User talk:Karada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] "Encyclopedia" links on talk pages

I'm not sure Google would approve of what you are doing on various talk pages.

Google has no opinion on links other people make. They neither approve nor disapprove. There's no need to worry about this.

We disapprove of this kind of behavior when others promote their products, we should do the same for attempted promotion of Wikipedia.

"We" disapprove of links to commercial sites, but Wikipedia is not a commercial site. If someone has a non-commercial, informative site about (for example) chess, and links to it from Wikipedia's chess article, it's not a problem. Why would Wikipedia disapprove of links to Wikipedia? Besides this, there is a link to the Wikipedia main page on every page, at the top-right corner. If this isn't a problem, why would a separate link be a problem? I guess I don't understand your objection here.

Your efforts are likely to get us penalized as a link-farming site: many copies of near-similar text (i.e. Wikipedia mirror sites) all linking to the same page.

Who do you think might "penalize" Wikipedia, and why do you think it's a realistic possibility? When any mirror site (or commercial site that uses Wikipedia's content) copies any external link from us, it would be what you're calling a link-farm: "many copies of near-similar text. . . all linking to the same page." This happens with every external (or internal) link we have, but it's not a reason not to use links. And no one is penalizing us for it. So again, I don't see the problem here.

Please let natural processes promote Wikipedia instead. -- Karada 23:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is, the natural process isn't working. If you look up (for example) "Ziad Jarrah" in Google, you get four commercial "mirrors" showing Wikipedia's info (though outdated) before you get to Wikipedia's (superior) article. This is a problem, and the reason it happens is that these commercial sites use strategic linking better than we do. That's what I'm hoping to try to fix. Yours, Quadell (talk) 13:29, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Hoffman-Singleton Graph Image

Hello comrade, this is AFOH, (talk), and some time ago i posted the best image for that graph i could find, trying to expand the stub content...I couldn't prove that the image i found was released for free use, but however the stub remains stub, and there is no solution to this point. Hope someone helps. Thanks.

[edit] Sexual Attraction

Howdy. I placed a note to you on the discussion page of sexual attraction and had not heard from you, yet. KeyStroke

[edit] Cubing the cube

You added a link to Cubing the cube to the article Squaring the square. As far as I can tell, the only useful information about the CTC problem is that it has apparently been proven to be impossible. [1] Do you have other information? - dcljr 21:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It may be proven impossible, but it's still an interesting problem, and its relationship to the solved problem of squaring the square, and the impossibility proof, would still I think, make for an interesting aritcle. -- Karada 21:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the argument that it is impossible in a non-trivial way is not so deep. Charles Matthews 18:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

S. Chowla is presumably Sarvadaman Chowla? -- Karada 21:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to the Gardner Index [2] There appear to be references to cubing the cube in Martin Gardner's The Second Scientific American Book of Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions and Sixth Book of Mathematical Games from Scientific American. Can anybody dig them out? -- Karada 22:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gardner gives an intuitively very easy proof of its impossibility. Seems to be due to Cedric Smith.--Brownlee 10:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of mentioning this in the article? -- Karada 12:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments which were previously posted to my user page

No problem Karada, great work in tracking down that URL btw. I'll make an effort to research more about the sex toy history and write some original material. - user:cool_blade!

Helpful guy - 'Sez user:F1lby!'

????????????Ping 09:11 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC) Concentrators as described in the article do not exist (in the US at least), and there is certainly not one for every two houses in a neighborhood. There are SLC's and DLC's and a few other devices designed for "pair gain", but they multiplex several hundred lines onto fiber (or possibly copper if they're real old). They do not fit the description of 'concentrators' in the article. I will write a better description soon. "concentrators" aren't the only way to connect to the switch either, that's why the switch has bays and bays of line cards - User:Hoho(formerly 24.210.222.139)

It varies so much from one carrier to the next. I've seen switches with drawers and drawers of line cards, all cross connected to an old-time main frame with cables taking the copper pairs out into town. Not unusual in a smaller town with little growth, especially if there is another carrier serving the surrounding rural area. On the other hand, there are carriers that don't have any subscriber lines coming to the switch. They run T carrier or glass out to concentrators in the 'hoods and then there's just a short run of copper from the concentrator to the subscriber. Some more advanced carriers, even in smaller towns, have a two-tier network with a fiber ring serving muxes placed a few miles apart, and then concentrators off T carrier from the muxes in the 'hoods. It just depends. Then on the other hand I've seen 18 gauge copper in 15 mile runs to provide rural service without the use of line extenders. It's a wide world out there and all offices aren't engineered the same. UninvitedCompany 02:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look, I don't know who contacted you or who you are, but if you are referring to the "Anarchism" dispute, I can assure you, I am not the one who needs an education in NPOV. See Talk:Anarchism. Spleeman

[edit] Your uploaded image

Thanks for uploading Image:Arabic alphabet.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know whether it's released under the GFDL, whether fair use is claimed, or what? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:39, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

That's good enough evidence for me to say it's GFDL. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 12:23, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

I have nominated you for adminship. Please accept at WP:RFA. uc 19:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Turner syndrome

I thought wik policy was to just capitalize the first letter of a multiple word term if all the words are not usually capitalized. The ordinary usage in all medical books is Turner syndrome (not Turner Syndrome), Down syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, etc. There is some variation over possessive apostrophes but not over capitalizaton. Could you undo your shifts please? You don't intend to change every other syndrome article we have, do you? thanks Alteripse 00:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, will do. -- Karada 00:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That should be the lot done, including a couple I found but did not create. -- Karada 01:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! - Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Karada 10:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hubbert curve

The Hubbert curve closely resembles the shape of, but is different from, the probability density function of the normal distribution. However, it is not a statistical distribution, and

"... not a statistical distribution" is vague, but if you meant that it is not the probability density function of any probability distribution, that is flat-out wrong. And "nothing to do with statistics" seems rash, to say the least. Michael Hardy 00:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 20:33, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gags

You wrote: Hello, Anthony. I've noticed that you have edited two parallel articles, gag and gag (BDSM). ....

I split the matter into these two files so that someone wanting information about ordinary gags, either as non-sexual restraint gear or as tools, would be spared having to wade through a quantity of very graphic and (to me) rather disturbing description of sadomasochistic `bondage', unless he specifically clicks on a link pointing to the BDSM matter.

I will look again at Gag to see if I can remove the remaining BDSM-ism from the non-sexual [Gag]] page.


Anthony, my concern is this: gags are/were only generally used in three contexts:

  • by consensual sadomasochists, who care about safety, and
  • by criminals and other human rights abusers, who generally don't care about the health or safety of their victims
    • for example, in the now thankfully extinct punishment known as the scold's bridle.
  • as specialized devices for oral surgery

I cannot think of any legitimate reason to gag anyone, ever, without their consent.

I actually find the use of gags for criminal abuse far more disturbing than the use in consensual BDSM, as BDSM practitioners generally take great care to avoid harm to one another. -- Karada 17:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be starting to lead to this question :: Do we remove from Wikipedia all matter that could help people to commit illegal acts? Anthony Appleyard 17:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the point. Following this logic, would mean that we should not have articles on fire, knives, or acids, to name but three. However, in eithere a non-BDSM context, or in a BDSM context, I'd think that the most important information relates to the health and safety aspect of gags; that contrary to the image given by damsel-in-distress movies, a gag is generally either ineffective at preventing speech or potentially lethal, with quite a lot of overlap in the middle where gags can be both.
Here's how I'd structure the article:
  • dictionary definition of a gag
  • health and safety risks (for example, death by inhalation of vomit, asphyxia from a mere head cold)
  • the stuff I just said above
  • having said that, explain specialist medical and sexual uses in detail
-- Karada 17:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ríck K

Thanks for the heads up. What damage did they do? RickK 20:30, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

They set up the account, copied your user and talk pages, announced on Vandalism in Progress (as you) that they were leaving, but going to go out in a blaze of glory, invited everyone to revert all the changes they (i.e. you) had ever made, then went on a high-speed page-move rampage; but they were quickly caught and blocked after about 20 to 30 pages moved, and the mess was then mopped up by volunteers. No permanent damage was done. -- Karada 20:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Vandalism

The behaviour of Critzu in article History of Bulgaria can be described only as vandalism, why don't you threaten him with banning? VMORO

Because your and his previous behavior was -- until then -- best described as a heated editing dispute, with both sides acting in what they considered to be good faith. You raised the threat of deliberate vandalism, so I stepped in. Why don't you have both the transliterated Bulgarian names (with original Cyrillic, if appropriate) and their Anglicised versions afterwards? That way, everyone would be happy. Similar compromises have been found for articles where the English version of a name is not the same as the original. -- Karada 17:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ummm, I have no idea.

Evening, Karada. I got an e-mail from User:Bucephalus saying that you had blocked him and that he was innocent. He was asking for my help in unblocking. I went through the block log, and I didn't see that you had banned that user, but you had banned an IP. Could this be an AOL range problem, or did the user committ a bannable offense? I don't really know the user, so I have no personal stake in the matter, but, as he asked me (and I don't know why), I thought I'd ask you. Geogre 21:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't remember having banned any user by that name. I have performed several recent IP bans, all for quite obvious vandalism. None were in AOL space. Bucephalus may share a proxy or dynamic IP with one of the banned IPs. What ISP does Bucephalus use, and what was the message they got from the ban? -- Karada 23:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is what he wrote me: "I am logged in. When I try and edit a page it just brings up a page with:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Karada.

I don't share an IP address and I received no warning about being banned. I only started with this whole wiki thing a few weeks ago. Is this how it works? The block log lists me as 62.253.64.12"

I couldn't find anything he'd done, but that doesn't mean he didn't. Geogre 13:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Klaatu barada nikto

Why have you redirected Klaatu barada nikto to Klaatu barata niktu? The correct spelling is Klaatu barada nikto (26,500 google hits), not 'Klaatu barata niktu (436 google hits). Also see [3], [4] --Viriditas | Talk 12:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Karada 12:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Backing up your claim of NPOV

Hello Karada,

On 10:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC), you made the claim that the article Unibrow had NPOV problems, indeed it had NOV problems. These problems have been resolved, but the original arther who made the PROV edit has argued that his comment are not a PROV but fact. I have done my best to back your claim, but it would be appropriate that you voice your view point on this matter also. We would highly apprechate it if you would give us your opinions on talk:unibrow.
Fellow Wikipedian,
Joel M. 18:22, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I am the editor who made the original claims that Joel M. refers to. I would also like to hear your input on the matter, as it appears you have the respect of other Wikipedians as someone who contributes in a mature and neutral way to controversial topics. I would especially like to know if it is my edits you were refering to when you said there was a POV problem. Thanks. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 05:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rape

I am glad to have more participants in the debate on illustrating the Rape article, but I am disappointed that you chose to restrict your contribution to removing the image. Your contention is not supported by the discussion on the talk page. Regards, Haiduc 15:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

It's my understanding that the Sandbox is free from most rules, only being bound by leaving the header in and whatever's mentioned in the header. --SPUI (talk) 16:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of people believed to have bipolar disorder

Thanks for your comment on my comment. As a fellow bipolar Wikipedian, I agree in the strongest sense that there is NOTHING to be ashamed about regarding having BPD. I'm never afraid to let people know that I have it; my whole family knows, as do all of my friends, including online-only ones. That being said, the reason I dislike the list is twofold. Firstly, when I posted my original comment and added the "this article is not neutral" template, the list was unsubstantiated; it was not in its current format of listing only people who are deceased. The same, I believe, is true for when I voted on VfD. I don't believe that BPD is shameful; what IS shameful is an unsubstantiated list of people who may or may not have BPD. If the list had been substantiated, I don't think I'd have had a problem with it. But, no, I NEVER thought that bipolar disorder itself is shameful... if I came across that way, I apologize. DocSigma 04:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] appearance of double edits

Oh yeah I've seen that happen before. -Christiaan 23:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for adding my British Union of Fascists NPOV changes to the Wikipedia:Great editing in progress page. Nice to know I did something useful... Rayray 09:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How do I reply to your message?

Hi-

I got a message from you regarding the article on Bukkake but I don't know how to reply except through your talk page. In looking at the history, I see that some people have voted in favor of adding the link. Also, even though I have raised several relevant issues relating to including it on the Bukkake;Talk page, no one has addressed my concerns.

I have reviewed the information on including links in wikipedia and based upon the criteria outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

It seems like Bukkake.com should be included as an external link on this page.

So far NO ONE has addressed my concerns or given a valid reason (according to wikipedia rules) NOT to include the site. I am not just going to go away. Bukkake.com deserves to be there. I am cool with a content warning, but if you are going to have a "community" page about bukkake, Bukkake.com deserves to be listed there. I have looked through wikipedia and there are many external links on many pages. Most of them are LESS appropriate for the page than Bukkake.com is on this page. Personally, I am starting to wonder why so many people seem to have such a strong interest in this one wikipedia page but so little interest in establishing a dialogue with me.

I've added comments to several people's talk pages and the only response (except for yours) I got was from someone who threatened to rip off my site's content and add it to wikipedia?!?! WTF?

My intent is NOT to spam wikipedia. I am talking about adding ONE LINK to ONE PAGE out of the millions on here in the ONE PLACE where it makes sense. What is the problem? According to wikipedia guidelines, Bukkake.com should be included.

Well, you just did reply to me. You can converse with me on this page. I don't think anyone threatened to "rip off" your site, I think they just offered you the chance to donate content from your site to Wikipedia licenced under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. I think one of the things most objected to is that you are adding a link to your own site. This is generally frowned on, in much the same way as adding an autobiographical article to Wikipedia. When the site is an advertising-driven site, the disapproval is even stronger. I'm well aware of the high Google page-rank of Wikipedia pages (the Wikipedia Bukkake article is currently #6 on a Google search for "bukkake"), and hence their potential for driving traffic to linked sites. Since we currently get over 80 million hits/day, the temptation to monetize Wikipedia links is high. We tend to resist this by being rather critical about link submission criteria, and in particular, linking your own site. Why not work on making your site more encyclopedia-like and less porno-site like? If you do that, it is more likely that sooner or later, someone will notice your site's quality and link to it. -- Karada 13:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your responding rather than just reversing my edits, Karada :-)

I hear what you are saying, but what I am saying is that it shouldn't matter whether it's my site. What is important is that it is the right link for this particular page. If I were adding a link to bukkake.com on the page for "orgy", it would be spamming. But adding a link to bukkake.com on the page for the article "bukkake" MAKES SENSE.

The designer of wikipedia added the capability to include external links for just this type of situation. Because there are some cases where all of the information is not in wikipedia. If someone has found the wiki article for "bukkake" and they want to find out more about the topic, what is the next best step? (Keep in mind that bukkake is a topic that has adult connotations.)

Bukkake.com is a better choice than any of the other links currently on the wiki page.

Wikipedia should not be about censorship or about individual reviewers' personal preferences. It should be about providing the best information. When I look through the history for the wiki:bukkake page I see people both in favor of keeping and removing the link.

Your thoughts?


ADDED:

You have made some interesting edits to this page Karada: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erotic_sexual_denial&action=history

Many external links added.

Not by me. /A check of the history shows that, even though I created the first version of the article, those links were added by User:FT2. If you are referring to my edit [5], you'll notice that I merely reformatted that subsection into standard format, sight unseen. I do not endorse any of those links. -- 14:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

Yes, you started that article. The external links do not seem to be relevant to the topic of that article, but no one feels compelled to remove them. I have been looking around wikipedia and there are quite a few articles with many external links like that...

I see that there are external links on that page with text like "Classic Website" etc. Would that kind of wording satisfy your concerns about the external link to Bukkake.com? Maybe something like this:

on the bukkake wiki page?

Please advise.


ADDED:

Yes, I have been doing some more looking around. Many external links to hardcore porn added by FT2 and Anome also.

[edit] Fecal incontinence

'rm what seems to be a plug' (20 March)

Eeeuuw. (was that the intention?) Redlentil 19:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There is already a Category:Eastenders characters

Other characters are already categorized there, which is a subcategory of Category:Soap opera characters. There is currently no Category:EastEnders. For now, I would suggest having the two not categorized (which I actually just did move) to Category:Eastenders characters, and then putting that up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Thanks.

[edit] Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link Vandal

I came across your comments on User_talk:218.19.66.117. This person has been responsible for repeated vandalism on money-related pages, notably finance. He has several different IPs, but recently registered as User:Deli. I added him to the wiki current vandal page. Is there anything else that can be done to block him? Feco 17:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/68.170.0.238

Any chance you'd be willing to contribute to this RfC? RickK 04:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BDSM-stub

Hi - Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting have just found out about your new stub creation (you added it at our "stub types" page (WP:WSS/ST). At the top of that page is a notice saying To avoid unnecessary redirects and reverts, please discuss all new stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria prior to creation of new stubs and placement in articles or tables. This is standard practice for creating new stub templates, since the new templates should not only fit into stub hierarchies, but they should be useful to editors. For that reason there is always a week or more of discussion related to whether there are currently the required 60-100 or more stubs which will fit the category, whether the stub articles are currently covered by a sparsely populated category, and the like. With this new template, although I can see a reason for it being created, it is covered very well by sex-stub, which currently contains fewer than 200 articles - well below the limit at which splits are normally made. I've added the new template to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Newly-discovered templates... if you'd like to comment on the reasons for the stubs creation there, we'd be pleased to hear from you! Grutness...wha? 12:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't spot the notice. Thanks. -- Karada 13:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helicoid

I see you've encountered Helicoid. I don't know how to proceed with him, because he's engaging in trolling behaviour, personal attacks, violation of the NPOV policy, rejection of the concept of peer review, and a whole host of other things. Seeing as you just came upon it, what is your view? -- Natalinasmpf 23:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he goes on escalating in this way, he's likely to get banned by an admin. However, I must recuse myself from doing it, because I'm involved in editing the article, and by extension, in the controversy.
If he just treads water, a Request for Comments might be appropriate. If he really won't stop being abusive, shout for an admin, and one will generally magically appear. If not, let me know, and I'll see how I can help. -- Karada 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aetherometry

Two questions

  • I was wondering why you removed DeMeo's criticms of the Correas
  • Have you read some of the articles on the Correa's web site? Whoever writes them seems to me to be using the same abusive/contemptuous/mocking style as Helicoid and our anons. I strongly suspect that we are debating the Correas themselves. Gets to the whole idea of not editing articles about yourself. Guettarda 2 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)


Two answers:

  • I didn't: I just cited it in-line in the text of the article. Please feel free to replace it.
  • That's a very interesting thought.

-- Karada 2 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

BTW - the anon IPs are, for the most part, from Toronto and Hamilton Guettarda 2 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Fascinating. Akronos Publishing gives its address as being in Concord, Ontario. Those three locations are rather close together. [6] -- Karada 2 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Genes

I'll try to be more clear about my comments. I am stipulating that humans have genetic information promoting sexual reproduction (if this is in question, please address that). No one has located the genes on the human genome, so I must leave it as a general term "sex genes," and not specify specific genes. These genes directly encourage, by evolutionary design, reproduction of the species. Thus, a human's desire for sex is derived from its genetic instructions to reproduce. If you can enlighten further on this subject, I would be grateful.

I think you're begging several different questions here. -- Karada 4 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks for the welcome! I have a fuzzy feeling this wikistuff is rather addictive ;-). So far I am browsing around in English and German areas I know a bit about (history of Europe, of Christianity, Switzerland in general) and do some edits (found the editing help already, and my main problem is, pressing save only after everything is cleaned up ;-) But I'm getting a bit routine already.

Cheers!

I'm glad you are having fun! Wikipedia is addicting. --mav

Hi. I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate your contributions and your professionalism in the sex-related articles. -- Stephen Gilbert 16:21 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)


Karada, are you sure that the material found at http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/content.html is public domain material? -- looxix 00:05 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)


The dictionary itself should be; http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/firsted.html appears to indicate that the contributors and editors appear to be Federal Government employees, and most of the sources are Federal Government sources. (Note that the links at the bottom of the page you cited are not part of the dictionary, and clearly labelled as such - I'm referring only to the dictionary itself).
It also states that non-public-domain documents have also been used as references, but the entries are "based on" these, rather than copied from them. They say:
They are not in the same form as the sources; most are abridged; the terms used in the definition may not be defined in this Dictionary precisely as they are defined in the applicable standard; and, most important they are not referenceable to a specific, dated publication of a standards issuing organization.
So, essentially, I'm trusting in the wide range of multiple sources, stages of editing, and NASA's own integrity not to have copied other copyrighted works directly. Karada 09:02 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
Please see my reply on my talk page regarding the NASA dictionary -- please let me know if this is OK for the public domain criteria -- otherwise, the entries from there will have to be paraphrased/rewritten. Karada 09:07 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
I don't know, I've just asked because it seems to be an usefull source of information but there is no explicit mention that it is PD. -- looxix 22:20 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Note re the previous: the entries in question with information from the NASA dictionary are:

Karada

Hi, what's the point of, as you write, "restoring previous edits" of the Social role of hair article? If, as it says at the bottom, this is supposed to be a stub, removing a link to beard -- rather than creating new links -- does not appear to be particularly helpful. --KF 22:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)


It should be there under "facial hair in Islam," -- if I have removed your link when merging my re-arrangement of order and addition of subheadings, it was a mistake, not a deliberate move. Karada 22:02 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I can see that now. Sorry for making such a fuss. By the way, this is an interesting idea for an article, and I can feel that it'll be a good one. All the best, KF 22:48 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

What is the end-to-end principle? your article just talks about the implications without defining it LittleDan 00:06 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Karada. I notice that you blanked Antitussive. Was there a reason for that? If you want it deleted, you should list it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. If you do, it might be deleted properly, or it might be rescued by someone who is willing to write about the subject. If you don't list it, we'll just end up with a blank page sitting in the article space indefinitely, which is not good. -- Oliver P. 06:26 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Karada,

thanks for your (re-)contribution to pubic hair article. I have much elaborated on the first sentence in the next section (full list of reasons). The porn star line I've moved to the "talk" page - The sentence sounds like that only porn stars shave and that does normal shaving people give the incorrect feeling of them being pornstars. Please keep it in the talk.

Thanks.

   Michael

Karada,

Thanks for the move in my West Nile virus contribution. I think there is some disconnect between the wikipedia naming convention and biological naming conventions, which got be confused Professor water 10:19, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] re: teledildonics

Let me say in my defence that I wasn't aware that teledildonics was vaporware, when I added the link to sex-toy. Well, read the wikipedia, and learn something new every five minutes. Anyway, big thanks to you for the work you have done for the whole general subject area of sexuality and it's variants. Kudos. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

記事の素晴らしい仕事: "buru sera"。私は完全な記事に値する十分な材料がないことを同意しなければならない。 -戴&#30505sv 17:27, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Unfortunately I can't read Japanese. Could you translate that? Would you care to contribute on some of the Japanese sex-related topics? -- Karada 10:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi - since I assume you read it, I was wondering if you found mere addition paradox to be clear? Does it make sense? :-) Evercat 23:00, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Yes, it's really clear. It's a shame about utilitarianism: it seems like such a good idea until you take a closer look. -- Karada 23:04, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Heh. I think I'm ultimately a utilitarian myself. :-) Evercat 23:04, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am curious as to why you deleted three links from the John Money page and replaced them with one link that leads to nowhere. Money did not just talk about lovemaps. Patrick0Moran 00:00, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I didn't delete them: I wove them into a sentence. -- Karada 00:02, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Whoops, sorry!

Patrick0Moran 02:56, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello Karada,
You asked about diabetes mellitus article and my objections to its content.
First, it is of patchy quality. There are passages or section that are quite acceptable and other that need major rewrite.
Second, its style is inconsistent. Sometimes it uses scintific language and nomenclature and sometimes it is written in badly conceived "for patients" style. (I once proposed to make corresponding "Patient information" pages in this case "Patient information on Diabetes mellitus" linked to the scientific article Diabetes mellitus)

[edit] Data Management Wiki Committee

Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.

Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.

The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Wikipedia articles.

If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.

KeyStroke 01:12, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)


Third, see sections Diabetes mellitus#Diabetes treatment. Current standards - St Vincent declaration.
Presentation is also lacking and diabetic ketoacidosis is insufficient.
My ideal for a medical article would be a well researched, well referenced, scientific language, readable and state-of-the-art body of information.

Kpjas 06:53, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think there was something in requested articles asking after ring gags, should there at least be an article there linking to ball gag? --Calieber 23:46, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Might I ask why you are removing "ideosyncratic" names in the List of sex positions? Vancouverguy 23:30, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Because they are taken verbatim from a website http://www.condoms.au.com/condom_frame2.htm -- these names appear to be unique to this website, and copies of it. So by keeping them, we (1) open ourselves to charges of plagiarism and copyright violation, (2) the names have no meaning to anyone else except in the context of this website. Have you ever heard anyone use the term "advanced Black Bee"? -- Karada 23:35, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure they were added for a reason. Mere names are not copyright violations.Vancouverguy


Consider this: if we were to replace the name "advanced Black Bee position" with the name "axaxas Mlo", and we would have replaced one silly name with another, with no gain or loss of comprehension by anyone, except in the context of a reference to this single cited website. The exact same positions turn up in a variety of other sex manuals, called by entirely different names. Unless other people can agree on names, they are meaningless, and a description is preferable to a name. -- Karada 23:42, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On The Perfumed Garden: Wikipedia is not a source text depository. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Vancouverguy 00:13, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK, I'll move the Burton text to talk: my intention is only to have it there for later summarization / correction. -- Karada 00:14, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! Vancouverguy 00:15, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I made a slight adjustment to what you wrote on pre-established harmony to say mind instead of object. Is that right? I'm no expert on this... Evercat 22:48, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And I put another question on the talk page... Evercat

I noticed that you edited one of my articles by placing a colon at the beginning of each math line. What exactly does that do, formatting-wise? -Kevin


It just indents it a bit, like I have done with this paragraph here. It's purely a visual formatting convention, used in many Wikipedia articles on math. It's only a convention, you don't have to do it if you don't like it. But there is a general tendency to try to even out the style over articles in general... -- Karada 23:37, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Oh, and the more leading colons, the more indentation. For more, read Wikipedia:markup. -- Karada

Prelatures are properly erected, not "made" or "created". This is the expression used in Canonical documents, I guess it comes from "building up something", "putting it up" (latin obviously). For me it is also funny (or strange) why Cardinals are "created" (not made, curiously enough...). The act of erecting a prelature is called "erection" even though it may sound awfully. Thanks for leaving it. Pfortuny 11:02, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As for Escriva's page. I think such a short page is completely uninformative. On the other hand, only some critics have stated that (and all of the "supporters" have said that it is a perfectly healthy and holy use) and my opinion is that people come to bios in the wikipedia looking for facts, not other people's opinions (be they pro or contra does not matter). I am not going to fight for anything, I only want fair play. And you are aware that the current page is not fair. Least of all for the readers, who are the imporant ones. I am going to start working in another version as a subpage of mine and will ask (obviously) your opinion.

Is it too much to ask you to change what you have written into:

"His supporters think this is a fair and holy virtue (mortification), while .... (and here the critics).

Or (as myself) if you think both comments are out of place, take them away?

Thanks.Pfortuny 10:09, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)


I have made the changes you requested. The comments should be kept. I think Escriva's love of the lash is a crucial part of his personality, and informs the rest of his works, as well as being an important source of criticism. -- Karada 11:57, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!
Anyway, I think we agree that the present page is quite a stub. I am planning a new rewrite and will inform you before acting.
I have grep'd his complete works. Here you go ("dolo" has a space bc there are quite a few words in Spanish with "dolo" inside). Notice that I have used only "prefixes" for words dealing with pain (so that "mortificacion, mortificarse, mortificado"... as well as "dolor, doler, dolido, doloroso") whereas I have made a true grep for "oración", etc... I do not think you may honestly say that the "lash" ""informs"" his works. It may appear assiduously, frequently. But in true honesty, there are quite a lot of different subjects:
bash-2.05b$ zgrep -i " dol" *|wc -l /* (pain) dolor, doler... */
    200
bash-2.05b$ zgrep -i "mortif" *|wc -l /* (mortification) mortificarse, mortificacion, mortificado */
    118
bash-2.05b$ zgrep -i "enfer" *|wc -l /* (sickness) enfermedad, enfermo, enfermar */
     86
bash-2.05b$ zgrep "sufr" *|wc -l /* (suffering) sufrimiento, sufrir, sufro, sufres... */
    144
bash-2.05b$ zgrep "discipl" *|wc -l /* (disciplines, lash) disciplina(s), disciplinado */
     17
bash-2.05b$ zgrep "oración" *|wc -l
    401
bash-2.05b$ zgrep "trabajo" *|wc -l
    354
bash-2.05b$ zgrep "apostolado" *|wc -l
    222
bash-2.05b$ zgrep -i "cristo" *|wc -l /* just one of the ways to call Jesus Christ */
   1247
bash-2.05b$ cat * | wc -l /* total nbr. of lines */
   3175
But of course, this is not definitive and I am not a philologist.
Sorry for the long answer.

[edit] Conditional reflexes

Hi Karada - I see you changed "conditional reflex" to "conditioned reflex" in the note about Pavlov in the article on reflex. This is an error and I have changed it back again. The phrase "conditioned reflex" arose only as an error in translation from Russian: what Pavlov thought he was doing was establishing reflexes conditional upon previous experience. Of course history knew better, but the article was talking about what Pavlov intended, not how he was misinterpreted. seglea 00:44, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Thank you. Please can you put that in the Pavlov article, if possible. -- Karada 00:45, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've put it into Pavlov, and rounded that out considerably. I'll have a look at operant conditioning as soon as I can (though by the time that phrase came into use, the verb "to condition" was irreversibly established in the minds of psychologists). seglea 01:08, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Interestingly, the term "to condition" is used by engineers to mean "to put something into a given condition" -- such as in the phrase "line conditioning". -- Karada 01:19, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimers

Hi,

if you insert disclaimers by using their MediaWiki name (see Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages), we can easily update these messages in all articles that use them. Besides, it saves typing. For the risk disclaimer, use {{msg:risk}}.—Eloquence 22:41, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-eclampsia

Hi, I've asked you a question on Talk:Pre-eclampsia. -- Timwi 20:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi. The article Mother I'd Like to Fuck has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. Though the phrase is hardly scientific, I thought the phenomenon of attraction to older women could benefit from your knowledge. Is there a link that would be good for the article? Maybe you could put in a brief discussion? Thanks. Meelar 08:00, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge

Opps! Edit conflict. Sorry - I'll merge in your edits. -mav

[edit] Moving page

Please don't move pages w/o discussing. I've reverted both moves since I don't see the logic behind them. I've already explained at Talk:Communist Party USA why it belong there and not under the longer title. If you don't agree, go there and explain. Same for the other article... --Jiang 02:16, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] anal sex/female ejaculation

Good work tidying up! If it wasn't for people like you, people like me would leave the wiki a mess ;) Cheers, Sam Spade 14:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good edit on moving the link to sexual objectification from the Sex Industry, I was unsatisfied with that link. Thank you. Did you also fix the equivalent link from the Feminism page?

Camipco 16:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions?

Hi, I was writing an article on Jack Ryan (Senate candidate) and realized that Wikipedia has no article on sex club (a term used in Ryan's divorce files--it's a long story). Anyway, I wasn't sure if there was an existing article this could redirect to, or another term, but thought you might know. If not, no big deal. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] "Neutrality" is NOT neutral

He keeps deleting ON A WHOLESALE BASIS, large amounts of FACTUAL material about Kerry!

Rex071404 01:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:NPOV. Except in uncontentious cases, Wikipedia does reports opinions, not facts. Put crudely, this means saying "X said this, Y said that, Z says this with evidence A". We have been working quite hard to keep simple slurs out of political articles -- please attribute your material, and provide a cite to a reliable source or sources, and you will have far fewer problems. -- Karada 21:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kegel exerciser

Hi Karada,

I don't know if you'de be interested in this, but my recent article on the 'Kegel exerciser' was deleted (as it was deemed to be an advertisement). Does this kind of thing happen regularly ?

Regards,

Darren

Dlloyd 11:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] YACHAD

I'm looking for input on the situation with the YACHAD Germany articles. Please take a look at Talk:Yachad (Germany). --Smack 21:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Modifiying Wikipedia:Recentchanges

When I see Wikipedia:Recentchanges, I always remove any live link. In contrast, you add new links whenever you feel like doing so. For curiosity, what rule do you usually follow?? 66.245.86.226 15:00, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any admin can add links, and use their own judgment about policy. I tend to get the new links from Wikipedia:Requested articles, and choose them from that list according to my own tastes. Usually, I try to keep the set of links reasonably balanced between arts and sciences, and tend not to add another obscure reference if there are several there already; or, if there are no obscure references, I will tend to add one. -- Karada 15:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VFD of MiseTings?

Hello. I noticed you put a VFD tag on the MiseTings article and then reverted it. Was this because it's just been through two in the past several months/weeks or for other reasons? I'm just a big patron of the article and I'd like to satisfy my curiosity. Take care! Mr Bound July 5, 2005 20:35 (UTC)

It was because I noticed that it had survived VfD twice recently. -- Karada 6 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of terrorism page

Because I didn't write it. Someone removed the part called "Other world leaders" so I was looking for it in History, I found it and forgot to read all the quotes, so that one slipped in. I removed it when I saw it. If you do not believe me, check history and you can see that I did not write it. It was a glip on my part and I am truly sorry. Havok 7 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- Karada 7 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
No problem, I found the vandal though. This is the person who added it [7] Havok 7 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability engineering - text editor comment

Hello Karada, I appreciate your improvements to the Reliability engineering article. However, I didn't understand your comment about a WYSIWYG text editor. What does that comment mean? Thanks, Wyatts

I was referring to the use of ":*" to indent items in lists: it looks pretty, but it's not uniform with other articles, and we generally prefer simple markup to prettiness. By using the simplest possible markup in articles, it makes them not only more amenable to CSS styling, but also makes Wikipedia easier to read by standardising the appearance of articles. -- Karada 07:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

...for reverting my userpage. (Weird; I've never run into that guy before.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] lost vote

Karada, I lost your vote in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Totally Obvious when I reverted some vandalism. Do you want to re-vote, or do you want me to copy/paste your previous vote? Sorry. Joyous (talk) 22:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Image

Thanks Karada, I am glad an administrator could find the time to explain the way to tag it in a civil manner since the Wikipedia policy is very long and kind of confusing. I will append my comments to DreamGuys comments like you said. Thanks! --Evmore 12:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elf

Hi Karada. Would you care to explain to me why you used the rollback button in support of J M Rice at Elf?--Wiglaf 19:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because J M Rice was correct in removing the images as not being covered by fair use. Unfortunately, they seem to have reappeared. Thanks for reminding me to remove them. -- Karada 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with you. The Cate Blanchett picture is faire use, as is explained by the caption.--Wiglaf 06:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
If merely citing something in the image caption actually made images qualify as fair use, this would be a get-out clause that would effectively render the fair use rules irrelevant. Since the fair use rules are unlikely to disappear in a puff of smoke, I suspect that this trick will not work. -- Karada 09:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
If you argue that an image of an Elf is not relevant on an article on Elf, I do assert that you are wrong. The caption states that she acts as an Elf.--Wiglaf 10:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
An image of an Elf is certainly relevant to an article about elves. However, a copyrighted picture from one of the Lord of the Rings movies is not fair use in this context: it would only be fair use if it was used to illustrate content that is about the movie itself. Now, perhaps if Cate Blanchett actually was an elf, and this was the only extant image of a real elf, you might be able to make a case for fair use here. On the other hand, if you want to use the Blanchett image in the part of the article which is actually about The Lord of the Rings movies, that probably could reasonably be argued to be fair use. (IANAL, etc.) -- Karada 10:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, the vast majority of people who read the article would not, and have not, split hairs like you do. They expect it to be about Elves like those in PJ:s movie, and I argue that the article treats elves in a way that warrants the image. I'd really like to hear what others have to say in the matter, before I buy your argument.--Wiglaf 11:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:203.26.206.130

Hi, I've unblocked this IP since it is a proxy for a pretty widely used dial-up ISP in Australia, and I have heard from one good registered user that was affected. --nixie 10:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I got the same email. Isn't this a proxy account? Zoe 17:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Curtin University of Technology

Hey, thanks for helping with the reverts there, I wonder if user:WikiNazi is related with user:the awful truth, I don't think they're meatpuppets since the former was interested in vandalizing while the latter was interestd in vanity advocacy, but it's curious that they both vandalized the same small college in Australia. Please let me know if I can assist with any other vandalism tracking efforts. Karmafist 00:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Dealing with AOL vandals

Hi there! That page sounds like a good idea; do you intend to finish it? Because presently it's not really helpful, I'm afraid. I would suggest userfying it may be useful. Radiant_>|< 09:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Scream

Thank you. I made the following assumptions: Since Edvard Munck is a Norwegian artist I assume that Norwegian copyright law is relevant. Munck has not been dead for 70 years, hence his works are protected by copyright in Norway. I also assume that Norway and the United States have signed mutually binding copyright treaties, eg. if one work is protected by copyright in one country, it is protected also in the other country. Without similar treaties, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck cartoons from the 1930s would be public domain in several European countries. Because of this, I don't think it was farfetched to tag the image as "fair use". Thuresson 19:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How common is prostitution?

Karada, I think you heavily underestimate the percentage of women who have ever worked as a prostitute (I'm talking about your contribution to prostitution). The National Task Force on Prostitution even suggests one percent of the American women has worked as a prostitute once in her lifetime.(stats on www.bayswan.org) If I take for instance the Netherlands, there are an estimated 25.000 prostitutes in the Netherlands (based on research in 1999, van Mens and van der Helm, source). App. 32% of them is Dutch (based on research in 2002 from Van Dijk, source). That should mean there are 0,32*25000=8000 Dutch prostitutes in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has a total population of app. 16 million people and half of them is female. That means 0.1% of the Dutch women is a prostitute. If it's true the average career of a prostitute is 5 years, that would mean that 20%(1/5) of those prostitutes has to be replaced every year by new prostitutes. The average lifespan of a woman is 80 years, so 80 years multiplied by 8000*0,20 new prostitutes per year would mean 12800 Dutch women will be or has been a prostitute. 12800(have been/will-be prostitutes)/8000000(number of Dutch women)=1.6% of the female population who has been or will be a prostitute. But.... you want to know how many women have been prostitutes and not how many will be. The average age of a Dutch prostitute is app. 30 years.(source,in Dutch). Let's say, remove those 30 years from the rest of the 80 years a woman lives on average. Then you'll get 1.6% multiplied by (80-30)/80=1 percent!!! Isn't that great!!! And I believe the same thing might be true for the United States. Now, app. 25% of the Dutch men has ever visited a prostitute. That means a more realistic ratio of 25:1 "have-ever-been" ratio between prostitutes and clients, instead of 84:1. I refer to a study which indicates that even many men have ever been paid for sex once in their lifetime(source). Then you'll see a percentage of 1.6 at least!!! And most of them were paid by women!! I don't get it. I believe prostitution is more widespread that most people could ever imagine. (I have to stress though that only (app.) 3 percent of the men in the surveys admitted to ever have visited a prostitute) I have a gut feeling that a more realistic estimate of the "ever-have-been-female-prostitutes" is more like 4 percent of the total female population. But I can't prove it. --Bruno Junqueira 22:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vandalism from your shared IP address

Hi Karada, It is practically impossible for me or for the university to figure out whose responsible for the vandalism until u dont give me the IP address. I login from various computers across the campus.. either from my computer, or from a computer in my dorm's computer lab or from a computer in the library. Pl give me the IP address and Ill see wat I can do about it. Also note that there many computers in Purdue libraries where logging in is not necessary to surf on the internet. Cheers --Deepak|वार्ता 22:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IP vandal

No, I don't mind a bit - in fact, I was hoping someone would (I'm not an admin, so my blocking threats are a little empty unless I can get an admin's attention!). So thank you, much appreciated! Stephenb (Talk) 10:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fake impersonator account

  • User:Cool Cat is a fat fat appears to be a fake user page for a nonexistent account. The admins' blocking tools do not appear, and an attempt to block it failed, saying the account did not exist. -- Karada 16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • According to kate's tool it exists. Type "Cool Cat" on [8]. Strange... :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Am I seeing wrong? --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found the problem: the "real" impersonator account has a period at the end: see User:Cool Cat is a fat fat. -- Karada 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for waisting your time :( --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillic mojibake

Thanks. What does your converter program run on? Any chance of you sending it to me? Anthony Appleyard 13:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BULLY

YOU ARE A BULLY. SO IS CURPS.

Hello. Thank you for contacting me. Can you say what this is regarding, please? -- Karada 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
BLOCKING JUST FOR MOVING PAGES AND BLANKING USER PAGES AFTER BLANKING MINE
Ah, so you are User:§. Can you please tell me what you rationale is for those page moves, and why you have ignored other editors' requests to discuss them? I'm not aware of having blanked any user pages, though. -- Karada 04:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I've checked: I didn't blank your user page -- you blanked it, and then another admin speedy-deleted it. -- Karada 04:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding §: This user routinely edits anonymously from a DSL DHCP pool in Chicago, and as far as I can tell has never engaged anyone in conversation, ever. But it is also not his style to go after user pages. The comments left above appear to come from a dialup in Los Angeles, so unless § is travelling for the holidays, I suspect you have misidentified the complaining user. Dragons flight 15:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for having done something about §, anyway. Wikipeditor 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks

Responded to your comments on Talk:War Game. But I have to ask what the big deal is here. I deleted one redlink from a dab page, and explained why. I'm not sure why having the link in there is so important, or why you felt the need to respond with sarcasm. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to come across as sarcastic; pedantic, perhaps, but not sarcastic. My point was that to delete red links on the basis of it being policy to do so only makes sense if it actually is policy, which, as careful reading of that sentence from the MoS shows, it isn't. I was concerned that, if you were under a misapprehension that the policy was otherwise, you risked unwittingly removing potentially useful information; one red link is not a big deal, but dozens, or hundreds, if other users copy you, are. Please feel free to delete redlinks if you are sure that they are unencyclopedic; otherwise, would you mind giving others the benefit of the doubt? -- Karada 04:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I commented it out to avoid that risk (removing potentially useful information). Maybe that's not a great solution; I'm open to criticism. And your point is valid. I'm sorry you feel I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt. It just didn't seem to me like an article that was likely to be written. Like I said on the talk page, I might be wrong about that too. I'm not going to revert it if you put it back in, BTW. I wouldn't have even done it a second time if I'd posted on Talk the first time. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not a problem; I always try to assume good faith, and I can see you do, too. Regards, Karada 04:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Glad to hear you feel the same. We hit a lot of the same pages and I know you're a solid editor, which is why I took your comments seriously. Thanks for the feedback. See you around. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio vandal

Great minds think alike, it seems. :) Thanks for helping out with this guy. - Lucky 6.9 02:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon edit

user:67.129.121.254 placed this edit on your userpage - Akamad Happy new year! 14:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize that I don't know how to send messages to individuals, so feel free to move this to its proper place (it has also been added to the discussion page of the stalking and cyberstalking articles) ...

"Karada, I am at a loss to explain why you would delete the information I provided about cyberstalking. The information has been restored with enhancement to flow and readability. I cannot think of a more appropriate and scholarly contribution for this particular article (cyberstalking) than the information I provided about the abuse of Web-based resources (i.e. search engines, domain registrars, Usenet) not only by individual cyberstalkers, but by groups of cyberstalkers whose gang-like activity is made uniquely possible by the characteristics of the Internet (e.g. anonymity, cybersleuthing, and lack of geographic distance makes cooperative networking simple). It's not only verifiable facts, but the facts are also stable over time. The phenomenon I document is an enduring trait of the Internet and not an attempt to call attention to a single stalker or flame war.

For you to designate such a contribution as "kookery" is abusive and unscholarly and turns reality on its head. The term kookery itself is meaningless, serving only an expressive (i.e. valuative) function. All the facts are empirical and verifiable, and none of the facts are presented in an irrational or incomprehensible manner. The reference to a particular news group, the only aspect of the report I consider even remotely disputable, is clearly marked as illustrative, and all readers are aware the group is being used as both (a) an example to give concrete form to cold facts and abstract concepts and (b) a reference (if you examine the group, here is an example of the facts).

I suspect your problem is really not with the merits of the content itself but with the periphera (i.e. tenor, motive, venue). If you have a problem with what you think is my motivation, I do not think it is material. Regardless of what my motives were for writing this piece (and these motives are not endemic to the text), the material is factual and verifiable and it is not offered as opinion. More importantly, this information is socially conscientious, civically responsible, and capable of preventing many cases of cyberstalking.

So please cease and desist your following me around Wikipedia. I am not trying to spam Wikipedia with this content. I think you'll find that if you simply give it its due place (and you can decide whether it should be here in Cyberstalking or in Stalking), that I will stop reviving it. I keep putting it in various places ONLY BECAUSE you have been deleting it and then attempting to pass me off as a spammer or vandal. I think your motives / emotions are more transparent than mine.

Moreover, efforts to improve this content may include qualification, editing, and sidebar discussion, but wholesale deletion and redirection to empty shells is simply extreme, inappropriate, and thus "vandalizing."

I assure you that there really is nothing personal about this; I'm sorry if you see the behaviour of the Wikipedia community as persecution, but it might help to read the policies that apply to Wikipedia articles before posting. I can't really add any more in reply, other than asking you to revisit the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, and to read WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -- Karada 19:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

"Using a blood donation organization as a proxy STD test is highly irresponsible; if the testing is not 100% perfect, and you're positive, you'll almost certainly (because of pre-test blood pooling, and the very large blood volumes involved) infect one or more unwitting third parties.

Instead, please get tested at your local sexual health clinic. "

People just wanting to make sure are no more likely to have an STD than other first-time blood donors.. I don't see your point: If that kind of carelessness goes on things would happen *anyway* --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's reasonable to assume that people who take part in high-risk activities are at higher risk than other members of the population. In epidemiology terms, it's assortative mixing among people with high risk tolerance; people who take part in one high-risk activity are more likely to take part in others, including taking part in these activities with multiple partners; and no, you can't trust your partner who tells you "I've never done anything like this before, either". Consider the outbreaks of HIV in the regularly-tested adult movie industry; this in a population that take part in high-risk activities, and yet are all tested monthly. -- Karada 20:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I guess that makes sense, kinda
I would be interested in reading if you feel like creating articles for "assortative mixing" and "risk tolerance" maybe {{psych-stub}} or {{neuroscience-stub}} --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)
It's also worth noting that there are some bloodborne diseases that we can't yet test for. (Prion diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease comes to mind.) In addition to spreading these diseases to one's blood play partners, one would then potentially infect one or more innocent bystanders each time one donated blood. Most jurisdictions also bar donations from individuals who have recently (in the last 12 months) come in contact with another person's blood. Lying to the nurses when they ask about this stuff could conceivably make you civilly and/or criminally liable for any morbidity or mortality resulting from a tainted blood donation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Karada, I think you miss the point here. Just because certain behavior is inadvisable does not mean Wikipedia should not state that people engage in it (if indeed they do) and describe it. Certainly, the encyclopedia should not ENDORSE it (but then again, neither should it endorse anything else--NPOV and all that), but simply stating that it happens and describing what it is hardly constitutes an endorsement. If we were to remove all content that describes inadvisable behavior, then we would also have to remove Collectivism, Fascism, Socialism, Christianity, Communism, Totalitarianism, Anarchism, Democracy, New England Patriots, Detroit Pistons, and Houston Astros. Kurt Weber 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we have evidence (a reputable source) that this is a 'common way' for people to test their disease status? Blood donor clinics in my neck of the woods (Canada) actively discourage the use of blood donation to test for STDs, and will put individuals in contact with (free) sexual health clinics who can do the testing. In most western countries, it's not difficult to have one's blood tested, and in many places such testing is available free of charge—no blood donation required.
I have little doubt that it is possible to locate poorly-educated web forum members who give bad advice like 'get a free blood test at a donor clinic', but I suspect that individuals who have some experience in risky behaviours have learned to do these things through the 'proper' channels. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Verifiability is important; it's also not the issue here. Karada did not remove the content on the basis that it is false or unverifiable; he removed it on the basis that it describes conduct that is inadvisable, which is not a valid reason for removing content. Kurt Weber 22:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I can't provide any information about verifiability as I know nothing about blood fetishism; I simply came across it after reading Selina Kyle's talk page, which was linked from Kelly Martin's RFC. Kurt Weber 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough—perhaps he did the right thing for the wrong reasons, then. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm moving all this to Talk:Blood fetish - hope no one minds but there's a similar discussion going on both at Karada's talk page and here, better to have it in one place methinks --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User subpages

It's never boring around here, eh? Anyway, I saw you'd commented on a deletion:

  • attempt to keep afd-deleted article in user space; user space is not a place to preserve deleted articles

I'm not defending the material here. However as a mere principle, shouldn't user subpages be places to develop, edit, or reform text? (Wikipedia:user pages) Cheers, -Will Beback 07:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Will. There was a recent discussion of this general topic on the mailing list. I see the issues as this:
  • it's generally accepted that attempts to recreate afd'd material can be deleted on sight
  • user space is not intended for articles, other than as a workspace
  • this appeared to me to be a clear example of user space being used solely as an attempt to preserve deleted content, rather than for any other purpose
Regards, -- Karada 13:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I'll read the mailing list archive. BTW, the intent was to encourage the editor to edit down the material into somethng usable, but it turned out to be a wasted effort so I'm just as happy that the attempt was deleted. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Dr Vicki Shiran

I changed the page. it is more informative now

[edit] Request: Ascending Kleene chain

This Request can be removed. It is no longer a red link in the entry on Kleene: I replaced it by the more important "Kleene fixpoint theorem" and defined the notion in the body there. I don't think it merits a separate entry since readers will always encounter it in the context of the theorem. Lambiam 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That was pretty mean of you

Please put them all back! Are you on DSL? MartrtinS 12:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what kind of diagram could those articles on transexual/transgender topics concievably need? The article intros seem clear and descriptive to me. -- Karada 12:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, well shemale and transwoman need some kind of diagram of what they are. Or a picture if it's clear. There's several articles in the category that all blur together like the same exact one with a different name. Are there medical diagrams that would be acceptable and pass the copyright tests? PS: Your talk page is really large, would you please archive the old ones? I do not have a fast connection. Like in the shemale talk page, is Kathoey a shemale or transwoman? And I think either shemale or transwoman said some of those types don't always have the operation, with the maybe shemale is just a term in pornography, so it's like which is which? Hence: Make a clear, scientific, medical diagram or get a good picture to show what the difference is. MartrtinS 12:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not just add an infobox, then? A penis/no penis diagram is not required. A male-to-female TS who has had SRS generally looks female externally, and most users can look up penis (or, for slightly less than half of them, look in their trousers) to see what one of those looks like. -- Karada 21:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a lot!!

Hey thanks for cleaning up the additions I did to the KED article! English isn't exactly my fortae, I'm a science/medicine geek!! Mike (T C) 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Deletion

Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks

your attacks have been removed from my page, and before making anymore I would consider that I have a long history of constructive NPOV edits, and you'd better make damned sure that you can say the same, before you start slinging personal insults around the way that you are--IworkforNASA 02:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't. Your first edit was today. -- Karada 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
And since then I've had a very long productive history of NPOV edits--IworkforNASA 02:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be for very small values of "very", then. -- Karada 02:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you clearly have some sort of personal vendetta against me

whatever it is, please just leave me alone--IworkforNASA 02:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you have my talk page watch listed or are you just hovering over me hitting refresh every 20 seconds waiting to see what I might have to say?--IworkforNASA 02:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Nasa, they are trying to bait you - don't fall for it. 66.98.130.224 05:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iworkfornasa

I know he can be...difficult, however, I do not think it was correct to delete a part of his user page because we disagree about what his opinions of us are. He hasn't made a personal attack on us, but only stated his opinion about us. --OrbitOne 09:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting summaries

Hi Karada, you reverted an article using the edit summary "winding things back to this prior version" [9]. In the future could you say to which revision you're reverting when it's not obvious? Cheers —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-22 00:27Z

I hadn't thought of that -- of course, it's not obvious. I'll try to paste that info into the comment in future. Thanks, -- Karada 09:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandy Snifter Gyros

Are called "Hemispherical Resonator Gyros". User:Ray Van De Walker

[edit] thank you

Thank you for your additions on all of the Grand Lodge Pages. However, List of Masonic Grand Lodges/Grand Lodge of Massachusetts should not be added to the category Grand Lodges page, as it is a notes and scratchpad article, not something appropriate for being directly linked. I do, however, realise that i had originally added the category grand lodge to it at the bottom, so, I understand why you added your category. Again, thanks!--Vidkun 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from 216.38.176.18

The problem with your statement is that it was Scaife who was harassing me! He called my comments nonsense, which is not the truth. How would you feel if someone insulted you like that? I like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, but i feel at times someone needs to fight back against the bullies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.38.176.18 (talk • contribs).

If you need my help with participating here, you'll first need to let me know what this dispute is about. -- Karada 20:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You may be frustrated, but blanking Scaife's user page was an inappropriate response. There are other avenues to deal with this -- you can go to mediation, for instance. Hbackman 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
ok, I'm a big enough person to apologize. I agree that it was inappropriate for me to do that. But Scaife's actions were even more inappropriate, because they were unprovoked. I'm wondering how he can be made to apologize by Wikipedia. He reverted my edits and called them nonsense, but made no good explanations. I don't know what that guy's problem is! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.38.176.18 (talk • contribs).
The problem was that you were making POV additions to articles. I simply reverted them, however your behavior is unwarranted and disruptive. Calling people bullies and liars is a violation of WP:NPA. In the future, when you are frustrated with a revert, contact that person on their talk page instead of engaging in vandalism. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAMthatIAM

Hi Karada, if you want to block the above indefinitely because of the name, you'll first have to undo my 12-hour block for disruption, because the shorter block takes precedence. [10] Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. -- Karada 18:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think IAMthatIAM would also have been blockable under the remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. Fred Bauder 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakina Shergold

Shakina Shergold has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who are you

Who are you to take my things off of wikipedia, the shark is a legitimate dance and you have no idea what you're talking about when you called it nonsense. You know what, you're nonsense how do you like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remotecontrol (talk • contribs).

Thank you for your comments, Remotecontrol. Unfortunately, the nature of your other, now deleted, edits caused me to doubt the validity of its contents. If you are serious about writing an article about this dance, please can you demonstrate a) its existence, and b) its notability, by citing verifiable, reputable third-party resources. Please also see WP:OR. -- Karada 00:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] On 1632 series

two edit conflicts later!

Why not pitch in and help write it, what would you call an 'entirely new literary mechanism ( see plus an historic collaboration (pending upgrade, probably complete soon)? Usual? Common? GMAB! It's easy to be a critic, put your time where your mouth is. re: {{advert}} See the talk:1632 series and some of the newer more polished accounts. Or better yet, get involved, right now I'm a one man band. OTOH, I've put up nearly 800 non-trivial mostly expansion edits in the last two weeks, so I'm not going to apologize. More than half were elsewhere than this series, on my normal patrols, so it advances as I can get the spare time.

Best regards, FrankB 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christ! You didn't even bother to document your objections.

  • Christ! You didn't even bother to document your objections on Talk:1632 series. How do you call yourself a qualified editor? Sheese! FrankB 00:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think I needed to; I thought the comment should have been self-explanatory. Fabartus, this is what I meant by reading like an advertisement: unfortunately, the following, taken from the article, reads like a publisher's blurb. Please read NPOV and WP:NOT, particularly the part about advocacy.
Quote:
1632 the lead novel in the complex series now numbering ten works in less than five years is a thought provoking, educational, and extremely successful upbeat science fiction alternate history novel originally available only as a paperback written by Eric Flint that has spawned worldwide interest and an almost cult-like following in less than four years. While initially not a best seller, it has far eclisped many such works in sustained sales as it continues in print and sales. Originally intended to be a single story, the novel is now the first of an open-ended series wherein there are at least five books under advanced contract beyond the seven books already published in print media (over half available in pricey hard cover editions), plus an additional three related ebooks that are likely to follow later in print, and the popularity of the series continues to grow by word of mouth. It is likely that the seven book series is establishing a new publishing record for sales and growth as is inferable from the simply astonishing rate of progression and development in the short time since the first book was released in November of 2000— seven books in print in five (four) years or less would be remarkable for half as many releases.
This explosive rate of growth is likely fueled by two extraordinary factors:
  1. Alternate history novels set in the past do not read like hard science fiction, but instead share settings with more in common to classics and mainline novels, thus appeal to a wider readership.
  2. Concieved as a stand-alone novel published about the same time Baen Books launched an author to fan forum (Baen's Bar), the buzz thereon among Sci-Fi fans, quickly lead to discussions of likely subsequent events. These in turn removed the burden upon Flint to research the likely outcome and limiting circumstances within the timeframe. This in turn lead to the author to invite other authors to 'play in his mileau', and most unusually, to help define it; The initial result is the novel 1633 co-written with best selling author David Weber and the anthology Ring of Fire of which all material within was written in the same time period and modified to be consistant across all the storylines within both. Thus each helped shape the other and matured the early development of the mileau.
End of quoted text.
An article on these books is perfectly at home in Wikipedia; however, an article phrased as advocacy is not. I understand that the contributors to this article are enthusiasts for these books, which is fine, but please read the section "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" in WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV for how to resolve these problems and help your article fit Wikipedia's style rules, and, in particular, Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
-- Karada 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Think User:Fabartus/1632series rework this (incomplete) version was overcoming that. When the text flows, I always give it a few days to settle before going back to edit. Any template that hits a reader in the face should be explained in the talk. Inparticular POV/NPOV allegations.
FrankB 01:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Forgot this one too: 1632 editorial board; point is these are early days. This series was wholely neglected and kids working went off to work honorverse articles. FrankB 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If you are in the process of revising the article to comply with the NPOV policy, that's fine by me. Let me know how you get on. Regards, -- Karada 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Always glad to please, just have another mess to tidy up before 1632 as my browser crashed with 6-7 unsaved large expansion edits (Grok Stacked edits? — check links from preview, see a problem, edit that, check something from that fork, ..., My REAL edit total would be much higher if I weren't so stubborn on minimizing saves. I'm trying to moderate that.) Not the first time I've lost hours of edits due to an arguement with the browsers. Sigh! I've got to finish getting dinner together. It's 9:18! Another wasted WikiHour! FrankB 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Please add a The destruction of the European Jews redirect for The Destruction of the European Jews. I've deleted the thing like five times now. Sheesh! TIA. El_C 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Which thing have you deleted five times? -- Karada 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That redirect, because the edit (correcting the orig. misspelling) wasn't registering for some reason (I knew it wasn't my cache because it wasn't linking anywhere). I have no idea what happned there, but it definitely was getting a bit much. Thank you for fixing it! El_C 01:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samois

Thanks for your contribution to the Samois article. I was wondering about the addition of links the "Lesbian Sex Mafia" and "Briar Rose". I've read in Wikipedia Manual of Style that there's a presumption against creating links, if those links are merely empty redlinks. The exception is when you intend to soon provide articles for those links. I was wondering if you were planning on doing this - otherwise, I was going to unlink those two phrases. Peter G Werner 01:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My understading is that that principle only applies to relative trivia: these organizations seem to me to be independently notable because of their place in the cultural history of the S/M subculture and its relationships to the feminist and lesbian movements. Significant topics should always be safe to make redlinks to: it's the way Wikipedia grows. -- Karada 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the hyper-encryption

I know diddly-do-squat about it.
brainybassist

Hey, the stuff you added, did you have previous knowledge of it?
Only what I read in the press at the time it was in the news: but I then downloaded, and then read, some bits of the papers cited: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ and Google Scholar are your friends. -- Karada 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder + Suggestion

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.
Comment Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HOX9

The article HOX9 that you created back in late December 2004, has been nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HOX9). Do you have any references that can be added or where was the information referenced from? I have had a look an can not find any, but genetics is not my strong point. Thank you.--blue520 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omura/BDORT Entry Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks, for my part, for your efforts on the Omura/BDORT entry. Fucyfre 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bounds green!

Thanks!

I am just going to reduce the size slightly.

Sorry about that - if I ever knew how to do it, I have forgotten!! :)

82.45.248.177 17:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude - you beat me to it - fabulous - thanks! 82.45.248.177 17:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tokachu

You just deleted this page, with the summary (removed HTML-commented goatse ASCII-art image: don't do that). Since it is a userpage, and the user in question added it, I see no reason to delete the page. Could you explain your deletion please? Thanks, Prodego talk 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a breach of WP:CIVIL. I've now blanked the page, and sprotected it. -- Karada 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Well that isn't a CSD, so wouldn't that need to go through MfD? Prodego talk 22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
User page freedom does not override basic Wikipedia norms. It's a breach of WP:CIVIL: hosting ASCII-art goatse images on your userpage to surprise people attempting to edit or review the page does not further the goals of the encyclopedia. I've now blanked the page, and sprotected it. Since all the previous revisions of the page had already been deleted, I had no problem deleting it, as I would any page that consisted of only a single concealed HTML comment containing ASCII-art shock images, and zero visible content. Come to think of it, {db-blanked}, "blanked by creator" (CSD G7 and CSD A1) probably applies here.
If you want to, you can put it up for undeletion. -- Karada 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes probably (not A1 but G7), and I do agree that it is offensive. If everyone followed the policy wikipedia would be ideal. Prodego talk 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transnistria

Hey, thanks for semi-protecting the page. Could you also check out the situation at Romanians? (same user) Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EnthusiastFRANCE sockpuppets

EF is now using sockpuppets to evade the block. SammyandScoubidou (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Could you semi-protect my user and talk pages? Paul Cyr 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Got another one: SamuelReichmann (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Can't someone with CheckUser abilities block the IP address? Paul Cyr 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Embraer aircraft

Hi, Any ideas how to get an admin to move/rename the categories for me? As im updating the links in the pages

Reedy Boy 11:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Speedy_renaming -- Karada 14:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Could you enable your email? User:Flameviper12 wants to protest his block. He's currently emailing me and I'm not prepared to unblock him myself or advocate on his behalf. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam, please see [11] for the reason for Flameviper12's indefblock. In particular, edit comments like
"O, I dunno...just imitating the inimitable style of my dear pal Willy. Wonder how long it'll take for me to be banninated. Anyway, I just realized I could move pages...it took AGES to move a page before now...so happy with my newfound power. I must abuse..."
do not inspire confidence in Flameviper12's willingness to be a good-faith editor. Note that this page-move cascade started by moving an article-space page (Goth cartooning), and occurred after Flameviper12 had been unblocked from two previous indefblocks by promising not to be a vandal any more. (See [12] for block log.) I can't see how Flameviper can legitimately complain about this: this comment shows that he clearly knew at the time that being "banninated" again was a likely consequence of misbehavior. -- Karada 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I fully endorse his indefinite block. I was a hair's breadth away from reblocking as soon as I unblocked him and he carried on being stupid, but didn't have enough cause. But it would still be a good idea to enable your email so blocked users can contact you -though if you're being spammed with password requests or have some other good reason for not enabling it, I apologise. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:J-tieupmaki-p.jpg)

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:J-tieupmaki-p.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 10:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

I'm very impressed by your editing, especially on bondage rope harness. I do hope you'll activate e-mailing and contact me sometime.--Taxwoman 13:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

To second that, please enable your email. All admins involved in blocking users should have an email address enabled so that they can be contacted by blockees. Again, if you've turned it off for a legimitate reason, I apologise - but I would like to know if that's the case. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NRA?

Why did you revert my edit about Michael Moore's criticisms of the NRA? He is a notable NRA critic and Bowling for Columbine is notable for it's stance against the NRA. 217.33.207.195 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose to delete Hierarchy (mathematics)

I put a prod on Hierarchy (mathematics). I see you created it, but haven't changed it in 6 months. I went there to fix the expert tag you put on the page, but although the term hierarchy is used (for example, arithmetical hierarchy), there is no generally known definition of an abstract hierarchy (distinct from just the notion of partial order) that I have ever seen. CMummert 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death March

Hello. Some two years ago, you asked a question on the talk page of Death March. I answered you there and promised to repeat it on you talk page, so that you could not miss it ;-) You asked: could we say that Napoleon's retreat from Moscow was a death march? That is to say, is the factor that make a march a death march that it is intended to kill those marching, or that they actully do die?

My answer: I think the factor is the intended killing to make it "Death March". But, in colloquial language, I would call the retreat a Death March. That wouldn't be correct, but it would give an instant image. Hope I could help you :-) --DocBrown 22:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Croker-Poole to be merged into Princess Salima Aga Khan

It has been suggested that the Sarah Croker-Poole article be merged into Princess Salima Aga Khan. As an editor of the article, you are invited to discuss. -- Aylahs (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Both are about the same person, so there only needs to be one article. -- Karada 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/r/User_talk%7EKarada_f55b.html"