User talk:Dendodge/Archives/2008/March

Um,
--George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC) ya might consider taking your name out of your sig. Personal information should be kept private. -- Gp 75 motorsports  REV LIMITER  10:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What on earth? "Personal information should be kept private"? Daniel (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The guy's name is in his sig. I'm just trying to make sure he doesn't get stalked, that's all. -- Gp 75 motorsports  REV LIMITER  13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Admin hopefuls lesson #1: Unless someone is underage, the amount of personal information they reveal is entirely up to them. Your concern was expressed in an overly matter-of-fact and even commanding tone ("Um, ya might wanna do it this way, cause it's the right way, duh").  Equazcion •✗/C • 17:59, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
 * I would seriously hope that someone currently banned from editing in Wikipedia-space by a community consensus, isn't hopeful to become an administrator. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd think so, wouldn't you. So far I think the policy has been to allow him to dream.  Equazcion •✗/C • 23:40, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
 * That's next :) Daniel (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy vs Common Sense.... Thright (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Help desk
--George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) No harm done, really. I’m also growing weary of it and I know that it’s frustrating, but you just might not want to poke that hornet’s nest too hard. Cheers — Travis talk  23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Rommel
He isn't my father.I thought I was in the sandbox.

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dendodge! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. A le_Jrb talk 22:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB
I'm afraid that your application to use AutoWikiBrowser has been refused. The reason for this is that AWB is an extremely powerful tool that can cause significant damage in inexperienced hands. Please feel free to reapply when you have passed the 500 edit mark. Spartaz Humbug! 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoption
Hello George. Thank you for the adoption invitation. Gratefully accepted.

You should be aware, though, that I have 10,000 and one questions to ask. However, I don’t have anything particularly articulate to ask you at this moment.

I keep getting lost in the endless maze of discussions and policies and guidance pages etc. I’m trying to organise my thoughts on how to proceed. Any advice on how to tackle all that?

Basically (in brief – else it would be a very long email):

Things I am interested in:


 * Wikifying articles. I wikified this into this. How did I do?
 * Categorizing images in Wikimedia Commons, any other image-related projects.
 * “Beautifying” pages.
 * Assessing new pages.
 * Tackling vandalism – I loathe it, although occasionally find it quite humorous.
 * The Gambia. I’d love to see a more comprehensive coverage. Two problems arise for me: a) I'm not there at the moment and feel a bit distant from the subject; b) I'm aware of ethnocentricity issues. How would I go about collaborating with other users more qualified to deal with (b)?

Things I am struggling to comprehend:


 * Wiki-code. I’ve been practising on my user page by cannibalising other people’s user pages and testing them on my own page – with mixed success. I consider myself to have intermediate HTML skills, so hopefully this will become more clear in time.
 * Templates - creating them, using them, where to put them.
 * File management and structure
 * Applying categories, especially for images.
 * Licenses for images.
 * Lots of other things that I can't think of at the moment.

Thanks again for your offer of help. Hope I'm not asking too much. I'll get back to you when I've got something more concrete to ask you about. Annatto (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing personal but I wonder whether Dendodge has sufficient experience of wikipedia to adopt a user at this stage of their wiki career. Spartaz Humbug! 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

About Coat of arms of Catalonia
You seem to have abandoned the discussion in Coat of arms of Catalonia, probably because I forgot to explain the problem for 3rd parties. Now I have written a list with the main problems on the talk page. --Jotamar (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Positive Discipline
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Positive Discipline, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Positive Discipline. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Simulation graphics
I am totally satisfied with u that simulation means virtual reality. But I want a big note on how simulation is concerned specially with the computer graphics.Amit bit2009 (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach mediation
I completely understand that you may have an opinion different that mine and that is why you closed the Rorschach image case. The thing that I am disappointed about is not that you used your personal criteria or anything like that, what else could you use. But that you did not engage me. If you refer to my case, my biggest complaint was the lack of communication, that once people thought of an objection they would not be open to discuss it with me. I understand that the wikipedia has no option but to work on the basis of consensus. And for that reason communication ought to be fundamental. At this point I do not know if you read my arguments of why WP:CENSOR does not apply in this case, or which one did you read, or maybe you read the 3 archives of talk page. Or if you thought the arguments were wrong. Closing the case like this is understandable from the arbitration committee, they have to make decisions because previous mediation steps already failed. But a you guys can take a little time with the parties and hopefully prevent cases from going to arbitration. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From the way it was worded it seemed that you wanted to remove the images.
 * I do not think that image removal implies censorship. There is lots of content removed from the wikipedia with no mention of censorship.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the material should be removed?
 * I'll write this backwards. The reason I think the censorship objection does not stand is because according to the wikipedia article 3 parties are required publisher, public and censor. China censors the wikipedia. I think what is happening is that we think of things that actual religious or political groups would censor, and we apply the word censorship. But when I enter the wikipedia as an editor I become part of the publisher and the publisher cannot censor itself. Again according the  wikipedia article, a publisher could self-censor if it feels that he may be censored. But that is not the case here either. You may think "So what about the policy, nothing can be censored then". After reading the policy several times I think it actually agrees with this argument. It explains why censorship cannot happen by the very nature of the wikipedia, and I think it addresses the possible expectation from some people that a wikipedia censor should exist. You may also think "what about clear cases like the Mohammad image". I think that we can talk about how this is censored in other places, but ultimately it is an arbitrary consensus decision by the community of editors of the article. Secondly, there is policy that says that images should be removed if they are considered shocking or explicit, from this I gather that policy makers understood that there are cases that warrant removal or replacement of images. The judgment of images as shocking is completely arbitrary. In this case I think the original rorschach inkblot is inappropriate for the wikipedia, because it harms people. I already extended myself. I think that if you don't believe that this image produces harm you will most likely default to leaving the case closed. So if you have doubts on whether the image causes harm or not please let me know.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How does it cause harm? I actually like looking at them. I don't see how an inkblot could offend anyone.
 * It causes harm the same way that interfering with a cancer test may cause harm. The diagnosis may be that the patient does not have cancer and the proper treatment or medication would not be provided, needless to say the consequences can be very negative. I say it is the same way, because the Rorschach is used by the medical community routinely for diagnosis. I know it is unexpected to hear that looking at an image could have such impact. I know of cases in mental hospitals were long held diagnosis and medications changed thanks to insights gained once the Rorschach test was administered. Lets examine this for a moment, the fundamental premise of a high school test is that all students have not seen the test prior to the exam so they don't just study the answers to the questions. The fundamental premise of the Rorschach test is that the subject has not seen the inkblots before, so their answers more closely reflect what is on their mind. As is, this premise poses research problems for retesting. But general availability of original inkblots with no time limit presents a much bigger problem. Even worse is the possibility that others might suggest answers and subjects might change the answers given during testing. We can elaborate if the harm has already been done by other websites, currently this test is still being used by the health services community around the world.


 * I don't think the images offend anyone, but if policy writers already think we should remove images if they are shocking of explicit (maybe that is why you mention offensiveness), then I don't see why we wouldn't do it if they cause harm. For a different situation where images cause harm see the article on Photosensitive epilepsy.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand the concerns with photosensitive epilepsy and I can understand your reasoning. Unfortunately, this falls under WP:CENSOR, despite your arguments that it doesn't. I would like to help but I'd be fighting a losing battle.
 * I'll be honest with you, my frustration is not that people disagree with me but that nobody wants to take the time to address my argument points directly. I have no doubt that you empathize with me, and this may be a time issue for you, but I feel I am placed at a disadvantage when people don't say what is on their mind.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing on my mind, just Wikipedia policy. Reading WP:CENSOR will show you exactly why I oppose the inclusion of the images.
 * I argued that there are three entities required for censorship to occur, and how the policy matches this argument. You clearly must have an objection to this. But you are not expressing any of it, this puts me at a disadvantage. As as said before, I've read the policy multiple times. I will open the case again, and see where we go from there. Thank you for your time.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know what was meant by 'Rorschach test' if I hadn't seen the image.
 * Just a small FYI that you may find interesting. At the talk page we almost reached a consensus to replace the original inkblot with another inkblot that looked very similar, what broke it was disagreement to have access to the original inkblot.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I was about to leave a message re: his edits to The Fog of War for User talk:Alastair Carnegie but saw you already had done so. However, you didn't correct the article by removing his signature from the text, so I made the change. I'm curious - did you leave it that way for a reason? Thanks. MovieMadness (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Social science and society navbox templates
Wow, that was fast. I was just about to db-author it. Thanks! Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

hi
hi why did you delete my page for Joolop, can you help me out and let me know what the correct procedures arre —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolawallis (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

when you say noticable do you mean no evidence to support the article, and the company exists as it does please see at - www.joolop.com

sorry for being slow i am dyselxia and sometimes i show —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolawallis (talk • contribs) 23:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

hi i disagree, this company is quite large it employee over 50 people and already has one successful company www.joolopgames.com that turns over 5 million pounds a year. the company is setting up to other brand companies next month and is growing month by month. --Nicolawallis (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagging of Alexander Neumeister
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Alexander Neumeister. I do not think that Alexander Neumeister fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because you did not leave the creator enough time to add a claim to notability, which was later added. I request that you consider not re-tagging Alexander Neumeister for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. Cheers and thanks for your new page patrolling! --Ginkgo100talk 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kate Mara

 * Wasn't me who made though unconstructive edits to her page. I was stupid and left my Internet up and my son and his friends wanted to be cute. I've changed my password, sorry for the inconvience as I take full responsibility for their actions. -SlipperyPete411 (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
-- Nadir D Steinmetz 11:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC) ==hi Sudar 4edi (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)sudar 4edi
 * Your welcome. It's our job to give out cards to the people scheduled. Can you also sign my Guestbook?-- RyRy5   talk  06:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)



Sudar 4edi (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks!
For signing my guestbook, I award you with this barnstar! Have a great day. wwe socks sign 05:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Artemis Fowl
Currently there is a section on characters in the main series page (in fact it comprises 90% of the page), there are also individual articles for all the major characters and another article for all the minor characters; I just don't see the need to duplicate all of the information already contained in the encyclopaedia in a further article. I think it would be better just to integrate the character pages into the current navigational template (whch I could do if no one else wants to) which would have the same result of allowing users to easily find information on the characters in the series. Guest9999 (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit extreme, I don't have any particular objection to the article, I just think it's redundant. Guest9999 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really talking about the main page I meant more the other articles that already exist such as List of minor Artemis Fowl characters, Artemis Fowl II, Domovoi Butler, Holly Short, etc. Guest9999 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But the major charactors are sumarised on the main page for the series and the descriptions for the minor characters can't really be summed up any more, a specific catergory for characters or inclusion in the navigational template would still allow for easy navigating. But like I said I have no particular problem with the article I just don't think it's neccessary, to me it would make more sense to just incorporate links to the main character articles into the current minor character list (and move it to the title of the new list). Guest9999 (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Stephano my pic.svg
A tag has been placed on Image:Stephano my pic.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion of Nakhla Tobbaco
jo whatup? im from germany and tried to port the german article to english wikipedia maybe you can help me out and clean my spelling mistakes .. please dont just delete it. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverdamn (talk • contribs) 13:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah hi, i just ported this from german wikipedia ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhla ) to here. please check my spelling. thanks!!! Whateverdamn (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)