User talk:Cseki

Hell! User Cseki page.

I support the correctness of this article
Post by 166.179.113.151 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC) removed. It should go on an article talk page, not here.  Ty  08:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet comments
Any thoughts? A user has just been blocked for the use of sockpuppets. Four of his identities were used to simulate consensus in an RfC on a talk page.

That user has earned a one month block for his actions, and an indefinite ban on the sockpuppet accounts.

Am I within my rights to remove the comments? Sumbuddi (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You could also just strikethrough. Dlabtot (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * True. Part of the issue with the comments was that the RfC had got very long and complicated as a consequence of the sock puppeting, and it was difficult to follow for those with no prior involvement. Hence 'de-cluttering' the high volume of sock puppet comments. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Two pages
Seems weird to have two guidelines, one called Talk page and the other called Talk page guidelines. Please see my suggestion at WT:Talk page as to how this might be sorted out.--Kotniski (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the comments of others at an article talkpage
The section on the above issue contains a summation, bolded, towards the top of the section. It states the general rule about not deleting other people's comments at an article talkpage. Following this is an explanation about how the rule specifically applies, and what exceptions can be made to the general rule. As the "general rule" portion was removed for several hours on 24 October, I thought perhaps it might be necessary to open a discussion here. I've also added a similarly explanatory comment as a hidden note behind the bolded summation. U A  00:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make any sense to have a rule that says in big bold letters Don't do X, and then follow it by a long list of situations when it's OK to do X. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Outlining certain specific exceptions to the rule is relatively standard in any documentation of rules, not just wikirules. Having a short summary of the general rule is also pretty standard. What caused my initial confusion as to whether I was even right about the general rule I thought was in place, when I restored the comments to Talk:Garth Paltridge, was the fact that you removed the summary 19 minutes after I left the note at WMC's page regarding the situation. U  A  00:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that people latch onto the big, sweeping statement in bold type and don't bother to look at the nuances that come later. If a statement of the general rule really is necessary it needs to be qualified and not so sweeping. Qualify the wording, and for "Bob"'s sake get rid of the boldface. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, your changes have improved things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made another, relatively minor change as well. I think it was after you posted this here. U  A  00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bold and capitals
I like to use bold or capital letters to show important emphasis of points, usually specific words and rarely entire phrases and almost never an entire sentence, unless I am emphasising a previously stated statement or phrase that was misquoted or misrepresented by another side. I do not believe italics represent the same degree as bold or capital letters are "shouting" or "ranting". I am too old to A- understand why, B- care one bit, why the younger generation that is now growing up with twittering, ims, email, etc that I did not have consider such markup to be "shouting" or "ranting", such tween ideas should stay away from a serious endeavor such as Wikipedia. Excessive use or use in a disruptive manner, sure I can see it being discouraged, but let us now have this page say that this is the use of bold and capital letters and you cant write like that. That is censorship and not what Wikipedia is about. I am not going to write with little slang like LOL and little emoticons, I am not going to change my style, and after over 3 years on Wikipedia I suddenly got accused of "yelling", I'm not even talking, how does bold or capital letters "hurt" the eyes as yelling can hurt the ears? It cant and capital letters are older and the original forms of letters, so lower case are the newbies btw, so I dont see how they are "harder" to read, or harsher to the eyes or brain. We arent children. What ever happened to Assume good faith, if someone puts bold or capital letters then they should be given AGF in that they are using them in a non-offensive manner, not as "shouting". I for one wont be treated as a teenager.Camelbinky (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, if no one wishes to comment I'll go ahead and be bold about changing the wording on the bold and capitals section.Camelbinky (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted. The the guidance in the text has been a long standing consensus.  Ty  17:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, you and anyone else didnt comment here. So I was bold per my right. Just because something is long standing doesnt make it law (WP:NOTSTATUTE). Consensus changes and the wording does not reflect accurately why editors use bold or italics. This very guideline is being broken every single day (and every hour by me). It doesnt reflect consensus. If you had a problem, you had ample time to comment. I'm putting it back. Reverting based on "that's they way its been for awhile" is not a legitimate debating point. This is a wiki. Do you have a legitimate reason why it should stay or are you just conservative in viewpoint?Camelbinky (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left Camelbinky's change atm, but I am distinctly uneasy with the change and rather hope that the original will be restored, or something close to it. As the box at the top says, the page is a guideline, best treated with common sense and occasional exceptions. Those words allow plenty of occasional bolding, where appropriate. Undoubtedly it is unintentional, but the new words will delight every crank and troll who wants to bold the phrases that they think you did not understand. Flashing signatures and bold phrases are great for the person who wants their message to stand out from the crowd of dreary blandness written by other contributors, but they should not be encouraged (I'm talking about what other editors may do, not Camelbinky). Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand Johnuniq's well-thought out comments and appreciate them and agree that cranks may take it too far. BUT does that mean the rest of us, who use bold, italics, and capitals correctly and only for emphasis must listen to those who disagree with us claim "your being uncivil by using bold and italics. Please stop yelling." That is what happened to me recently by someone who disagreed with me and thought calling me uncivil was a good way to "win" the argument. Perhaps Johnuniq we can have a compromise between the old wording and my proposal? One that makes it clear that it can be used and I'd like to remove any mention that they are considered "yelling"; the old wording was too much of an insult to the older generation and makes Wikipedia look silly and tweenish in my opinion. I understand this is a guideline and must be used with common sense, but as soon as you find common sense on Wikipedia (and good luck) I think some things like this need to be rewritten due to the lack of such a thing being implemented by those who think policies and guidelines are "laws" and adhered to by the letter (as the person who accused me of being uncivil believes they are; using the common sense argument with him (her?) wouldnt work). I would like to thank Johnuniq for his time in commenting and working with me on this, it is greatly appreciated. I hope a compromise that addresses my concern can be found.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the following: Avoid excessive markup: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice. Italics may be used more frequently for emphasis or clarity on key words or phrases, but should be avoided for long passages. Remember that overuse of markup can undermine its impact. If adding emphasis to quoted text, be sure to say so. Italics can also be used to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles, ship names, etc. Rd232 talk 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like everything exept the mentioning of "shouting". Can we please not treat Wikipedia like a tween twittering account? Other than that I can live with the rest, but am not happy with italics seeming to be more acceptable, I believe bold and italics should be interchangeable in meaning, but in a compromise I cant expect to be totally satisfied and will live with it. (Oh, and most and usually is redundant, I would drop the "most")Camelbinky (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is a guideline and it should not mislead people. If someone uses caps for emphasis it is likely (with some exceptions) that most other editors will think they are completely misguided. Capital letters are considered shouting, regardless of what this page says, so the page should include that information as a service to anyone reading it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because teenieboppers think it is? Many of us are old enough that we dont consider capitals shouting. What books are you reading that use capital letters as representative of shouting? Some may do so now, but it rarely is the case even today to represent shouting with capital letters; a real author uses words to describe, not such crude representation as capital letters. I've used boldness twice and italics once in this very post. Do you think I was raising my voice when I said "books", "some", or "real" if I was speaking to you instead of writing, or do you think that I would have been putting "emphasis" in my speach instead of raising my voice when I said those words? Emphasis does not equal yelling. It is a misrepresentation of what is meant when people use boldness or italics. Yes, capitalization should be discouraged, I am with you on that; it just doesnt look good and bold or italics do a better job. But calling it shouting is misleading and making this seem less academic and more tweeny; cant we get the point that its not good etiquette without using the words "shouting"?Camelbinky (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What books do you use to communicate with other people all around the world? The last time I check, this was the internet, and for the two decades I have been using the internet, typing in all caps has been viewed as SHOUTING.  Changing the guideline to reflect one person's stylistic opinion is not going to change that fact for the other 1.7 billion internet users in the world.  — Kralizec! (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kralizec your revert and your comment are both not helpful nor constructive. If you have an opinion then please make it and work towards a compromise as everyone else here has been doing. We are actually close to making one. If you dont want to help and simply want to keep the status quo for the sake of the status quo then you've made your opinion known, let those that are working towards something work. For now I'll put in Rd's compromise as that is the one that seems to have everyone's backing. Thank you for your opinion Kralizec!. Oh, and you've been typing on the internet since 1989 have you? That's impressive... though an exageration as the www didnt go beyond scientific community until 1991, and chatrooms and other communicative forums for lay people were even later; I was in fact one of the earliest to use what would later become the "Internet" and it wasnt until the mid 90s at the earliest that I saw any such mention of the stylistic opinion that capitals are "yelling" and again- it was by teenagers! We are not a chat room or social networking site and our stylistic options and opinions are different than that of the 1.7 billion other internet users who use it for a different purpose than we do. We are a serious academic endeavor. Has a professor ever told you he considers bold or italics to be "yelling"?Camelbinky (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CAPITALS = SHOUTING IS WELL ESTABLISHED NETIQUETTE. See eg this story about a woman being fired. Constantly using bold or other emphasis to underline your points is a touch below SHOUTING but it is quite annoying when OVER USED. Your personal opinion may differ (probably driven by experience in print), but these are the general customs for online communication and you have to live with that. Bold, incidentally, is more eye-catching than italics when scanning the page, which is the standard way people read things on screen (less so in print), and hence is "louder". Mmkay? Rd232 talk 09:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your changes to the guideline because we are still discussing the issue, and it is preferable for the guideline to reflect the previous consensus while the debate continues, rather than your bold opinions. As a matter of reference, I fully support Rd232`s proposed compromise text, including the bit about shouting being virtually never appropriate.  Also, not that it has any real bearing on this discussion, but my "two decades" of internet use is a reference to accessing Usenet via BITNET at the university I started at in 1991 ... so I guess you got me as 1991 was only 18.9 years ago.  Regardless, you should check your ad hominem attacks on "tweens" and "teenieboppers" at the door, and as WP:NPA advises, "comment on content, not on the contributor." — Kralizec! (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What problem are you (Camelbinky) trying to solve? Is anyone preventing you from expressing yourself because of the wording of this guideline? The advantage of Kralizec's opinion is that it just happens to coincide with the consensus view, and the established text in the section under discussion. There is no reason to change the text, although Rd232's proposal does look attractive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'problem' that Camelbinky is trying to solve is another editor recently criticising him for 'shouting' in an edit summary. It's obvious that there is consensus for the view that capitals=shouting, and it is long-established internet practice; nothing to do with tweens, twitter or whatever else Camelbinky suggested. I support the changes proposed above by Rd232. --hippo43 (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hippo43, you finally outed yourself for harrassment. You have now proven you have been watching my talk page and following me to other locations where I am involved in discussions and activities. I was "warned" for "shouting" LONG AFTER this discussion began, but only after that was posted on my talk page did you show up here. I am now bringing you to ANI for this wikistalking. You've crossed the line and I finally found proof you are following me around. I will not stand for this continual harrassment at article talk pages and now here.Camelbinky (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With that out of the way- I'd like to point out that, while I dont like that capitals are considered "shouting" my original problem was with bold and italics, to which from the start I was quite clear the reason I was bringing this up is that in a discussion someone said that my use of a bolding a short phrase was "yelling" and against this guideline; I had never heard that before so I came here. I didnt agree with the wording so brought it up. No one responded, so I changed the wording. Then people reverted, so I asked them to instead of reverting to talk to me here on a compromise. Rd232 was nice enough to come up with a compromise that would address my concern. At no point was my issue about capitals; I believe I even stated I could understand that; however I wasnt pleased with the word "shouting"; and I still believe a less tweeny term would be better. I do my editing at work, my work requires most things to be entered in capitals thus I have capslock on generally; during a heated post in the middle of a different policy talk page discussion I had the capslock on and typed my edit summary, it was in capitals, a non-involved editor chastised me instead of giving me good faith and asking about it; Hippo saw that and has involved himself in that discussion and of course here claiming that recent "warning" is what brought me here, even though I personally started this discussion weeks prior to that. So I have brought him to AN/I for his continued wikihounding of my talk page and any other locations I go to that he sees through my talk page. I wanted that cleared up about his post. As for Rd232's proposal, I want it clear to Hippo43 that there wouldnt have been that proposal if I hadnt voiced my concern, so this idea that Rd232's proposal is in opposition to mine is ridiculous, it is a compromise that he/she was nice enough to take time to craft concerning my issues.


 * If "attacks on tweens" is attacking any particular contributor I apologize that someone feels I'm attacking them personally; I am too old of a person to be treated and forced to type like a teenager, and it is my opinion that bold and italics as "shouting" is indeed a teenage idea (and just as baggy pants hanging off the ass has catched on to more than just teens, same with emoticons, LOL, LMFAO, and other slang; just because a teen idea catches on doesnt make it any less a common sense idea for some older people). Hippo cant speak for my motives. Only I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelbinky (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 November 2009
 * "I do my editing at work, my work requires most things to be entered in capitals thus I have capslock on generally"... wow, what on earth kind of work is that?? You should probably put it on your userpage or something to let people know of this very unusual circumstance! :) Anyway I've implemented my suggestion from above, and I think we can consider this thread closed (if there is a need for dispute resolution between you and Hippo, it clearly should not happen here). Rd232 talk 02:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rd232, and I do data entry for hotel accounts, most of which requires capitals when putting in letters (caps lock doesnt affect numbers) and its actually easier doing the work to have the caps lock on and use the shift key when I do a lowercase. I never saw the need to put it on my user page as I think personal stuff is personal and Wikipedia should be for Wikipedia. As for Hippo its at AN/I being taken care of.Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for answering my question. I didn't mean you need to put that on your user page, but indicating your use of caps lock might be helpful if it occasionally stays on when it shouldn't. Rd232 talk 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an article; the article was published by the Mesa Verde Museum Association. This organization made know changes to the article. The article was based on my original research from government archives. It contains no copyrighted material. Do I need the publishers permission to use in Wikipedia.

Who owns the copy right? Irvdiamond (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent change to lede
I've partially reverted the recent change to the lede discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_7. "...evaluating the use of information derived from secondary sources" is only a small part of the proper use of a talk page. Talk pages are the primary forum for in-depth discussions to build consensus for disputes regarding the associated article. This is already partially stated in the first sentence of the lede. If any elaboration is necessary, it should more accurately summarize the rest of this guideline, possibly referring to WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) --Cseki 03:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)