User talk:Cedders/Archive

Cemcem
You added a to User talk:Cemcem. I think the text of this template is inappropriate given whatever this user did wrong. This user only edited on an AfD page, which is not an article, and there is nothing wrong with adding commentary there. Lambiam Talk 00:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm presuming they are indeed the current persona of User:Kayaakyuz, but yes I should have customised it - the main thought was to link to WP:NPOV. --Cedders 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"rv nonsense added by Xtra"
Excuse me? Why don't you check the difs next time. Xtra 12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(whoops)

Advancement Resources, LLC
You pointed out that it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. I think it's important and relevant to have information about the organization - how might I better lay out the information to work in the wiki atmosphere? Thanks for your time. Evan 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Ahheck01


 * I've replied on the article's talk page. --Cedders 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * & here too for the record

Edit: Note the "Who We Are" section explains why an article is relevant and necessary: "Advancement Resources is the nation’s leading provider of research-based training workshops for the development field."


 * "leading" could mean anything though, unfortunately. You asked me "how might I better lay out the information to work in the wiki atmosphere?" and I would suggest discussion continues here because that is what an article's talk page is for.
 * The best answers to your question are probably in the general policies WP:5P and WP:NOT
 * If you could provide independent references (e.g. a non-commercial mention in newspapers or specialist press) it would support a claim of notability, and be more neutral. Otherwise, the chances are that some other editor will nominate this article for deletion; if there is sufficient call for notability then the article may get rewritten from a neutral point of view.
 * Is there a general article about 'research-based training workshops for the development field', or indeed fundraising consultancy in general, and if there isn't yet, why should there be one for a particular provider of such things? There isn't sufficient context either for the general reader, and it contains very general terms - what does 'help donors and organizations transform vision into reality' actually mean?  People  go to Wikpedia for verifiable factual information - in this case should it be notable, things like where your is organisation based, how many staff it has, names of directors, how it is incorporated (for-profit or not?), turnover, what courses it offers, etc.
 * Using first person plural is not appropriate for Wikipedia - Wikipedia is trying to be objective, not a collection of pages put up by a "we".
 * I'm also intruiged that someone would search Wikipedia for your organisation. Do you know what they happen to imagine Wikipedia to be?
 * It is policy that "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." Therefore maybe others that know the organisation more independently should write the article.  I hope this makes sense. --Cedders 16:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Orwell
Hi -- Sorry for grumpy note, but I've been tweaking the Orwell page for ages and it has been persistently vandalised! No hard feelings... Paulanderson 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh!?!
What happened to my side of the conversation?


 * Michael David 01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently reverted by User:Curps. I know not why. There were some non-ASCII characters there, but I think that's unrelated. --Cedderstk 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating depression
Hello,

I have reverted the last several edits you've made regarding a person's 'depression'. Unless there has been a formal diagnosis made, the depression cannot factually be stated as being 'Clinical Depression'. The term (and link) to use is Depression (mood).

Regards,


 * Michael David 23:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again,


 * Perhaps I used the wrong term when I said 'reverted'. I merely went in and changed the link; I didn't do a full 'reversion'. Sorry about the misunderstanding.


 * 'Clinical depression' is a complex mental health disorder. 'Depression' is a mood disorder - quite different. It is unfair to the person you are profiling to confuse the two.


 * Regards,


 * Michael David


 * Perhaps I need to take a good look at the ‘Depression (mood)’ Article contained in Wiki, and bring it factually up to date. The ‘Mood Disorders’ are a clear and separate class of psychological disorders, and their symptoms and durations vary widely. True, the mood ‘depression’ is a symptom of ‘clinical depression’, but it is just one. There need to be concomitant physiological and neurological symptoms for it to carry the full diagnosis of ‘clinical depression’.


 * Virginia Woolf was clearly a troubled lady; don’t get me started on her – we’d be here all night.


 * Also, to use 'melancholia' for depression is like using ‘apoplexy’ for stroke. But what’s in a word?


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the best wishes. I think we're in agreement - you might see from Talk:Depression (mood) I wrote "Most mental health professionals and the vast majority of people who I have met with diagnoses of clinical depression see the distinction as important and, although the diagnoses are arguably arbitrary, the definition is at least clear that depressed mood is a frequent symptom of 'depression' the syndrome. According to these diagnostic categories it is even possible to have clinical depression without depression of mood."  Previously "depressed mood" was defined as "a state of non-clinical melancholia" which I didn't think was as clear as it is now.  --Cedderstk 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

'Tis a mystery!
Hello again,

I'm on EST and the clock just clicked past midnight - my signal to call it a long but fruitful day. I've enjoyed talking with you, and hope we have occasions to do it again.

I'm still greatly puzzled by how & why User:Curps chose to delete my messages to you.

Stay healthy,


 * Michael David 04:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that revert. It was indeed the non-ASCII characters in your edit, which garbled the "Depression" section header introducing invalid Unicode characters U+FFFD, and that triggered a bot.  Normally I wouldn't have ever been monitoring this user talk page, but we had a particularly troublesome vandal recently targeting certain pages over an extended period of time and there was good reason to believe this page would be one of them (eg,  and many, many others); however, the vandal seems to have stopped altogether instead, at least temporarily. -- Curps 07:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Modern Gnosticism
The Modern Gnosticism article has actually been repeatedly deleted, but keeps being reinstated by its author Ndru01. I'd be happy with the page redirecting to Gnosticism in modern times, but I suggest being wary of reusing the author's material or attempting to get him contributing to the other article - I spent a great deal of time trying to coach him towards verifiability and citing reliable sources for his theories, and never managed to dent his belief that Wikipedia's policies were flawed, and he could say whatever he wanted because (as he believed) it was all true. Fuzzypeg 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Depression Article
The Bipolar Blog link may be relevant to users dealing with depression because part of the nature of Bipolar Disorder is Depression. Such a link in this area would add value for those trying to understand the complexities of mood disorders. I feel strongly as an advocate of such issues it would be of great value. Individuals come to sites like wiki to learn and explore and with the valuable resource of the Bipolar Blog, as an external link, it would be, I believe a significant issue not to allow such a link to remain. Lastly, before you delete an edit you may want to try to discuss with the user who made the edit why such an edit was made. I know I would of appreciated it greatly if you had contact me before deleting this link. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewisch (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've replied on your talk page. --Cedderstk 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

—

Disturbing messages from User:Sky-surfer
User:Sky-surfer posted the following message on my talk page:
 * Gnosticism in modern times
 * Please see the comment that I posted at talk: Yahoo. Thank you. Sky Surfer 6 May 2006

The message referred to is:
 * PLEASE STOP NOW
 * I guess you are either the real Gabriella Windsor or her "double", that almost-resembling-you-girl that is used to save your life (oh, why not, Yahoo could be her silly brother!). In both cases, please stop now to vandalize Wikipedia with hundreds of faked IPs and IDs; please also note that with those accounts you are not helping me at all quoting your Gnostic theories. I don't need your help or the Windsors' help in order to achieve the secrets of the Universe, as everybody at CIA and Mi6 know. You may even "marry" who the h*** you want. At this stage, I assume that you are the real demon. We all are very tired, the whole UK and USA not mentioning the rest of Europe are tired of the Royals. We are here only for knowledge, not for blogging. May the Lord (and the next Revolution) have mercy of your souls. Goodbye. SkySurfer 6th May 2006

I guess this has somehow something to do with my reversions of 209.135.108.204's edits to Gnosticism in modern times. Why user Yahoo got this message and what it is supposed to mean is rather unclear to me; the only path crossing with Sky-surfer I could find is this somewhat innocuous-looking edit:. The reference to demons both in the last message and in the edits and edit summaries of 209.135.108.204 suggest to me that 209.135.108.204 and Sky-surfer are the same person (and the same as Ndru01/Infoandru01?). The content makes me think that s/he has serious problems. Maybe I should be more careful, not making fun of him/her, as I did (mildly) in some of my edit summaries. Any ideas or suggestions how to handle this? Lambiam Talk 11:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder...
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Hi, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  15:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

lacunae
please, excuse my negligence. i will be more careful the next time i edit articles. thank you for the profound explanation. i did not mean to disrupt wikipedia. greetings!

Admin noticeboard
I sincerely apologize, that was ABSOLUTELY inadvertent. It will not happen again. I must have been typing on autopilot or something and not looking at what I was doing. Anything I can do to rectify or make it up to you? --woggly 05:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)