought it was very balanced and fair. Not to sound melodramatic but its become clear that pro circumcision POV pushers are censoring wikipedia uninhibitedly, which can be seen in their attempt to remove the article Aposthia and removal of the disambiguation page at uncircumcised to eliminate any other interpretations of the word supported by the dictionary that they feel improves their political agenda. For the sake of intellectual freedom I implore you to look into these matters and make choice about how you will respond. Thanks again. Sirkumsize 23:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)