User talk:DenisDiderot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, DenisDiderot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Further helpful pages

Contents

[edit] allabout

hi- kudos for tracking down the identity of allabout2006 and the connection between his site and rush brands. this guy is incredibly obnoxious and i've been barely able to keep him in check without breaking the 3rr. --Heah talk 14:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos again. its amazing what people try to get away with. --Heah talk 15:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your encouragement! --DenisDiderot 16:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
hi- he's back. if you could help keep an eye on the article that would be great. he's been posting this rambling nonsense that doesn't even parse . . . --Heah talk 15:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do so. --DenisDiderot 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

i have filed an RfC concerning the behavior of User:Allabout2006 and his socks which can be found here. I was hoping you would co-certify by adding your name here as having tried to solve the dispute because of your constant presence and dialogue on the talk page. --Heah talk 04:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that HoneyBot29 is another sock puppet of his (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AIDS_reappraisal&diff=50340421&oldid=49957901) Amcfreely 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for correcting the incomplete revert. --DenisDiderot 04:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siegwart-Horst Günther

This looks like a rather tendentious book whose aim isn't to examine the effects of DU ammunition but to convince people that there is a problem with it. Out article on Depleted uranium on the contrary doesn't aim to convince people about the problems with DU, it merely wants to outline its effects.

The book doesn't really pass the mark set in WP:RS. This has (I think) been your fourth revert. If you want this reference kept please discuss on the talk page. Dr Zak 15:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"This looks like a rather tendentious book", "doesn't really pass the mark" -- You should prove your accusations first. Feelings and impressions are irrelevant in a scientific discussion and cannot serve as a substitute for a proof. This attributes to your feelings as well. Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther was the first scientist who did an investigation on the consequences of the bombardment with depleted uranium in Iraq. If you want to outline the effects of this weapon, you should know about the results he found. --DenisDiderot 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poppers

Hi there, it doesn't really help to call a newbie's edits "vandalism", and it has been remarked before that Duesberg's views (a viewpoint that you echo) aren't accepted by mainstream scientists. Please remember WP:BITE and WP:N Dr Zak 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

201.224.70.230 is not a newbie. He's yet another sockpuppet of Allabout2006.--DenisDiderot 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Was that the pro-Poppers spammer from earlier this year? If so, I disagree. Neither User:201.224.70.230 nor User:Lt Dan have spammed, they have merely done some editing that you disagree with. Dr Zak 12:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

Hi, I again reverted your changes out of the article. That is not encyclopedic, and that concern should be taken up at the talk page, but not within the article. Cheers, NSLE (T+C) at 10:15 UTC (2006-05-22)

What's your definition of encyclopedic? Check out the paragraph above mine -- why do you consider it "encyclopedic"? In my view, Wikipedia is abused for a witch hunt against Mr Brandt on that page. --DenisDiderot 10:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedic = something you would find in an encycopedia. That paragraph is not something you would find in an encyclopedia (self-references to Wikipedia are not allowed). NSLE (T+C) at 10:23 UTC (2006-05-22)

[edit] Brandt

Hi Denis, you would need to find a source for that edit. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Audiatur et altera pars is a general principle of fair play for all discussions. If one doesn't adhere to it, one is starting a witch hunt. What kind of citation do you mean? I linked to the article of that principle and the fact that Brandt was banned is already mentioned above. Do you refer to characterizing Brandt's being a public person as involuntary? Isn't that obvious from the paragraph above mine? --DenisDiderot 10:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not starting anything; I'm not editing the article. Please discuss it with the editors on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean you particularly and changed the wording from "you" to "one" above. I appealed to you because you are an experienced editor and administrator here. --DenisDiderot 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt Edits 11/18/06

Denis - you recently added a paragraph to the article stating that Brandt's blocking is a violation of the principle Audiatur et altera pars as mentioned in the previous section of this page. The problem with your addition- it isn't encyclopedic, but rather a statement of an opinion ("No person should be..." etc.) Such opinions are appropriate for a talk page, but blatantly stating an opinion in an article is not acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Perhaps, if you wish to include a similar statement in the article, it could be worked in as part of an encyclopedic entry. However, you would have to find a source outside of Wikipedia for said entry.

It seems, judging by prior entries on this talk page, that you either don't fully understand what is and isn't acceptable in a Wikipedia article, or don't care. I could be wrong in this regard and if so I apologize; I am not writing this with the intention of making an accusation. However, I wish to clear up any confusion you might have as to the reason for this edit's continued reversion and, if possible, make it easier for you to include the information you wish to convey without damaging the article or its credibility, and without violating Wikipedia policy. Please look over such entries as Wikipedia: NPOV and Wikipedia: POINT before editing the Daniel Brandt article again.

It should be mentioned that I did not read the rest of the article before reverting your edit; I reverted strictly based on the wording and content of your addition to the page, and will now be reviewing the rest of the article and making similar comments and revisions to other people and sections as necessary. Here's hoping you don't take this the wrong way, and that we can make this work out, so that you don't end up with yet another section here on the same article =P -Moralis 08:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it gnaw at your conscience that Wikipedia is abused as a kind of medieval pillory (in modern guise) for certain people? I raised my voice against this on several occasions and the result has always been blatant cencorship by Wikipedian Blockleiters.
It is not the intention of a real encyclopedia to stage witch hunts. --DenisDiderot 09:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether certain members of the community intend to stage a 'witch hunt,' as you put it. I'm quite sure that some members of the community are as biased against Mr. Brandt as you say, and these voices must likewise be prevented from tampering with the content of his article. However, it's unfair to write off the whole of the community on this basis. Personally, my -only- concern is keeping blatant opinion, such as what you posted, to the talk pages and out of articles. I work counter-vandalism. I have not researched and refuse to offer an opinion on the Brandt controversy, nor did I revert your edit because I believe you were wrong. Articles cannot be used to state opinions. That's why I reverted it.
I will say this: I don't believe that it's wrong to include a biography of him on the encyclopedia, as the encyclopedia makes a goal of including as much public knowledge as possible. I believe the article on Mr. Brandt must be unbiased, and therefore must only be written by people who have not participated in the controversy and who do not hold Mr. Brandt's views against him, nor his situation against Wikipedia. Neutrality is essential. That is as far as my opinion on the subject extends. Moralis 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
So you edit the article even though you haven't delved into the topic at all? Your hobby consists in observing the edits of others on topics you aren't really interested in? This is very strange, but it's not the first time I encounter this phenomenon. The first time, when it happened to me on a physics topic, I was shocked. My interlocutor admitted openly that he's not acquainted with Quantum Mechanics, but nevertheless he kept reverting the edits of other people. How can people have fun in such an activity? The only possibility I can think of is the appetite for denouncing others.
I keep wondering whether enthusiasm for a topic makes you immediately suspicious to Wikipedian Blockleiters. So the only way to contribute to this so-called "encyclopedia" is to avoid any enthusiasm whatsoever.
Concerning your concept of "neutrality" -- this pedantery and hypocrisy reminds me of the new wording the US government introduced for hunger in the USA, because "hunger" is considered "nonscientific":
"nutritional insecurity" [1]
Think about it. --DenisDiderot 19:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I find myself trying to decipher whether you legitimately don't understand the need for unbiased representation in an encyclopedia, or are simply trying to goad me. Here's hoping it's the former- either way you won't see me getting worked up.

I do not argue for censorship, I argue for a presentation of ideas that does not indicate support for said ideas. By this, I mean that a Wikipedia article cannot take a stance on any one controversy. It would be inappropriate for an opponent of abortion to edit Abortion to read, "Abortion is the legalized murder of unborn children." Similarly, it would be inappropriate for a supporter to add, "Abortion is a woman's right and private choice, and should not be tampered with by a third party." What would be appropriate would be a section on the controversy surrounding the practice of abortion, and a neutral description of both of the above standpoints. This is why I was comfortable reverting your edit without subject knowledge and why your edit was not appropriate under Wikipedia policy.

My hobby is not denouncing others. My hobby is helping to ensure that Wikipedia articles adhere to Wikipedia policy, and are properly encyclopedic. I don't denounce the editors responsible for violations of policy- after all, we are supposed to assume good faith- unless of course they're doing so deliberately to detract from the quality of the article, as you'll see when certain people will blank pages or turn them into a list of profanities. Even in those cases, politeness is everything and reversion is done to improve the encyclopedia, not to put down a user. Again, I believe that you added what you did in the genuine belief that it was a proper and relevant addition to the page- which, in fact, it could be, if worded so as not to endorse your opinion or refute your opponents'. -- Moralis 07:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "Quantum mechanics explained"

It's been moved to Wikibooks: wikibooks:Modern Physics/Waves and Modes —Keenan Pepper 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --DenisDiderot 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi Denis, if you send me your e-mail address, I'll e-mail you the article. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I see from the above that you've got it already. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)