User talk:Wikidudeman/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Advice

Thanks for the advice, I will always remember it. I love this site, it is so helpful to me!

Lara11Lara11

Anabolic steroid

I've added it to my watchlist, if the vandalism get too heavy I'll protect it for a while. TimVickers 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not "vandalism" per say. It's just some guy trying to remove information that he deems "irrelevant" and replace it with one specific study done specifically on teenagers and some ABC article as well as mangle the citations. I don't think it could be called "vandalism" but it is harming the article.Wikidudeman (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The instructions are outlined here User:Wouterstomp/Bookmarklet. Where are you having problems? TimVickers 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to get it to work on Firefox. Those directions seem to be specifically for Internet explorer. How does it work on firefox?Wikidudeman (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's much the same.

  1. Create a bookmark on any page at all.
  2. Right-click on the bookmark and select "properties"
  3. Delete the contents of the "Location" box and paste the javascript in to replace it.
  4. Click on the bookmark when you are at a PubMed article, ie this fine paper.

A popup window should appear that contains the reference. TimVickers 21:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That will be very helpful. I used to simply do it manually. Very tiresome.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend going through the past nominations and checking that everything mentioned has been dealt with. TimVickers 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikidudeman - help me on feminism page

I saw your comments on Don Imus, and I supported them.

I'd like you to take a look at the discussion "Perceptions vs. Reality" on the Feminism discussion page, it falls in the same category as Don Imus, and please get back to me if I am wrong, or weigh in if I am right.

Thanks dudeman.

--Altoids Man 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Food Testing Strips..

Hi, I am guessing you are the person that sited this for deletion? I am unclear specifically what you are wanting me to change. I went to chat and invited comments from people to see what changes could be made so that the article isn't deleted. Rob--Desaderal 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember doing that. DO you have the link?Wikidudeman (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Steroid

Wikidudeman,

I wanted to point out several factual errors in the anabolic steroids article, but I am not sure how to go about it. My apolgoies, I am part of the "older" generation and have some problems understanding how to use this format. I tried looking at the FAQ, but as I understood it, my corrections were in accordance with their suggestions. Please help this old geezer understand the subtleties of Wiki. TT 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


If you want to point out factual errors on the Anabolic steroid article, Go to it's talk page.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed your request for review of Anabolic steroids. Moments before, I sent out a notice to lure in some comments from WP:MCB and WP:CLINMED project members. I added your article to the notice of articles (Antibody/Poliomyelitis) I just put up for peer review, hopefully they will get LOTS of comments! Good luck, cheers.--DO11.10 03:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean exactly? You added Anabolic steroid to a 'list' that notifies various people for a review or something?Wikidudeman (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sort of, I advertised here and here. It is an informal list that helps advertise the review to the people who might have an interest or knowledge of the subject know that it is out there, in hopes that you will get lots more comments (the more the better!).--DO11.10 03:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I see you've added yourself, thanks for your participation. --Minderbinder 12:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech. Massacre

I read your questions and posts on the Talk Page of the Virginia Tech. Massacre. The photo you are referring to can be found here: http://www.jonesreport.com/images/190407killer.jpg -- Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 05:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

Is it actually the Virginia tech killer?Wikidudeman (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. I found that photo on the article page for the Virginia Tech killer, Cho Seung-Hui, under the topic "conspiracy theories." (JosephASpadaro 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC))
Cho was never in the marines and the name tag on that shirt says "Hu".Wikidudeman (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. You seem to know more about this topic than I do. But, also -- you seemed to answer your own question, no? Apparently, that photo is of a Marine named Hu, and not of Cho. The more I think about it ... if it were, in fact, Cho -- I am sure the photo would be "out there" among the mainstream media, and I have not seen that. (JosephASpadaro 06:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC))
No, I don't know anything about it either. I just glanced at the name tag and remembered that Cho was never in the marines. I also didn't remember seeing the picture anywhere in the national media as well.Wikidudeman (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

New Message

It said I vandalized a judo red belt page and it left me a message. I never changed a page. So sorry for the confusion but it was a buddy of mine. What should I do so I dont get kicked off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.192.117.159 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Register a name and don't let it happen again.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreadlocke

Please, present the evidence/add him as a party and place a notice on his user talk page. It cannot hurt to have out in the open as much of this conflict as possible. --ScienceApologist 11:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you do it? I'm not very good at gathering evidence about users like that.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I may have a go later this week. It takes a long time to do this. --ScienceApologist 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick note of thanks

Hi Wikidudeman, I just wanted to drop a note to thank you. I really appreciate the kind feedback. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Drop me one sometime.Wikidudeman (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

edit summaries

sorry mate. I sometimes get a little too trigger happy with the submit button. I'll make sure that I put a summary in from now on. Cryptophile 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigma Alpha Epsilon

I have kept a close eye on Sigma Alpha Epsilon, and reverted much of the vandalism that 24.107.91.212 did a week ago. However, it seems that this IP is back vandalizing SAE again. I noticed that you had written on the IP's talk page, and wanted to let you know about the continued vandalism by this IP. Thanks. Samwisep86 04:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning. If he does it again I can report him.Wikidudeman (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Separate page for legal issues of aas

I was working on turning the page into something coherent. I was hoping to achieve something similar to what was done for Legal issues of cannabis. The reason for doing this was that it may have removed some of the 'US' bias out of the article (might help in getting the AAS article to FA status). Cryptophile 09:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just read the rest of your message and I think you have a point. I was sort of concerned that there may not be enough info to warrant it yet aswell. Cryptophile 09:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean but that's really not a viable thing to do right now. See your talk page where I explained it. The "Movement for decriminalization" isn't "US" bias it's simply explaining a small movement within countries (including but not limited to the U.S.) where the laws prohibiting AAS are criticized. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Combining evidence

I think that cutting down the statements and making them more concise is a good thing. Combining evidence with another user....I'm not sure of. Unless it's word-for-word the same. - LuckyLouie 03:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what it would be basically. I've cut down a lot of the material in my "evidence" as well as my opening statement to make it easier for the Arbcom reviewers.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the time to go through my own evidence right now : ) I'll see if I can't trim it down to the important points sometime tomorrow.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 04:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright. It's very important to make it easy for the arbcom reviewers to read and understand.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to delete my evidence. If you want to include its text in yours, go ahead. It is still in the history. SheffieldSteel 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar! I started on Wikipedia just over two years ago. At first I was mainly editing articles on early electronic computers and a few math topics. Then I saw what a mess the paranormal and pseudoscience articles were in (especially UFOs). (The moon landing hoax was similar.) I worked mainly on those for a few months, but got discouraged by all of the resistance from the pro-pseudoscience and pro-paranormal editors. I mainly work on chess now. Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And a thank you for the barnstar from me, too! It's nice to find that your time and effort spent on Wikipedia is acknowledged and appreciated by others. :) - tameeria 15:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks from me too. What article was it for? Makerowner 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not one in particular. I've just noticed your dedication to several articles.Wikidudeman (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your advice

Wikidudeman, I appreciate that you took time to leave advice in my talk page about my comments on the "Wikipedia Requests for arbitration-Paranormal-Evidence page."

The comments are about my last edit in Wikipedia and I simply wanted to lay it all out. You are probably correct that there is too much, but I cannot separate editor actions from problems with Wiki rule. They are written so that they can be too easily used to support opposing views.

I do feel that the endless links to examples give a disjointed story. Those that I have followed give a different meaning than if they are read in a larger context. Also, judging by the "Workshop" page, I think it is not just about conduct. The original request for arbitration on the EVP article is also part of this and that was about clarification of NPOV. If the arbitrators do not take the easy way out and just count votes, then this whole process could help Wikipedia with a good review of some of the rules. If not, then I begin to think of what happened to the dinosaurs.

Thanks again for the advice. It has been an interesting education. Tom Butler 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ananthapura Lake Temple

Hi, I don't know how this is usually done but the copyvio tag says Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue. And the wording after your edit is still very close to the original copyrighted material. I think it still might be considered a copyright violation. Just letting you know in case you didn't see the sentence I mentioned above. - TwoOars (T | C) 09:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, But that article has been tagged for two years, I doubt an Admin was ever going to look at it. My rewording the sentences would negate their copyright violations. Getting information from a source and putting it into your own words isn't considered a copyright violation.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Tagged for two years? I tagged it less than a week ago. And the original copyrighted version has to be completely deleted (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions ). And it has been listed at the said page, so someone will look at it. - TwoOars (T | C) 09:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking of the cleanup tag.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hey, since I was not sure, I asked a question at [1] . Lets see what they say. But the latest revision is much better and probably won't be a copyright violation. Keep up the good work. :) - TwoOars (T | C) 09:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you put it back. Hmm, OK. - TwoOars (T | C) 09:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The original was copied from 2 different sources.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok. - TwoOars (T | C) 09:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
However I do truly believe that my version wouldn't violate any copyrights.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Script for AFD or PROD?

Hello, I'm looking for a script that allows me to quickly add an "AFD" and a "PROD" to articles and quickly add them to the "AFD" page and notify the creator. Currently I have a script that allows me to mark it for "speedy deletion" but I'm looking for a script that adds another panel at the top that can make it easier to mark them as AFD. Can you help?Wikidudeman (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. Do you mean something like[2]? But with {{prod}} and adding the article to the AFD and talk pages? Sorry for the late reply, I don't have much time lately. Shinobu 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I found what I was looking for. Thanks.Wikidudeman (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing "Bodybuilding" page yesterday (Sunday, May 20)

Adam Abeles posted his own photo on this page, according to Wiki records, on March 11. He is notorious on discussion boards on bodybuilding for creating a hostile online environment, and his picture was resented for that reason. Moreover, Mr. Abeles is not representative of competitive bodybuilding. He has never placed in a national or regional bodybuilding competition, as hundreds (indeed, thousands) of other competitors have. If someone belongs at the top of an international online encyclopedia article, he is not the person who does. After reading an outcry on a discussion forum on bodybuilding, requesting that his photo be deleted, I did so since I'm a registered and established Wiki editor. If I was out of line, so be it. I just wanted to explain why I deleted the photo.

Thanks,

Mike Emery hifrommike65@hotmail.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hifrommike65 (talk • contribs).


That's false. I uploaded that image and I posted it on the page. Please see [[3]] and [[4]] which I subsequently changed the caption of and moved to the top. Mr. Abeles may not be "representative" of competitive bodybuilding(whatever that means) however that's irrelevant. The "Bodybuilding" page is not a "competitive bodybuilding" page but a page concerning all of bodybuilding. I've stated this over and over, It's the only free viable image that can be used. What a "message board" thinks of the picture being there is wholly irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't function on what some obscure message board thinks. Please don't remove the image again. Thanks.Wikidudeman (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bodybuilding image

Please stop adding the image of Adam Abeles to the Bodybuilding page. He is not a bodybuilder as he has never competed or participated in any bodybuilding events. Just as someone who hasn't played hockey isn't a hockey player. Edit Waring is against Wiki Policy WikiBodybuilding 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Let's take a look at some dictionaries and see if they agree.

Oxford- noun. a person who strengthens and enlarges their muscles through exercise such as weightlifting.
Infoplease—n. a person who practices bodybuilding.
Dictionary.com a person who practices bodybuilding.
Moreover, If I remember correctly this person DID compete in an online bodybuilding competition last year placing 2nd.
I'm going to ask you to put the image back and not remove it again.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


HIs muscles are not enlarged as he just has low bodyfat. Also there is 0 verifiable evidence that he lifts weights. Please do not add the image back. WikiBodybuilding 03:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

His muscle look large to me. His bodyfat is low enough to see his striations. Physiologically it would be impossible to be that developed without lifting weights. By definition he is a bodybuilder. By all definitions.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Hmmmmm.....Wikipedia is not about opinions it is about facts. Please provide facts that he lifts weights. Also it most definitely is possible to look like that without lifting weights. Someone who studies bodybuilding should know this WikiBodybuilding 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This person has stated that they lift weights and given no-contrary evidence this is enough.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Award

Hard Worker Award
For your tireless efforts in improving various articles across the depth and breadth of Wikipedia. LuckyLouie 04:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to send you a Barnstar but I think you deserve something unique. - LuckyLouie 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! This is a very interesting and impressive looking reward.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! Been on here two years now and this is only my second one : ) No thanks was necessary for fixing up the page code. That's what I do for a living. I'm sort of obsessive compulsive when it comes to funky code. Everytime I see it, I just want to fix it. Thanks again. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Drop me a few sometime. :) Wikidudeman (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. I hope things work out well on the paranormal RfA. The pages pertaining it are so huge that I've probably read less than half of it. I can devote only a little time to it, but I see that several editors (including you!) must be devoting a large number of hours. (Or the barnstar may be for the bodybuilding image.) Anyway, thanks agin. Bubba73 (talk), 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Vandalism

I received a message saying that I was vandalizing a certain bodybuilding page of this wonderful site. I just caught my son messing with it again. I use this site numerous times a day and I have only contributed positively. You can guarantee that my son will not mess with your site ever again.

Thank you and Im sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.214.201 (talk • contribs).

It was the Bodybuilding webpage.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


are you sure its really your son messing around? its not you isnt it? pushing the blame to your own son? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.12.95.12 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 25 May 2007.

In light of recent injustices

Dear Wikidudeman,

This is in response to the following message:

“Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Health issues and the effects of cannabis. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.”

I am glad that you were able to contact me about the deletions of my additions to the article. It severely disturbed me that they were removed so quickly, and predatorily, I am glad that I am able to communicate with the one whom I guess is the one who removed them, or at least had a hand in removing them. I am still in bewilderment to why they were removed although. You claim that the additions were “unhelpful and unconstructive content” and thus “vandalism,” but I see no grounds for your statement. My additions merely evened out a clearly bias article. The additions contained no falsities and presented facts relevant to the topic. These additions were and are desperately needed to show a clear impartial view of the subject. This article and many others clearly show why Wikipedia is not a credible source, because you never know whether you are getting an objective attempt at truth, or a completely biased fan boy corrupted article, bent on attempting to push a certain narrow minded view. This article clearly is giving and showing one side of the facts and views, especially in the areas that I attempted to help. Since the additions were factual, relevant and important to show a clear impartial view of the subject I see in no way how they could be perceived as “unhelpful” or “unconstructive” as you have stated. You know before this incident I was a firm believer in Wikipedia, and I attributed a good amount of credibility to its articles. But now my eyes have been opened to its corruption and will have to treat any of its content with great caution. You my friend have attributed to the greatest injustice of all, the manipulation of truth. My sole reason for my additions were to help readers to more clear even sided conclusions, the only clear thing that can come from this article is that it’s clearly propaganda. This article belongs on a marijuana fan site not in an encyclopedia. The existence of such a one sided article and such resistance to any fair balancing to it in an encyclopedia is nothing short from disturbing. Encyclopedias are supposed to promote truth, not views. I hope you my friend come to see this, as the same to rest of Wikipedia’s staff. I wish you luck on your own personal journey towards peace, and on you pursuit of truth. May you learn to look beyond the shades in all directions and feel he greatness in doing so.

With best intentions,

JBauer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.216.221 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 25 May 2007.

I don't remember what your edits were but if I tagged them as vandalism then they probably fit into that category.Wikidudeman (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


The edits simply added facts from the other side of the view, which the article needed to even it out. The only reason that they would be removed would be to support anti-drug war agenda. Don't get me wrong, I really don't have a side when it comes to this issue, I'm neither for nor against. But this article is obviously ran to attempt to gain support for the legalization for marijuana. Like I said before the facts currently listed are misrepresented and are shown only in part. I only added facts from studies that it claimed not to exist, these facts were from sources that it sited earlier in the page. Once again, since my edits simply added truth and validity to an article which previously had no balance, the only reason that I could see that it had been deleted would be to support a certain view of someone higer on the Wiki chain. I cannot know for sure, but from all that I know the only probable conclusion is that you tagged them as vandalism for this reason, to support you view of anti-drug war. Once again I share no side on this subject, but only want information to represented fairly and accurately. I suggest that you rethink the basis on which you remove edits or additions, and take special consideration when you think of deleting something on a topic that you hold opinions on. Just because something doesn't necessarily correspond to you veiw point doesn't mean that you should remove it. You must realize that this encyclopedia as all encyclopedias are instroments of truth, and if you delete something only on the merit that it doesn't agree to your own veiw point you are creating a great injustice to that truth. Truth can only be accurately represented when there points on all sides in view, I hope you take this into consideration as you continue to edit Wikipedia. May you be only a servant to truth, and nothing else(especially in this field). I hope you come to realize the truth of these statements, and the rest of your business here is pleasant and honorable.

Sincerely,

JBauer24.210.216.221 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.216.221 (talk • contribs).

JaBauer, I don't see the article as being bias. However I do remember your edits were quite clearly POV. If you want to discuss the article then do it on the article talk page. Also, Read the top of this page on information for posting properly and editing. It explains how to sign after your signature etc. Thanks.Wikidudeman (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

HangermanBot page

I was testing the bot Af648 07:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize.Wikidudeman (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

wtf?

go ahead. block me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.255.173.144 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 May 2007.


I don't block people. I removed your comments because they were vulgar and abusive. I warned you about it and you continued. Please don't continue to use offensive or vulgar language directed at other editors. That's not how Wikipedia works.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


i added that a band was "F***ing Horrible" on the band's talk page. stupid, but whatever, i see way worse stuff go unchecked on talk pages all of the time. a few mins later i recieved this message:
"Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Cansei de Ser Sexy; this is considered vandalism."
so i came to your talk page and (using admittedly colorful language) described what i had done and that i did not think that the warning was suited to what i had done.
minutes later i received the following:
"This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Wikidudeman, you will be blocked for disruption."
now again, i don't think that this is exactly an appropriate warning, as i did not make any "personal attacks" i said that stuff was BS and quoted my original description of the band, but i didn't say that you were a jerk or that i was going to hurt you or anything, i simply stated my case and why i disagreed with what you were accusing me of. you then promptly deleted that entry (as i assume you will this one) and sent me a warning about making "personal attacks".
this is stupid and i don't want to type anymore about this, i just wanted to say that i don't think that i did anything to warrant getting blocked/banned (as the second warning you sent me threatened). also, i think you need a hobby. one could say the same for me, but i'm not the one threatening to ban people because they used unpleasant language on the internet (i'll go ahead and warn you now, people swear on the internet a lot, so prepare to be offended quite frequently if you can't deal with it).
for the record i never made personal attacks against anyone or edited other peoples comments, i merely stated my opinion of a band in a less than appropriate place/way.
don't bother responding, i'm sure the next time i log on i'll have a different IP, so there's not a lot of point in continuing this anymore. i just wanted you to know why i disagree with the warnings i've received thus far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.255.173.144 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 26 May 2007.


Ok, Please limit your edits to edits that are constructive and legitimate next time. Thanks.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
i usually do, but... i dunno i been up to late or somethin' (and that CSS band is srsly bad). for what it's worth, i viewed your user page and it seems that you're actually a pretty decent guy (anti-drug war, anti-religion, anti-animal cruelty, pro-environmentalism, pro-evolution, liberal, mathie... and a firearm owner to boot). the whole thing about personal attacks is pretty ambiguous on profanity, and mine was not necessary. that's inexcusable. not saying i feel bad for cursing like a sailor, just that i agree it wasn't necessary, at all. i guess i shouldn't be too concerned that none of the warnings were accurate, as they're automatically generated and not particularly incident-specific, so it's not really your fault. sorry for being an ass on that end. i stand by the rest of it though... lol.68.255.173.144 09:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


I accept your apology. The reason I reverted your initial edit was because of the fact it didn't contribute to wikipedia. Saying a band is no good really doesn't help anything. Talk pages are generally used for improving the article and since your comment didn't improve the article I reverted it. Also your response to my reverting it and identifying it as vandalism was very vulgar and rude, which is why I also reverted it. I don't like my user page being filled with that kind of stuff.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroids

Your source on the Anabolic steroids Article Your source doesn't say that people between the ages of 15-25 are the ones who tend to use the most but it says they are the "worst effected by steroid use and abuse." whatever that means. This claim comes from a very sketchy website and the sources themselves aren't specifically referenced either. I can't find any study on the web verifying this assertion either. I've added a more reliable source and a more approximate age from Pub-Med.Wikidudeman (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Wikidudeman (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

first, explain to me how the website is "sketchy," that's the leading authority on steroid abuse websites.

second, the sentence goes like this "Out of all the demographics of steroid users, Males age 15-25, teens tend to be the worst effected by steroid use and abuse."

demographics of steroid users, Males age 15-25 <-- clearly that's black and white If you were a steroid user, you would know that specific age is IMPOSSIBLE to predict and NO study out there will tell the facts since steroid users do not want to come to light with their use. The demographic of steroids users is males age 15-25, and all steroid users know that's factual, from life exprience. I've been in the industry over 15 years and I know a thing or 2 about this; steroid use and information is subjective at best, not designed to be chewed down to a study citation.

I will leave your revision up until I get a straight answer, just because you don't have full grasp of steroid use - it doesn't mean what's posted is wrong. You have edited my work in the past, nazifying wikipedia and I'm frankly sick of it.

and what you wrote is wrong , even by your source [[5]] "The median age of first use of AAS for the study population was 18 years; for 12- to 17-year-olds, the median age of initiation was 15 years." not around 25 solely


Manofwar4662 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


That website is hardly the "leading authority" on anything. Where did you get that from? The website said that "Out of all the demographics of steroid users, Males age 15-25, teens tend to be the worst effected by steroid use and abuse." which is very confusing. How are they the "worst 'effected' (Note that they confused "effected" with "affected")? Where are the studies citing this claim? Moreover, Your argument seems to be anecdotal. Wikipedia relies on credible sources and the MOST credible sources are direct studies done concerning the cited assertions. Not some websites that can't even get their grammar straight. You're also wrong about what my study said. Allow me to quote it:
"Estimates based on data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse indicated that there are more than 1 million current or former AAS users in this country, with more than half of the lifetime user population being 26 years of age or older. More than 300,000 individuals used AAS in the past year. Males had higher levels of AAS use during their lifetime than females (0.9% and 0.1%, respectively; P < .01). The median age of first use of AAS for the study population was 18 years; for 12- to 17-year-olds, the median age of initiation was 15 years."[[6]]
This means that more than half of the respondents were at least 26 years of age. The median age of the study was NOT 18 years old. 18 years old was the median age at which they "first used". Moreover, What do you mean by "nazification"? If you have any specific examples of anything wrong with the article please do elaborate. Saying I am "nazifying" the article not only is not assuming good faith, it's also unhelpful. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting so quickly! Even though I'm online, you reverted before I even noticed there was an edit to my talk page. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a master reverter!Wikidudeman (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of getting to the point

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For bringing it to the attention of the Paranormal Arbitration that we should decide if it's about user conduct or other issues. If this had been brought up earlier, I could have saved some time. Nealparr (talk to me) 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello please check the messages re: aquinas college at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.122.228.82

Thanks.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.122.228.82 (talk • contribs).

Ok, Please sign after posting. My talk page clearly explains how to properly sign and edit at the top. Read before posting.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note on Collaboration360

I did not intent to write it as an ad. More of a history point. What can I alter to make it as an information item?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deepcover123 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 May 2007.

Read the top of this page before posting again and sign all posts after making them. If you want to learn more about wikipedia and creating articles then please see Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.Wikidudeman (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I did not intent to write it as an ad. More of a history point. What can I alter to make it as an information item?

Sincerely Sam Shi

what is with the speedy deletion. i cant find the link for THE MOVIE REVUE magazine. i will and then put it on.

My entry got deleted before I edited it

Can I enter it in terms of of an informational item?

Your comment is appreciated.

Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deepcover123 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 May 2007.


Sam, Please read what I am saying. Read the top of my page for info on signing. You sign the end of each edit on talk pages by posting this ~~~~ after each comment. You don't need the == == either. Also read the introduction for creating articles.Wikidudeman (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


My apology for screwing up. I am new to this. Thanks again for the guidance. Will try to do it correctly. Deepcover123 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Sam

Alright. Remember when you are having a single conversation simply click the "edit" button on that conversation and post your response at the bottom.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Vampire Florida

Hi.. As specified on the tag itself, a Prod tag that is removed should not be replaced. Consider speedy-ing the article as nonsense (WP:CSD#G1) or sending it to WP:AfD as unencyclopedic and unsourced and just plain weird, but Prod is for uncontroversial deletions: removing the tag is a legitimate way of contesting the deletion. Once the tag is removed, deletion of the article is no longer considered uncontroversial, so once the tag's been removed it shouldn't be restored. Cheers. --Rrburke(talk) 02:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize for that.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yet you didn't remove the prod. I had to do it for you. Now take it to afd if you truly want it gone.172.147.250.89 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again

I admire what you do. You must be super patient to do this. Deepcover123 02:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?

What was all that over at Sailor Moon? --Masamage ♫ 04:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't me. User:Dalmation turned it into a sandbox and I was experimenting for a little while before I noticed what had happened. I reverted it back to normal.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh, okay. Is there a list of Sandboxes somewhere or what? --Masamage ♫ 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I believe he changed the name of the sandbox article to "Sailor Moon" to direct any clicks on the sandbox directly to the sailor moon article to make users believe it was a sandbox. Probably a mistake of some kind.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Wacky. Okay, thanks. --Masamage ♫ 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Vampire Florida

If a prod is removed, regardless of who removes it, do not reprod it. Take it to AfD. 172.147.250.89 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I apologize. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave Palumbo

Sorry, no, the permission sent wasn't valid (the volunteer made a mistake)

  1. No explicit license was selected.
  2. It was given permission "for wiki" which is not good enough for commons.

If you're contacting the author to get a explicit release, pelase tell him to mail directly to permissions@wikimedia.org. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 23:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate. The tag said it should be forwarded to commons not necessarily sent directly from the person themselves. I asked the person to send an E-mail to commons if they want to give permission that way.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It was not necessary, but since you had to contact him again to be explicit on the release... but it's all fine now. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 02:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ny'sera the Golden Watcher

I forgot to send this with my name atrached. But I would like to know why I received a vandalism warning as I am trying to edit the page to get it up? Cdinyseri 04:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The page you created is not an article. It's a single red link supposed to be a template. You need to turn it into an actual article otherwise it doesn't warrant having it's own page.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to get the template to work and for some reason I am not able to. Just need a little time, sorry for just the red link, there will be more substance to it. Cdinyseri 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "Ny'sera the Golden Watcher"? I googled it and got nothing. The template you're using doesn't even exist as far as I know. You'll need to find a different one. The image "Elf_archer.jpg" doesn't seem to exist either.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Branch_0005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Branch_0005.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Browne

dude (talk), I was wondering if you could make sure what I'm saying on Image talk:Exloring levels creation bk.jpg makes sense. The real "battle" to keep it is happening there and I'll explain why; due to human imperfections the admin who reviews the image will probably not actually go to Sylvia Browne to see what context it's being used in because the list the image appears on for deletions is, well see for yourself...Category:Disputed non-free images as of 1 June 2007. Given the amount of images just for 06/01 alone and the general backlog I can't fault them for not having time to do research in cases like this. I appreciate your support, when one reads the actual federal law it's difficult to understand why "Fair Use status is questioned". Anynobody 07:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Toney_Freeman22.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Toney_Freeman22.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)