User:Denni/User talk:Denni/2004 April Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Get your finger out of my nose.


. . Hi there. How are you today?

Contents

[edit] MY PERSONAL SANDBOX

Invited Guests Only
Please do not poop in the sand.


User:Dwindrim/Testaroonies!!! Weather lore

[edit] <:> ACHTUNG <:>

This here's my talk page.

I refactor at will.

I put things where I can find them.

If what you say is important, I keep it. If it's not, I don't.

I read everything here. I reply to the sane. I definitely reply if you've remembered to take your meds.

My IQ is 176 and I have read all of Voltaire in its original Norwegian. Sometimes I lie.

[edit] FROM OTHER TALK PAGES

[edit] THE DARK SIDE OF WIKI

There is no dark side of Wiki. Wiki is all dark.

[edit] ARCHIVES

2004 February Archive 2004 February - 2004 April 10 Archive


(Boldface mine)

[edit] Passive language

Dwindrim, I notice somebody is claiming that your management of this talk page "is considered vandalism". Kevin makes a claim in passive language without directing us to whose consideration he is citing. You (and I) obviously consider otherwise, so it is also accurate to say in that weak, passive voice that deleting comments from talk pages is not considered vandalism. For all that approach offers, it is accurate to say "the world is considered flat" if we don't offer mention of whose consideration we are advancing.

To the contrary of Kevin's generalized claim, users routinely manage their talk pages, though asking others not to add comments is usually an unproductive management approach. I think Alex756's talk page is the most readily available example of a managed talk page in my mind, though Angela is also a well-known user and administrator whose talk page demonstrates examples of her personal management style.

Archiving talk pages frequently is often a productive way of reducing clutter, and of course you are free to add whatever previous comments you wish from an archived page to a new page. Archiving at least lets people know you read their comments, and gets you out of a boring, stifling, constraining arm-wrestling match with people who you would most likey pay less attention than more. Talk page archives I have seen are most often noted on the relevant talk page such as [ [ User_talk:Dwindrim/archive1|Archive1 ] ]Archive1, but we would have little way of knowing without extensive research to what extent people silently create subpages. But in no case does it seem polite for another person to attempt to filibuster your talk page when you have proposed other venues for where there comments would be more welcome. I don't think you will find much voluntary compliance with an "invited guests only" policy, though, in a format where you are unable to post a strong doorman.

Kevin's approach did little to promote in my mind an interest in exploring the substance of whatever conflict he is attempting to explore by posting on your page, but his position would be stronger if he cited a policy on talk page management. Then you could add your edits to that policy page, demonstrating the lack of consensus on how talk pages should be managed. I recall seeing some ongoing discussion on the matter, but I don't recall seeing any durable concensus about it. If I were asked to vote, I would say the page history function provides adequate well-protected resources for reviewing talk-page history and that anything else is an unnecessary demand placed on charitable donors to Wikipedia. My opinion is that talk pages are primarily for public conversations between you and others, and not necessarily places for people to post comments about you. It would seem more appropriate to me that people post their opinions and views about other users on their own pages, and invite you to join the discussion taking place beyond your control than to attempt to imply policies that cannot be cited and that are the temporal product of an emerging consensus among an open group with revolving membership. Refactor 20:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you need to cite an example of an administrator removing comments from the administrators talk page, keep an eye on User_talk:Danny at this same time. Refactor 20:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:User_page, Wikipedia:Talk_page for information on purposes, standards, and conventions, regarding user talk pages and talk pages in general. Kevin Baas 20:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would seem clear to me who's wiping whose muddy feet on whose carpet. Denni 20:46, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

Denni deleted (active, mind you) discussion from a talk page, which is against wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:User_page, Wikipedia:Talk_page). I reinserted the deleted content in its proper historical place. I am now requesting arbitration. Kevin Baas 20:52, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Kevin has attempted to refactor his approach or to summarize whatever complaint it is he attempted to enter as discussion on this page. As far as I can tell, he is now interested in the narrow bureaucratic issue of how a user shall manage a talk page and hasn't made a lot of effort to explain to readers what is the original substance of the complaint. It does not present a clean set of facts that are likely to benefit the group by taking time for arbitration, nor does it suggest, merely on the value of prima facia evidence that Kevin has a strong interest in a particular encyclopedic subject. This could all change if Kevin would summarize a controversy over the content of an article, that would provide meaningul context for discussion about editorial styles and potential personality conflicts. There is a principle of law that says controversies regarding courtroom decorum are moot if they arise from an original case that has no standing in court. So it would be more productive for all concerned to help at least me understand the substance of the controversy, because I have little interest in bureaucratic squables unrelated to specific controversies, except perhaps in finding substance around which to make jokes about burueacrats.
Of course, while I am a bit more sympathetic to the home team on this page, Denni isn't doing much, in my opinion, to advance a reputation as a member of the fledgling association of advocates, either. An inability to cogently advocate one's own interests doesn't provide much evidence of an ability to cogently advocate for others. Carpet is replacable, but if the carpet is set afire, it threatens more than the rug. And clean carpet provides little refuge if Kevin succeeds in rallying a crowd around whatever undisclosed issue is at the heart of this exchange. And pulling the carpet out from under somebody's feet won't get them out of the party, it will just leave an unwelcome guest writhing angrily on the floor.
And I am not doing much to investigate the background of this dispute, so there is plenty of high-ground available for anyone who wants to move there. And unless I decide to act otherwise, I have no reputation or even a tracable edit history, so you might as well ignore me and get what you can from my freely offered advice. Might I suggest a tall glass of milk or a few chelated calcium tablets would help balance the inflamed personal chemistry apparently driving all concerned .... Refactor 21:16, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Refactor

I appreciate your comments and suggestions, and have done two things: archive the discussion prior to this point, and submit my resignation to the Association of Advocates. The only history germane to other than user talk here is that Mr. Bass attempted to post yet another article on material which has already been heavily debated on VfD, and in which discussion he exhibited an appalling lack of self-control. My suggestion on VfD was that, in my words, he was "attempting to hose us again." I regret the use of such language, and will carry some learning from this experience. This led to some rancorous discussion on our talk pages, at which point I suggested, since it was leading nowhere, we ought just drop it. Mr. Bass was not so inclined, and when I reorganized (but did not alter the text of) my talk page, he undertook systematic reversion of it. I regret I did not get to my own defense sooner - I prefer to handle things on my own where I can, and moreover, was not sure where to take this discussion, given that User:Refactor is a blank page. Wiki is still bigger than my head... Denni 21:53, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt at apology for your personal attack, but please try again. I think you can do better than that. This time, do not make skewed allegations, and secondly, stay on topic. One sentence should be sufficient. (BTW, I don't know what to make of the fact that User:Refactor (& User talk:Refactor is a blank page, either.) Kevin Baas 22:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
How considerate of you to accept an apology addressed to Wiki for my POV analysis of yet another...hmmm... I make no apology whatsoever to you, sir. I have seen your foul mouth in action on others' talk pages, and the one sentence which comes to mind as a response to your request would merely hurtle me into your own linguistic depths. As I have suggested before, since we have no common point of agreement, let us cease discussion entirely except where such discussion may take place within an article's talk page. Since I have nothing to say to you here, and you have nothing I have any interest in hearing, I will assume that any further posts here are intended exclusively for the purpose of trolling, and will treat them accordingly. Have a pleasant day. Denni 22:40, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)
Well, I hope I was some help. Wiki is a bit bigger than my head too, but I still have the benefit of far more links in my neural structure than Wikipedia has in its database. And that is not even counting the chemical linkages only recently discovered in the glial cells - the other 90 percent of the brain. They rely heavily on ATP and calcium, so when the going gets tough, the tough go get milk, or do something to help their mitochondria convert ADP into ATP. I'm not a big advocate of apologies. I think they diminish understanding of interests that got lost in some poor communications. I think they often serve as an alternative to actually trying another approach. But that is just me. In the last post here, Kevin was still trying to control your behavior rather than changing his own approach in hopes of getting a different reaction from you. Refactor's user page is blank in hopes that each of you would prefer to work it out on your own, but I hope having a fan cheering for you each to find a way to work it out can at least result in some original plays instead of repetition of the same routines. Best of luck to both of ya. And as for trolling, some 1970 years ago today, one Hebrew king supposedly woke from the dead and went back to teaching his friends how to troll for the souls of men, so it's not neccessarily a bad thing.Refactor 07:52, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Look, I have no intention of being hostile, and I have not, as far as I can see, been hostile or uncivil. I do not feel that I have been treated with the same respect.
In regards to apology, I would like to clear something up that has apparently been misconstrued: I never accepted any apology, nor did Dwindrim give one. It seems that he does not feel that there is anything wrong with his actions or behavior. Perhaps we function under a different system of mores. In this case, I think it would be beneficial to the future understanding of both parties to reconcile these differences through other sources. Respecting this, I have posted an entry on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Kevin Baas 08:10, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you resigning from AMA?

Denni, I am wondering why you think that advocates cannot get into disputes or that the fact that you are in a dispute means you cannot help anyone else with their disputes? Advocates are human and do not have to be people who do not take stands or cannot disagree with the behaviours of others. If you are involved in a dispute yourself you may not want to take on helping another at the same time, but being involved in a dispute may give you more insight into the dispute resolution process that you realize. It is that knowledge and experience that may be the most important thing you can offer to others in your work as an advocate. BTW have you thought about presenting the issues above to a mediator for review? Kevin Baas seems stuck on the idea of going straight to arbitration. Is he afraid of mediation? — © Alex756 16:38, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • It is that I let my ego get in the way. I was all prepared for a lovely flame war with Mr. Baas, and went so far as to light the kindling before realizing what it would do to the work I have done with Wiki. I am concerned that in the heat of helping someone else, I would allow myself to be less than neutral. I would, of course, hope that not to be the case, and am asking if there is any precedent for this situation. Thanks kindly. Denni 19:16, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

Yes, Denni, I am all for mediation. I had went to arbitration simply because I did not know the proper process. Thanks. Kevin Baas 22:33, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your first questions: (a) mediation: I don't understand the question. (b) I seek:

  1. A formal apology from you, for your personal attacks on vfd-electrodynamics and our user talk pages, as well as your uncivility and generally rude behavior.
  2. Gaurauntee that you will refrain from this in the future, with other users as well as me.
  3. Gaurauntee that you will use the talk pages appropriately, and respect other people's freedom of speech and right to equal representation.
  4. Respecting this, a formal apology for burying my comments in the upper section of the talk page, which is historically misleading and contradicts:
    1. the purposes of refactoring a page as stated by the guidelines and policies, and
    2. the general guidleine of talk pages proceeding vertically, as stated by the guidelines and policies.
  5. A general acknowledgement, given the above, of your violation of the principle of the wikipedian community in regards to treating members of the community with respect and decency, and
  6. A gaurauntee that you will refrain from such behavior in the future.
(William M. Connolley 08:35, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)) Don't give KB anything until he learns how to spell guarantee :-) And promises to stop telling you what to do with your own talk page.
I'll be happy to give Kev the time of day (it's 12h45 now), but that's about it. For all this high-sounding talk of respect and decency, ol' Kev must have forgotten the remarks either he or someone else named Kevin Baas made when someone actually asked for sources for his, um, uh, you know. I do believe the phrase "and you can put (these) where the sun doesn't shine", or something functionally equivalent, was employed. The talk pages are gone with the article which was deleted, or I'd be happy to copy the comments here for further discussion. I do, however, like the idea of talk pages proceeding vertically. I tried a horizontal arrangement once; it was a supreme pain. Denni 19:28, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)
Please stay on topic, Denni. And regarding proceeding vertically, your joke is funny. What makes it funny? It is funny because it shows how dysfunctional that interpretation of the phrase "proceeding vertically" is with regard to talk pages. Kevin Baas 20:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My page, I choose the topics. Your page, you choose the topics. I choose to talk about how it is some people who claim to have high IQs demonstrate the social quotient of australopithecus africanus when it comes to their interactions with other people, and I apologize to Lucy for placing her in such company. And what the heck is this with attempting to explain to me why my own joke is funny? Are you serious? Did you really think I made this joke by accident? Are you for real? Denni 20:48, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)
Regarding topics, it's not about pages, it's about conversations and communication. If you can't stay focused on a topic in a discussion, it becomes more difficult to communicate information besides emotion. Also, the issues that are brought up fail to be addressed - another hindrance of communication. This is what I meant by staying on topic - I was concerned about communication being compromised. Kevin Baas 16:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I could just run a spell-check if I wish. But I'm not going to waste my time. I trust that people are concerened with what I say rather than such trivial matters. I'm not telling anyone what to do with "their" talk page. I am telling them what the wikipedia policies and guidelines tell them not to do, and what a decent respect for other human beings entails. I have every right to do this, and although I disagree with how William has misconstrued things here, I will defend his right to say what he has said with my life. Kevin Baas 16:41, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your second questions:

(a)I seek a clearer understand of the degree of sanctity and propriety of a person's voice.

(b)Your wishes are solely your own jurisdiction, regardless of what others people may think of you for having them. i acknowledge your wishes. I reserve the right to think poorly of you for not only having but stating such counter-productive wishes. I also reserve the right to communicate freely with whomever I so choose, respecting, ofcourse, their person, and treating them with decency, with the intention of exchanging information for mutual benefit. Kevin Baas 01:16, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] IYD

Whatsoever they may be

[edit] Admin Nomination

Hello, I would appreciate your help by earning your vote as an admin. I have been here about 5 months now and have been nominated. I have made many contributions and have improved on my editing and behavior. I take this seriously, that is why I have gotten into it with Anthony so much. You can look at my user page yourself and see my contribtions. I would appreciate a vote in the yes column if you agree. Again, thanks for your time and help. ChrisDJackson 02:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AMA co-ordinator election is now on

You may now vote for user:Ed_Poor or user:Alex756 in the first ever AMA co-ordinator election. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure for more details.

AMA members who wish to abstain from voting must also e-mail wikipedia_ama_voting@yahoo.co.uk with notice of that intent.

To clarify anything before voting, ask user_talk:Zanimum or user_talk:Jwrosenzweig on their talk pages.

AMA members have until April 30, at 11:00:00 EST to vote. -- user:zanimum

Your vote has been counted. Jwrosenzweig 15:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have posted a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. You should go to the page and fill in your part. Kevin Baas 01:48, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

Hello. You agreed to mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Do you have any prefernece as to mediator? There is a list of current mediators at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. I'm sorry for any delay in responding to your request. Regards -- sannse (talk) 15:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

If Angela would be willing, I would be very pleased to have her handle this. If she cannot, then I have no other specific preference. Thanks. Denni 18:18, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Denni. I will just confirm Kevin's choice is for both of his current requests and will get back to you shortly -- sannse (talk) 18:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It seems there is general agreement on Angela as a possible mediator. I will talk to her and hopefully she will contact you shortly. -- sannse (talk) 20:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've been assigned as the mediator between you and Kevin. Do you have any preference as to how the mediation takes place? I would prefer it be done by email, but you also have the option of using a page on Wikipedia, a page on meta:, the mediation boards or the #mediation.wikipedia IRC channel. The request for mediation has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 6. Before the mediation starts, please can you let me know that you agree to abide by the conditions laid out in Wikipedia:Confidentiality during mediation. Thanks. Angela. 01:08, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I have sent you an email regarding your aims for the mediation. Angela. 18:43, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Korova Milk Bar and other copyright violations

Hi. In regards to your posting of Korova Milk Bar on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, you did right to add a copyvio notice and list the violation. Do not just remove copyright text from the article. It must be deleted to avoid leaving it in page history. If you want to recreate teh article before it is deleted, follow the directions and allow copyright violations to be deleted. For Korova Milk Bar, you would have recreated a new article at Korova Milk Bar/Temp until the violation is deleted. (It has now been deleted and you can recreate directly at: Korova Milk Bar - Tεxτurε 15:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WikiTrans access

Likely an old question, but I would like to be able to seamlessly link content from Wikipedia to Wikibooks/ Wiktionary/ Wikever. Is there a simple technique, or do I have to http code them. Also, are there easy links to the other Wiki pages, and if so, where are they located? Thanks, anyone. Denni 03:54, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

I can't find a page explaining these, though there was a tip of the day related to interwiki links. Wikibooks and Wiktionary can be linked to via shortcuts like [[wikibooks:page title]] and [[wiktionary:page title]]. There isn't a shortcut for wikisource yet. Angela. 07:40, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
How about Wikiquotes?कुक्कुरोवाच
No, there doesn't seem to be one for Wikiquote yet either. Angela. 13:57, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Clinical depression: copyright issues

Denni, you have added some material which seems to be from the Canadian Mental Health Association into clinical depression: has this material been licenced to Wikipedia under the GFDL by the Canadian Mental Health Association? If not, we can't use it: we cannot, for example, use material given to Wikipedia for Wikipedia use alone; only full GFDL grant from the copyright owner or public domain are acceptable. See Wikipedia:Copyright for the full details on this. Regards, The Anome 22:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)