User talk:Dee/Archive 2012



This page is archive, please do not edit this.

---

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you have a great time here. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.. Even if my prime interrest is not the English wiki, but the Czech version of that, I will enjoy it.--DeeMusil (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkback
-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 05:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New discussion opened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Contradicting_informations_between_English_and_Czech_Wikipedia.3B_Czech_Wikipedia_presents_propaganda_for_a_year_and_nobody_care_of_it_there If you have anything relevant to say then go and discuss why you help to promote propaganda. --Destinero (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * will not comment this assumption, Destinero. Seems funny to me, as you are the one who is spreading some kind of propaganda.--DeeMusil (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your civilty
The kinds of personal comments you are making in these edits are completely out of order. They are disruptive and in conflict with the policies of WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:DIS - the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. If you continue with this kind of behaviour I will have to block you. The rule for using talkpages is that you can comment on article content, but refrain from commenting negatively on other users. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did comment on article content in re to the question if "zoo and pedo" is part of "sexual orientation" or not and I did not find anything personal in the link you pointed on. If you see it in bad light, I will not continue. Next time I better include a source with it. Regards --DeeMusil (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you review the ANI thread you will notice that there was some dispute about the gravity of your offense - I can see both reasons why it isn't good (the fact that you start by saying "you homosexuals" personalizes the issue and enters into a stereotyping mode of speech), but it was probably not so direct that I would block you for it. Please do however refrain from commenting about sexuality or any other personal issues relating to other editors - there is never a reason for it, better arguments can be always be made that are not person based.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I really did not mean that personally. More it is targeted to the agenda and the lobbyism of that group. See explanation bellow.--DeeMusil (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me react here as the talk page is already closed. Actually, there is nothing personal and there is no attack in the sentence, so it could be hardly a personal attack and Destinero has actually long record of REAL personal attacks (incl. personally targeted nasty words) on Czech version of Wikipedia against me and others (check the record). His attempts to get me down are endless (unsucessfull arbitrary on cz Wikipedia, crazy letters to Jimbo Wales here, etc.). It is not true, that I had months of silence just to write this. I made lot of edits there (Czech Wikipedia) in between (check the record-I'm pretty sure Destinero is aware of it, so it was a lie) and I accidentally look into the article to check out the source on English Wikipedia and I did see that if Destinero is blocked on Czech version, he just continues in his edit wars here.
 * Take it as my apology, that for example in Holand, pedophiles tries to get into the term of "Sexual orientation", they establish their own political party and request their own rights. If you look on it from social-political viewpoint, there is almost no difference between situation of this party and beginning of the pro-homosexual movement in the last century. Additionally, pedophiles tries to ban zoofiles (see the pedo-Party rules) from their space, in comparison of homosexuals tried to ban pedophiles from their space (self evidently, the term "sexual orientation"). Reason why ..., is that definition of what is "sexual orientation" or "preference" vary in time and depend on point of view and this is the core matter of the problem. THIS IS A FACT, not an attack. Some homosexuals can see that as a danger for their rights, but it is not me, who is dangerous for them, but the pedophiles - and because all this (up) is a FACT, it is still OK to speak about that. IF not, homosexual censorship takes a lead, same as Destinero promotes just his own point of view and deletes all others as wrong.--DeeMusil (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  13:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please point out more exactly, where it is (heading name or archive number)?--DeeMusil (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Finally found it. --DeeMusil (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand again
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&diff=386270283&oldid=386251036 The issue is whether there is a majority of Americans who supports equal right and marriage euqality (same-sex marriage). Why you don't understand that the proper question has been picked up to illustrate this? Whether there is a constitutional right is obviously another and completely irrelevant matter here, since it does not reflect what the people really want. Please stop play your conservative-POV in your edits, it is inappropriate and it lacks justification. --Destinero (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand it very well. Check the source first - only one half of the poll was used, this one with better pro-homosexual viewpoint. Therefore it is a misinterpretation of data and maybe whole paragraph is wrong or written with some agenda behind - and therefore should be checked and corrected. Your ultraliberal POV Destinero is well known, and the reason why I added the undue template is, that you just copy-pasted this content to Czech Wikipedia without even checking the source. This is an example of your not wery well made work/edits.--DeeMusil (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

vdaka
Ahoj, na stranke http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality&oldid=424094602 som si vsimol, ze sa tiez snazis o "nemozne". Ak sa Ti da, pokracuj. Ja na to nemam ani cas ani nervy. Ohladom homosexuality pises: "Any criticism missing in the article, but for sure exist in real world. Think, that GA cannot be reached at all in this kind of thema/article.--DeeMusil (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)" Ja som napisal par riadkov na http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality#Comment_left_at_GA2_nomination.2C_closed_months_ago. Skoda, ze je taka silna homosexualna loby na wikipedii... 213.151.217.149 (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahoj. Tu a tam nico napisem, ale spise na ceskou Wikipedii. Navrhovatel clanku na DC Destinero prestal na ceske Wikipedii editovat (asi dik prohrane arbitrazi sam se sebou, i kdyz puvodne tim miril proti me osobe a dalsim editorum) a dostal zakaz editaci clanku o homosexualite no a na anglicke ma topic ban, tedy totez. To ukazuje, ze to neni nahoda. Zatim jsem nepoznal uzivatele, jehoz editovani by bylo vice rusive az obtezujici, nez u tohoto vytecnika, tedy tim plne v relacich "obtezovani == buzerace" dostal sve povesti a orientaci. Oponoval jsem mu i kdyz mne to stalo dobrou povest a patrim tak spise k potizistum, i kdyz jinak ke sporum pranic netihnu. S homosexualni lobby a aktivismem obecne (nejen zde na Wikipedii) se bohuzel neda nic moc delat, je treba byt trpelivy a neustavat v cinnosti a mezitim vsechny tyto projevy ustanou, nebot nemaji stabilitu, z ceho cerpat silu a energii, aby v nich pokracovali. Zvlast kdyz je tu a tam (na muj vkus velmi casto) opusti ci podvede (pripadne oboji) nejaky ten pritel a jejich nadseni skokove opadne. Je to, rekneme, chvilkovy aktivismus a tedy neni s cim si lamat hlavu. --DeeMusil (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetness
Hi DeeMusil. Just wanted to let you know that I have opened up a checkuser case about Sockpuppet investigations/Destinero. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paulines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--DeeMusil (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Inserting inaccuracies into Seven Basic Tools of Quality
Regarding this edit: So, you haven't actually read any of Ishikawa's books. Ishikawa does not take credit for the tools in either What Is Total Quality Control? or Introduction to Quality Control. Neither does he credit Deming. From the Czech article, it looks like you sourced this from a PDF of a college textbook produced by someone who just slapped together vague notions for a quick buck rather than put in the time reading the original works. Please remove this factual inaccuracy from all articles to which you've added it. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, read better and try to understand the text, because I think it is just a misunderstanding. I'm in process of extendin and rewriting the article. Please respect this. I apologize for any misunderstanding it did caused. I did not write that Ishikawa credited Deming. Maybe would be better to add after first sentence for example this source. I will not remove anything. You cannot know what i did read or not. Please WP:AGF. Additionally, to your accusation of Czech lang. University textbooks: Stay calm. It is a reliable source. If you see inacuracies in their book, please contact author or give contradictory reliable sources.--DeeMusil (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Your statement !! My response
 * "I'm in process of extendin and rewriting the article." || Why? It doesn't look like it needs "extendin" and rewriting to me.
 * "I did not write that Ishikawa credited Deming." || What you wrote was "their content was formed during the fifties and sixties of the last century in Japan by K. Ishikawa and E. Deming". If that's truly the case, then why doesn't Ishikawa credit himself and Deming in What Is Total Quality Control? or Introduction to Quality Control?
 * "You cannot know what i did read or not." || If you had truly read Ishikawa, you wouldn't have written "their content was formed during the fifties and sixties of the last century in Japan by K. Ishikawa and E. Deming", that's for sure.
 * If you see inacuracies in their book, please contact author or give contradictory reliable sources. || The "contradictory reliable source" is Ishikawa himself. If he had invented the term, he'd have said he invented it.  If Deming invented the term, Ishikawa also would have said Deming invented it. I'd go as far to say that if any single person had invented it, Ishikawa would have specifically mentioned that person by name, giving him or her credit for his or her invention.  Yet Ishikawa doesn't do that.  In all of Chapter XII, where he talks about the seven QC tools, he mentions exactly one person:  Walter A. Shewhart and that's for control charts only.  In fact the translator has specifically used the term "" (in the section heading "Elementary Statistical Method (the so-called Seven Tools)") implying that Ishikawa prefers the term "Elementary Statistical Method", but feels obliged to include "Seven Tools" as if he found the latter term distasteful.
 * }
 * Additionally I have found that what you tell is not completely true as Ishikawa mentioned not only tools as "Seven QC tools" (and samurai Benkei, what is original purpose of the source) in his book on the very same page 98 as is stated in the article. Please check it first and assume good faith. --DeeMusil (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * If you see inacuracies in their book, please contact author or give contradictory reliable sources. || The "contradictory reliable source" is Ishikawa himself. If he had invented the term, he'd have said he invented it.  If Deming invented the term, Ishikawa also would have said Deming invented it. I'd go as far to say that if any single person had invented it, Ishikawa would have specifically mentioned that person by name, giving him or her credit for his or her invention.  Yet Ishikawa doesn't do that.  In all of Chapter XII, where he talks about the seven QC tools, he mentions exactly one person:  Walter A. Shewhart and that's for control charts only.  In fact the translator has specifically used the term "" (in the section heading "Elementary Statistical Method (the so-called Seven Tools)") implying that Ishikawa prefers the term "Elementary Statistical Method", but feels obliged to include "Seven Tools" as if he found the latter term distasteful.
 * }
 * Additionally I have found that what you tell is not completely true as Ishikawa mentioned not only tools as "Seven QC tools" (and samurai Benkei, what is original purpose of the source) in his book on the very same page 98 as is stated in the article. Please check it first and assume good faith. --DeeMusil (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Your statement !! My response I doublechecked it via Googlebooks. Look here. Please check if you have the same edition of the book as I have (of course, if you have it and read it at all). having now Google on my side, it is possible to get the information that Ishikawa mentioned Deming several times (10) and Seven tools (6) as well (in one case including exact list of what we call here 7 tools) in designated book. In this light I see your request and its explanation as inapropriate. Please read the book until you make such ABF. --DeeMusil (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Please check it first and assume good faith." || Why would I need to check it? I'm the guy who added it to the article.
 * }
 * }
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Your statement !! My response
 * "I doublechecked it via Googlebooks. Look here." || So the link you provide is a snippet view that references the warrior-priest Benkei, but not surprisingly fails to mention Ishikawa or Deming. How exactly does that support your claim that "their content was formed during the fifties and sixties of the last century in Japan by K. Ishikawa and E. Deming"?
 * "Please check if you have the same edition of the book as I have (of course, if you have it and read it at all)." || So if I haven't read the book, as you insinuate, how is it possible that I'm the guy who added all of the Ishikawa references to the article? Viz.,, , and.
 * "having now Google on my side, it is possible to get the information that Ishikawa mentioned Deming several times (10) and Seven tools (6)" || How exactly do the snippets you present support your claim that "their content was formed during the fifties and sixties of the last century in Japan by K. Ishikawa and E. Deming"? The first snippet you provide does not mention the seven QC tools and the second snippet you provide does not mention Deming.  For your claim to hold water, Ishikawa would have needed to use "Deming" and "seven QC tools" in the same sentence, yet the snippets you proffer as "evidence" are many pages apart.
 * "in one case including exact list of what we call here 7 tools) in designated book" || Yes, on page 198. I already know, because I'm the guy who added the citation for the page that immediately follows in that book to the article.
 * }
 * No response = no issue at all.--DeeMusil (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha there is a response... in ugly form.
 * If ishikawa mentioned Deming or not is out of context as the ref was to different fact. It is your repeated misunderstanding and your compliance is out of context. This was source to "Benkei". See history and current state. If you don't understand it second time, after I gived you explanation, I will not continue to argue with you on that issue at all.
 * What you did write and when and from where did you get the information does not matter for me. You did accuse me with no-AGF, you write that ishikawa did not credit Deming - shown as not completely true, proven by googleboks search for potential readers, which casts serious doubt about your claims. If you dont like the sentence "their content was formed during the fifties and sixties of the last century in Japan by K. Ishikawa and E. Deming", rewrite it better. But respect a new source added to this. I will not argue on historical version of the article.
 * As I see confrontation style, I quit this debate here, if you have some additional info what and where should be changed in the article, do it in the article or on talk page of the article, not here. All other with exception of polite thankfull and glorification messages will be just abadoned and archived. Special thanks will be given if you will not split my own message as above, but reply in space under this message.--DeeMusil (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha there is a response... in ugly form.
 * If ishikawa mentioned Deming or not is out of context as the ref was to different fact. It is your repeated misunderstanding and your compliance is out of context. This was source to "Benkei". See history and current state. If you don't understand it second time, after I gived you explanation, I will not continue to argue with you on that issue at all.
 * What you did write and when and from where did you get the information does not matter for me. You did accuse me with no-AGF, you write that ishikawa did not credit Deming - shown as not completely true, proven by googleboks search for potential readers, which casts serious doubt about your claims. If you dont like the sentence "their content was formed during the fifties and sixties of the last century in Japan by K. Ishikawa and E. Deming", rewrite it better. But respect a new source added to this. I will not argue on historical version of the article.
 * As I see confrontation style, I quit this debate here, if you have some additional info what and where should be changed in the article, do it in the article or on talk page of the article, not here. All other with exception of polite thankfull and glorification messages will be just abadoned and archived. Special thanks will be given if you will not split my own message as above, but reply in space under this message.--DeeMusil (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)