User talk:Danlibbo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Personal note {{"Although Islam is the dominant religion, Arabic is not spoken in Indonesia, except for some religious functions, although even then Indonesian is mostly used."}}

Contents

[edit] Banning 202.45.119.6

I don't recall blocking this ip, and the block log for this ip show's that I haven't. You may be mistaken with my involvement here. Usually anonymous ip's which may be shared aren't blocked indefinately as the block may result in collateral damage, resulting in blocks on innocent users. -- Longhair\talk 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abbas and boys

If you think it's inappropriate go ahead and delete the link, I will not object. There is a very strong association between his court and homoerotic iconography, see for example the Chehel Sotoun fresco with the dancing boys (compare Image:Koceks - Surname-i Vehbi.jpg) and Image:Mahmud and Ayaz and Shah Abbas I.jpg as well as many other ceramic pieces from that palace, to say nothing about the famous Qasim piece at the Louvre, but that is a discussion that may be premature at this point. Haiduc 02:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [sorry, I could not get the image links to behave, delete if they bother you]

I fixed the links - you just need to put a semi-colon in front of the word Image - for instance, [[:Image:Koceks - Surname-i Vehbi.jpg]]
- Blair - Speak to me 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

You've never been welcomed:

Welcome!

Hey, Danlibbo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the site and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful (some of them may sound stupid, but I recommend you check them out):

While editing, please remember:

You should introduce yourself here at the new user log. I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name, the date, and the time.

For your first edits, I suggest searching for articles that you think might interest you. You could also be audacious and try a random page.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome and happy editing! Cbrown1023 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Economics

I'd be happy to help expand, but "economic reform" is a bit of a broad category. Is there a list of articles to be expanded or written, so I can find something more suited to my knowledge of the subject? Yale2010 19:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SETI Contacts

But how can I cite it when the video is proof? I have the full video on google video; can I cite the full video's link instead of the short youtube clip? If I cannot cite that one, what do you recommend as a reasonable type of reference? I do also have a link to another website that states the same thing, just in different wording (no plagiarism on my part), would that work? nima baghaei 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"We have confirmation - and I'm not going to give the name yet because we are trying to coax this guy out of the closet - but one of the senior most people in the SETI project" ... that is why the name cannot be given out (safety for the person's name). Also, can I set up a "Conspiracy" section then, and add it onto that section? I don't understand why you will block this. For a guy to come out and make a statement like that, especially while at the same time bringing up Paul Allen's name. I don't think Paul Allen would approve of him doing so, yet I have heard of no denial at all from Paul Allen (he also brought up Carl Sagan name). For him to go public, infront of many people, and have his videos uploaded knowing well that he used Paul Allen's name is risky because of the wealth and influence Paul has (to use Paul's name within a lie would not do him any good), and for him to get away with it as a "lie" cannot work in this situation because Paul Allen has not stopped him. Anyways, if the "Conspiracy" section does not work (and no suggestions can be made as to what I can call the section), then I need another moderator to talk to about this issue. nima baghaei 01:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've updated and put up the conspiracy section. Is it looking good with its wording or should I tidy-it-up a bit? Direct Link: SETI ..... nima baghaei 03:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed the section without telling me! I had to put it back up! Can we please lock the SETI page for now? Or atleast that section so it cannot be removed? nima baghaei 01:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Locking the page to keep the text you want in there is absolutely inappropriate. This issue needs to be resolved through discussion, and as I mentioned below, I will be removing the section shortly if the quality of the reference is not improved. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SETI

Hi Danlibbo, regarding yoru revert on SETI, it quite clearly fails to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, so I'm not sure why you restored it. I've requested comment on the talk page, and unless the quality of the citation is upgraded, I plan to remove it again. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Following the discussion on Talk:SETI, I have again removed the section. Please do not restore it without further discussion or upgrading the quality of the reference. Your initial restoral was improper, and continued restoral without discussion may be seen as disruptive. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

for a start, my revert wasn't improper as you failed to provide a description and i believed the original version valid - secondly, right here, right now: i am willing to go into an edit war about this - consistency is of far more value to wikipedia than reliability --Danlibbo 11:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you enter an edit war, you will be blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, you say here that consistency is of more value to Wikipedia than reliability. That is simply not true; WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR all explicitly say otherwise. These are core Wikipedia policies. The claim being made is that this is sufficiently credible and notable because one researcher has been documented to say it - that's not going to fly. It may be true that he said it, but calling it a reliable source or anything but original research is unreasonable. It's trivial for anyone to create a website or video on youtube claiming something; that reference has to be backed up by other sources for it to be credible. If this was discussing an article about him, then it would be fine; it would just be reporting what the subject of the article said. But that's not what this article is about. It's an article about SETI, and here, it's not fine. Georgewilliamherbert 19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
your talk page has a fuller argument but, in short, the five pillars overrule the policies --Danlibbo 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to your opinion, but in particular if you edit war over this, expect to get blocked. This is open for discussion, but edit warring will terminate discussion with blocks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be a little confused about some things right now. There is no "moderation" for wikipedia. There's mediation, which is not a voluntary dispute resolution process, but that wouldn't apply here. You have been warned repeatedly here and elsewhere that edit warning is blockable. If you start edit warring and get blocked, you could create new accounts and continue editing, yes... but Wikipedia administrators can block the IP address range you're coming from if you were to do that. Whether you discuss this in a constructive manner or end up blocked for abusing the article is up to you. Talking about this does not mean giving up your opinion on it - you need to understand how Wikipedia works somewhat better, but that may not end up changing your opinion on the SETI stuff at all. It just means that you agree to solve the problem by talking rather than edit warring over it. Georgewilliamherbert 03:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that if you feel you are unable to effectively argue your point without resorting to vandalism and disruption, perhaps you may wish to consider what that says about you and your position on the matter. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

oh god no! please don't threaten me with blocking what ever will i do? oh that's right, for a start you need warnings, then i can get the argument moderated and if i am still blocked i can create a new account - watch me shake with fear --Danlibbo 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
see here--Danlibbo 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please review the applicable policies which I've drawn to your attention above, they should help resolve your confusion. If they do not, let me know and I'll try to help out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
if you fail to make a reasoned argument against the mention of the conspiracy (you have failed to do so as yet) i will restore the section and we can continue the debate on the talk page --Danlibbo 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to recheck the thread at WP:AN/I. As I have said (and I suggest you be WP:CIVIL), the conspiracy theory isn't the problem, it's the quality of the source that asserts it. You have both promised to edit war and have made statements about coming back as socks if you don't get things your way. Both of these reflect an attitude that might be better exercised elsewhere. If you cannot edit Wikipedia in accordance with the principles established by its founder and supported by the community, then perhaps you should not edit Wikipedia at all. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • i've attempted civility and you've failed to answer the argument (since i identified to you the flaws in your argument and tried to redirect your efforts you haven't contributed and have only tried to evade your responsibility - if you get involved, either stay involved or get out) - now it's up to you and nima to propose rewrites to the section
  • re the quality of the source - wtf? the source is the mention of the conspiracy theory - it's existence is the evidence - you still seem stuck on the fact that i'm trying to argue the validity of the theory (which is just stupid - why would i know what SETI's been up to, let alone the NSA or NRO?)
  • if you disagree that mention of the conspiracy theory should be included on the page, provide a suitable argument and we can discuss it - but stay on point
--Danlibbo 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"If you cannot edit Wikipedia in accordance with the principles established by its founder and supported by the community, then perhaps you should not edit Wikipedia at all." - if you can't argue a point, then perhaps you should not get involved in the argument --Danlibbo 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've answered your questions, and I cannot control whether you act on the information I have provided. If you feel you have been wronged, I encourage you to request administrator assistance on WP:AN/I again or begin a WP:RFC about my actions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

btw - i think you may have missed this --Danlibbo 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't miss it at all, you changed horses midstream. On the 27th, you and I are in agreement. Sometime after that, you seem to have switched to a viewpoint where the request for a source that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources is somehow offensive and warrants you threatening to edit war, come back as sock puppets to disrupt, and so on. I am constant as the northern star, my position on this has been quite stable. My suggestion to you: Read the applicable policies and re-acquaint yourself with the 5 pillars. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
oh ffs - for the last time, i'm damn well aware of the policies and the bloody pillars - you argued that the video wasn't a sufficient citation and seriously misinterpreted my argument and i argued that it was the only possible reference and tried to clarify my point and all you could do was evade the debate
my suggestion to you: stop being so patronising and try to understand the difference between taking a viewpoint and acknowledging that a viewpoint exists
--Danlibbo 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with anyone being patronizing. This is about a Youtube link not being an adequete reference for an extraordinary claim. If you want to add a paragraph about the conspiracy, then please provide a reference that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That's all that's needed. Let's go over a quick summary: You restored the section improperly, explicitly threatened to edit war, told me that if you were blocked you'd come back and disrupt as much as needed to prove your point, asked for someone to help on WP:AN/I and had my actions upheld, then you ended up restoring a subset of the section anyhow despite this, and through all of this, you feel somehow that I've been the troublemaker here? The facts do not seem to support your assertions. Your edit warring, threats, and incivility are all inappropriate. I don't know what's wrong on your side of the keyboard, but please fix it before editing again. One last thing, if a Youtube video is the "only possible reference" (which you assert above), then the text does _not_ _belong_ _on_ _Wikipedia_. I really can only point you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources so many times before I begin to assume that you're not operating in good faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
jesus christ! for a start i have never made any post on WP:AN/I and my original restore wasn't improper as you provided no argument - but the point is that I am not - repeat NOT - making any assumption to the validity of the claim in the video - but the existence of the video is surely not in doubt
just ask yourself: "has someone claimed that there is a conspiracy?"
the answer is of course yes - for a start there's the guy in the youtube clip, then there's also nima and i'm guessing plenty more
that's the end of it - the argument is over - a conspiracy theory exists
i'm arguing a theory exists (regardless of it's truth) & it should be mentioned on the page
you're arguing that a reliable source needs to be found before the theory can be true or not - I TOTALLY AGREE! the arguments are exclusive
--Danlibbo 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
and it's 'adequate'
I better understand the nature of your misunderstanding. The reference is not needed to prove whether it is TRUE or not, there needs to be a quality reference that makes the assertion notable. If I record myself saying "I think that John Lennon conspired with the CIA to create music that could duplicate the effects of LSD so they could use radio to control the Soviets", that doesn't mean that my conspiracy theory should be mentioned on John Lennon, CIA, or USSR. ANYONE can claim a conspiracy, but not ALL conspiracies should be mentioned, only the ones that have met the bare minimum of notabilitity via Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Does this clear things up? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
that's what i've argued for days now - it's good to see you've caught up - now (finally) the argument as to whether to include it or not: here --Danlibbo 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, then how many of my "You tube does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources" statements did you miss above? Also, I notice that when you re-added the text back to the article again, you once again did so with the Youtube link, not the news article. Finally, there's still the matter of your unacceptable threats to edit war and sock-puppet. Your conduct during this has not been appropriate, and I once again encourage you to re-acquaint yourself with the 5 pillars and review the relevant policy. We're all volunteers here, and this is not a battlefield, it's an encyclopedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought you got it - wtf man? Menial stuff out of the way: I know my threats were "inappropriate" - I was attempting to be "inappropriate" - I wasn't abandoning reason, I was letting you know the parameters of the argument so you could still pull out (obviously I should have made the core of the argument more clear). Now:
If Air Force One crashed in a field and someone put a video of it on YouTube, that's clear proof, and a reliable source.
If Prince Charles announced his desire to abdicated on TV and someone put it on YouTube, that would be proof, and a reliable source.
If someone put a video of themselves, saying that Air Force One had crashed, on YouTube, that would not be anywhere near reliable.
Thus because the video is the event itself it is far, far better than the Register article.
It's not just black-and-white 'don't cite YouTube' - if the video is commentary, it's inappropriate, however if it's the event itself it's the best kind of a reliable and verifiable source. If you want the register link then ADD IT. You are an editor: you are allowed to edit as well as plainly delete. So do you get it yet (it's pretty simple logic)?
--Danlibbo 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not report the news. If this is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the encyclopedia, then someone will write an article (that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources no less) about the claim. Otherwise we're giving Wikipedia:Undue weight to non-notable sources. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
And that would be a different argument--Danlibbo 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, attempting to be 'inappropriate' to make some sort of WP:POINT is bad chess. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
¿Que? I don't play chess...I kept beating all my friends, and I like an argument where I know the limits --Danlibbo 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask you to comment at the talk page, but last time I thought you knew what you were talking about you lost it pretty quickly. Care to summarise my argument in your own words? --Danlibbo 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Be civil. I've explained why the link in the form you re-added twice was inappropriate. If you feel you can add the section back with references that meet the criteria that we have repeatedly addressed, then go for it. If you repost it with nothing but the youtube link, then it's disruption to prove some sort of point, and I expect better of you. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/n/User_talk%7EDanlibbo_d867.html"