User talk:Shunpiker/Archive 1

Comments
You've not been welcomed yet! Welcome (you seem to know your way around). JFW | T@lk  08:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm finding my way. Thanks for the welcome! Shunpiker 09:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC - Feature Article Candidate - what needs to be done
You made some comments on the NLP Feature Article Candidate request []. I've completed an update to the notes and references style, and the mentors are tightly monitoring the page for wikipedia policies. We now need to get some third party wikipedias to come in a check the references and facts. Enchaner and other editors have begun this process. We really need some outside asistance to balance out the article. There has been a long standing battle between proponents and detractors. We're hoping this has been resolved moving forward. It would be a good time now to encourage other wikipedians to contribute to the article to binrg it up to standard. ---=-C-=- 11:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ObjC 2.0
See my talk page for a response. Dysprosia 07:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Buffer overflow
Hey, you've made the prose in the Executable Space Protection far more concise, but I think the use of lists could be improved to make it more readable. Let me know what you think, otherwise I will have a stab at getting it right myself. Also, not entirely sure if anything was lost with your edit. -- Tompsci 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to reformat or amend or whatever! I'm not at all attached to the list format.


 * I think I did lose a couple of bits of information, but I'm not sure whether they should be included here, since they both refer (I think!) to Microsoft Data Execution Prevention in particular, rather than to Executable Space Protection in general:
 * that the ESP provided by Microsoft DEP is only available with processor support (as opposed to software DEP, which protects pointers from being overwritten and is now listed in another section)
 * that DEP can be disabled/enabled per application (I believe the editor was talking about DEP, though this was not explicit)


 * If those two points could be generalized -- to talk about hardware support and the scope of protection across the various platforms and software packages -- I think they'd be worth reincorporating. My two cents.


 * Thanks! -- Shunpiker 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers ;). -- Tompsci 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Diane Benson discussion
Here's the link to the deletion review discussion. Deirdre 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem users
No, I did not mean that as a good thing. I meant that mediators do not block disputants, it is not they're roll. In fact, because I personally felt that in extreme cases, blocking may be needed, I ended up failing my nomination to become a mediator (that don't except blocking). When I said that there was no trolling "..not yet", there was none that I could tell. In hindsight, you could say, "yes", but I still couldn't tell that at the time. Actually, the idea of inadvertantly "flattering" (I wouldn't use such a strong word) trolls is why I had my falling out with the mediation committee. I do like the idea of being a third party, or encourage some dialogue, but not being allowed to ever block does generate that problem. I learned that the hard way (though I partly was afraid that would happen coming into it). Voice -of- All  06:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a classy response to criticism, and it speaks well of you in what looks to be your future role -- my vote is solidly in the minority. Just so you know: I didn't meant that you flattered the trolls. I meant that they always had nice things to say about you. I understand it wasn't in your power to block. And I never envied you, or anyone officially involved with that article, their role. But I think you might have been a little -- ok, a lot -- less generous in extending the assumption of good faith in the face of all that blatant nastiness and fairly obvious duplicity. And I think you inadvertently provided a figleaf (if not a full-fledged shield) by repeatedly portraying a one-sided dogpile ("sockpile"?) as a balanced POV war. Oh, well. It's all water under the bridge now. I wish you the best in your future responsibilities, and especially in your technical endeavors to check puppetry. I'm sure you have rare perspective into just how damaging that kind of thing can be! -- Shunpiker 22:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that they were not sockpuppets, but meatpuppets. And that was not confirmed until checkuser. They were likely different people, just recruited. I am not sure want you think I should have done. I was filling in officially as a deputy mediator for the conflict, and as a mediator, it is not my job to block, only direct and encourage discussion. Like many other mediation cases, it unlimately failed, as one of the parties turned out not not have good faith. I am not proud of that, and it servered to confirm that tying your hands like that and assuming endless good faith just doesn't work. Voice -of- All  22:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Our edits crossed! It looks like we drew the same conclusion about "assuming endless good faith". Perhaps mediators need better guidelines about when it is appropriate to withdraw that assumption? Because even lacking the power to implement blocks, mediators might play a helpful role in identifying malfeasance and then, if necessary, calling in the cavalry. When non-(mediators/mentors/admins) play the "bad faith" card, it tends to get lost in the noise of POV warfare. And even when it doesn't, they may not know how to get the attention of an admin, or how to invoke whatever the relevant metapedian process might be. In such cases, mediators can bring attention to the problem more effectively, and on both accounts (neutrality and process). In any case, I sincerely appreciate your reflections on this matter. It's clear they pre-date my protest. -- Shunpiker 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Hey
moved to: User talk:ThT/Jonathan Hey

Please see question about peer review there. ThT 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoax tag issue
Thank you, thank you thank you. I just cant say how thankful I am when people notice such non issues and help in such obscure corners of wikipedia that too about massacres. I was feeling like tire rotaing without trackion. Can you kindly edit as you see fit and make it into a NPOV article ? Thanks RaveenS 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nagerkovil school bombing
I have updated the article but left the NPOV tag, can you read and see whether the tag shoulkd be removed ? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RaveenS (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
 * (Response on User talk:RaveenS -- Shunpiker 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Noted, thxRaveenS 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unesco archives It works from Jan 1996like here but I cannot acess 1994-195 when this press relaese was made, if you figure out a way to find it let me know. Thanks RaveenS 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Response on User talk:RaveenS -- Shunpiker 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I wrote to UNESCO webmaster asking for help

RaveenS

Romig
Hi, I've searched Alibris, Abebooks, Amazon, Bookfinder, British Library and Library of Congress, I can find no ISBN for this book. There appears to be a copy printed in 1990 on sale (same copy on Abe and Alibris), but it says first ed signed by Romig, so this is almost certainly a typo for 1940. Since the ISBN is invalid I am removing it for the moment. If you can find that copy on Alibris again, it would be interesting, may be there was a reprint, but I found no sign. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42 15 January 2007 (GMT).
 * P.S. Now I see the ISBN in the URL. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43 15 January 2007 (GMT).

Vibraimage
G'day. I noticed that you PROD'd Vibraimage. I can't figure out if this is advertising or a pseudoscientific gadget. It achieves less than 300 Google hits and I'm inclined to AfD it but I'd like a few more opinions first. Thanks Maustrauser 07:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Cochem
Hi, You have prodded this page because of the rockabilly connection, which I had already pegged as a hoax. There was a NFL coach called Eddie Cochem who made the first forward pass in 1906, thus appearing to make him notable in NFL. Unfortuantely I know nothing about NFL so can't help correct the article. Certainly plenty of G'hits for a football coach. --Richhoncho 12:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another favor
I created Assassinations and murders during the Sri Lankan civil war article out two, one was Attributed to the LTTE and the other to the government. Both were unstable and always had the tinge of POV over them and were cause of lot of edit wars. So I merged them and created this to minimize the conflict. When you have time, can you look over it please ? Thanks RaveenS

Re: Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani
Hi Shunpiker,

In my opinion, I don't think we need to use quotation marks as it already says "according to the Sri Lankan government" in the start of the sentence. If we were quoting an entire sentence word for word then they need to be used. For example I think we should use them along the following lines Predident Bush called for an increase in troop levels in Iraq. President Bush said, "an increase in troop level in Iraq is needed". But I agree that we were quoting directly from the statement so I made the wording more neutral. Do you agree, or are more changes needed there?

I'm not exactly sure whats happening with the trial though. I believe the suspects are on bail, accoding to this article but that seems to be no news on whats happeing right now. I doubt it has been closed as there will have been reports on it if it was, and I do know that the average court case in Sri Lanka takes something like 12 years, so by all likelyhod its still ongoing. So I think we sould just say "the case is ongoing".

And thanks for helping to make this and other articles NPOV. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

RE Vibraimage
I've read your reply and changed my vote to Weak Delete accordingly. It isn't really a case of my "re-examining" the references; as I stated, I can't check out the book sources (not having access to a scientific library) and I know next to nothing about this field. I simply assumed that the books cited were relevant to Vibraimage and therefore constituted verification of the article's claims, but per WP:AGF I will take your word for it that they are not relevant, pending additional information. Walton monarchist89 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make poor edits
While I appreciated your efforts to keep Wikipedia clean of unnecessary material, I don’t appreciate your direct reverts of my edits here and here. I happen to be doing research for book on human chemistry. Because of this I have read two of Gottman’s books, one of Eckman’s books, and several other books with sections on 1/45th of a second microexpressions, all of which are related to external detection of internal emotional states. Research done in this area is very hard to find. Hence, having heard of vibraimage only recently, which thus led be to read some of their papers, I linked the three together via the “see also” section, which is where related links go, per See also, which states that: the "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. Subsequently, your overzealous cleaning efforts, in regards to these see also reverts, are a detriment (kind of like a slap in the face) to not only my contribution efforts, but also to other researchers who may want to find quick access to related material, such as emotional detection. Please keep this in mind during future edits. Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 05:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Response on User talk:Sadi Carnot -- Shunpiker 09:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC))


 * You don't agree with my edits of Vibraimage. I think you can see that I don't agree with many of your contributions to the article, either. There are a lot of ways we could proceed to work together -- find compromises, or some common denominator. Calling each other's contributions "poor edits" or "overzealous" is not a good way to start. Would you like to start again? I don't doubt that you are read in Chemistry, in Gottman, in Eckman. Maybe you have even read the Nicomachean Ethics. Fantastic. I like books, too. But Wikipedia is not a place to deliver a novel synthesis of one's learning. That's "Original Research". If you can find "Reliable Sources" that establish the notability of "Vibraimage", and discuss its theoretical underpinnings, that's one thing. Without that, a discussion of Gottman, of Eckman's work, of 1/45th of a second microexpressions belongs elsewhere. (May I recommend the articles for John Gottman, Paul Eckman and microexpressions?)


 * Perhaps there should be a "Researchipedia", so that people can share and develop their theories without the requirement for institutional or popular approval. I think that could be interesting, albeit noisy. The principles of Wikipedia, however, make it clear that it is not such a place. I'm sorry that being reverted hurt your feelings. Seriously. I've been there myself. But reversion is not personal (at least not in this case), and it's part and parcel of a collaborative editing environment. It's all version-controlled, anyway, so mistakes can be reversed. Given a little time and care, they will be. If you want to discuss the edits in more depth, I'd be happy to. Perhaps I could come to see more of your point of view. I hope, in turn, that you will come to see mine. -- Shunpiker 09:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I clearly stated, I am referring specifically to your two reverts to the "see also" section of three related articles, which all have to do with using video imaging technology together with mathematical formulation to map human emotions. You know as well as well as I do that such reverts are not within the guidelines of good editing in Wikipedia.  Thank you again. --Sadi Carnot 14:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (Response on User talk:Sadi Carnot -- Shunpiker 19:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC))


 * As much as I appreciate your assumption of good faith -- no, I do not know that such edits clash with with the guidelines of good editing. Nor do I agree that they do. Once again, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I made those edits because the Vibraimage article looked to me like an advertisement, and the links that were distributed throughout Wikipedia looked like so much linkspam, intended not to enlighten but to promote. It didn't help that there was an announcement about the Wikipedia article on the official Elsys website immediately following (February 6) the round of edits that you made to the article, and to other articles, linking them to Vibraimage (January 31 - February 6). It looked like an advertising campaign to me, and I treated it as such. Perhaps I got it wrong. In that case, the remedy would be to restore the links and to add some discussion explaining why those links belong so that another editor doesn't make the same mistake that I did. Such a remedy is entirely within your reach and far more likely elicit cooperation than angry pronouncements about what is or isn't good editing. I'm willing to consider that I might have made a mistake. How about yourself? -- Shunpiker 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well those are facts I didn’t know. From my point of view, I stumbled upon that article by accident via some random Google searches for Vibraimage, whereby I saw that someone had written a Vibraimage article.  I had become acquainted with Viktor Minkin, who is an IT/bio-electronic technologist, one of the five original founders of Elsys, by some previous email exchanges in November of last year, an issue unrelated to Wikipedia.  So, I find an article (which I did not write), by accident, and I clean it.  Certainly, there may have been some unintentional conflict-of-interest issues in my editing, but, nevertheless I was simply trying to clean an article.  Then, certainly, if someone wants to vfd an article, and the community agrees, that’s a fact of life at Wikipedia.  So no big deal.  But, after checking your edit history, I see you cleaning out my efforts on “see also”, when I was simply trying to link related articles together.  That seemed to be a direct reversal of unbiased efforts to improve Wikipedia.  Anyway, I am going to leave this whole issue alone and move on to other topics.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Prod & notifying creator script
importScript('User:Dycedarg/easyprod.js'); importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu'); importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css');

Opens in new window to notify creator; May need to use firefox. Disable popup blocker. Add to User:Shunpiker/monobook.js


 * --Parker007 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, sweet love
I just want to say that I found your prod of Hippy Motorbikes Season 1 utterly hilarious! You wrote: "'I enjoy watching hippie bikers making sweet sweet love as much as my fellow man. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a repository for unfilmed treatments, however compelling the subject.'" The given reason was amusing, but the edit summary put it over the top: prod: bummer, man.

Thank you for that excellent contribution. ;) Cheers, Black Falcon 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Shunpiker 09:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)