User talk:Danger/June 2008

A Plea for Help
Hi! Thanks so much for offering to help on the Sonam Gyatso article with the conlicting reports on the meeting-place of Altan Khan and Sonam Gyatso - I would be very happy for any help here - as I am terribly busy at the moment and it will be weeks before I can access other texts. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jane Richardson (chemist)
Came across your request for deletion as G7 while checking as reviewing administrator,   ---but there was also an underconstruction notice. Is there something wrong with the article I don't see which gives a reason for deleting it? There's a very good reference for this at DGG (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * blush* The only thing wrong with that article is that there's already an article on Ms. Richardson at Jane S. Richardson. I just didn't look hard enough/got stuck without a disambiguation. Thank you so much for the additional resource though! I'll definitely add it to the article. --Gimme danger (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * the simplest thing to do when you make or discover a duplicate is to change one of the versions to a redirect. I did that just now. DGG (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Gimme danger (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Palyul lineage source
Hi there, thanks for adding information to the Palyul article. Would you mind adding the source where you found that list? If you don't know how to format it, that's okay, just put what you think is relevant on my talk page and I can look it up. Of course, perhaps you just have that all down in memory, in which case... wow! --Gimme danger (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The ref was the same as was on the page, but I have added a secondary source.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Gimme danger (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a better source than the Nam Cho lineage prayer: a translation of a text on the history of the Palyul lineage by Tsering Lama Jampal Zangpo. I've gone ahead and corrected inaccuracies to the list of throneholders. Longchenpa (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Timothy osborne
The article Timothy osborne was not only a hoax, it was nonsense, because it was basically a copy of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart with only the names changed. While I was closing the AfD discussion, User:Eliz81 simultaneously went ahead and both deleted the article and blocked the author indefinitely. J I P | Talk 05:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I've been bitten for misusing speedy templates a few times, so I didn't want to cross that line. I was under the impression that nonsense had to be something like: hd.uavdgiucda.ois or word salad.--Gimme danger (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

--Gimme danger (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Saw your comments at AfD and thought I'd stop by. You are correct in that is supposed to be of the "aaljfotoayt" variety but, hoaxes are deliberate misinformation. Deliberate misinformation is one of the criteria to speedy delete for  Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You Wanted One
Thanks for signing my signbook. :)  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  05:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aww... how sweet. Thank you. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

National Gallery
I messed up by pressing enter too quickly, then posted the mess to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves. it wasn't malicious :) ninety:one 15:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I didn't figure it was malicious and I agree with the move. I tried to add the paren, but something went wrong, so I figured I'd move it back for the time being. We can let an admin deal with the human-computer negotiations. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * tried again, and it worked. thanks! ninety:one 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits
Maybe you can tell me how this is any better than my removal of a puppetmaster's soapbox trolling on a talk page. You should also rectify that with your argument that "refactor does not mean wholesale deletion." If you are indeed working for that Chinese visa as you claim, you're working really, really hard at it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed that comment because it had nothing to do with improving the article; it was merely jeering at Conservapedia. One of the discussions you deleted was directed toward improving the article. The identity of the user has little to do with the arguments contained in the thread. Gimme danger (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. It was aimed at advancing that user's point of view. The only people responding to that discussion were that user and all of his sockpuppets. It doesn't serve any purpose on the talk page other than as a soapbox for Foxhunt99 to spout his nationalist propaganda. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't see it, I'm sorry. In that section, as I read it, Foxhunt was attempting to explain what they thought the article should be about. You claim that the article is POV (I do not think it means what you think it means) without giving any examples. Foxhunt explains why they don't think the article is biased (I don't think they realized how offensive his language was initially), reasoning that he used Western sources. You rejoin claiming that non-neutral writers can't be included in the article, so their inclusion of pro-Chinese sources is invalid. You also argue that the article needs to include more viewpoints. Etc etc etc. (summary for my own benefit.) Apart from the exchange about sockpuppetry, none of the statements made in the thread are off topic; they are all directed at improving the article. I think you're mistaking pointless trolling ("The Dalai Lama eats puppies and was the mother of Hitler."), with disagreement and discussion ("I think this article should go in this direction and here's why."). Since at that point the only people who seemed aware of this article were you and puppetmaster, it's natural that you were the only persons involved in the conversation. Also, refactoring does not mean deletion; it means the summarizing of arguments to cut down on length and repetition, the removal of personal attacks, and organization to make a discussion easier to read.
 * If it were pointless trolling, on the level of "Tibetans are brutal mindless slavers long live the PRC." I would have deleted it too. I would provide you with diffs where I've done this on Talk:Tibet and other pages if you like. I remove trolling and off topic discussion on both sides, because I really don't care which side is doing the trolling. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not to fight a ideological war. Regardless, I'm sure we, the editors of Tibet-related topics, can work this all out. If Israel can be a featured article, there's no reason that Tibet can't.
 * Speaking of which, since you seem rather interested in Tibet, would you be willing to do some sort of collaboration this coming quarter with Wikiproject Tibet? I think John Hill, Longchenpa and a few others have expressed some interest in doing something like that. Right now, there's only one decent article about Tibet at all, Tibet during the Ming Dynasty (kudos to PericlesofAthens and Bertport), which makes me somewhat sad. So much interesting material. I dunno, just some thoughts while I procrastinate. Gimme danger (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you will have to rectify your argument about sockpuppets trying to improve the article with your wholesale deletion of a subject about Conservapedia. I could make the exact same (weak) argument about how this was intended to improve the article and why it should be retained. This doesn't happen to flush with your own personal biases, so you'd prefer to selectively administer your own censorship of talk pages. Trolling comes in many forms, both subtle and overt, and does not need to make allusions to Nazi Germany to qualify. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you please refrain from making assumptions about my biases and I'll do the same, alright? The Conservapedia comment wasn't about the article at all; the comments you deleted were about the article. If you can make an argument, please do. Saying that you could theoretically make an argument really isn't helpful here, since we're clearly not on the same page. I'm not going to be able to fill in the blanks for you here. I really don't see how Foxhunt et al were trolling. I'm honestly asking which part of the comments you found offensive so that I can evaluate what you're saying, because right now I'm utterly at a loss and wondering whether we're even talking about the same discussion.
 * I understand that Nazi Germany needn't be mentioned to constitute soapboxing; I was trying to think of the most outlandish example possible. But I think one has to at least stop talking about what should be in the article before one's comments can be soapboxing. Otherwise, trolling can be defined arbitrarily. I assume that Foxhunt et al were trying to improve wikipedia and take their arguments at face value. Are they wrong? Maybe. But they're still making arguments about the article and those should still be kept on the talk page, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees. Gimme danger (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what I really want to know is this: what is the standard to determine whether a comment is constructive or not? Gimme danger (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Foxhunt99 is a blocked puppetmaster. That user has a history of abusing the processes of this encyclopedia and any of their contributions should be viewed with great suspicion. That their comments were framed in the context of editing that article should not fool anyone into believing they were anything except tendentious, nationalistic propaganda. Their arguments are all invalid and they should not be retained for any reason. The fact that you share that editors POV does not make it any less biased or nonneutral.
 * The discussion on Conservapedia was not wholly without merit. It contrasted the text of our article with theirs and looked for improvements that could be made from one to the other. Your conservative ideology didn't agree with what you saw as a wholesale attack on your position so you removed it. Now you're arguing that, somehow, these comments have some relevance to any discussion on that article so they should be kept. This seems to contradict your edit earlier and you have not yet explained this discrepancy. Please rectify your position on both. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-read the Talk:Atheism comments and realize that you are right, I did delete parts dealing with article improvement. To err is human. I've reinstated the relevant bits. Gimme danger (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the puppetmaster front. Generally I feel that arguments should be evaluated on their individual merit, not on the person who's making them. A broken clock is right twice a day and all that. Plus, I find it easier to just deal with arguments than people.
 * I'm genuinely upset by your accusations that I am gaming the system here in order to advance some point of view. I would appreciate if you would cease making them. The fact that you believe my bias is the opposite of what it actually is, while mildly irritating, is overshadowed by my perception that you seem to feel that I'm acting in bad faith. This of course is just what I'm taking away from your comments and I may be misinterpreting them entirely; I hope that I am. Gimme danger (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome again
Hey, I heard you wished soemone would welcome you again =) Larklight (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Woo hoo! Thank you! I think I'm shy of 10,000 yet, so it's not too late. :)Gimme danger (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the welcome! I've been looking through some of those files already and it's nice to have them all in one place so I don't have to skim the links so often. Buubuub (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite ... er... welcome. Yeah, I had myself re-welcomed for the purpose of having all those links handy. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

?
Not quite Wisconsin. John Reaves 00:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Err... Sorry 'bout that. Another misfire. I've been doing Wisconsin assessment too and it was saved in the browser. I'll have to study up on my geography. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexism
Hi. First, I don't know why anyone would revert something without reading it esp. if it was a good edit. Your recent edit to the Heterosexism article wasn't good - it was excellent. Teasing out and recycling what the original contributor was trying to say was tedious enough for me. Thanks for polishing it!! --CJ Withers (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why thank you! --Gimme danger (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My response to your message
Hi I am lordlactose I am responding to the message you sent me. I have rackked up several infractions. I got them for posting my you tube video. Gwernol says it is against the rules. I asked him why this link exist then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:YouTube_videos. How come all of these people are allowed to do this, but I can't.

I also hope to edit the pages for adult twin studies, nature vs nurture, and maybe some others. I am a little afraid to though, because I have so many infractions. If I make one little mistake, I could be banned for ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlactose (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, about the Youtube video, Gwernol and I have both left detailed messages on your talk page. In general, the link you added didn't meet guidelines for external links (WP:EL) for the following reasons. First, since you are the creator of the video, your posting it is a violation of our conflict of interest policy; if you wish content that you have a personal interest in to be added, you should suggest it on the article talk page. Second, it doesn't seem that your link adds anything essential to the page. Third, linking to an opinion piece without balancing opinions violates our neutral point of view policy.
 * In regards to adoption, if you wish to accept my offer, please replace the template on your user page with  . In the future, if I leave a message on your talk page, respond there; this is a personal preference. And remember to sign your talk page messages with ~ . Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Soqotri Classification
Hi, Taivo. It means "ber farangiyya" in Soqotri like I am, too. There is a hard trend to see Soqotri as a West Semitic, like Prof. Alexander Militarev in Moscow does (his Semitic tree is hand-made due to the Russian publication conditions up today, but he is a real McCoy in Afrasian). talk 09:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... what on Earth are you talking about? --Gimme danger (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Award Center Newsletter
-  Newsletter Bot ' Talk  02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC) If you would not like to receive this newsletter, please add your name here.

Political correctness
Dear Gimme danger:

Prima fascie information which crossreferences itself requires no citation. But best of luck in your schooling, and let's hope you feel real important jawing on about crap you know nothing about on the wikipedia. Maybe Hilary Clinton could have won if you'd been there to contradict her just a little bit more. Coloneldoctor (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor


 * Your addition was analytic and can hardly be considered self-evident. Thank you for your well-wishes. Gimme danger (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My comparative, not analytic addition was taken from information contained in the article, which suffers from numerous uncited statements aside from the prima fascie, but apparently academically obfuscate information which unfortunately cannot be tattooed to the end of one's nose to make it more obvious. I sought merely to amend this slightly, so that people who do not need to occlude knowledge, then make their career lording over tiny cubicle fiefdoms looking over their fashionable glasses wondering who they can impress next with words they themselves half-understand, maybe misquote some Tolstoy so the young folk will really be impressed and assume they stand in the presence of Jean Bethke Elshtain herself, then historically misinterpret the advent and eschatology of various social movements would get a complete understanding of the phrase, in order that, should they have future use for it, they not appear as some dumbkopf community college reject (sorry, is that politically incorrect to use a foreign word there?) in the telling. :)


 * To whit, the meaning of the phrase, "politically correct" does not primarily signify the component of multiculturalism in latter-day Western societies which seeks to ameliorate xenophobia and racism during peak times of migration from developing nations to many students of Marsism-Leninism, at least those of us who were fortunate to ascend prior to the witchhunts (or purgative marches through the institutions, depending on how much of a drama queen you can get away with being, without having people talk about you behind your back and stop inviting you over so much, because secretly they think they might strike you with something if you go off on one more tangent over things nobody cares about in some high falutin language that reminds them of the time they attended the Catholic Mass with their friend's family and it was in Latin and it was the most boring ninety minutes in their lives, but the cathedral was pretty cool, but still, they're running out of memories like that to help them dissociate when you yammer on and on and on and on, preening like a pregnant peacock, practically twirl dancing on the carpet) which thrust the modern concept of the phrase into the public conscience like the rearview mirror of a 1952 Ford into Ralph Nader's Unsafe At Any Speed.Coloneldoctor (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor


 * I really am failing to see your point. I might be more able to see it if you would refrain from making apparent attacks on my character; perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but I'm not a community college reject, nor am I preening like a pregnant peacock (an impossibility at any rate, since peacocks are, by definition, male, and peahens certainly don't have anything to be proud of). So, what exactly do you want from me? Gimme danger (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see how you could dare say peahens have nothing to be proud of. Forget political correctness--is politically dangerous to pick on the peahens. How can you be sure there isn't a peaMarx among them, inciting their fellow...sorry...other peahens to unite and rise up against the tyranny of peacock hegemony? Hmmm?


 * Perhaps you would see my "point" if you were to study sarcasm and observe its above use as a tool for breaking down the ivory tower academia wants to build around your apparently intelligent mind. Far from a personal attack of any sort, as I do not know you in person, the above is an attempt to bring intellectualism to bear in a way which helps one see the folly of our ways. Without understanding how ridiculous we look, how can we really be secure in who we are? Or do you not know the secret weapon of overcoming the obtuse nature of hermitage academics is the occasional dip in the dirty waters of normality?


 * The alternative, of course, is that you are a determinate ideologue, in which case no attack on your personal character could aptly describe the empty nature of your soul, and subsequent forfeiture of your words. You'll observe I've given you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're a free soul searching for the facts which nitpicking bureaucrats, temporal or cosmic, seem to feel belong to them alone. If I've mistaken you, and you are in fact a nitpicking bureaucrat, I apologise and ask you not let my colleagues know I took you seriously. :) emoticon indicating light-hearted tone--hope it doesn't offend, in which case substitute whichever emoticon means pound salt until it hurts.Coloneldoctor (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor


 * I apologize, as I misspoke, probably as a result of my conditioning by the peacocktriachy. Peahens do have a great deal to be proud of, not least of which is looking significantly less ridiculous than their counterparts. If you're looking for a dip into dirty waters, I'm sure Love Canal could use a copy edit. Gimme danger (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we all struggle against the heresy of the Divine Right of Fowl, so the peahen slip is forgiveable, but the suggestion that I was equating keeping in touch with the masses with swimming in the Love Canal is beyond the pale. "Dirty waters" being the stuff of nostalgic pride, and "polluted toxin frappe" being most of the American side of Niagra Falls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloneldoctor (talk • contribs) 04:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Frank Zappa
I saw you edited the Zappa article. You may be interested in reading Cannabis Culture & Cost in the Discussion page of this Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, thank you. Wikipedia is not a place for your political writings. Try Livejournal or Blogspot. Also, please read carefully Wikipedia policy on conflicts of interest. --Gimme danger (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You go, Gimme! Orthodoxy or death! Abas le...la...das ignorance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloneldoctor (talk • contribs) 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, my very own wikistalker! --Gimme danger (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up
I thought you might like to know that the Awards Center page has been deleted, along with its newsletter. :(

So, where do we go from here?

To new and even more interesting projects, of course!

As announced in the newsletter, I've been preparing to co-coordinate a large collaboration/competition called Around the World. It was going to be run at the Awards Center, but since that no longer exists, the collaboration will be hosted somewhere else.

Around the World will begin July 15th as planned - it's location will be announced soon.

It'll be a blast. In the competition, participants will be helping to develop over 200 pages (drafts, which will be moved to article space once they are ready), using advanced tools to edit every single one of them!

This is going to be interesting.

And the event shall have awards which are being created specifically for it as we speak!

If you would like me to keep you informed of this and other interesting collaborations I'll be working on and/or organizing in the future, please drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll be happy to keep you in the know.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bill Gates Day
You don't have to put the PROD thing on my talk page, I didn't even create the page. I simply moved "Bill gates day" to "Bill Gates Day". It's okay, I won't remove it. But I don't think that's correct. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)



Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * I've left a note on your talk page about this. Thanks for the cookie. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Why thank you! Btw, I found an excellent source for Serfdom in Tibet, Matthew Kapstein's "The Tibetans". I'm packing up 20 years of life this weekend, but when I get a chance I'll start adding material. --Gimme danger (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We're stuck!
Thank you for volunteering.

There is a task I urgently need help with.

One of the awards we are working on for the Around the World event requires a globe stand. We had one, but it was copyrighted and so we had to ditch it. We've got the globe to insert into a stand, and we have a passport to lay on the surface beneath the stand (beneath the globe the stand will be supporting).

But we don't have a stand!

We need public domain pictures of globes in globe stands. The fancier the better.

I need you to go out onto the internet and find some. The more pictures the better. From all the ones found, we'll choose the best one.

Finding these pictures is priority one.

Without an impressive globe stand, I'll have to postpone the start date for the collaboration.

Help!

The Transhumanist 03:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry on SFT?
Hi. Please see and  who have similar editing patterns as I noticed on my watchlist. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 15:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... two new accounts used only to make the same changes to the same article? I think you have something there. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a report here. --Gimme danger (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't nobody take sides? you don't have proof either that SFT violent/nonviolent direct action. (talk) 17:57 30 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisports2 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi. I think the problem isn't that there aren't any citations for "violent" action, but that there aren't any citations in the entire article, which is why I added a "noreferences" tag. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ja, and also extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, especially when we're talking about potentially defamatory accusations. --Gimme danger (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I need your feedback...
Which of the following medals looks better. This one:



Or this one:



Which one do you like better?

Please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)