User talk:Tdadamemd

Canada
Please see my reply to your comment on the talk page. Lexicon (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to commend you, Tdadamemd, as I suspect you achieved exactly what you set out to do in the first place. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope it is evident that my pursuit is toward Truth. It is clear to me on the Talk page others who share that goal, whether or not we are in agreement in our limited perspective of Truth. &mdash;  Tdadamemd 22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Further Canada talk
I'm going to continue this here because I like to argue, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the article Canada any longer, and therefore does not belong on that talk page.

You wrote:

''We are in total agreement that Canada is not a part of the UK and that the UK is not a part of Canada. They have become two separate and distinct countries. And certainly, the Queen does not equal the United Kingdom. I was not saying that Canada is united with the UK. The point was that, while most all measures toward independence have been gained by Canada, there remains the one vestige of a bond in having the same person as Queen.


 * You said before that there is no such thing as partial independence--it either exists, or it doesn't. Now you're saying that Canada is not a part of the UK, but if it does not have independence, then by your own reasoning, it is, in fact, part of the UK.  Unless, as you are maybe coming to a realization, the Queen is, as you have agreed above, not equal to the United Kingdom, so if Canada is "not independent", then that lack of independence would be to the Queen and only the Queen.  Now, I'm sure you'll agree that simply having a sovereign does not make a country non-independent, otherwise a good number of countries would lack independence; the United Kingdom itself, Japan, Sweden, Thailand, Saudi Arabia...


 * So, let's go over this again:


 * A nation cannot be partially independent (I'll say agreed although independence really does go on a continuum)
 * Canada is not part of the UK (agreed)
 * The Queen is not the United Kingdom (agreed)
 * Being a monarchy does not equal lack of independence (I'm going to assume you agree)


 * But Canada is not independent. Lexicon (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this discussion has everything to do with the Canada article. Please feel free to move your response back there (as I will post my reply there).

License tagging for Image:BillPhillips.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BillPhillips.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 07:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Newton's second law
I see that you have attempted to clarify the derivation of the Second Law on the Force page. The question of whether F=ma is a "simplified" form of the law has been debated at length on the talk page of Newton's Laws of Motion. See here and here.

In classical mechanics, where there are no relativistic effects, the Law only applies to systems of constant mass (see here, so it is redundant and misleading to include the derivative of mass on the right side of the equation. This tends to cause people to erroneously think that is applies to varying-mass systems like rockets.

However, if you believe the Force article should include a discussion of relativistic effects, then it is valid to include the derivative of mass on the right side. If so, then I think we need to expand that section to explain this distinction. MarcusMaximus (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Franklin Chang-Diaz. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. The reference you used did not state what you suggested. -MBK004 23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to STS-51. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -MBK004 23:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Readded with reference (found in one minute's worth of googling). I really don't think that threats are necessary toward Wikipedians who are obviously striving to improve the site.  It's like chastising someone for adding hearty potatoes to Stone Soup just because you don't know what field the potatoes were grown in.  And no person can be blocked from Wikipedia.  Anyone who wants to contribute can do so easily.  As for your criticism about the "unreferenced synthesis" regarding Chang Diaz and Jerry Ross, it is a very simple calculation from ubiquitous data:  2 shuttles blew up in the period when they flew 7 missions.  Hardly anything that I would call Original Research or Unverifiable.Tdadamemd (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Tracy Caldwell a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. -MBK004 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that for me, MBK, and helping lift my veil of ignorance on Wikipedia functionality. -Tdadamemd (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 13
Hi! Would you mind checking the Apollo 13 talk page? I disagree with the assertion "There was no explosion." Details on the talk page. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just posted my reply. See ya back over there.--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do appreciate your friendly attitude! I hope I wasn't too sharp; my intention was to be brief. The Damage to the Service Module The Apollo 13 malfunction was caused by an explosion and rupture of oxygen tank number 2 in the service module about 56 hours into the mission. The explosion also ruptured a line or damaged a valve in oxygen tank number 1, causing it to lose oxygen rapidly. Within about 3 hours, all oxygen stores were lost, along with water, electrical power, and use of the service module propulsion system. Visual assessment of the damage could not be made until the end of the mission, when the service module was jettisoned in preparation to reentry. Then it could be seen that the cover of service module bay number 4 had blown off and the equipment inside was badly mangled. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_13/return/
 * Yes, I'm interested in what you meant by saying the LM landed on the Moon.
 * Also, what does this mean? "I am not aware of any major difference that was observed in the Apollo 13 Service Module with its blown panel versus the blown-panel Service Modules of Apollos 15, 16 or 17." I'm reading it in the light of these and similar reports:

"'There's one whole side of that spacecraft missing,' said Lovell in astonishment. About five hours before splashdown the service module was jettisoned in a manner that would permit the astronauts to assess its condition. Until then, nobody realized the extent of the damage." http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-13-2.html

"Flight controllers were still not sure what happened to cause the massive oxygen leak in the command ship. Was it a meteoroid strike? Or some jarring explosion on board?
 * It wasn't an oversight or laziness that I left "rupture" in the first sentence of the article: there was a rupture, of the mechanically explosive variety that crippled the craft, endangered the astronauts' lives, and caused them to abort their mission.  My objection was to your near total elimination of the words explode[d] and explosion and to the assertion that there was no such explosion.  Today (It's still the 13th in my time zone) being the 40th anniversary, this was all over the news, and was consistently called an explosion by thoroughly reliable resources.  This one is particularly valuable: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0413.html#article

"Something happened, and it was a very violent thing," James A. McDivitt, a former astronaut and current spacecraft manager, said. "But as far as what exactly happened, I have no idea."

[All bolding above is mine.]


 * I have not been to Usenet, nor had any idea you had.
 * I recognize that you have, in good faith, not inserted your opinions into the article. Your assertion that there was no explosion, however, seems to be colored by your opinion that the story was deliberately misconstrued.  At Wikipedia we can't rewrite history or even correct someone else's rewriting unless we have reliable third party sources that verify what we write.  The fact that the Cortright Report doesn't use the word explosion does not equate to your assertion that there was none.  It's incumbent upon you to find a reliable source that specifically makes that point.  I doubt there is one since it seems certain that there was, in fact, an explosion.  Or two.  Or three.  (O2 tank #1 and He tank.)

I wish all WP editors were as pleasant to work with as you are! Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I too am glad to have had the discussion with Wikipedians here being so civil and rational. Very refreshing! Now I will dive back into it to hopefully tie up loose ends and clarify any misunderstandings. After this exchange here, I would like to step back into an observer role for an extended period. My view is that the points I've made have been heavily explained, and that continuing to engage in debate would be effort toward diminishing returns (particularly if anyone sees me to be pursuing my own private agenda for whatever reason). Ok...


 * We are in total agreement that there is an abundance of reliable sources who say unequivocally that it was an explosion. But let's be clear that 'reliable' is not a synonym for 'infallible'. (A year ago, Toyota was seen as a reliable car maker.  After a more complete understanding of the facts today, not so much.) Given all these people accepted as space experts who say that Apollo 13 exploded, I see it as a mistake to take their word on blind faith. Often, it is simple logical reasoning that can reveal gaping holes in stories they tell. Consider all the space experts who show that photo of the Service Module with the panel missing, offering it as "proof" that there was "extensive damage from the explosion".  That photo link I posted was in direct response to your statement, "...just look at the black and white photo of the damaged service module in our article--it clearly shows the rupture was no simple slit that leaked gas; it was a crippling explosion."


 * My rebuttal was to show a CSM with a blown panel from the Apollo 15 mission. Blowing the panel on that mission was a planned event. And the mission was a huge success. Same for 16 and 17. All three successful missions had blown SM panels. So quite obviously, the mere fact of a blown panel cannot stand as proof that "it was a crippling explosion". In Apollo 13's case, the Service Module photos have been thoroughly examined in great detail. I have yet to see anyone point out visible damage beyond the fact that the large panel was missing. So until someone points out visible damage to SM systems, those photos merely stand as proof that the panel was blown. As for your conclusion that the photo "clearly shows the rupture was no simple slit that leaked gas; it was a crippling explosion", I'd suggest that it is important to check our experience base in vacuum physics. The external surface of that panel has a total of ZERO force pushing it in to the spacecraft.  With an expulsion of oxygen into that bay, it doesn't take much pressure to total a very large force pushing that panel out. It does not require an explosion to blow the panel off. Far from it.


 * I hope this clears up what I was trying to say. And I'd also like to clear up my fundamental position on this, since it appears that we have a huge misunderstanding given your statement above:


 * "Your assertion that there was no explosion, however, seems to be colored by your opinion that the story was deliberately misconstrued."


 * Let's be clear that I am not originating an assertion that there was no explosion. What I have done is taken a highlighter to official NASA reports (source documents) and pointed out how THEY go through great lengths of hundreds of pages and are extremely consistent in how they describe the incident well short of concluding that the tank exploded. That goes for the Mission Control report, involving Flight Directors and many Flight Controllers, as well as the Cortright Panel that reported on their review of the MSC investigation. I have not found a single place where those reports describe the incident as an explosion (or explosive or exploded, etc). This is the most thoroughly researched, detailed information we have on the event.  And in those hundreds of pages, not only do they not say it exploded, but they go through extreme detail in explaining the mechanisms that are specifically designed to prevent an explosion.  This is analyzed from the design stage up through actual flight data that indicates that the pressure relief valve and rupture disc worked as designed, at the pressure level they were specified to work at.


 * "At Wikipedia we can't rewrite history or even correct someone else's rewriting unless we have reliable third party sources that verify what we write. The fact that the Cortright Report doesn't use the word explosion does not equate to your assertion that there was none. It's incumbent upon you to find a reliable source that specifically makes that point."


 * We are agreed with your first statement here. But what we have is a situation where two very different stories have been told. First, in the official reports it says one thing, then the same people involved with writing those reports end up saying a different thing. So my big edit was not me rewriting history. It was me restoring history to the version told in the original report. As far as being incumbent, I've gone through great lengths in pointing out where the Cortright Report details how the rupture was 'a fizzle' (my paraphrase).


 * - There's the design review section where it explains the great lengths taken to prevent an explosion.
 * - There's the ground test certification data from PV1, PV2, PV3 and PV4.
 * - There's the flight data that indicates how the pressure relief valve and rupture disc worked as designed, precisely when they were specified to function.
 * - There's the post-mission recreation performed by the investigation team where they tested flight hardware in as similar a situation as they could match.


 * That's four levels of proof that the Odyssey O2 Tank 2 did not explode. I am amazed that anyone would not find that sufficient. The Review Board went through an astounding level of detail in their report.


 * Now to address the second half of your statement in the prior quote, I want to clear up any perception that my firm position is that the story was deliberately misconstrued. I remember having stated that it is clear to me that the story at the time of the report was one thing (holding well short of a conclusion that it was an explosion) and the story today is another thing (prolific use of the word 'explosion'). How and why the story changed, I still see as a missing piece of the puzzle. I may offer speculation that deliberately misconstruing the story is one viable theory. I can think of other possibilities as well. And I've also stated that it would probably be a better approach, so long as the key people are still alive, to hold off on our own speculation and get the recollections straight from them. This would mean doing something like an interview with them, bringing a copy of official reports to the interview, explaining to them that you can't find a single reference in it that says the tank exploded, then pressing them to justify the basis for their belief that the tank exploded.--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. A few more comments:
 * What about the LM landing on the Moon?
 * "But let's be clear that 'reliable' is not a synonym for 'infallible'." Yet at Wikipedia we must trust the reliable sources.  No original research or synthesis allowed.  You have not produced one source that says there was no explosion.
 * The panel blown off the Apollo 16 LM when departing the Moon did not affect the craft's integrity and was not the result of an explosion, but of the rigors of lift-off.
 * You don't seem to understand that the explosion on Apollo 13 did not simply blow a panel off. The first exploding tank damaged a second one, and the interior of the SM has been described as "badly mangled," "damaged," "heavily damaged." The SM is described as "[badly] crippled."  They didn't want to fire the SM engine because they didn't know how extensive the damage was.  (Turned out the nozzle may have been distorted.) Captions 5 and 6 in this photo essay clearly describe a significant explosion.  http://news.uk.msn.com/photos/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=153011672&page=5
 * I believe you have mistaken the professional restraint in the language of the Cortright Report as presenting a case less disastrous than what occurred. Here's from page 4-28:

"The events between fan turnon at 55:53:20 and the time when the problem was evident to the crew and Mission Control are covered in some detail in Part 4 of this chapter, 'Summary Analysis of the Accident.' It is now clear that oxygen tank no. 2 or its associated tubing lost pressure integrity because of combustion within the tank, and that effects of oxygen escaping from the tank caused the removal of the panel covering bay 4 and a relatively slow leak in oxygen tank no. 1 or its lines or valves. Photos of the SM taken by the crew later in the mission show the panel missing, the fuel cells on the shelf above the oxygen shelf tilted, and the high-gain antenna damaged."

Translated into layman's English, that says there was an explosion in tank 2 that damaged tank 1 or its fittings, blew off the panel, knocked the fuel cells catawampus, and damaged the antenna.

Well, my husband is clamoring for his supper, so I'll sign off now. Best, Yopienso (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * About the LM landing on the Moon, all I was saying was that we have three missions where an SM panel was blown off, and the mission pressed ahead with the Moon landing. Therefore a blown panel, in and of itself, is not proof of crippling damage.


 * I certainly was not saying that A15/16/17 stand as proof that there was no crippling damage to Apollo 13. My point was to highlight the fallacy of logic in one direction only. The blown panel in Apollo 13 certainly was the result of the tank rupture, but it is totally erroneous to use a photo of that blown panel on A13, by itself, as proof that anything worse happened unless the photo shows evidence of something worse.


 * Thanks for that page 4-28 quote. I remembered from years back that the photo analysis was not very conclusive. I spent hours today going through the report looking for the results of the photo analysis. I could not find it. But you've provided their observation that "the fuel cells" were "tilted", along with the high-gain damage.


 * In light of that, I'd say that the A13 SM photos stand as proof that the fuel cells were damaged, the high-gain antenna was damaged, and that the panel was blown off. Since the damage to the fuel cells and antenna were already well known, the biggest info added by the photos is that the panel was blown off. And since this had already been deduced by the loss of performance with the high-gain antenna, the photos simply confirmed what was already known. If the worst thing that the photo analysis was able to conclude was that the fuel cells appeared to be tilted, then your previous quote that "the equipment inside was badly mangled" reads to me as a colorful exaggeration. Yes, we know that systems were damaged. But it was not the photos that gave us that information!


 * As for producing a source that says there was no explosion...
 * I have repeatedly cited the Cortright Report. By far the most detailed, the most thoroughly researched report produced on Apollo 13. In my previous reply I summarized how the report spelled out their findings on four separate levels (design review, preflight ground certification, mission flight data, and postflight investigation recreation) where at all four levels they came up way short of concluding that there was an explosion.


 * About your comment on the "panel blown off the Apollo 16 LM", I have no idea what you're talking about. The only panels

I've been talking about having been blown off are the ones on the Service Module (damage on A13, then planned on A15/16/17).


 * As for your next bullet regarding the extent of damage, it appears to me that we are in agreement that the tank failure caused crippling damage. I don't recall me ever stating anything to the contrary about Cortright's conclusion that the O2 Tank 2 failure caused the O2 Tank 1 depletion, the SM panel to be blown off, the Fuel Cells to get shocked to failure, and the antenna damage. No disagreement from me on any of that.--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "About your comment on the 'panel blown off the Apollo 16 LM', I have no idea what you're talking about. The only panels I've been talking about having been blown off are the ones on the Service Module (damage on A13, then planned on A15/16/17)."
 * I don't know what I'm--we're--talking about, either! :p  You had mentioned it earlier;  when I googled all I could find was the panel on A16's LM.  What ARE you talking about?  When, why, where were panels removed from A15/16/17's SM?  Yopienso (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All lunar missions that had the rover also had a thing called the Scientific Instrument Module (SIM) built into the SM. To use these instruments as the CSM flew around the Moon, they had to jettison the SM panel to expose the instruments. So there are three missions where blowing a panel off the Service Module was a perfectly normal part of the flight plan.


 * There was still plenty of concern during Apollo 15, the first time an SM panel was intentionally blown. The crew actually put on their spacesuits because of the perceived risk of cabin depressurization. And there were other serious concerns as well. Here's what the CAPCOM called up to them prior to the event:
 * "you are Go for SIM door jettison. And we want you to watch the Fuel Cell Reactant valves after the jettison, per the checklist - just a reminder of that."


 * ...followed by this exchange soon after the jettison:
 * CAPCOM - "And, 15, just out of interest, we saw a good healthy jolt in our Doppler data down here during jett time."
 * CDR - "Gee, that's very interesting because I would say that the jolt in here was very minor."


 * Those quotes are from this page in the ALSJ. So all photos you see of the CSM where a panel is gone, but the spacecraft is in the vicinity of the Moon are from one of these last three missions, such as the first photo in the CSM article.


 * I hope that finally clears up this one point. There are other major points that still need to be cleared up regarding the accurate story on Apollo 13, but those can be delved into some other time.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Tdadmemd. I find that information interesting, and have footnoted our Apollo 15, Outward journey article.  It is, however, irrelevant to this article.  Comparing the deliberate and planned popping off of a panel designed to be jettisoned with one that was most unexpectedly blown off from the eruptive force of a gas explosion is like comparing blowing or shearing off the roof of a sedan with retracting the top of a convertible.  Apples to oranges here:  A/13 didn't even have a SIM.  Yopienso (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You may recall that my reason for raising that entire point was in response to this statement you had posted:
 * "Also, just look at the black and white photo of the damaged service module in our article--it clearly shows the rupture was no simple slit that leaked gas; it was a crippling explosion."
 * Those Apollo 13 photos prove that the panel had been blown off. A15/16/17 prove that a panel blown off is not in and of itself a crippling event. Similarly, convertibles stand as proof that having no top on your car is not necessarily a crippling event. So if a sedan did, for whatever reason, have its roof blown off, in order for me to become convinced that it was a crippling event, I would need to see stronger evidence than a photo showing that it's roof was gone.


 * It appears that we are using different brands of logic. I suggest that it would be more productive for the both of us to take a break to examine the validity of our positions, and then we can revisit the discussion after refining our views, perhaps ending up at a synthesis of one anothers' ideas.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes! We agree.  The reason the crew was in such dire straights wasn't because a panel was missing, but because the explosion that blew it off caused the loss of so much of their oxygen and power and water. The second paragraph under "Explosion" explains that. Yopienso (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you would enjoy reading the Cortright Report to see the conclusions that they came up with after their intense study of the mishap. (Or perhaps you have read it, but you just disagree with their conclusions.)--Tdadamemd (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read or at least skimmed Chaps. 4 and 5 of the Cortright Report, which I consider highly reliable. I disagree with nothing.  Yopienso (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Now I am very puzzled. Your argument here from the start was to assert that the O2 tank exploded, but Cortright never published any conclusion of the sort. I've even highlighted the "four levels of proof that the Odyssey O2 Tank 2 did not explode" that was detailed in the report.

If you've read anything in it that you think means one thing, but you suspect might mean something else, I'd be glad to offer my own understanding of what it is saying.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There's really nothing more for me to say; you seem to have misunderstood the Cortright Report, which makes very clear that there was a crippling explosion aboard Apollo 13.  As I've said before, it's a technical report and does not use the lay term, "explosion."  It calls it a "loss of tank integrity."  Wrt to switches, see p. 5-22--they weren't working right.  P. 4-40--solenoid valves were shocked shut, there was a bang, the panel blew off.  (Btw--25 psi of pressure are required to remove it.  A/15 used explosive cord.) P. 4-43--possible leaking valve. "The failure of oxygen tank no. 2 and consequent removal of the bay 4 panel produced a shock which closed valves in the oxygen supply lines to fuel cells 1 and 3." (p. 4-44)   "It was obvious by about l-l/2 hours after the accident that the oxygen tank no. 1 leak could not be stopped..." (p. 4-46) There was no set of valves functioning properly and preventing disaster.  No, tank 2 blew up and damaged tank 1 and a bunch of other stuff. P. 5-3: "The rapid expulsion of high-pressure oxygen which followed, possibly augmented by combustion of insulation in the space surrounding the tank, blew off the outer panel to bay 4 of the SM, caused a leak in the high-pressure system of oxygen tank no. i, damaged the high-gain antenna, caused other miscellaneous damage,and aborted the mission."  That describes the bursting of the tank, possibly a fire outside the tank, and subsequent damage.  Read pp. 5-2 through 5-7 for switch failures and general havoc wrought by the failure, loss of integrity, combustion, (Combustion inside an oxygen tank!  Imagine!) explosion, whatever we call it. The craft yawed with the jolt. "The accident is judged to have been nearly catastrophic. Only outstanding performance on the part of the crew, Mission Control, and other members of the team which supported the operations successfully returned the crew to Earth."  Yopienso (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you for reiterating your position. That is as I had understood it to be. And on that, we can agree to disagree. Catch you later.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Hasta luego and best wishes. :) Yopienso (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Discrepancy Found in Bar Graph on Age of Founding Fathers
I have corrected the data for the graph. Thanks for the info. -- Jack l  17:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I just removed the pointer that I added on to the caption, both in the article and on the .svg image. The next Wikipedia fundraiser should be the foundation selling 'Team Wikipedia' t-shirts!--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
It seems your edit is contested, since it's been reverted, and it's nothing to do with WP:NPOV, but everything to do with WP:V, which trumps NPOV. please feel free to offer citations. Rodhull andemu  23:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are people really that igorant to think that Hitler's leadership for VW's, the autobahn, jet planes and spacecraft is unverifiable? All anyone had to do was click the hyperlinks to the Wikipedia articles to educate themselves.  My experience with this topic is that it is common knowledge that people just prefer to suppress, because it is such an emotional topic.  And it is when emotion gets in the way of fact when we have an NPOV problem.  If anyone actually did have a problem with the verifiability, then they could have spent a few seconds to google [hitler me-262] etc to find an abundance of references.  Well, I've just re-edited the article to include those four plain facts, complete with external references.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus
Hi Tdadamemd, I noticed that you edited the The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus page to refer to the correlation between the band's name and the Camp X-Ray photos. From what I recall, the band members randomly chose their name by selecting random words that they put up on a wall, and were not influenced by the photos. Do you happen to have any references to back up this edit, then? Mattimis (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bands often avoid saying things that alienate their fan base. This is particularly the case when making a statement against a highly emotional topic that is connected to 9-11. You can speak your mind like the Dixie Chicks did, or present an innocuous story. When I find the reference I will add it, and I've edited the article to add what the band says.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just added a citation needed thing to the Camp X-Ray photos reference. Please don't take it personally; it's just there as a reminder to find that reference. Please do update the page when you do. Mattimis (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Steve "Pinto" Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Steve "Pinto" Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Steve &quot;Pinto&quot; Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Steve &quot;Pinto&quot; Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  13:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've added copyright info to the file page. I had been under the mistaken impression that I had already taken care of this during file upload when I had specified the 'Permission'.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Apollo 13 (2011 effort)
Hi, sorry I missed your discussion on the talk page a couple of weeks ago. Looks like you missed my response today. I've reverted your most recent change. We really must stick to "explode" with the reliable secondary and tertiary sources. The Cortright report is a primary source and not appropriate to use to justify the changes. Please see WP:PSTS. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of having a split discussion between the article Talk page and here, I've instead consolidated my reply back there.--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! I've requested comment here. I've no experience with this; apparently most people ask for comment when they're disgruntled. I assure you I am not, and you give no impression of being so yourself. Thank goodness! This is a step above a request for a third opinion (since Anna Frodesiak stepped in) and below a formal RfC, which seems like an ugly place. :O Best wishes,Yopienso (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I think this is an excellent idea. I was not aware that Wikipedia had a process for situations like this, nor was I aware of the several Wikipedia policies that you've called my attention to. Thank you for pointing all of that out for me. I will keep myself available to answer questions from those who will choose to engage in the process.
 * As for my reason for stepping back for a solid year, as I remember explaining last year, I see a major factor in this issue to be education. And there are a lot of source documents that those interested can dive into. I've done my best to provide shortcuts in that process by highlighting what I see to be the most important parts from these source documents ...as you have highlighted sources toward the effort to support your view.
 * Hopefully I've left a complete enough set of those pointers so that I will not need to take an active role in the process. This needs to be an objective process, not my personal crusade. The key facts have been publicly available for decades. The biggest role I can serve is to point those out. I see that contribution to have been thoroughly done during our extensive discussion from last year. Thanks also for giving pointers to that in the Request you've submitted. I'll be very interested to see what comes out of that process. I hope they pick up on Wehwalt's idea to have the article cover both sides.
 * By the way, I am male. Not that it matters for the discussion, except that it makes the use of pronouns less awkward.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing was happening at the RfC page, so I asked for help and was told to put a tag on the talk page. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well I've been continuing research on my end and just yesterday found some very intriguing info. Looks like I will have inputs over at the article.  I may hold off for a little while to see if other editors would like to pipe in first.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK; I'll be watching as I have time. The template was removed as "expired," so I replaced it. This is the first time I've done this, so maybe I did it wrong. ?? Did you see the most recent comment on the talk page? Yopienso (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That was the direction that I had hoped the article would go, but my preference was that the push would be coming from a position that was more deeply informed than at the Ron Howard level.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

9/11 Attacks
I have removed your addition as it struck me as largely irrelevant for the article. If you feel it should be added please gain consensus on the talk page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that in the big picture it has little relevance. However, I still see it as noteworthy. I will add it to the Talk in case others want to include it in the article.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

IVF
Just a brief hint: your edits are more likely to be longlasting if you attach footnotes to them. This also helps readers to learn more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot disagree with that. But anyone familiar with IVF knows about this common dilemma. One approach to teamwork editing is for one person to add the info. If this isn't sourced, and the next person sees it to need one, then they tag it with that cliched "citation needed" tag. Then the next person plugs the ref.
 * ...either that, or I as one person working alone could have been more thorough with my addition.
 * Now in this one article in particular, I was shocked that the info had not previously been incorporated. I have a hunch that there are people who are trying to hide the darker aspects of what is otherwise a joy-filled technology. It will be interesting to see how my less-than-complete input will evolve. You may have noticed that the 'abortion' article had absolutely no mention of IVF over there as well. Curious.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It sure is a challenging subject to deal with at Wikipedia. Best of luck.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TODAY especially! I just posted a reference that I hope people will find to be informative. Thanks for your feedback.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I added that reference to the abortion article too, but the entire edit got reverted ...that quickly! Yes, it is very clear that this is a challenging topic.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"WikiMemex"
hi Tdadamemd. I appreciate you suggesting a possible solution to the deletionist problem, but unfortunately i don't think it would be viable in practice, the reasons being, it would be just one more fork and hence not unique enough to attract interest, google drives traffic to wikipedia anyway, and these things have been tried before and didn't last (remember Includipedia?). The analogy of Wikipedia and Nupedia no longer holds, because it pertains to an earlier time when both were very small projects. Wikipedia is currently one of the top half dozen or so start up websites that have become monolithic institutions that everyone relies on (others are google, facebook, ebay, paypal, amazon, etc) and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. So it's a good idea in theory, but, yeah, it looks like we're stuck with the currently wikipedia, for better or worse. I'm involved with a number of other creative projects now anyway, so even if a WikiMemex or something like it were to start up, and avoid the fate of similar past initiatives, I wouldn't have the time or energy to contribute much or anything to it. Thanks for suggesting it anyway. Best regards M Alan Kazlev (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that such a project would not attract much interest. But then again, it is not intended to. Wikipedia is the jewel. Deleted articles would be kept 'on life support' in a vegetative state until such time as the topic became notable. Or perhaps the info might even flourish there. The primary purpose would be a consolation to the author of the deleted article in knowing that the information would not be erased, but maintained as publicly available. I've posted a wealth of info to Wikipedia that subsequently got clobbered. I would much rather have that info available somewhere to any seekers. In the past I've reposted to USENET to fulfill this function, but the formatting there is archaic.--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Optimism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attitude (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) 11:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
It clearly reads at the top of the page and in red-

STOP! PLEASE DO NOT ADD ITEMS TO THIS LIST THAT DO NOT HAVE A LINKED DEDICATED WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. THEY WILL BE REVERTED.

In fact if you go here, you'll see it says the same thing twice before you get to the edit section. Your edit to the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft article has been reverted.- William 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You reverted with the rationale "Doesn't have an independent article". But indeed this incident does have its own dedicated Wikipedia article. It just happens to be titled under the passenger's name, and this flight is the entire focus of the whole article.


 * Southwest Airlines Flight 1763 incident re-added.


 * I understand that WikiCops serve an important role here, but you might want to be more thorough before deciding to revert the edit of a member who is clearly trying to make positive contributions. A more constructive course of action, if indeed the article on SWA1763 did not exist (albeit with redirect) would be to create it. You are aware that a similar cockpit security breach incident happened the very next year - to four airliners simultaneously. I'm astounded to see that anyone would think that the Jonathan Burton story does not belong in this list.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I had re-added, with the link switched to the article on the flight, that redirects to the original article I had linked to. You reverted once again, stating "No redirects. All incidents have independent article." I had already made the point that I was linking to the independent article about this flight incident, yet you're reverting on some arbitrary criteria. If you want independent articles with no redirects, it would be proper to state that in the "linked dedicated Wikipedia article" criteria that you yourself have quoted (which I had met in my very first edit, and all subsequent edits).


 * I've re-added the edit once again, after switching the redirect so that the flight article is primary, and the passenger article is now the one that redirects. And I'll reiterate that you could have made this simple change yourself, that is, if you cared more about the quality of the information being presented in the article rather than simply policing your (arbitrary unstated) rules.


 * It is clear that you are doing your reverts out of your care about the article's quality. I hope you can see that I am doing my addition out of care for the article's quality as well. The ideal I hope we could strive for is working together toward that common goal, instead of working against each other when we both want the same thing (in the larger picture).--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What you did was not create an article on the crash, but instead copy over the Burton article onto the one for Southwest.


 * The rules for inclusion in the article aren't arbitrary but a consensus agreed to by the editors of the list. That was done before I ever did a single edit to the page.


 * What I suggest is you bring this up for discussion at the talk page for the List article. Invite some of the editors who work on the page(Look at its history, I'm not the only editor who works on it), and see if they favor what I did or what you did.- William 21:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI I brought it to the attention of this editor and WP administrator who does alot of work on aviation articles.- William 21:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking that last step, William. I trust that a consensus will arrive at the best resolution. Perhaps you yourself will come to agree that this incident belongs in the list. I understand that the criteria were well thought out. I hope my point was clear in that if redirects are not considered to be acceptable, then it would be best to state that in the red note.


 * And again, this one particular flight incident was a huge standout. It isn't the story of just one passenger who got killed. It's the story of cockpit vulnerability, and if the FAA had taken adequate action in response to what Burton did, they could have mandated strong cockpit doors and actually prevented 9-11.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest comments added here.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Page moves
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give FedEx Express Flight 705 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Federal Express Flight 705. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Jared Preston (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, the mess has been cleaned up by an administrator now. Thanks for your time. Jared Preston (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the mess. And thanks for your help.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Concrete, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pantheon and Admixture (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) 10:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Saturn V, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prospector (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) 12:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Vegetarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eggs (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) 11:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nutation
Hi Tdadamemd: (First of all, excuse me by my poor English) About the picture you add on Nutation, it shows the yearly displacement of the tropic line due to a 41,000 year cycle swing movement, one of the Milankovitch cycles. Nutation causes a much larger shift, some years almost 1,000 feet, as I explain in the reverted (by the compulsive reversor Atila rey) edition of 2012-03-27 of the Spanish wiki article Oblicuidad de la eclíptica. In the Spanish Wiki article Nutación, I add an animation showing both, the swing (yellow line) and the nutation (green line) effects in displacement of the tropic lines and polar circles. I got some years ago the picture you add, in order to use it in the Google Earth Community post Trópico en Movimiento. Saludos. Ereenegee (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. This seems like an excellent discussion to have, and I suggest that the best place to have it would be on the Talk page for Nutation. Your English is better than my Spanish, and I was not able to fully understand what you had posted in the Oblicuidad de la eclíptica article.
 * I'm not even understanding what you have posted here in your comment above, because if nutation's effect is a much larger shift of almost 1,000 feet in one year, then that should show up in the sign distances in the photo I had added to the article. Perhaps your position on this is that the signs in the photo are not accurate. Whatever the case, I suggest reposting your criticism on that Talk page and then perhaps someone will be able to explain what you are saying so that I will be able to fully understand your points. Thank you for your feedback here.--Tdadamemd (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

New image
Could possibly find a image of the Apollo 9 command module on display. thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.224.15 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LMGTFY: Google knows lots o'images --Tdadamemd (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.187.13 (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

video
Could you possibly find a video of the apollo 13 splashdown. thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.224.15 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto the above. Google knows lots of videos --Tdadamemd (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.187.13 (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole idea behind "LMGTFY" is to point the way of encouragement for people to take on the internet for themselves and enable everyone to become active netizens. Wikicommons makes the whole upload process fairly painless. You might want to give it a try.--Tdadamemd (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's blocked on my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.181.92 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atmosphere of Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deep space (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) 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching my error, bot. It's now fixed.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Tau
If you take a look at the current http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tau_(2%CF%80) page you will see that I have started a page to make Ratio_of_circumference_to_radius a page. It will take some edits from others for this page to be able to be used. I am torn on editing it and writing a paper on Ramanujan primes. So, feel free to editing it. John W. Nicholson (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks for letting me know.  I'm looking forward to seeing that page go live.  Actually, to my eye it looks ready to go as it is - a very well written article, with care to make sure that nothing that has not yet been established is being presented as fact.  Kudos to you and everyone involved in putting that together!--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I see it, I need someone like you to keep an eye on it. Add their weight for it as it goes live. If you look at the history of the page you will see that I am the only one which has made it. However, I cut, pasted, and edited a lot as to cut the effort in making them. The cuts came from the prior Tau pages and other's tau comments and notes. The spots where I have just a word or two needs a lot more work and I know I can not do it alone. So, as I said before please add your edits.

John W. Nicholson (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your page looks good to me as is. I was glad to see David Be jump into the Pi Talk discussion.  He gave a very strong reason as to why Wikipedia needs to have a separate Tau article.  I totally agree with your reply in that advocacy needs to step aside so that we can maintain NPOV.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iridium satellite constellation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orbital plane (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) 11:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you DPL bot. You've saved the day once again.--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Writing system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Letters (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) 11:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks once again, trusty bot. I just fixed it.--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse
Regarding your edits to our Sexual intercourse article, I suggest you read WP:LEAD, and WP:BRD. Rather than coming out with bullshit about 'censorship' (which in my experience is almost always evidence of a poor grasp of Wikipedia policy, at minimum), you need to show two things (a) why this needs to go in the article at all (which it might possibly), and (b) why it needs to go in the lede (which is questionable to say the least). You have been reverted twice - so if you want to change the article, explain why on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. Read WP:3RR too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How ironic that the edit conflict is over a word that is seen to be vulgar, and here you post profanity on my Talk page.
 * That is the first word of profanity I have seen posted here, and I hope the last. (Actually, I hope you will choose to edit your post. - Self censorship, if you will.)


 * And the bigger question is: Why did you come to my Talk page here?  I see the problem to not be one single editor, but rather a problem with that one article.  The most appropriate place for this discussion, I suggest, is over there.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I came to your talk page in the hope of encouraging you to conform with policy, rather than seeing you blocked. This was evidently a waste of my time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem confident that admin action will not instead choose to block all of those users who have been censoring (my view) the article. The last reason I provided for my revert was *symmetry*.  When one of you chooses to edit the article fuck so that its lede does not link to sexual intercourse, then you will have legitimacy behind the argument you have been presenting.  Until such time, I will remain convinced that all that is happening here is cyber-bullying censorship.
 * I trust that any admin will be able to recognize that.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Another key point that you might be interested in is how you say "your edits to our Sexual intercourse article" (my emphasis). I will suggest to you that you review the Wikipedia policy on ownership. I'll look for a link in case you're interested...--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Found it: W:Ownership of articles. Quote:


 * All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article.

It goes on to talk about Group Ownership activity, which is what I see happening over at the article. For whatever that may be worth to you, and whoever else might be reading this.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Tdadamemd. As you know, in this edit summary, I told you that your addition doesn't belong in the lead, that you should see Alternative titles. I stated that your addition should go in the Definitions and stimulation factors section, if included at all. In this edit summary, I told you that this is not about WP:CENSORSHIP. It's about the fact that you are inserting slang terms into the lead as though they are significant alternative titles that should be in the lead. They shouldn't be. And here's why: There are a lot of terms for sexual intercourse. It doesn't mean that they should all be in the lead. Wikipedia:Alternative titles#Treatment of alternative names makes this clear. The Fuck article mentions sexual intercourse in its lead because it is especially relevant to the topic. However, the term "fuck" is not especially relevant to the topic of sexual intercourse. We don't have to design an article so that it is "symmetrical" with another article.


 * When you are reverted, unless it's a vandal or is a problematic edit according to a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it is often best to take the matter to the talk page. Andy suggested that you take the matter to the talk page; you decided to revert against two other editors after that (Yobol once, and me and Andy twice). That is not acceptable behavior, and it will almost always ensure a block. Even if you don't breach WP:3RR, you can still be blocked for WP:Edit warring, which you were. I reverted your addition to the lead, both times, because it is problematic. See BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, you reverted, now it's time to discuss. Constantly reverting gets you nothing...except blocked.


 * As for WP:OWNING articles, if we are "owning" the article by objecting to your addition and asking you to take the matter to the talk page/that you should consider placing the addition lower in the article, then you are owning the article by reinstating your addition, insisting that it must go in the lead, and not attempting to discuss the matter on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You and I have a huge disagreement on the "alternative names" point. I won't present my rebuttal here, as I have expressed that this is not the best forum for arguments for or against inclusion of 'fuck' in that article.  I will reiterate:  the best place to have that discussion is on the Talk page for that article (sexual intercourse article).  I will invite you to start that Talk section yourself.  A good seed would be a cut&paste of your first paragraph above.


 * As for 3RR, I do agree that the best place to discuss is on the Talk page. No one did that.  The discussion happened here on my UserTalk page, and then it got taken to an AdminTalk (or whatever that kind of page is called).  I saw those steps to be improper and totally unnecessary.  I suggested to Andy that he move the discussion to the article Talk.  He did not initiate that, nor did any other editor in their multiple reverts.


 * Of course, I could have done that myself, and that's where the matter of principle comes in. You obviously disagree with my assessment about W:NC, let alone whether or not it takes precedence over 3RR.


 * The area of common ground that you and I totally agree on is that "now it's time to discuss". I am not pursuing that vein with you here for reasons above, but as soon as I am unblocked I would like to join in on that discussion.  As for the point on W:Owning, I do agree that it can be seen as happening from the other side, ironically.  I actually don't care all that much about what specific words are in the article.  I don't even remember how I got to the article.


 * What I do care more for is that all Wikipedia articles are accurate and thorough.


 * And what I care a lot more for is that Wikipedia does not turn into a low-quality, or lower-quality, website because of the kinds of forces that I have been persistently objecting to.


 * Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, and I look forward to continuing with you over there after I am re-enabled in doing so.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I have started the talk page discussion about this. Flyer22 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I appreciate you doing that.  I'll see you over there.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2013‎ (UTC)


 * That's very polite of you to have given me this heads up!--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was typing up a Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring report on you. Then I saw that Andy had already filed one. And I did think that Andy would report you before me, but I also considered that he was waiting for me to report you. Anyway, I observed what was happening in the meantime. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I would hope that someone - maybe not you, maybe not Andy, maybe not Bbb23 - would recognize that my effort today was in what I saw to be the best interest of Wikipedia. Not every editor is willing to "fall on their sword" for a matter of principle.  I may have been the one taken out here, but I hope that it will at least plant the seed for a reasoned discussion as to why Wikipedia has such a large article on this topic, yet the most common word for referring to this activity is not mentioned one single time.


 * I am well aware that I did not take the most harmonious road in my effort toward raising discussion on that issue. My reason for persisting on that path was incrementally proving to myself that indeed what was happening was censorship.


 * When that conversation begins, and arguments are presented, perhaps there will be someone who will persuade me that it was not censorship, and that there is some totally valid reason for this. I will patiently wait...


 * And while there certainly are many people who disagree with what I did, I would at least hope that there is a semblance of mutual respect for the motivations behind the actions of everyone involved in this.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring is rarely in the best interests of Wikipedia - particularly when doing it while fundamentally misunderstanding what was being edit-warred over. I am not an advocate of 'censorship', and I have no objection to the word 'fucking' being used in an appropriate context (and, as other's will no doubt point out, I've used it often enough in inappropriate contexts too..). That wasn't why I reverted you - and I don't think anyone else reverted you on the basis of 'censorship' either. The issue is rather whether your edit was appropriate for the article - and in particular, for the article lede. The manual of style sets out such matters in detail, as Flyer22 has already pointed out. The article is about the act, not the vast number of euphemisms and slang phrases that have been used to denote it, and it would be ridiculous to fill the lede with them all. As for whether the word (along with other slang etc) needs to be discussed elsewhere in the article, I'm not sure - but as yet nobody has made a concrete proposal to do so. I suggest that you read WP:LEAD, and then think about making an appropriate proposal, on the article talk page, if you wish to take this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with you on the issue of whether or not the edit was appropriate for the article!


 * ...which is again why I question your decision to take that discussion here instead of having it over there. And as I have replied to Flyer22 above, I will hold back from responding to your substantial points that you are making, because the community as a whole does not get the benefit from what a few people are saying over here on one person's UserTalk.  I do look forward to continuing this discussion.  And I hope that I won't have to wait 48-hrs to do that.


 * These "edit war" rules were made for people who get all emotionally wound up and act irrationally. I did not see any of those elements dominating what transpired with us today.  I saw reasoned, measured actions - but with a stark difference in assessment of principle and best avenues toward corrective action.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have already explained to you that I posted here in the hope of getting you to discuss the matter in the appropriate place, rather than getting blocked. As for me starting the discussion on the talk page, how was I supposed to do that? - it was you that wanted the change, and it is you that has to provide the explanation as to why you wanted it - I can't do that for you. Again, this is normal practice - you can't just include material, and expect others to argue against it in the abstract. You had every opportunity to start a discussion on the talk page, per normal practice, and failed to take it up. As for your comment on 'edit war rules', you are entitled to your views on this - but they are policy, arrived at by consensus, and if you chose to ignore them, you have to accept the consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For me to go into my reasons behind how I approached W:BRD today, it would get into the reasons why I see the article in need of a significant change. And as stated before, I would rather do that over there so I will hold off on that here.  So I hope you're ok with waiting whatever time is necessary here.


 * As for the consequences, you predicted this, but as I stated beforehand with my own prediction, I saw it as totally reasonable for any admin to recognize the issues I was highlighting. And if one were to agree with me on that, I'm not sure how that would be pursued.  But that branch of alternate history is now moot.


 * On second thought, it is quite possible that the admin did see the problems I was objecting to and maybe even agreed with it. ...and that they have no better way to intervene than by doing what was done.  Ok, maybe not probable - but possible.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Sexual intercourse. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I will suggest that you take a closer look at how all of today's actions unfolded, and re-examine who is at fault for exactly what, and also re-examine which Wikipedia policies take precedence over which.

There's actually a very simple way to cut to the chase here: just observe that Wikipedia has a huge article on sexual intercourse, and the word "fuck" does not appear in it one single time. I hope that you are not offended by me using that word. It certainly appears that others, many others, are.

I did what I did today knowing full well that there are plenty of admins who will blindly block based on 3RR, without looking any deeper as to whether or not the "offender" had reasonable, and perhaps even justifiable, reasons for acting "badly". I was hoping that the admin who would act on this particular case would have checked into the full set of facts before any impulsive reflex happened. And I hope that you in choosing your action came from after you had looked at the full situation.

Now in case it did not, and at some point in time during this 48 hour period, you come to a realization that I was acting in the best interest of Wikipedia, all things considered, and that I persistently presented a reasonable argument to have a discussion on the article's Talk page and yet no one wanted to do so, and if after such consideration you believe that it was a mistake to block me, then I would be very appreciative if you would remove the block.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See what I stated in the section on your talk page. Where did you "persistently [present] a reasonable argument to have a discussion on the article's Talk page"? All I see is what you stated in this edit summary, after others told you to take the matter to the talk page (as you even note in that edit summary). You were the one who wanted (and still wants) this in the article, so it's more reasonable that you should have started a discussion about it on the article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My reply to you on these points would get into angles that I see to be best documented over at the article, so I'll hold off on that now. But I certainly do understand what you are saying.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal unblock request added.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you actually wish to be unblocked, I suggest you retract the accusations of bullying and censorship, since it is quite evident that neither was taking place. All that was asked was that you discuss the issue on the article talk page, rather than edit-warring it back in without engaging in discussions. All you needed to do was start the discussion without repeatedly restoring your edit in the face of reverts from miultiple contributors - explaining what you wished to do, and why you thought it necessary. This is normal practice. What isn't normal practice is making wild accusations, while attempting to force your viewpoint through on spurious grounds, based at least in part on a misunderstanding of what WP:NOTCENSORED means - it isn't a green light to include anything you like in an article without debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree that "bullying" is too strong a word, in all of its connotations. But I am at a loss for identifying a better word to use instead.  What I mean is "Group Ownership action that is taken with very harmful consequences".  And that's really awkward and bulky to articulate.


 * As for the censorship issue, I have yet to be persuaded that what shaped that article, including the flurry of actions today, is anything other than censorship. This issue is getting into the topic that I see to be best discussed over on that article's Talk, so I will leave this here at that.


 * I am well aware of what I could have done differently to avoid the admin block. But I clearly communicated my reasons for choosing the path that I did.  I'm sure you're aware of decisions you made that could have resulted in a different situation than we have now.  We all make the choices that we see to be best.


 * Actually, I would be very interested to know your reasons for choosing to initiate the discussion here rather than over in the article Talk. But I don't really need an answer.  You can just treat that as a rhetorical statement for whatever value that might have for future decisions you make.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you persist in claiming that you are being 'bullied', I have nothing further to say to you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was actually agreeing with you that I am not being bullied, in the strongest sense of the word. And I also would agree that the best course of action at this stage is to just leave this all alone here, at this page.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just declined your unblock request as it doesn't address the reason for the block. In addition to the links provided in the automated message, please see WP:NOTTHEM. Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My argument against the reason for the block is that the Wikipedia policy against Censorship is more important than a 3RR. Consider my actions an act of "civil disobedience", or a "standing in front of a tank column" (tanks that don't like seeing the word 'fuck' in an article about sexual intercourse, for whatever reason).


 * But I've communicated this very clearly before, so I don't expect my reply here to make any difference. Then again, I might be surprised.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're argument for "civil disobedience" is anything to go by, the proposed additions might have ended up looking something like this: Sexual intercourse between animals other than humans is often called mating. A scientific term for such acts is coitus or copulation. It is also known by vulgar terms such as fucking. There are also multiple slang terms such as screwing, shagging, humping and banging. There are also euphemistic terms such as sleeping together or birds and the bees. There are also archaic English terms such as carnal knowledge, and legal terms such as fornication. Phrases which may ambiguously refer to sexual intercourse includes hanky panky and quickie. Pass a Method   talk  13:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not see any problem with that quotation. I would consider that to be an excellent addition to the article.  For further comment, I suggest we move this discussion over to the article Talk page where others interested in this article can benefit.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terra incognita, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Territory and Terrestrial (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) 11:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In this case, bot, the general articles were intended. But thanks.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple Visual Proof
There's a comment on your proof at Talk:0.999.../Arguments. Gustave the Steel seems to know the person who left that message and has replied, but you may want to have a look of your own. I'll just say that I'm not surprised that the proof isn't convincing to everybody. Huon (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, not surprising at all. I just posted my reply.  Thanks, Huon.


 * As for the state of the article, we never resolved the entire issue. If you happen to have any suggestions, I'd appreciate that.  I thought that I had come up with a reasonable solution, yet there was swift objection to that as well.  It would be good to establish a consensus on whether to include the Circle image, or include the Circle with the Square directly into the body of the article.  The comments regarding the circle were of the type that "it is no better than a 1-D image", to which my reply was to point out that the article has no 1-D image of the specific problem.  The entire discussion did not get much further than that.


 * It has been nearly one week since I posted the notion that the consensus may be to include the image (/images), and that post has gotten no feedback to date. One factor that should be considered is attrition, as that entire discussion ended up being extremely long and drawn out.  Perhaps the smarter approach would be to simply let this all sit for however many months and then give it a fresh look at some time in the future.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Open Drive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dropbox (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) 12:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, you got me again DPL bot. Thanks for your tireless service.--Tdadamemd (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Your recent editing history at Catholic sex abuse cases shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bilby (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Bilby, you and I have been engaged in totally reasoned discussion (at least, that's how I have been perceiving it).


 * And I don't even see how my edits can be considered a "war". We opened discussion, and that discussion is ongoing.  When I re-added info to the article, I did so while addressing and correcting for criticisms that you and others have voiced.  I only did one straight re-revert.  Notice that there have been three editors making major changes to that article without voicing a single thing over on the Talk page, not even as a courtesy explanation for their actions.


 * ...and you see me and my actions to be the problem and you've come here to address me directly instead of inviting them to join in on the Talk page as I have invited them to do.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Aunva6 (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''while you do have a reference, it still appears to be originating all from a single, primary source. it also does not adhere to WP:NPOV'' Aunva6 (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is discussed heavily at the Talk page for the article. You can make your personal threats over there.  The benefit being that others involved in the discussion can weigh in.--Tdadamemd (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * please refer to WP:BLP Aunva6 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So now your position is that CNN is not a reliable source? Here's a cut & paste from BLP regarding contentious info:
 * "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."


 * It would appear that our point of disagreement is that I don't see how the many quotes that I referenced can be considered as "poorly sourced". And you've gone so far as to see my efforts toward article improvement as vandalism.  I have been making hundreds, if not thousands, of Wikipedia edits for well over half a decade.  Not a single one of those edits was vandalism.


 * Once again I invite you to move these criticisms of me over to the article Talk page, as I expect that there are many Wikizens there who would like to pipe in with their opinions about the notion that I have been vandalizing the article, or violating any Wikipedia policies.--Tdadamemd (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP is a higher standard and requires very strong sourcing. This is a higher contentious subject area and many passionate editors are going to demand that any criticism is very well sourced and stated neutrally. I suggest slowing down a bit and possibly doing an RfC if you believe the content is valid. Personally I will help on this but you need to also be mindful that people's religion is often a core aspect of who they are so I suggest moving cautiously so those who may be offended can see the earnest intent behind the editing. We're also in no rush so there is no hurry to ensure the full story is shared immediately. Insomesia (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds like sage advice. We live in a very open society today.  Accurate facts are sure to come out in time.  Long gone are the days of hiding your past and moving to places like Argentina with absolutely no accountability for multitudes of lives you've ruined.  Heck, in recent months we've even seen Lance Armstrong come clean.  Who thought that would ever happen?  And there are still people who support him religiously and uphold him as their hero.  My hero is the racer who stayed clean and finished ahead of any of the other racers who had stayed clean.  That took courage and bravery, yet got screwed like an altar boy.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Stick to the long-term goals of actually sharing a NPOV truth for those who wish to know. Unfortunately Wikipedia often serves a fervent POV, but over the long term the facts will bear out. Plus we aren't a news outlet so rushing to expose the truth is not needed. It's better to win the war on facts than a temporary battle on morals. Insomesia (talk) 21:30, 16

February 2013 (UTC)
 * and I would like to apologize for the warning I slapped on there. I a little new yet, and a level 3 was too heavy-handed, considering that it was a good-faith edit. Aunva6 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No sweat. I'm looking forward to the article reaching a stable, high quality version before too long.
 * The irony in talking about vandalism is that it was my Talk page right here that's been wrecked this week. It would be nice if the person who did that saw fit to restore the huge delete.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Insomesia, actually there is a very strong argument for acting quickly. People who love the purest of original principles of the Church would like to see major reform happen.  And if this story continues to get buried throughout the next few weeks then it is not hard to predict that the Cardinals will maintain their attitude of having no sense of accountability, which sets the Church up for electing a new leader who will be more of the same.  Remember the sense of shock and utter disappointment when Ratzinger was elected?  "You mean they elected the guy who was in charge of handling the sex abuse cases?!"
 * ...well after your comment I gave it a lot of thought and it seems clear to me that if they pick the next pope as a person who will follow in Ratzinger's footsteps, then the Church will be well deserving of the destruction that they will bring upon themselves.
 * Weird to know that there's actually a prophecy that this "Pope #112" will be the last (though not sure what "last" might actually look like).
 * The future may be very difficult to foresee, but there's plenty to learn just from studying the past. Martin Luther was so critical of the Church because he so loved the Church.  He wanted the establishment to change.  He didn't want it fractured.  And we could say the same of Jesus.  He was a Jew, and he loved the core principles at the heart of Judaism.  He wanted the establishment to change.  He didn't want to fracture it.


 * Well the Church is on the brink of its next huge fracture. It is not my job to help them wake up to the precipice that they are teetering upon.  They will be responsible for their own doing or undoing.  Martin Luther may have been the father of Protestantism, but the Vatican was its mother.  Just as Judaism was the mother of Christianity.  It will be very interesting to see what gets born during the papacy of this next critical selection.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bilby and Benedict XVI
When you revert someone's edit, please read their edit summary first. Following the policy Bilby linked (WP:LINKVIO) he was in the right changing YouTube links to the originals on the BBC. I am reverting your edit after reading this policy. If you don't like a policy, discuss it on that talk page. This policy is basically to keep the WIkimedia Foundation from liability for copyright violations that are linked to from Wikipedia. If he is linked to programs other than the ones you want, then say that. I would accept that as legitimate. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What Bilby and you did was doctor  my  post. I see absolutely nothing in WP:LinkVio that authorizes you to alter the text that someone else posts.  You both have breached very precious ground.  You both edited another person's post.  And on top of that, neither of you made the edit so as to indicate that the link was not that of the poster's choosing.  How ironic that we are engaged in a discussion about systematic rape, and you both choose to violate me.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have hours to view programs but all it seemed he did was find YouTube videos of BBC on the BBC site which is where they should be linked in Wikipedia, even on talk (although personally I don't bother with such things on talk unless someone else brings it up). If he did more than that, I misunderstood something and should not have reverted, sorry. I will not comment on "systematic rape" here as I think the article talk is the place to bring it up. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the Resignation of pope Benedict XVI article
Hi. I rarely contribute to Wikipedia, but I find myself relying on it for a more in-depth coverage of issues than I can normally find in other sources. I'm a little dismayed by the article on Benedict XVI's resignation, for the reasons you've so eloquently raised on its talk page. I just want to encourage you to keep going. I agree with you completely that the article, as it stands, seems sanitized; and seeing that many sections of even the talk page have been deleted is almost unnerving. Thankyou very much for defending Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and I profoundly hope you continue. Steve.Murgaski (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your encouragement is very refreshing! Wikipedia has an excellent system for creating quality articles, but it can be susceptible to breaking down particularly when a topic is an emotionally charged one.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the end, a fourth reason I stopped posting (which I should have written but in haste missed) was that I realized one line was probably proper for WP:NPOV. I brought the point up in the first place rather than editing since I know where I stand and that is not always perfectly in line with WP:NPOV. If you look at my contributions they are generally adding navboxes or content to Catholic / Christian pages on Wikipedia and try to avoid conflicts. This discussion was 2x longer than any other I've had. Both Bilby and I had gotten the impression that you were anti-Pope, but I guess we were a little wrong. Sorry. Jesus Love You! (since some administrator told me it can't be in my signature anymore.) >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 11:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been away for over a week. Major events have happened, most obviously the Pope stepping down.  I will go look at the articles today and see how they have developed.  Yes, we had an extremely long discussion, but I saw a lot of productive things coming out of it.


 * I actually have very strong ties to the Catholic Church. I live next door to my church and I walk to Mass.  I have traveled to the Holy Land, and also made visits to the Vatican, down to the catacombs.  I have friends and relatives who have worked at the Vatican, with a namesake who is an ambassador to the Vatican.  One friend who I visited there is an Archbishop (a friendship that goes back several decades) and I got to see the Pope there at the Vatican and also here in the US.  I sing in my church choir and have traveled to perform at Catholic churches and cathedrals in various cities across the US.  And all of that doesn't share my strongest of ties to the Catholic Church.  Having a bias does not necessarily dictate which direction a person will take when editing an article.  The motivation that I see as prime in myself is the pursuit of accuracy and completeness.  I see that to fit well with Wikipedia principles.  A point I made earlier is that one of the strongest criticisms of the Jewish faith came from one of its own members - that same person who an admin told you not to advocate in your sig.  I see a similarity between his motivations and the motivations of a person like Martin Luther.  I do not see them to have been driven by an anti-establishment theme.  Rather, I see them to have been so passionate about the organizations that they were members of that they saw the best treatment to be the shedding of light onto those organizations.  I do not see their goal to have been to create a split where something new would branch off from Judaism, or from Catholicism.  It is quite possible that this result was the farthest from their intentions.  And it is also quite possible that we are living now in a time of radical change in the course of human spirituality.  If there is anything to the Prophecy of the Popes, then the new pope that is about to be elected will be the last for the Catholic Church as we know it.  This does not have to be a scary change.  It could be a metamorphosis as beautiful as a butterfly whose previous existence was life as a caterpillar.


 * My efforts on the Pope Benedict articles have been toward highlighting facts that are far from comfortable. Perhaps we can look at this issue as whether it is better to keep the contents of such a cocoon sealed, or if it is better to open it all up and see what will emerge.--Tdadamemd (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think in general we agree. I know what should be NPOV in a Wikipedia article and I also know what my personal opinions are, and that the two don't always match. I brought up the issue in the first place because I knew as far as personal opinion it was junk but as far as NPOV, I was not sure. If I wanted to impose my opinion, I would have deleted it in a live edit rather than pointing it out on talk.


 * Personally, I'm not into the prophecies of the Popes; I know they exist but give them very little credence. The early Christians would pronounce "Maranatha" at each mass in expectation of the end times. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be good info to add to the Maranatha article.
 * It's quite possible that the strongest effect that any prediction of the future has is that of being a self-fulfilling prophecy. As for the direction that this new pope will take, it is clear to many that major changes are in store for the Church.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the camera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NRO (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) 19:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks once again, bot.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

steve lindsey
Yes I know steve lindsey personaly. We were in the same boy scout troop. He told me a story about how his nickname in college. Any more questions please email me @   sgetten@gmail.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.249.178 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll suggest that we end this discussion here and move back to the original Talk Page.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Failure Is Not an Option (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to George Mueller


 * Gene Kranz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to George Mueller

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, bot. Fixed.  Good catch, as always.  You bots might do a decent job of running the world.--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Spread of AD
Please discuss your assertion that AD year notation spread due to the popularity of the Christian religion on the talk pages of the respective articles before inserting this claim into the articles. There are other plausible reasons, such as colonialism on the part of nations that used that notation, or success in international trade by nations that use that notation. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My edits did nothing to address the issue of causation. The map was offered as fact regarding correlation.  With that understanding, you may decide to re-add.  And I do agree that this discussion is best to take place on the article Talk's in question, so I don't plan to post again here.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Obama article
Your recent editing history at Barack Obama shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Also, all Obama articles are under probation and general sanctions. Please familiarize yourself with this. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this threat posted to my Talk page really necessary? I would suggest to you that the effort you've put toward creating this section here would have been far more constructive by simply opening discussion by creating a new Talk section in the article in question.  I have just done that myself.


 * Also, you might want to reconsider what a "war" is. What I observed was rational discourse with both sides giving fully reasonable explanations for their actions regarding addition & revert.  I am confident that such maturity will carry over into the Talk discussion, with no need for anyone to threaten anyone else - and with both sides recognizing that we all share a common goal of improving Wikipedia.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "reconsider what a "war" is" - Just a friendly note - see Edit_warring:
 * "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. "
 * Your edits:
 * A Bold addition:
 * You reverted instead of discussing, per WP:BRD:
 * Another revert (not crossing the WP:3RR "bright-line", but a revert nonetheless:.
 * Also see WP:3RR:
 * "... any edit warring may lead to sanctions..."
 * With a note that the article in question is under special sanctions, see WP:GS/BO.
 * Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Our arguments were being presented in the Edit Summary. That is the discussion which I was referring to as rational discourse.  It is, or can be, a concise way to carry out a debate, with potential to save time for everyone involved versus long drawn out discussions in a Talk page.


 * So what I just stated does not conform to BRD? Therefore I am to be faulted for the entire incident?  Maybe you'd like to take a closer look at BRD to see what all three people who reverted my edit chose not to do:  BRD.  Is anyone posting on their Talk pages to fault them for their roles in this?  And for the 'D' part of that, notice that of those three, not a single one chose to initiate a Talk discussion when doing their revert.  That right there would have ended the instability.  It was not until the third time that there was so much as an invitation to open a Talk discussion.  I will see you over there in that discussion.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for the reply. Some quick thoughts:
 * I absolutely meant no disrespect nor intended to aggravate you in any way. Text has no non-verbal clues (excepting, possibly, "smileys").
 * I certainly don't mean to pick you out of a crowd. Yes, everyone involved would have been better served by using the Talk page vice reverting at each step. I posted a note to be helpful, in case (as I perhaps incorrectly surmised) you were unfamiliar with the "best practice". (However, see WP:NOTTHEM).
 * Comments in the edit summary are a good thing, but not the "D" in WP:BRD.
 * My best advice is to chill out a bit, make your arguments, and follow WP:CONSENSUS
 * Regarding discussion on the talk page, I added my two cents. If something novel is posted there, I'll add commentary, but not otherwise.
 * Kindest regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tdadamemd, this is the 2nd time you have stated that you are "discussing" the issue through edit summaries. That is not discussion, those are reverts. In the Bold,revert,discuss process, it is up to you(the person who wishes to add or change new material to gain consensus on the Talk page. Using edit summaries while reverting is considered edit warring, not discussion. It would do you well to read these guidelines and policies and not just try and force your versions into article. That is a good way to end up blocked. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * All of Wikipedia has been built by people like you and me injecting "their versions" of what they see to be best into articles. So how is my particular approach to doing this "bad", while yours is "good"?  I reverted reverts without opening a Talk discussion?  One point here is that I am the one who opened the Talk discussion.  You did not.  The others did not.  Where in BRD does it say that it was my obligation to do that?  My understanding of W:BRD is that it does not specify who exactly has such an obligation.  It simply guides us with the wisdom that the article's Talk page is the best place to resolve such disputes.


 * So why is so much time and energy being spent here on my User Talk page? You initiated this, because you saw me to be the problem.  You posted a threat, with absolutely no acknowledgement of any hint of good faith on my part, and just now you posted another threat.


 * ...That, and you are being adamant in your assertion that there was no discussion that happened throughout that triple edit-revert. I was using the plain English definition of what a discussion is.  You appear to be using a very narrow WP definition of categorizing contributions into a box labeled either with 'B', 'R', or 'D'.  Yes, if we were to do that, I agree that what all four editors involved did fits firmly under the 'R' category.  But if you'd like to reconsider the broader context of what a discussion actually is, and what a discussion actually can be, you might find yourself with a perspective that my use of the word and characterization of the interaction is perfectly reasonable.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of your recent comments at Talk:Barack_Obama are inappropriate (see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and GS/BO). Consider toning down your responses a bit. Please also do not accuse me, as you have accused others, of making some sort of "threat" - I am not threatening, and actually agreed with one of your two suggestions - but you are hurting your own cause. Remember, there is no WP:DEADLINE to gaining WP:CONSENSUS, and comments such as the following, are unlikely to bring other editors around to your point of view. These are your most recent words on the talk page are uncivil and in at least one case could be considered a personal attack:
 * I am astounded by the level of willful ignorance expressed by the vocal majority here.
 * Are any of you bothering to read the quotes provided?
 * Take JoeSperrazza's reply, for instance: "I've not yet seen ... references to reliable sources noting the timing of their marriage..."  One explanation, Joe, might be that you poked your eyes out before posting that reply.
 * If I had the technology, I would post these quotes in Braille, because there appears to be a blatant aversion to so much as a visual scan of the printed word here in this forum amongst those willing to speak up on this. You all are certainly free to continue to ignore everything I've provided
 * At the time I had written that, I was not aware of the depth that this forum was capable of, but now that has become quite clear. I am not so much disappointed with the editors who have expressed their choice to ignore the wealth of info provided. 
 * Compare these statements (and your prior edit warring, which you did stop, but did do) to GS/BO:
 * Do not edit-war;
 * Interact civilly with other editors;
 * Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;
 * Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian;
 * Continuing in the way you have will not result in gaining WP:CONSENSUS, and could easily lead to sanctions under GS/BO. I wish you well and hope you heed my advice. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of what I had posted. I don't see any of my statements you've quoted above to constitute a personal attack or an example of me lacking in civility.  I am not aware of a single instance of me crossing such a line throughout all of my many years contributing to Wikipedia and engaging in many, many disagreements on Talk pages.


 * You had posted a conclusion that clearly to me had an extreme hole in logic. In my reply, I highlighted points previously made that I saw you to have missed (five quotes).  And I also made an extreme stretch to provide one possible reason for how you could have replied with what you did.  One possible reaction you could have had to reading what I posted was to laugh.  But ok, I can see how you'd think my words weren't funny.  But you posted a reply that contradicted 5 (five) quotes that I had posted.  I certainly had the option to reply with something like this instead:
 * "Joe, would you mind reading my post before replying to it?"


 * But it was not just you. Everyone was ignoring the points made in the extremely thorough post I had provided.  So why are we having this discussion over here?  Again, it is you seeing me as creating a problem.  You certainly have been kind throughout our exchange.  But if you happen to be open to a self-examination of your own offerings:
 * "Continuing in the way you have ... could easily lead to sanctions under GS/BO."
 * "Please also do not accuse me... of making some sort of "threat" - I am not threatening".


 * That pair of statements is logically inconsistent.


 * I happen to see the entirety of the discussion posted here to be totally unnecessary. I plan to move back to the article Talk page and to post over there.  If anything I do leads to sanctions, then so be it.  I do not alter my behavior because I am being presented with any punishment.  I consider that to fit with cowardice.  But if I were to become aware of something I've done that is unkind, then I would certainly see that to be a mistake on my part.  And I would promptly apologize.--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Jesus lede edits
Hi, it looks like you were involved in the start of an edit war on Jesus regarding some of the proposed changes you put forward. I realize you have not been reverting lately, and have been discussing it on the talk page, which is great! We need to try to get that conversation going and put a stop to reverts to avoid having anyone be blocked. Would you be able to start a discussion about the specific edit you want to make, and get some info on what other editors do and don't like about it? That might be helpful in finding a solution amicable to everyone. Thanks! Prodego talk  02:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are posting here on my Talk page, saying that I started a war, when you can clearly see that an extremely lengthy rational discussion has been transpiring at the article's Talk page? You yourself are a contributer in that discussion, and a full day after posting over there you come here requesting that I start such discussion.  Scroll to the top and anyone can see that I did just that, and I did it on November 28th.


 * I am more than perplexed as to why you came here to say what you did. I am bemused.


 * And another thing I find strange is that two other editors have recently joined the discussion, posting their opinion that supporting sources would be needed. Clearly people are jumping into the middle of discussions without taking so much as a simple scan of what had been presented.  I say simple scan, because sources were presented and even outlined with a quotation box.  Very easy to see, for anyone who cared enough to have a glance.


 * One possible explanation for what is happening with these three editors is that the subsection header is being misinterpreted as the start of a stand-alone section. It is not.  It is the progression of a very long discussion in a very long section.  I maintain hope that the new editors will choose to scroll up a bit to discover the wealth of info presented on the page they're commenting on.  You as well as the others.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013 — 3RR warning
I think you've been notified already, but just in case, you should know that the Talk:Barack Obama page is covered by discretionary sanctions, which are mentioned at the top of that talk page. You need to read those before proceeding. You are at WP:3RR, having made at least three contentious reversions to the talk page in the last few hours. Further, your combative approach to this talk page over the past several weeks is untenable in a project that is supposed to involve collaboration and consensus among editors. Your conduct there may result in your editing privileges being blocked by an uninvolved administrator to prevent further disruption to the talk page, and if you do any more reversions I or someone else will report this and you will almost certainly be blocked. Please take this as a caution, not an attempt to discuss. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will reinforce this warning: you are on the verge of sanctions. You, rather obnoxiously, asked for me to take action at Talk:Barack Obama: this is the action I've chosen. While I believe that despite your indirect personal attack and my irritated response, I am uninvolved by the usual definitions, there is no point in a debate over my status, and I will confine myself to warning you that you are violating the standing sanctions on this topic. I will support the imposition of sanctions on you if you continue.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, someone needs to do something with this person. They are obviously not concerned with any of the warnings given and continue to violate BLP all over the place. Dave Dial (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A little more clarification: I recuse myself only from the imposition of arbitration sanctions. I am unambiguously uninvolved with respect to edit-warring, BLP and disruptive editing sanctions, and will apply those when and as necessary in this case. You appear to have become obsessed with Obama's birth status and have shown no inclination to respect the consensus of experienced editors in this matter. I think the best course is the use of arbitration sanctions to deal with this situation in the long run. As noted below, this, particularly as it is phrased, is a BLP violation, and is an attempt to insert an interpretation based on original research, which compounds the matter. Your focus on Barack Obama II, and not on his parents, makes this a BLP matter.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A refresher on WP:BLP
Some quotes:


 * "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."
 * All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.
 * On talk pages (WP:BLPTALK): "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."

Accordingly, the next time I come across you adding something like this without proper sources (not Google search results, not your own research, not asking for others to come up with sources) I will ask for you to be banned from making any BLP-related edits on Wikipedia. -- Neil N  talk to me  15:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've opened the discussion over on the Talk for Obama Sr where BLP does not apply.--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted you as you still have provided no sources. Revert me and we'll head to WP:ANI. -- Neil N  talk to me  00:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.
You are edit warring on Talk:Barack Obama, Sr., which is a sanctions-protected article. Also, please read WP:NOTVAND. JoeSperrazza (talk)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd. Thank you.  Neil N  talk to me  00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring and WP:BLP violations per WP:GS/BO. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Block evasion is unacceptable. Any comments you want to make need to be made here, including and unblock request.  Further evasion, such as these IP edits will lead to extended blocks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Cloud Kite for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cloud Kite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cloud Kite until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Steve &#34;Pinto&#34; Lindsey (with Tom Hulce inset).jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Steve &, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Enola; or, Her fatal mistake for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enola; or, Her fatal mistake is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Enola; or, Her fatal mistake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)