From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

January 2006

Accusations that it is a "pedophile group"

You noted in your edit that there needs to be a section on accusations about NAMBLA being a pedophile group. I suppose you just did not realize that we already have that section: it's called "Criticisms."

By the way, don't you think it's at least slightly cartoonish to have an unsubstantiated accusation repeated in THREE different locations in an article? It really makes the article more of a hysterical rant than an intellectually reputable work. Corax 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment noted. --DanielCD 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. This is wikipedia after all. Nothing here is of life-and-death importance. Enjoy your vacation. Corax 01:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Henri Poincaré

I see you left a note on the talk page about protecting the article. Would you like me to do it? I have no expertise in physics, but I can stop in at the talk page and offer advice to the participants, if you think that would help. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, thanks for your concern. The problem has litle to do with physics, and everything with understanding what's meant with English text as well as how to report information in accordance with NPOV. I will consider it, but at the moment I'm more concerned with something else, see below. Harald88 15:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, the anonomus 69.22.98.162 has three times today removed my pov tag from the article

20:42 (added pov) -> 20:48 removed by anon 21.36 (e4macro added) -> 21:47 removed by anon 21:36 (e4macro added pov} -> remobved by anon What can one do? He asks for reasons why I dispute it, as though I haven't given him a multitude of reasons on the talk page. E4mmacro 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Tired light

The article's conclusions are phrased from a one-sided POV, and any attempt of myself to only mention a proposed physical mechanism that he dislikes, is met with him labeling the physicists who support the physics of it as "cranks", and next removing it as well as the journal references on that basis (or innumerous other excuses). A demand for mediation didn't progress, as the mediator thinks that he must understand the article's subject to understand what's going on. Any suggestion? Harald88 15:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

PS I now read about RfC: " For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours."

In this case, so far no third person has been actively involved in resolving the conduct problem. There are at the moment only edits from one person who is very knowledgable about cosmology as well as very opiniated, another person who declared to rely on the first one and who supports his decisions, and a third one who is knowledgable about physics and who attemps to add some information that he finds interesting but that the first one emphatically dislikes. IOW, there are not enough people involved to go for RfC; and I suppose that such happens rather often. Harald88 16:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

­:( Don't let the nutcases get you down, and be back soon. Have a good wikiholiday.. // paroxysm (n) 01:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Go to User:Beckjord's talk page

Go to User:Beckjord's Talk page. He tried to post a defense in his arbitration hearing, and he is currently blocked. Can you handle this for him ? Martial Law 07:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:BeckjornLettermanLetter.jpg

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nv8200p (talk • contribs) .

February 2006

Can

Can you ask the Arbitors handling User:Beckjord's case to have him placed in a "WP-Boot Camp" and a "WP-Mentorship" program ? Told him that this would be better than him being tossed. Martial Law 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He DID request mentorship in the past. I recomend that 4 or 8 mentors who understand paranormal matters, even have experienced them, yet follow Wikipedia protocol, be placed as mentors for him. MY short time here may disqualify me from this matter. Martial Law 03:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Editing protected pages. Cheers, -Will Beback 02:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I just got your second message a minute ago. I was doing RC patrol and accidently reverted it. Check my history. I was threwn off my the fact template. Sorry about that :(.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You might want to copy my monobook by the way, it has an auto AFD closer/lister/re-lister, an addition rollback button for vandalism, and Lupin's filter and recent IP edits.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dom. violence pic

This image cannot be used with its current sourcing. I cannot find that image on the Ansar Burney Trust website. The info on the site does not support the claim that Wikipedia can use it. My suggestion is to remove the image from the article. I am going to put a no source tag on it and see if the uploader can supply more information. -Nv8200p talk 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Daniel

I agree it's going to get axed. I am not much into sexual items, I find most of them degrading. I like to write controversial articles that invoke debate. I think it helps editors become more logical and more objective in their evaluations of articles. That's all. --DigitalPimpette 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Johan Elisson

Can you deal with User:Johan Elisson? He's accusing me of vandalism when he knows I was acting in good faith. Kingjeff 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not my talk page. It's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive. I put in current discussions, corrected the situation and he's still accusing me of vandalism. Did I not act out of good faith? Kingjeff 01:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shared concerns

Hello DanielCD. : ) I share your concerns. The solutions are not easy though. : ( Try to get rid of the category, again. Or carefully define and then enforce through patrol and kind reminders. Other ideas? --FloNight 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sixmilliondollar4.jpg

Hi Daniel. Unfortunately I don't have any ideas where this came from. The original uploader marked this as being from a promotional kit, but I don't think that's the case - he/she had uploaded a huge number of images and marked them all as promotional whether this was the case or not. Good luck trying to track down a source for it! CLW 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

DID and other controversies

Just checked p*****ilia and, ( as someone who's personal feelings run somewhere past "rabid" on the subject) I find myself deeply impressed by the degree of informative and balanced impartiality in the article as it stands today. It is a standard to aim for in DID, and, of course, I learned a new tag --Zeraeph 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project

Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Wikipedia:Votes_for_best_User_page

Best regards, Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

THanks

...for your recent comment at my talk page. Joey Q. McCartney 00:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tricycle

You're edit of the Tricycle page is not helpful. Tricycle simply should not be selling subscriptions thru Wikipedia. Any criticism of the magazine continually gets deleted. The hortendous fundraising history of the magazine is very much a part of the magazine's history, just as Enron's problems should be a part of its Wiki page, if it has one. Just as it is proper and necessary for Monica to be a part of Bill Clinton's page. (I am a great admirer of Clinton, but I would not want his record whitewashed.) Enkido 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are messaging me. All I did was remove the web address from the article body. --DanielCD 05:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As you full well know, I explained why I sent a message to you in Talk:Enkido before you deleted it. AND, as you full well know, I find your edit at best trivial if you are going to leave in the information on the Tricycle page that continues to serve as advertising, not information to readers of the page. -- Enkido 4 February 2006

Would you like to see Tricycle's Form 990s!? The documentation COMES FROM THE US GOVERNMENT~! It WAS online! It may still be at GuideStar.org. You can register and perhaps see it. OR, I can download copies and send them to whomever you like. -- Enkido 4 February 2006

yup yup

Yeah, I've had some stuff to do... yes look for me to return to it next week. Herostratus 10:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OMG I know, I saw that. It was all over the main mailing list, which I read sometimes. I posted a notice on the Alerts section of the project main page. I also moved the project into public space (from User:Herostatus/Pedophilia to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia) and categorized it to be listed in the Projects category. And, I'm finally paying a bit of attention to it. Yes the userbox thing is interesting -- apparently Jimbo's head exploded and he went berserk. Wow. Herostratus 16:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

article draft page

Thanks for the link. Sadly my Firefox won't load the page, so i'll leave the info where it is, for now. Thanks also for the tip on emailing; but i found out that it won't let me send email unless I have a valid addy, which I don't at this time. No big deal tho. Have a good night. JM Joey Q. McCartney 01:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Abrams

FYI, Jonathan Abrams was still alive when quoted in The Times of London in August 2005. -- Dragonfiend 06:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion from a newbie

Daniel:

I developed this equation using the math markup available on a Wiki Cities site:

In my opinion, it is much neater, much less florid, and most importantly smaller than it would be had it been developed with the math markup available on this Wikipedia site. I don't understand why the math markup here is different than the math markup on the Wiki Cities.

I would like to suggest to the proper administrator that the math markup used on the Wiki Ciities be made available here as well. Having smaller, neater equations means that longer equations can be displayed without having to "wrap" them or break them into two parts.

Could you tell me who I should contact to make my suggestion ... or better yet, could you do it for me? I am quite a newbie here and I want to be sure that the suggestion is done properly.
mbeychok 08:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me a bit of time this morning, as I am quite busy, but I will certainly be happy to help you. --DanielCD 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had already explored Help:Formulas. In fact, I have used the math markup to develop equations in this Wikipedia as well as equations in http://atmosphericdispersion.wikicities.com using the math markup available there. The difference is quite remarkable. The Wikicities math markup results in much smaller, much neater and much less florid equations.

mbeychok 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

see User_talk:DanielCD#Formulas, below SailorfromNH 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib image

Hi Daniel. Yes, that picture is truly horrific. However, I would imagine that it is in fact genuine. The American Civil Liberties Union have apparently been able to obtain previously-unreleased images from the U.S. government under a Freedom of Information request. This is currently getting a lot of media coverage here in Europe, but according to a BBC new article (be warned that the article linked to contains more similar images), the story isn't getting much coverage in the US, which would explain your suspicions if you live there! Regards, CLW 09:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed comments

[1] FloNight ^talk 13:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Plotinus

I looked in on it a few days ago and it seemed to me at that time quite a long ways away from agreement. But, it HAS been protected a long time so if you want to lift it, I won't quibble. Sometimes editing disputes can actually be helped by unprotection at the right time. Thanks for writing and being so courteous. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Carpal Tunnel Entry

Hi there. I am a bit of a novice in wikipedia, but I am a experienced orthopedic hand surgeon and am working on book on CTS. THe Carpal Tunnel Surgery Entry caught my attention, specifically the entry on surgical managment. Dr. Brown of houston has hijacked the surgery entry and placed information there that is more of an advertisement than it is objective and scientifically accurate. My corrections have been over ridden... likely by dr brown. I am indeed the one who put the comments in the discussion section that you noted. I would be happy to discuss this further.

Is there a mechanism in wiki to deal with this? Carpal tunnel is a big dollar industry and has attracted lots of commercial interest and treatment from everything from voodoo to spinal manipulation to obscure hand devices to traditional medical treatment ... so it is a touchy subject. I really had a goal of putting some solid non biased info in but have been unsucessful.

Wiki is such a cool concept, but greed deciept, self serving behavior and vandalism do seem to be problems. Any words of advice for this newbie? thanks,

roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerdoger (talk • contribs)

AID Procedure

Now it's my turn to seek your knowledge! I'm about to vote support on the Carpel Tunnel article, and that'll be the threshhold of 3. Once doing so, do I increase "needs 3 votes" to 6, and the date another week? Just checking with you before I do so, I didn't really see clear cut instructions on the WP:AID page. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The article now survives another week! Glad I could help, and thanks for clarifying the procedure for me :-D --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Burr

Re: this should be chisled in stone somewhere. I can only say one thing: Amen. --DanielCD 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Steelbeard1 has added the reference back in to the Aaron Burr article. It might help if you explained your reasoning to him, though he seems pretty single minded about it. Rklawton 04:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Cheney/Burr (see my talk page, [User:Rklawton]), I disagree as well. That is, I agree with you. Please note my reply in my Talk section. The question is, there's nothing I can do about it the article's defacement because because [User:Steelbeard1] keeps adding the reference back no matter what arguments several of us have provided against it. Is there anything you can do to convince him he's in the wrong? God knows I've tried.

Please let me know when a consensus emerges, DanielCD for the most minimal reference to the Cheney hunting accident in the Aaron Burr article. Burr is mentioned in both the Dick Cheney and the Dick Cheney hunting incident articles.

Read the talk page. All future comments will be moved to the article talk page. --DanielCD 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: CFD Debate about VPs who have shot someone. Where's the debate being held? I thought the matter was settled on the Aaron Burr talk page with your assistance. At any rate, I'll be happy to weigh in on your side (category removal), even though it was my idea to create the category in the first place (as an expedient compromise). Rklawton 01:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that he lost the CfD matter, it looks like User:savidan is back to editing the Hamilton-Burr duel article directly. His comments refer to the Talk page, but he made no additional notes within the talk page, and the consensus still remains to leave Cheney out of Hamilton-Burr. Sigh. Rklawton 19:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

More on carpal tunnel

Thanks for your reply... I still dont know exactly which direction to go... should I rewrite a section and just add it? I am also happy to give you any personal advice you need on your hand complaint as you have been so proactive with this cause. What is the method for individuals to have back and forth discussions? Do you post on eachothers pages? that seem disjointed. Do you exchange emails?

thanks,

Roger

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerdoger (talk • contribs)

Project

Right. OK, fine. I'm back on board. Yeah I notified all the members of the parent project Wikiproject:Sexuality and sexology per, duh, I should have done that first... but like Sam Spade I think most replies are gonna be Oh is that still around?

First thing is, should there be a rename per comments at the MfD... several people suggested that, but with all different names. I'm suggesting WikiProject Paraphilia on the Nomenclature page. Technically its not ideal but it might be better, for avoiding trolls and other nonsense.

Second thing, I've GOT to get with Joseph Q. on his work on Pedophilia. I have so many irons in the fire is all...

BTW, was the project userbox the one used for that wheel war thing? Whether or no... I picked the pic from public domain clipart, just 'cause I figure you need a pic for a userbox, and reqally what NPOV can you use for "pedophilia", so I just picked an abstract one... but it does look like a person, sort of, so maybe an even more abstract one is better:

I dunno. Homemade so not as nice. Anyway, I saw your notice re the userbox on the project page, is anything up or is that preventive or what? Herostratus 05:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Right.

Hi

Actually I pasted the whole LS article, then moved part of it someplace else, so those refs were just left over. But yeah, it probably will be nice to have them there.

Personally, I think the LS article should be deleted, based on WP:V. I was going to try to rename it to something about the Ukraine bust, but decided that the bust didn't deserve a whole article, at least not yet. Instead I just added a short, sourced paragraph about the bust (which no source ties to LS) to the article on CP.

TTYL. Joey Q. McCartney 19:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

thx!

Wow, thanks for the nice star. Hmmmm it's log-rolling, really... but I'll take it! I don't really deserve it yet, but I'll strive to be worthy of it. THX!!! Herostratus 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Petition

Hi, I was just wondering if you would like to sign this petition. It's a petition for getting the original voice actors back for the Sonic games (instead of the Sonic X voice actors). 71.105.13.135 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How is it spam? --anon

Oh, okay, I get it. But could I recommand that petition to others on my userpage (if I get it)? BTW, before you told me about the spam thing, I asked many others to sign the petition, so don't be alarmed to see it on other users' pages. --71.118.80.208 00:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Burr

If you think the category should be deleted, please participate in the CFD discussion. DO NOT unilaterally remove the category while the discussion is still going on. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, yes I do want it there. But that's not why I am asking you not to remove it. I am asking you not to remove it because we are in the process of determining by consensus as a community whether this category should exist. It is disruptive for single users to attempt to skirt that process by unilaterally removing the category. For one thing, people voting in the CFD may have no idea what they are voting on because entries are preemptively removed from the category. A more productive way for you to voice your opinion would be to participate in the CFD discussion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree. I was missing the aspect that people need to see what it is in action to make a judgement. I'll be careful not to make this mistake again in the future. --DanielCD 05:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You aren't the first who has done this and will probably not be the last. Thanks for understanding. ;) savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

User:savidan is busy now adding the cheney incident in the Hamilton-Burr duel article. I thought we had a consensus that this crap doesn't belong in an historical article that had no bearing on the current matter. We've got some significant discussions in the talk page, the Burr talk page, and in the category deletion page, but that seems to have had no impact on him. While I don't understand why he's doing this, I do know that it makes the article look a lot less scholarly (as per many pervious comments). Rklawton 16:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello DanielCD, I put Neoplatonism and Gnosticismone on PROD list. Veterans with disputed status. needs work. Maybe a merge or big re-write. But I think there is some encyclopedic information in it. And by gosh, it has a source that's not a spam link!! I'm going to look at the new page log.

Thank you for smoothing the way for me on the Pedophilia Project. I hope you stay involved. The topic is difficult so I can understand your reluctance to dwell on it. Much better to balance it with other stuff, here on WP and in real world. Occational silliness helps too!

Watching Sunday morning news shows. This just in! Shaq Attack is a new group started by Shaquille O'Neal to protect children on the internet. Will they end up on the 'pedia looking for evildoers? Need to follow this group to see there focus. Interesting to see if an article is written about them?

My stress level is fine today. Got to deal with a couple of sticky situations. Good frame of mind to do it. Thanks again for your help. If you see any more delete canidates send them my way. FloNight ^talk 17:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Plotinus (2)

Hey DanielCD - sorry about the extended silence: been away for the weekend. Glad to see Plotinus is unblocked, but to be honest I don't feel that it would be correct for me to edit the article. For one thing, I'm all too aware that a consensus still hasn't been reached (to be honest I'm also dubious that one can be reached), but there are other reasons.

To explain: I've already offered a few solutions to the edit war between myself and LoveMonkey on the discussion page that I hoped would allow all views to be expressed concerning the matter, but unfortunately all that's happened is that we've become further and further bogged down in needless detail. As a result, the solutions offered and discussions resulting have become lengthier and lengthier, and yet at the same time the opposing views have become simply more entrenched. In short, this episode has generated more heat than light.

At the end of the day, the article is supposed to be about Plotinus. As it stands, however, I feel that it's devolved into a scrap about Ennead 2.9: the extent of the discussion concerning what used to be (and rightfully is) a minor subsection about the founder of Neoplatonism is excessive; few encyclopedias would go into that much length about a single tract in the context of such a short article about its author (unless, that is, the article was on the text in question). Of course this is not to say that Wikipedia shouldn't do so; merely that I feel that to do so now would be to lend excessive weight to one aspect of Plotinus' thought (and, indeed, to an issue that has little to do with elucidating Plotinus himself or his work directly) without the same attention to others, and, more importantly, that it would be for the wrong reasons. Essentially I think that, if the main participants in discussion were honest (myself included), it would be admitted that Plotinus is no longer of central important in the debate; instead, everyone has become wrapped up in their own viewpoints, and the need to have it justified by inclusion in Wikiedia. As such, I don't think either of the two main participants in the recent discussion is really in the right frame of mind to edit the article with respect to this issue. Of course, I can only speak for myself - I don't know what LoveMonkey's position on this is, but I honestly feel that for me to edit the article would be just, well, wrong.

Sorry if you feel that I'm taking this way too seriously (I have a suspicion that I am), but I can't alter my feelings; so I've decided, at least for a while, to abstain from editing the article in question. I figure in a while I'll be able to come back with fresh eyes and hopefully help out in the right frame of mind. Cheers Visual Error 23:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)