User talk:20-dude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, I'm 20-dude. I have considerable experience with wikis in general and I actually have my own. I'm currently more commited to other wiki's and therefore lack time to make significant contributions to wikipedia. However, as frequent reader of this wonderful site, I promise that if I notice mistakes or missing data, info or links, I'll make productive edits.

The purpose of this account is to meet contacts that could help me with some of my other projects. I'm particularly interested in Wikipedia's "problem users": disruptive editors, vandals, etc. but specially in the ones with tendencies to add "too much unencyclopedic information". I think I can succesfully teach them how to become productive editors.

I'm also looking to meet editors intered in pop-culture (tv, movies, music, sports, fashin, technology, etc), religion or kid's stuff or children education.


--20-dude 10:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My crap

Hello. I found your sandbox in Category:WikiProjects, and because I suppose you don't intend that page to be part of that category I commented out the categorising line in your crapsandbox. Nothing really problematic, but it's one of the quirks that can occur when you copy stuff around the wiki. -- StevenDH (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes

Nice job saving information. One thing you should probably be aware of is that text copied from WP needs to be kept under the GFDL, and there needs to be a way for people to find the edit history so the writers (or their ips) can be credited. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CHAFLÓN OLMOS, Carlos.

Can you provide a copy of this source, or let us know where we can consult one? I'd like to see what it says about the items for which you cite it. I can't determine even what it is, and can find no online mention of it in book search sites, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] help

{{help}} The wikipedian above, Dicklyion, doesn't stop erasing entire sections of List of works designed with golden ratio. We both want the article to be perfectly sourced, actually I asked for his help first for that reason. He doens't help providing some, and only eliminates mindlessly, even when I'm sure he knows there is a great deal of sources he could be bringing instead. The stuff he is ereasing would be like erasing "Newton enunciated the gravity law[citation needed]. just because, although already pointed, the line doesn't cite a source yet.

He was the most insistive in the section that made less sense to erase, it was sourced before he started his erasings, once I proved that (to my surprise) not only other internet pages use the source, but also other wikipedia related articles, he moved on to other irrational erasings. As you can see in his talk page, I'm not the only one that disagrees with his procedures. He might already broken 3RR, but I'm not sure.

Even though I explained myself I was the first to notice I didn't find the correct template for the copyright license of those scans of part of a book page (2 are big parts of the pages, and one is less than half). The source is in Spanish, but acording to WP:SOURCE I know it is ok, because it's mostly for graphic self expalining material--20-dude (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a dispute. Would you like to try WP:ANI or dispute resolution? BoL (Talk) 04:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frederik Macody Lund

A translation of Frederik Macody Lund is now amongst us. It might need a cleanup. Have a nice evening. --Orland (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I cleaned it up a bit, but some words are still uncertain; I changed Fredrik to Frederick, since that's the only spelling I can find associated with Julius, and it's the more common one I find in books. My friend in Oslo writes: "Macody Lund was from Farsund, close to my home town. My parents grew in Farsund and my father talked a lot about this guy. Husan is a famous building Macody Lund used to live in. Not sure, but maybe he build part of it as well. I will try to get hold of that book." Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, and yes. It should have been Frederik all along. My wrong. --Orland (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now we're talking!!!--20-dude (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Proportions of the Parthenon.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Proportions of the Parthenon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Notre Dame of Paris' regulator lines.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Notre Dame of Paris' regulator lines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Laon Cathedral's regulator lines.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Laon Cathedral's regulator lines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright help

{{help}} What's with the above posts. In which way are those images not ok. I'm not getting it, how is that any worst than the millions of screenshots in Wikipedia? I'm just using a portion, I'm specifiying source, I think the copyright tag is in order and are basic for the article in which they're used, what can I be possibly missing?? All of those are scans that has to be way better than the average taken-from-some-site-X pictures all over wikipedia. --20-dude (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that these images could be argued to be fair use in discussing the book or the author, but not for discussion of the object depicted. If this doesn't help, I suggest you ask the user who tagged them or seek wider input at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Bovlb (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Dear Dude: I have tried to be patient with you and to give you guidance. You appear to have been influenced by unreliable writings on the golden ratio, which you accept uncritically as fact, and which you do not balance by consulting more reliable sources that have been pointed out to you. The idea that ancient Egyptians used the golden ratio in their designs is nonsense: it is impossible, given the limits of their mathematical knowledge at that time. Your behavior on Wikipedia, although well intended, is disruptive, both in your sloppy, unsourced, and factually inaccurate edits and in your posts on Talk pages. It is one thing to write in the expectation that others will improve or expand on what you contribute. It is quite another to make messes, continually, so that others have to clean up after you. You have twice uploaded copyrighted material without an adequate justification, which exposes Wikipedia Foundation to potential legal liability. I have asked you to modify your behavior and to learn Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, but you have not. While I do not condone Dicklyon's tone or manner (and have him so), that does not justify your attacks or your rambling rantings. You invited the help of Wikipedians with more expertise on the golden ratio, you are getting that help, but you reject its results. If nothing else, consider the likelihood that you are correct and that those with more knowledge of the subject are wrong. While I would welcome future contributions by you if you will abide by this community's standards, you might be more comfortable participating in other wikis that have less rigorous standards. If your disruptive behavior continues, I will invoke appropriate procedures within the Wikipedia community to limit your disruption. I would rather not have to do that. Finell (Talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't condone my behavior either. But when my patience is pushed to the limit, shit happens. I tried to help in various ways, including tough love, fixing what could be fixed and removing what was intolerable. But my annoyance came through as abrasiveness; I hate it when that happens. Dude, if you want to make progress in a good direction, admit that Pile is a flaky source and take all that stuff out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WARNING

[To Finell:]

You gave me constructive criticism, I'll do the same for you:

  • a. What makes you talk with such tone? it kinda sounds like authoritarian arrogance. Nobody likes that either. I suggest you relax, be careful and take it easy. We're supposed to be a community, never forget that.
  • b. I looked for help, especially in those who oppose my view, and results speak for themselves. It worked.
  • c. If you think, mathematics is indispensable for applying golden proportion in aesthetics; you need to learn beyond that. As long as it is man made (or even nature made) it will NEVER get be phi. Divine proportion is, as its name indicates, an ideal of perfection. It is weird to you I know, but art approaches phi like that: A perfect square, a string, a nail, marker and perhaps a hammer is all an artist needs to IMITATE phi. The best approach to GR is the Parthenon: it features the proportion in the global dimensions, in the inner spaces, and in the thickness of the structure.
  • d. I'm fine with Dicklyon, my appreciation of his work and perspective is real.
  • e. Your comments are more than welcomed and your sort of constructive criticism is fine, but never forget, it's very easy to speak when you don't create.
  • f. Wikipedia is all about having articles that are not necesarely complete, but are pushed to appear so. I explained from the beginning I was trying to make a "page under construction", in which tags could indicate so. I the end, I gave up and continue to develop the article with your systems.
  • g. Check the editorial houses and the curriculum of my sources. You come from the math angle; most of my quotes are from historians, architects and designers (and then again, even some engineers).
  • h. You can't blame me about the images as if it were a crime. Actually, according to me, I was giving the author even more credit by not modifying to much the context of the images. And I'm not sure you're even right on that one. What's a fourth of a page compared to a full screenshot, which are so welcomed in WP articles there is a copyright tag for them.
  • i. I don't mind that much, but you come off as rude and have your own flaws. You are also always the first to point fingers. I'm just chatty, and sort of opinionated, nobody is disrupting, not even rude. The evolution of the article speaks for itself, it's not mine or dicklyon's, is the best of both.
  • j. C'mon, the Bangkok thing was priceless. It's moronic, but it has a honest mistake, I kept reading a column as if it were an internet page, haha.
  • k. everybody can make warnings. Please, keep them for when it's worth.
  • l. I was planning on keep going until I finish the alphabet, but when I actually contemplated repeating the same comments with different letter I decided to give it a rest.
  • m. Take care. Bye, now.

--20-dude (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dude: YOU were the first one to issue a "warning" here, to Dicklyon, and to threaten him with 3RR because he has to clean up your nonsense. In the same discussion, you had just before begun a long equation with "φ = φ2 + φ3", which is Wikipedia:Patent nonsense; it is equivalent to saying that 2 = 4 + 8. We should not have to tutor you on Wikipedia's copyright policies; they are clear, and you claim to have read them. So stop uploading copyrighted material without a sufficient fair use rationale. Finally, this is just a small point, but I have repeatedly asked you to respond on your Talk page to the messages that I leave here, to preserve the continuity of the discussion, but you refuse even that simple request. I moved the discussion back here, so it is altogether. Finell (Talk) 17:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, it appears that you are sometimes making edits or posting to Talk pages without signing in, so only your IP address shows. Are you? Why? Finell (Talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Dear Dude (in reply to your last message on my Talk page): There are many times when I have had to dine on my words, but not this time. As you have been told repeatedly, by common convention and as used on Wikipedia, φ ≈ 1.618. So, using the conventional notation, φ ≠ φ2 + φ3. However, the math to which you are referring (notation aside) is interesting and is definitely phi-related; it is discussed in in Golden ratio and in a related article.
Are you the anon who twice reversed all the notation in Golden ratio? When I saw those edits, I thought that you might have made them because you have used this reversed notation yourself. However, I did not think that you would edit without being logged in (most registered Wikipedians don't do that, although anyone can make a mistake). I asked the question about your not being logged in because I saw an anon post on a Talk page that, from the context of the conversation, had to be yours. Finell (Talk) 08:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Proportions_of_the_Parthenon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Proportions_of_the_Parthenon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Proportions of the Vitruvian man.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Proportions of the Vitruvian man.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Proportions of the Vitruvian man.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Proportions of the Vitruvian man.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please answer

I would appreciate an answer to this question, which I asked above: Are you the anon who twice reversed all the notation in Golden ratio? Thank you. Finell (Talk) 21:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

I was asking specifically about the edits from IP 168.103.222.216 on March 12 and 13, 2008, as reflected in the article's revision history. Finell (Talk) 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
Nah. but please, by all means, DON'T let me know what was that about. (No ofense, but this issue has becomed so tiresome, I couldn't care less)--20-dude (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand "Nah. but please, by all means, DON'T let me know what was that about." Could you please clarify what you mean? Thanks. Finell (Talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
It was not me and your contant watching over my every step was cute at first(actually it was creepy-weird, but let's just leave it a cute), but it is really getting old and I don't enjoy this kind of nonsense, waist of time accusations. It was not me and you seriously need to relax. I don't wan't to know about the results of your inquisitions either. The previous message was clear and yet you bothered me again.--20-dude (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not watching you and have not accused you of anything. I asked a simple question and, until your last post, did not get a straight answer. Now you have answered, and I accept your answer. If, when I first asked the question under #WARNING_2, you had simply answered instead of ignoring my question, that would have been the end of it. Likewise, if you had simply said No the first or second time I asked you under this heading, that would have been the end of it. "Nah. but please, by all means, DON'T let me know what was that about" is hardly clear. Fini. Finell (Talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
Yes, for slow people I guess that could be unclear. You're right. :)--20-dude (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to template substitution

I completely agree with you on Wikipedia:Template_substitution. Maybe you could fill in a quick example? I still don't know how it works. OptimistBen (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please be civil

Dude, when other editors are doing their best to clean up your mess, when your sources and what they say are unclear and badly expressed, they may make mistakes that only you have the source info to recognize and corrent. That is not a reason for you to write abusive edit summaries. Just thank them for their effort and politely offer the correction. It's called collaboration. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kepler triangle

It wasn't clear what you point was about "check the angles" in the Kepler triangle. Perhaps you are trying to measure the 2D projection of the triangle in the solid? Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final warning for incivility

Re your recent comments on Talk:Root rectangle: Dude, you need to re-read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please keep your comments focused on the article content, and avoid making disparaging remarks about other editors; consider this a final warning, as I will request a block if you do it again. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Not interested

Dude, I removed your long thing from my talk page, mostly without reading it. It's probably good that you wrote it, so you could think it over yourself. But you demand too much attention, and I'm not that interested. I'd rather focus on article content than on getting involved in an interpersonal squabble. Get over it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Zeising

Dude, please clean up after yourself on your new article Adolf Zeising. You need a references section, primarily. And a source for the translation, especially since it contains the agrammatical hyphenated compound noun (which is what is done in German, not English). Add an appropriate stub tag, category, a bit of biographical info, which should be easy to find if he's notable, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He is notable, don't ebarrass yourself by doubting it, because I know you know who the guy is. Zeising is responsible for bringing back phi in the XIX century, doing exhaustive studies of it's precense in nature and works in which the author din't used it on purpose (which is anoying).

In a personal not relevant way, I also consider his work somewhat BS, because I care little for GR in terms of aestethics and perception, even though there is some conection. If you reflect on my contributions, I tend to explore acient works produced bfore the knowledge of phi, because they led to the knowledge of phi. I'm plenty aware Egyptians didn't use aKepler trinagle because they wanted it to have "divine proportion" I'm more concerned apud how did they get to produce (in a probbably accidental but geometrical way) a kepler triangle. I also don't like Zeising work because there are other important rectangles, like root-2, 3 and 5. Root-5 was used a lot by the Mayans, root-2 is almost as big as phi, and root 3 is in the hexagon.

I also don't believe it is a formula to universal beauty, I think it's all the "outlet effect". When you se an autlet it's normal to asociate it with a human face (two eyes and an open mouth), the same way we see so many pentagrams and references to phi in nature that we asociate it with art works that have it, it is as simple as that. Same thing with the other rectangles and types of proportion.--20-dude (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)