User talk:Danger/Archive 7

Triangles: Isosceles and Equilateral
I am new here and not very knowledgeable about the inner workings, so please bear with me. I have a discussion with dbfirs on the Triangle page and when I offer mathematics, he replies with conjecture and supposition. He is also making nonvalid math claims and holding them to be his supporting arguments. I would like to change the definition that is stated for isosceles triangles, well actually the parenthetical. Is there someone who can mediate, or how do we go about resolving the differences. JackOL31 (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a whole bunch of ways to go about resolving disputes. You could post your neutrally worded question on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page to attract the attention of interested editors. You could also post to the content noticeboard, which is a place for resolving content disputes. For more information about Wikipedia's conflict resolution methods, see this page. I've just picked the two that I think would be the most effective in resolving this dispute. I would also be happy to help you myself, if you would like that.
 * I had to laugh at your first sentence, because I've been around a long time and I don't feel knowledgeable about the "inner workings" either. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of gears in there, but other than that... well, I try to avoid getting caught there. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be too embarassed to post such a trivial item to the Mathematics Talk page. At this point, I don't believe it rises to the level for the content noticeboard since the person who disagrees with me at one point agreed with me, but now wavers back and forth. I've come up with edited content that I believe is fair. I've tested it in the sandbox, but the footnotes and references do not display. Would you be able to assist in this disagreement? I'd be happy to post my intended changes and go with your thoughts regarding neutrality and fairness. JackOL31 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since WikiProject Math considers Triangle one of its fundamental pages, I doubt that they'd consider any dispute about the article trivial. I think that after the regular editors of the page hash this out I'll have the rest of the project take a look anyway. It was a featured article at one point; new eyes might bring new perspectives on how to reachieve that level of excellence.
 * I can't find your edits to any sandbox, so I can't tell you what was wrong. Often references and notes don't show up if you're using the preview feature. If you'd like to try in one of my sandboxes so that I help you with the technical aspects, try User:Gimme danger/Sandbox/UBX. Type in what you tried and save it (you can erase whatever is in there now).
 * As to the dispute, there's a lot of text. I'll start sifting through today and will have commented by tomorrow on what I think are the relevant points. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As to what has changed, I reordered the presentation to scalene, isosceles and then equilateral. Seemed like a more logical presentation. Nothing (shbe) changed in scalene. One clause added to equilateral (subset of isosceles) and changes to the content/refs of isosceles. Whatever you think is best sounds good to me. JackOL31 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference problem was pretty basic. If you're using references, you need to use another template to call them back so that they'll appear. My favorite is because you can automatically adjust the number of columns in the section, but there are other methods. I've edited the Sandbox you used to give you an example. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was on the original page but I didn't include it in the sandbox, thanks. The editing is what I expected, but I might want to change the wording in the parentheses. However, one can get the gist of my changes. It might be easier to review the 3 sentences that have changed rather than read the discussion. JackOL31 (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the adoption
Yes, actually I am familiar with your contributions even before Carmel-by-the-Sea. I appreciate it immensely. Tell me how this generally works, and what you need from me to begin.

One of my first concerns going forward as an editor on Wikipedia is to clean up all of my previous articles. References, prose, images, formatting etc. Do you suggest picking a particular page and working on it exclusively until clean up is accomplished or start by narrowing in on specific things first like images, or references and repeating this down a list?

Also what are your thoughts on nominating my own articles for deletion that may not have a chance of further referencing or expanding and may be borderline notable, such as Wharf Theater. --Amadscientist (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, to be clear, I see this as a partnership that is centered around what you need personally to become a better editor; I don't need anything from you except to know your needs. There's no real set plan. For starting adoptees I've taken a variety of approaches, from formal classrooms, to a more hands-off "here if you need me" sort of relationship. If you have a style of working that you prefer, please let me know.
 * In your case, since you implied that your particular struggles would be difficult to understand, I'd suggest that we find some time when we can have a real time conversation via some sort of chat client like AIM. It would be much easier for me to understand your point of view, I think, if we could talk this way, instead of a conversation spread out over days on a talk page. If you already use a chat program and would like this approach, you could send me your screen name via email. I'll be traveling in the next couple of days, so my online time will be somewhat unusual for me.
 * Regarding cleaning up your previous work: I think this really depends on how you work best and what kind of work needs to be done. I'm involved in the Outline of Knowledge Wikiproject, which has put the method of repetitive edits on a large list of articles to good use. (It's amazingly efficient, but I personally find it difficult to be enthusiastic about after I've made the exact same edit to 190 articles.) But if you're doing referencing, it might be more effective to work on a group of related articles that all rely on the same sources.
 * Regarding deleting articles for which you are the primary contributor: Personally, I'm a mergist and an eventualist, so I would advise you not to delete content that you've added. If you've created stubby articles that are nonetheless referenced, you could see if you can find a home for that content within a larger article or list. And even if you aren't going to get around to referencing or expanding them, someone else will.
 * If possible, could you think about and maybe list what you see as your greatest flaws as an editor? Once we have determined what problem you want to solve, we can formulate a solution. (And it only took a few years of grueling math classes to learn that. Totally worth it, right? :-P) Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My biggest flaw as an editor is understanding how to deal with difficult and unusual situations and problems that perhaps the average editor would have stepped back from and not taken on. Many of the articles that I contribute to lead me to other articles, where I (most recently, in the last few months) encounter what I percieve to be conflict of interest or political or social agenda. I may be too concerned.


 * If the article is of great interest to me and I feel I can contribute I take that route, but that seems to be asking for an edit war, if my contributions differ from the major contributor at the time.


 * Let me show you a few example from just the last few months. While working on the Proposition 8 article I discovered an odd link at the beginning of a section to History of marriage in California which was written as, basically a politically slanted and very limited approach to the article that was centered around gay marriage which looked like this before I began work. It was pretty much uneventful, with no conflict. But that article as well as the Prop 8 article also lead me to Mormonism and violence which seemed like an attack on the LDS church so I worked on that a good deal. That had a heated discussion on the talk page and I had several LGBT editors very pissed off. During that encounter a call for help on an article at the LGBT project page lead me to Greek Love which I can only call a the worst situation I have ever seen on wiki. And I believe I made huge amounts of communication mistakes that made me look at the discussion page at past disputes and made me realise that I seem to fall into a trap I almost set for myself.


 * I have a lot of interests on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Illustrations, photography etc. I find my self spreading myself to thin perhaps.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's very helpful. I'll look over these articles and talk pages and see what I can glean from them.
 * Any thoughts about real-time communication? Email is a possibility as well. I use a wiki-devoted chat account; if anonymity is an issue, they are easy to create. --Gimme danger (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to e-mail you but it didn't work, because I hadn't verified my e-mail address. I don't think I had ever been on my preference page. Any way I am set up now and would prefer e-mail communications only because I am simply awful at immediate and quick replies on chat or text messaging so I stay away from them and have never improved ability. I'll e-mail ya.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it looks like you and I might be two of the few established editors without snazzy sigs and stuff. Sounds good to me. --Gimme danger (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship for Wikifan12345
Hi Gimme danger! I noticed that you wrote on an ANI thread that you would be willing to mentor User:Wikifan12345. Does that proposal still stand? Cheera, Ynhockey (Talk) 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does. I will be traveling tomorrow but will have settled into my usual use schedule by Thursday evening (around 2300 Greenwich time.) Some concern has been raised that he wants to learn how better to wiki-lawyer; I only know that I'm very bad at it, and would be a poor teacher. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OoK task
I'm finally done with the Ds, I think, and it only took me a month, since I'm super efficient. I've marked them done on your workpage, along with my name to indicate that only I've checked them over.

If you have any more tasks for me, let me know. I'm getting more interested in dispute resolution and mentoring users than gnoming at the moment, but I still need something to do while doing nothing, if you know what I mean. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll look over the D's and will provide feedback to you when I do.


 * Yes, I have another very important task for you...


 * Read each outline (and each outline's talk page), and when you come across a problem, let me know what it is.


 * This will help us decide what needs to be done.


 * As you look over the outlines, if you get any ideas on how to improve them, please let me know those too.


 * The Transhumanist 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
I decided to change my User page because I felt I was coming across confrontational. While I have had concerns and some editors are rude, that will never change....either one, but approach is a probelm I create, and perception is something I can at least not feed into unnecessarily.

I doubt that Hillary will make it to FA, but the editors there have expressed the desire to see it attempted. In doing so the article can see a good deal of improvements that, regardless of whether it makes it to Feature Article status, appears to be concerns that some have found difficult in dealing with, such as image quality, prose and formatting. The editors appear to be very concerned with taking a neutral stance and I didn't want to tell them a good deal of the lead was word for word from a Hillary biography so I just copy edited heavily....well a little at a time and watched to see reaction to my changes. Silent consensus appears one way to look at it and then there were a few edit changes that adjusted and corrected some mistakes I made as well as others, but for the most part my changes appear to be standing and I hope it is because the contributions were constructive overall.

Glad to hear the cat is fine. My dogs are a handful at times as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Still cleaning up the patriarchy articles
Believe it or not, I'm still working on cleaning up the mess of the patriarchy articles. There's been a standing merger discussion at Talk:Patriarchy_(anthropology) since 2007. Another editor saw that the discussion was stale and removed the notice. Since no objections had been raised in the merger discussion, I decided to be bold and completed the merger, only to be reverted by the same editor. Rather than edit warring about it, I would like to get the issue resolved definitively. If you have any interest in the topic, please weigh in at Talk:Patriarchy_(anthropology). Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Link update: Talk:Patriarchy_(anthropology). Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Feminist Economics
I consider the reversion to the version of the Feminist Economics webpage to be a case of vandalism, as I explained on the Discussion page for that page. It's fine that referenced academic works were cited, etc., in the reverted text, but the argument made simply does not belong in a description of FEMINIST economics. I am one of the founders of this field, and very involved in its continuing development, so I believe I fairly represent the views of most people who would associate their work with this term. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan02465 (talk • contribs) 08:16, September 26, 2009


 * First, thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia. The input of experts, while not always valued properly by the community, is sorely needed here.


 * And thank you for explaining your edits. I should reciprocate. On Wikipedia, the term "vandal" has a specific meaning: it should be applied only to those who cannot be construed as doing anything but disrupting the encyclopedia. If it's possible that the editor who made any edit in question thought that it would improve the encyclopedia, then that edit cannot be vandalism. Because on the internet we have a limited amount of information about the motives of other editors, we have the policy of assuming good faith about the actions of other Wikipedians; it is considered beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior to accuse another editor of vandalism. You and Bbarkley2 are having a content dispute. I understand this now. Generally, when I see one editor accusing another of vandalism right out of the gates, I revert the edit in which they made that attack; while not a perfect reaction in every case, this seems to help deal with the situation in a lot of cases. That's what I did here.


 * If you have any more questions or would like any help, please feel free to call on me. And remember to sign talk page posts with four tildes ( ~ . Cheers! --Danger (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Outline Update - expanding the Outline of Knowledge - 2009-10-05
Time for some catching up...


 * Special award and thanks to Buaidh

Congratulations and kudos to Buaidh, the first recipient of the Wikipedia World Developer Award, and the first inductee into the Outline of Knowledge WikiProject's Hall of Fame.

The award was announced about 2 months agos on the WikiProject's talk page, and on Wikipedia's Community Bulletin Board.

Buaidh created the historical outlines for all of the U.S. States, the U.S. capital, and most of the U.S. insular areas. He has also worked indefatigably day after day, improving all of the outlines of the U.S. States, and the outlines of all of the countries of the world!


 * Who's been up to what?


 * Buaidh, working hard on the country outlines.
 * Highfields, MacMed, and I worked on the see also sections of the subject articles corresponding to the outlines (adding or updating the links to the relevant outlines and indexes).


 * Wiki-Zombies

Discussions can sure be frustrating - try getting a proposal through on a guideline's talk page sometime. Most of the time, it seems like the opposition is mindlessly following each other, like...

Zombies. (You've got to see this).


 * Outline of Knowledge

Yes, it's a proper noun. It's only proper, since we also have an article called Outline of knowledge which is about knowledge generically.


 * OOK expansion!

After a couple month vacation, I'm ready to slam the gas pedal to the floor. Are you?

Things are speeding up!

Take a look...


 * New to the OOK

The following outlines have been added to the OOK within the past couple of months or so. Some of them were renames, some of them brand new, and some of them recently discovered after sitting in article space for awhile as orphans.


 * Outline of knowledge - yes, your eyes do not deceive you!
 * Outline of birds
 * Outline of regression analysis
 * Outline of water - Highfields
 * '''Outline of string theory
 * '''Outline of quantum theory
 * '''Outline of evidence law in the United States
 * Outline of libertarianism
 * Outline of radio
 * Outline of painting history
 * Outline of hydrology
 * Outline of rights
 * Outline of tort law
 * Outline of parapsychology

Here's some more pages that have been renamed to outlines even more recently, but that need to be converted to OOK format:
 * Outline of project management
 * Outline of production
 * Outline of counseling
 * Outline of sustainable agriculture
 * Outline of pseudoscience
 * Outline of human-computer interaction
 * Outline of video gaming
 * Outline of neuroscience
 * Outline of Boolean algebra
 * Outline of Green politics
 * Outline of vaccines
 * Outline of noise
 * Outline of mathematical logic
 * Outline of circles
 * Outline of linear algebra
 * Outline of number theory
 * Outline of organic gardening and farming
 * Outline of futurology
 * Outline of group theory
 * Outline of clinical research
 * Outline of electrical engineering
 * Outline of rail transport
 * Outline of curves
 * Outline of genetic genealogy
 * Outline of environmental studies
 * Outline of geometric topology
 * Outline of U.S. chemical weapons
 * Outline of puzzles
 * Outline of industrial archaeology
 * Outline of graph theory
 * Outline of numeral systems
 * Outline of set theory
 * Outline of partitions
 * Outline of U.S. biological weapons
 * Outline of real analysis
 * Outline of fishing
 * Outline of abstract algebra
 * Outline of eggs
 * Outline of dynamical systems and differential equations
 * Outline of ancient Egypt
 * Outline of computer vision
 * Outline of network theory
 * Outline of differential geometry
 * Outline of obstetrics
 * Outline of complex analysis
 * Outline of triangles
 * Outline of Lie groups
 * Outline of numerical computational geometry
 * Outline of functional analysis
 * Outline of general topology
 * Outline of computability and complexity
 * Outline of order theory
 * Outline of commutative algebra
 * Outline of algebraic topology
 * Outline of topology
 * Outline of polynomials
 * Outline of combinatorial computational geometry
 * Outline of recreational number theory

The following pairs of pages are content forks and need to be merged:
 * Lists to merge into outlines:


 * List of probability topics --> Outline of probability
 * List of software engineering topics --> Outline of software engineering
 * List of nanotechnology topics --> Outline of nanotechnology
 * List of calculus topics --> Outline of calculus
 * List of geometry topics --> Outline of geometry
 * List of community topics --> Outline of community
 * List of futurology topics --> Outline of futurology
 * List of American Civil War topics --> Outline of the American Civil War
 * List of computer programming topics --> Outline of computer programming
 * List of entertainment industry topics --> Outline of entertainment
 * List of health sciences topics --> Outline of health science


 * Not sure what to rename these to:
 * List of noncommutative topics in mathematics
 * List of MCAT topics (another ook!)


 * Rough outlines, renamed/moved to draft space:
 * List of information technology management topics --> WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of information technology management
 * List of human resource management topics --> WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of human resource management
 * List of suggested topics for computer networking research --> WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of computer networking


 * Lists that can be structured into decent outlines:
 * List of exponential topics
 * List of computer graphics and descriptive geometry topics
 * List of multivariable calculus topics
 * List of factorial and binomial topics
 * List of permutation topics
 * List of algorithm general topics
 * List of stochastic processes topics

Only a few hundred more to go. :)

The Transhumanist 04:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discrimination
hi, i just saw you added some corrections on it. Thanks. However I really forgot about this, andit seems noone has an interest on it, may be it is a little bit more pathetic than it should be? What do you think? --SofieElisBexter (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

topic ban
i think you may have misunderstood the context of the edit i asked wikifan to self-revert. the table in question was originally inserted by wikifan as"UNSC resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict in comparison with other conflicts". it was eventually removed, and then he came back and reinserted it. the title alone should be enough to restrict him from it, but when you add to it the fact that it is OR synthesized from several sources to make a statement on UN/Israel relations, i really can't see how it could be unrelated to his topic ban. just wanting to clarify, thanks. untwirl (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can understand your viewpoint, given the formatting of the table and the past history of that edit. Thank you for explaining this to me. --Danger (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Afd
You registered a Strong Keep in the 1st Afd concerning the BLP of Ray Joseph Cormier in February. It was nominated for deletion in March of this year again, and the Editor who nominated it then without success, has nominated it for deletion again. Would you please take another look? Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are only notifying the editors who previously supported keeping the article of this new AfD. This violates our rules on canvassing. I will not comment on this AfD unless you notify all commenters on the previous AfD, except to note this behavior. Danger (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging the need for balance, and to avoid being in violation canvassing I advised an equal number of editors who registered a delete in the previous Afd of the current Afd. I will make no more comments on the Afd awaiting a consensus decision. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take note of my comment here. You did not receive an automated bot notice of this AfD, but many who expressed delete in the previous attempts did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoDaCanaDa (talk • contribs) 00:01, November 1, 2009 DoDaCanaDa (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not about making the number of users contacted equal. This is about following the spirit of our policies regarding canvassing versus friendly notices. Friendly notices go to interested parties in the discussion, publicly, regardless of their positions; canvassing is behavior contrary to that. So, even if you have notified an equal number of "delete" !voters, I still have concerns about canvassing. Consider a hypothetical situation in which 300 editors supported a proposition and 3 opposed it. If I were to send out messages to the three opposing editors and three supporters, I would still be stacking the vote in favor of the oppose side, because 297 editors who had the other point of view didn't know that the discussion was going on in the first place. Does this make sense? --Danger (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On that point I see exactly what you´re saying if we were dealing in those numbers. When the ¨friendly notice was sent out to only 4 people, and reading what I wrote to you, it might appear to be more less than the neutral, generic words sent to the three others. There were not even 4 opinions registered at the time. Please answer this? In the previous AfD ,you registered a strong keep. Did you receive an automated bot? I don´t see it on this page. Previously this editor voted delete. Was the bot canvassing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoDaCanaDa (talk • contribs)
 * The bot notifies editors who have worked on an article about an AfD debate. It just happens that many of the people who made edits to the article also !voted in the AfD. It does not work from old AfDs, but rather from the article's history, so it cannot distinguish between those who have commented "keep" and those who commented "delete". So, no the bot was not canvassing. It sent a neutral messages to all of a specific group the parties (editors of the articles) who might be interested in the deletion vote. --Danger (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. That explains it. In reviewing the previous AfDs, one individual got that bot who never voted on an Afd for this article.

Maybe subconsciously, my words to you were stronger than those I sent to the 3 others only because you expressed ¨strong.¨ The bottom line is, without any conscious awareness of it, I was violating a rule, Mea Culpa. I won´t do that again. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything, the message you sent to me was less questionable than the ones chosen as examples on the COI noticeboard posting. I appreciate your apology though. Danger (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Spirit of Mea Culpa I had to make this comment DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a time limit for an AfD discussion? In it, there is talk that an IAR delete opinion carries less weight than others. Is there a group or board of editors that consider every comment and weigh each one to come to a consensus? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion debates last for seven days, although uncontroversial ones may be closed earlier. At the close of a deletion debate, an uninvolved administrator weighs each comment before coming to a decision. (Uncontroversial debates may be closed by non-admin users.) If, at the end of this process, you believe that the administrator weighed the !votes incorrectly, you may appeal to deletion review, which is a message board that will evaluate whether the AfD was handled correctly. This process is not merely to appeal decisions that one disagrees with and should only be used if the closing admin made a mistake. Danger (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking deeper into the automated bot notice of this AfD. it is interesting to note that not one editor who registered a keep received a bot notice for this AfD, only those who registered a delete. While I understand what you explained, I just find it curious that it randomly turned out that way. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is curious, but still only a coincidence. I doubt it represents any sort of trend, but it would be interesting to know if editors who !vote delete are more likely to attempt to edit an article than ones who !vote keep. I could see that or the converse being true equally likely. Danger (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

GLAM
Redirects go to Redirects for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. A well-deserved whack from the clue-bat was on order for me. --Danger (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Expertise
Hello there and thanks for contacting me. The redundant interwiki was coming from Castles in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where it was not wrapped in a noinclude tag, and thus would appear at every page which has that template. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 12:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thank you very much. --Danger (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ray Joseph Cormier - Deleted
It is finished!I will leave it up to others if there is going to be a deletion review. Since I have attempted to exhort other editors to make an effort to improve the article with no response, and my hands being tied because of COI, not only did I not get any co-operation from the same small handful of editors who had the Article and talk on their watchlist and were in the talk within minutes of any post I made, I encountered only resistance to any suggestion I made for improvement based on information in the independent reliable news sources. Being pre-internet, I offered to e-mail copies of all the originals to anyone willing to just take a look at them. No replies. Now, even that evidence is removed.

My thoughts on the process are in the talk of the only editor who stood up for WP:N consistently and frequently in the AfD discussion. I understood you were not supporting me personally, but the the foundation of Wikipedia´s credibility, WP:N when you registered a keep. As of now, I am only disappointed.

User_talk:Hobit -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoDaCanaDa (talk • contribs)


 * I have a feeling that this type of message is exactly what caused otherwise borderline editors to !vote delete. I find this type of behavior extremely irritating. Merely disagreeing with you does not indicate a lack of thought on the part of the editors in this discussion, nor does it do any good to continue your campaign at this point. Notability is a policy that requires interpretation. With a borderline biography and a subject that repeated breaks the rules of our community, it's certainly understandable to say "This article is more trouble than it is worth" and interpret WP:N strictly.  --Danger (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect you´re right on that, but that only shows personality trumped policy, a violation of NPOV. Editors don´t have to like me. They just have to draw on the available reliable independent news sources. So many were edited out from the the version that was deleted. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And the irritating behavior continues. I do not wish to discuss this article further. If you would like help with another aspect of Wikipedia, feel free to contact me here. Otherwise, enjoy life outside of Wikipedia. --Danger (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Health Care Proposal
What is your opinion on the new health care proposal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory14 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My wiki-persona doesn't have opinions. --Danger (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Outline credit
Hi. You offered to do a bit of work towards fixing Wikipedia talk:Outlines a while ago. The helppage was recently promoted to 'guideline' status, so see Copying_within_Wikipedia for details on how to fix things. Just a nudge :) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather they were removed and replaced with more appropriate leads that do not have all the associated problems. If you could just provide a list I can get on that. Verbal chat  21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones I transferred personally were the country outlines beginning with E–Z. Thank you for the nudge Quiddity. Verbal, I'm still not sure what exactly I need to do to fix the problem. If you would like to give me a brief instruction, I can help with your project. --Danger (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only action that is required by someone, is: "using dummy edits to record new edit summaries [...] Such belated attribution should make clear when the relevant text entered the page."
 * So at Outline of Hungary, you'd just need to make a dummy edit (See Help:Dummy edit) and mention when the text arrived, and which article(s) it was copied from. In this case, this diff - So an edit summary of "the lead paragraphs were copied to here, from Hungary, on 11 July 2008. See that article for full attribution" should be sufficient. (if that is where the text all came from).
 * Ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup or Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia if you have any questions. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Greek love article was completely rewritten
I reverted back to where the bot considered it vandalism, but I have to ask you what you think about this kind of editing. Is this what you would consider bold or a complete dumping of another's referenced work for no good reason and with no notification to main editors involved.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's actually no policy that would require notification to main editors before making large changes. It is a convention that, in my opinion, has been cemented into wikiculture against our no ownership policy, and is not obvious to new users. So, along that line of reasoning, I don't think there is much of a difference between the two scenarios you posited, in general.
 * In this case (I assume that you are referring to this edit, so if you are not, I would appreciate a pointer to the one that you are refering to), I think that the edit is not without its flaws (extreme overlinking being the most obvious), but still offers more of the historical grounding that I would expect in such an article. Not all of this is referenced as clearly as it should be. I think that the next edit, the one that you made, is also a relatively good one, although with context, I think block quotes may be appropriate in an article like this.
 * The only scenario in which this edit would be against policy is if the IP editor is a regular editor of the article who signed out in order to deceive other users, but this would be, I think nearly impossible to prove over the more likely cases of this either being a true IP editor or a regular user who was automatically logged out and forgot to log back in.
 * I think your talk page comment is unnecessarily hostile and rather bitey. Assume good faith is a major policy for a reason. "[It]'s not a request!--Danger (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP user directly before my change is me. I didn't realise I was not logged in. The complete rewrite is from October and removed a considerable amount of referenced material only to begin the same debate by others that had occured some time ago.

Here is the original rewrite before it was reversed by a bot http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_love&action=historysubmit&diff=322993821&oldid=320828111 dated October 30. It was reverted, edits made and then the same member came back and did it again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_love&action=historysubmit&diff=325872266&oldid=324640772 dated November 14, setting off some conflict.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit hostile. I have toughened a bit and that is why I seek a little guidance, but it does blur in consideration of how others have spoken to me. Light in fact, but I defer to your opinion as being more neutral. Please take a look at the article in comparison to previous information and added comments.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I have no problem with Block quotes....it's what is in them that becomes a question and that seems to be shared by others, but this begins to be a game of who can wait the other out to make the article EXACTLY what they want instead of trying to respect the contributions of others. Removing everything is akin to a page blank unless there is some very obvious reason for the extreme change.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed prod from Ciaran Buckley.
Hello, I removed the prod tag from the article because it was already proposed for deletion before and that deletion was contested. Since proposed deletions must be uncontested, the article isn't available for prod, but it can still be deleted after a discussion at AfD. Thanks! --  At am a  頭 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you revert an edit?
I have a request. I've found a page, Hannah Kearney, that had nonsense content added to it a few days ago. I deleted the content, and tried to undo the edits to a previous incarnation, but was unsuccessful, as you can see by the mess that is the history page. Can you please revert the page to an earlier incarnation, specifically to the state it was in before TehMightBeep made his first edit? I don't have confidence in my abilities to do this without making a mistake, and would rather have an experienced editor do so. Thank you in advance. C628 (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, already done. I did this by going into the article history and viewing the last clean copy (the one before the vandal edits), then editing that copy. A warning appears to inform you that you're going to erase any intermediate edits. That's what I wanted to do, so I saved that copy without making any changes. Does that make sense? --Danger (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. C628 (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hans Raj Khanna
Though this was my GA nomination, it was in my watchlist. Please explain your quick-fail in detail. A 1-line comment "article clearly takes a non-neutral point of view on subject" does not tell the nominator why it a case of a clear NPOV. You haven't even created the review page. Please at least do so and explain 2-3 lines why it is a quick-fail, a clear NPOV in your opinion. The "How to review an article" on Good article nominations says "Check the "quick-fail criteria" before reading the article in detail: if a quick fail is appropriate, add your reason to the review page and go to the fail process; otherwise continue with the next step." Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I don't review GA nominations very often and only stopped by because of the influx from WikiCup submissions. I didn't realize that a review page was necessary for a quick fail. I have corrected my error. Thank you for pointing it out; I will do better in the future.--Danger (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remember GA nominators have worked a lot for a nomination, so as reviewers we need to value it but be discerning enough to point the faults and suggest improvement. I often leave a note on nominator's talk so he/she can check the review. Thanks for the quick response. Please create a review page for any quick-fail in future or you have recently quick-failed, it is kind of history of the article. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

topic ban
Hello!

Has my 6 month ban expired yet?

Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know it was only for the remainder of 2009. So, yes. --Danger (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest residential buildings in the world
I have nominated this article for Feature list, "LIST OF TALLESTRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD" i need your help regarding anymistakes, errors, gramatical mistakes and much more in this article, mypurpose is to make this article perfect or close to perfection, meansno mistakes and errors so that it would for sure become a feature list.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to copy edit the article. Because I am currently very busy with school work, I don't think I will be able to take good look until this time next week.
 * My initial reaction though is that this list needs substantial work before promotion. It looks like other reviewers have agreed. It may be wise to withdraw the nomination until the article has been edited thoroughly. --Danger (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
ô ¿ ô 02:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Editorial Feedback
I enjoyed the "Splendid and Majestic Tutnum" award described on this page: I like that kind of humour. It lightens the day — even at night. // And Nothing But (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it. There is quite a bit of such humor here. Welcome again to the 'Pedia. --Danger (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Attribution assistance
Hi, just a reminder. Wikipedia talk:Outlines could use your assistance. Thank you! -- Quiddity (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer particularly active as an editor. If I have the time and energy I will get to it, but that seems unlikely. I apologize that I cannot be more help. --Danger (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Best of health to you. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3. I thought you might want to sign up for Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Briggs Page
The information is accurate and verifiable 100%. Why did you remove it? PPP —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterPiperPickles (talk • contribs) 03:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it was unsourced information of a potentially controversial nature on the biography of a living person. Material of this nature must not only be verifiable in theory, but explicitly sourced to reliable sources. --Danger (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have creditable source (s) such as transworldnews, ny post, allie is wired, court documents, etc i am having a difficult time adding links, not sure how to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterPiperPickles (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Horne (Wrestler)
The info what was added come form the fact that I went through The School of Hard Knocks and I wrestled for Southern Extreme Wrestling. So choke on that slap nutts.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.110.161 (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, Wikipedia policy is very clear. Potentially damaging information about a living person must be sourced to a reliable source. Your personal experience does not meet our policy of verifiability unless you have published your experience in a reliable source. --Danger (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SO then you want lies...ok thats cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.110.161 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more that libel suits are expensive and that, frankly, I don't trust you and neither does Wikipedia. Wikipedia can't rely on the unverified testimony of individuals. On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog. You could be who you say you are. You also could be a middle-schooler sitting in the library having a grand old time fooling the idiots at Wikipedia. If the information isn't published somewhere, we have no way of knowing. --Danger (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So like I said you want lies thats cool, and who to say anyone should trust you, like you know everything about everyone that is in Wikipedia, and as far as suits just from what you sat here and said I could file a suit against Wikipedia and you for your commit of "frankly, I don't trust you and neither does Wikipedia". I have printed off this page and shall file suit, so see you in court and you might want to tell the boys at Wikipedia get ready cause you ran your mouth and costed them a shit load of money...
 * I have taken this matter to WP:AN/I. --Danger (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Stoic bliss
Didn't make any edits on this article. I always use my wiki account when editing. Perhaps message was for someone else? - 96.224.60.239 (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is your IP a shared one? That seems most likely. In any case, disregard the message. Happy editing. --Danger (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit appeal
Hello! I recently added the Nobel Prize article for a peer review. I mostly need help with copy editing and I saw your name on the Peer review volunteer list. I wonder if you are interested in helping me out?

Thanks, Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 10:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am, but my academic responsibilities will keep me from getting to it until Tuesday evening. If you need input sooner, I suggest that you ask someone else. I will, of course, still look over the article. Cheers, Danger (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is absolutely no problem. After Tuesday or later, I don't really mind as long as I can get help at all :) Thank you! Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement re User:Wikifan12345
As you were appointed/volunteered to be User:Wikifan12345's mentor following his topic ban last year, I thought I should notify you that I have requested a permanent topic ban on this editor for ongoing policy violations. Basically he's learned nothing from the experience and is as troublesome as ever. Please see WP:AE. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me Chris. --Danger (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Islam and Blasphemy (moved from userpage)
Hey. Thanks for letting me know Wikipedia's policy on disclaimers. I will, thus, not make any further changes to the article - I do, however, feel an improvement is needed. Cheers. PS: How do you get those cool little tags on education, interests etc on your User page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixSF90 (talk • contribs)

Moved from userpage by ~ A H  1 (TCU)
 * Please feel free to make further edits to the article; I agree that it needs a lot of improvements but I have neither the time nor knowledge of the topic needed to make them. The tags are called userboxes (or userboxen) and you can find a partial list here. --Danger (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting Event Which May Be of Interest
Hi, I saw your name on the peer review list of general copyeditors, and I thought you might be interested in participating in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 16:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Male Dwarfism
Hi

I came across your user page after a search for male dwarfism

Just like to point you to Sexual dimorphism which seems to cover the subject fairly well :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. I would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your work on EOTech
Hi, I saw your excellent work on EOTech. Perhaps you don't realize this, but all of the technical data should be split out of that article and put in a new one, holographic sight. It is redlined on Beltway sniper attacks. Have a great day!--Jarhed (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You must have me confused with another user. I've never edited that page. --Danger (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Hi, I was wondering if you could use your copyedit powers on the article. Thanks :) d'oh! talk 08:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I prefer to avoid popular culture type articles, so I think I'll sit this one out. Sorry again.--Danger (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

3O?
Hey. I was just looking at Talk:Frank Sandford. Am I right in thinking that you're taking on that 3O? If not, please let me know, or just undo my removal on the 3O talk page. Thanks! —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am and should have removed it. Sorry for my oversight and thank you for taking care of it!--Danger (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not spam me
Please do not dump unsolicited material on my user page, as you have just done, unless you have something necessary to say. You can put anything you like on your own page. I have blanked your presumptuous crap. Medhbh (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I was trying to help you feel welcome and offer my assistance if you needed it. You are, of course, welcome to blank anything in your userspace. Again, I apologize for offending you. --Danger (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two irritating things: 1. You are a total stranger and your "welcome" is an abstract thing because we don't know each other, so it is meaningless. 2. Your presumption that I need help is mildly patronising. Why can't people just mind their own business? Medhbh (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I am sorry. Many users appreciate being welcomed and do need help. I had no way of knowing that it would upset you. On the bright side, you didn't get the welcome that offers a plate of chocolate chip cookies. --Danger (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive
How do you set up archiving for your talk page? whiskers75 10:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskers75 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, there are a few methods of archiving. I use a manual method. I create a subpage of my talk page and cut and paste the threads I want to archive into that page. Then I use an archive template to navigate the pages. There are a few more described on the archive instruction page. You can also use one of the MiszaBot archiving scripts. You would paste the code into either your custom css or custom js page, which you can access by clicking on "My Preferences" and the tab "Appearance". There will be a link on that page. Do these instructions make sense? Please ask if you have any more questions. --Danger (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't get what you were asking. First off, ignore the incorrect instructions about Miszabot. I've taken the liberty of setting up the archiver for you. I think I did it right. Here is the "diff" page, which will show you what I changed. If you have any questions about how this works, let me know. --Danger (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you did it. There arent any archive notices on my talk page! whiskers75 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskers75 (talk • contribs)
 * That could be because you don't have any threads older than 31 days, ie the bot hasn't archived anything yet. --Danger (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct; I don't! I will change the bot's archive settings to 4 days. whiskers75 09:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskers75 (talk • contribs)

Proposed deletion of XenForo
I have removed the prod tag from XenForo, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! In removing the prod tag, I have also addressed one of your concerns, specifically that the article was written in a brochure-like, promotional, manner. I have stubbified the article until such time that is has more media coverage/notability and can be expanded. I just wanted to let you know. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the notice. My instinct is to take it to AfD; I see the article as unwarranted promotion of a fledgling site with very little reliable third party coverage. Your effort in stubbifying it is admirable though. --Danger (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. By way of clarification, The subject is a software product/company, not a website. But the core problem is a (current) lack of notability. I'd venture a guess that it might soon gain sufficient notability, but as it stands there is a marked lack of 3rd party coverage. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)