User talk:Verdatum/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hindu milk miracle
Howdy! On noticing your addition of a totallydisputed template to Hindu milk miracle, I had a brief glance over the changes that had been made since I wrote the article this time last year. I agree with you that some pruning definitely needed to be done. To that end, I've chopped out the two most egregious passages added (by a random passing IP) over the last twelve months; what remains is fairly well-referenced. If you've still any problems with the text, let me know through either the article's talk page or my own (NB this is generally standard procedure when adding a dispute notice anyway) and I'll see what I can do to fix it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists
You'd probably like to give your opinion on Articles for deletion/List of British hard rock and heavy metal musical groups or performers and Articles for deletion/List of rapcore artists. I'm planning to put all of the "list of x metal band" pages up for deletion soon, there are already cats for most of them. Have a nice day! :-) Funeral 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good to know and good to hear. You should be able to follow the rules for multiple related deletions for that, I would hope. -Verdatum 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've put some more lists up., , , - those might be of your interest, feel free to give your opinion on them. :-) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation)
I've added an opinion of "rename" in the discussion which appears not to have been considered in the debate. I encourage you to review my reasoning at Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) and determine if you need to reconsider your !vote. Regards. -- Whpq 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Much obliged SineBot. I was indeed aware, but I'll forget to include it sometimes :D -Verdatum (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Afd merges
But there is a template that redirects to merge discussions on the article's talk page. Why couldn't the deletionists just use that? Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From Talk:Blood electrification
(Archival of talk page now Deleted, no longer relavant.) -Verdatum (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional institutions
Are you still planning to Cleanup the List of fictional institutions or should I do it? (69.253.64.213 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Sorry for not responding. But it's done now. The raw cleanup anyway. -Verdatum (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Should
You should be an admin. But you'd have to get email. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you to say. However I don't have nearly enough edits to fulfill admin requirements.  That and it sounds like a bit of a pain to me.  I admin my own wiki, and the powers it grants aren't that amazing for me to particularly want it on WP at this time.


 * Yeh, lol. Same with me .  Where's your wiki? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Special FX Wiki I also manage a private wiki for work. -Verdatum (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion looks too messy, and I have too weak of an opinion to voice on this. I think most aspects of WP:EPISODE are logical synthesizations of existing policies and guidelines.  Most episodes deleted are rife with WP:PLOT and I've yet to be involved with any deletions that don't.  If you want to modify the guideline, make a proposed rewrite and discuss it like what's currently being done in WP:FICT. -Verdatum (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield
I've wasted some time putting together a draft because I think the AFD's going to be no consensus, and I really have to say that it's ridiculous how much I've had to scrape together to even give an idea of this creature. Everything I've read is film-centric, and all the reviews have been largely film-centric, barely even mentioning the creature. There's no suggestion whatsoever of a possible franchise. Let me know what you think -- a lot of the non-review details are reiterated from the film article itself, obviously. I just can't stand a lousy OR-based article to exist after maintaining the quality of Cloverfield all this time. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm operating under the same fear of no-concensus (that and I'm compelled to clean up articles when I vote in AFDs, since too many don't understand that AFD is not cleanup) My only objection to your draft is the length of the "reception" section. While individually, the sources are valid, none of them are terribly notable (reviews from regional papers, etc.).  As far as how I'd specifically like to see it edited, I'll wait for after the AFD.  Fine effort, keep fighting the good fight :) -Verdatum (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the problem with the "newness" of an article. Ethan Haas Was Right was created and immediately went to AFD, yet it survived.  It still looks as terrible as it did when it was first created.  This spin-off article for the creature is way too much of a knee-jerk reaction and makes me think of all the ridiculously extensive biographies of comic book characters that collectively make up the cesspool of Wikipedia.  I'm a fan of putting topics under an umbrella to establish a more realistic overview, rather than the long-winded in-universe detail that results.  I actually have a Word document for the production notes of the film saved to my computer, but I'll need to see if it can be retrieved elsewhere by others.  It has a little bit more detail about the creature, but it seems like stuff that can go to Cloverfield. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I figured the consensus wasn't in our favor, so better to have gone ahead with this. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I joined the article only because I noticed that there were so many people putting so many different things and opinions onto the page. I figured it was mostly from the movie being released, so I tried to look through each link and website to find out what they say and if they can be trusted. I have no real interest in the thread beyond that. I hope that makes sense and explains where I am coming from. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually in the same position. I have no personal interest in this topic at all, but I think it's good to have impartial people like that who are more familiar with WP policies and guidelines keep tabs on articles prone to OR and such.  I haven't had a chance to look into it, but I'm starting to lean towards your position, the resource in question is mysteriously unattributable.  I suspect the fact is probably true, but without WP:V I don't think it belongs right now.  The article is in a good state policy-wise and I'd like to maintain that according to Broken Windows. -Verdatum (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional companies
With regards to your problem editor, if they continue to add useless entries to the article whilst refusing to enter into any discussion (which from the talk pages it appears you've tried several times to initiate), they're clearly being (at least mildly) disruptive. I've left a note on the IPs talk page myself encouraging them to get involved in discussion on the article's talk page about inclusion. If their behaviour continues, let me know and I'll institute a short term block.

However, the real root of the problem is that there isn't really a strict set of inclusion criteria set down for the page. I'd advise trying to hammer one out on the talk page (or through an RFC), and bring the entries already on the page into line. That way, anyone who comes along can see whether it's a good idea or not to make their contribution. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

PAGE MOVE
Thanks for the info, but I have provided reliable citations. No where in the previous citation does the director state that name of the creature is Cloverfield. As one of the other citations I provided state, the name is designated to the military operation in the film. The title of the page was written

"Cloverfield (Creature)"

Which implies that the name is of the creature which is not the case. This is why I moved it to The Cloverfield creature. Taking a consensus of people's opinions over undeniable factual citations is absurd. JTBX (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * *facepalm* Can you make him see the point I'm trying to make? Will (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh...What?
If the director and film both state "case designated Cloverfield" then I do not see how that can be denied. A sufficient title is not a lie. JTBX (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Luddite expurgations, or the obscurantism of officialdom?
So, Verdatum, I see you and MastCell have once again bowdlerized the work I put up. Only this time the article on Electrotherapy was fully referenced and linked, not original work in any sense. So I'm curious. Could you send me an email to gokelly@charter.net and tell me what the problem is now? Could it be your years in the pharmaceutical industry that has deprived you of any understanding of physics and its pertinence to the subject? Or are you just being an asshole? Tell me one thing wrong with the article, and why you removed it, leaving behind the usual piece of crap that Wikipedia is now becoming known for.

Your prior objections to the content I have entered for the site Electrotherapy have been taken into consideration, although it is still puzzling to me why you do not want to include a history of the subject. I have removed all content that might be considered "original research", and I have remained within the ambit of the papers cited and/or linked to, for such things as the nature of electrical energy, the nature of muscle atrophy, and the voltage waveforms used for electrotherapy as enumerated by the FDA. Still, you slash and excise in a manner befitting a vivisectionist, and what you leave has little or no content at all. I saw where you and MastCell speculated about how the article by the Dutch Health Council might be worked in to future content - you remember the article - it said ELECTROTHERAPY IS INEFFECTIVE. This might be a little puzzling for the reader, and the content I contributed helped to explain why they arrived at this conclusion - exclusively in terms of voltage waveforms and electrical energy.

You might object that FES/electrotherapy does work, and has been proven so, but here you are wrong. I included the one bit of research that ever investigated the matter of the affect of FES in terms of crucial muscle fiber biopsies, and found it ineffective. I have a link to a statement from Dr. Wise Young of the W.M.Keck Center for Collaborative Neuroscience, to the affect that FES does not do what was once claimed by the engineers from Ohio known as the Petrofsky brothers who pedal the Galaxy-EStim, an $18,000 FES device they hawk to build muscle. They no longer make this claim after the biopsy study was done, and have been prevented from doing so by the FDA, but they don't need to, because people (like yourself) still believe it does the very thing it has been shown not to do. Wise Young makes this claim from time to time, risking serious fraud and malpractice charges, but he backs down when forced to provide the evidence (as Don Quixote forced him to do in the link to the CareCure Forum for the Keck Institute).

The superstition around electrotherapy and its effectiveness at building muscle is so pervasive that even those who work with FES (like one gentleman who put up a piece on the Talk site and claimed to have worked with it for 15 years in a veterinary setting) believe it works, though they cannot produce the biopsy and histochemical work to support their claims. If it did do this very thing, then why is it not used by body builders, NASA, orthopedists, and physical fitness buffs? There are lots of people about who believe that if they can make the muscle contract it will grow stronger. Like cargo cult members believing that a landing strip will lead to planes bringing in 'supplies', these people don't understand that the contraction must be elicited in a manner that is a simulation of how the body does it when the muscle is exercised. The body is electrochemical, and does not work using biphasic voltage wave forms. I can't believe you don't get this, but your contentment with superficiality suggests you know very little of the subject. Your editing is therefore not made from the standpoint of the knowledgable.

You are doing a disservice to those who want to investigate the subject before investing a healthy chunk of money into the over-priced and useless devices that appear on the market before being relegated to a spot in the garage or attic. Even the FDA, on the site linked to the content I provided, says electrotherapy will not build muscle enough to change one's appearance or performance (so how does one know it has worked?), and must be supplemented by regular resistance exercise - which is helpful only for muscles that already work. And you think people should not know this? Is this what Wikipedia is for? As I pointed out, that a patent should be granted by the U.S. Patent Office in 2005 for the use of electrochemistry to build muscle in a way supported by the history of the subject, is astounding, for it clearly means that not only is the modality not already in the public realm, but also no one else has ever patented it. Yet you wish to exclude this information from Wikipedia on the grounds that it is not relevant to understanding the subject. Truly amazing.
 * Please sign your posts. For the most part, I'm on your side this time.  Mastcell deleted a lot of stuff that was indeed referenced simply by saying "OR", which I disagree with.  I restored the obvious part that belonged, and left a comment that more should probably be restored.  But I haven't had the chance to take a close look at it.
 * Concerning the patent, first off, a patent is considered a primary source of information, which on an encyclopedia, should be avoided. Second, a patent does not provide any evidence of efficacy, only that it is a novel design.  A patent applicant generally is not even required to produce a working prototype in order to be issued a patent.  I would be willing to concede the issuance of patents related to the field of electrotherapy is worthy of note in terms of the efforts made in the field, but it should not be used to prove that it works, or that it's good or anything.  Occassionaly claimed perpetual motion devices are issued patents even though that is explicitly forbidden by the USPTO, so they are certainly quite failable.
 * I have no opinion towards what people should or should not know. In fact, I have no strong opinions on electrotherapy.  My only strong opinions are concerning the upholding of stated wikipedia policies.  You continue to try to argue the specific details of electrotherapy, which generally don't matter here.  All that matters to me is that the claims are referenced from a reliable source, and that the source referenced actually makes the claim expressed in the article.  Specific details matter when deciding on which claims add to the article and which claims just bloat it, and when two sources conflict on a fact.  Again, if you haven't done so, I reccomend reading WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE.
 * I won't go into more detail on this matter here, because it appears that these issues would better be handled on the articles discussion page. -Verdatum (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah
I am puzzled. Why did you revert an edit and then re-revert it? I am sure you acted in good faith, I just don't understand -- and am still trying to figure out a lot about Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was considering doing a revert, but I escaped out of the helper program that did it, this caused the article to be cut into tiny pieces, as opposed to the expected revert. So I quickly undid that action to bring it back and decided to wait a little longer to do the actual revert.  The program used is called twinkle, so that's why the undo comment was just "twinkle glitch". -Verdatum (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But why did you want to revert the edit? I assume it has not to just try out the program. I am asking because if I do something wrong, or do something badly, it helps to know what others think I could have done better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, now I see. What a noble question :)  I didn't have any problems with your changes, it was those of the editor before yours.  If I did the revert, I would have gone back to the prior version and then reapplied your changes (assuming they were still applicable). -Verdatum (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider those changes beneficial. Please do not undo them without consensus. There is some discussion of the subject in process, and you views are welcome. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you check the talk page history, you'll note that I had left a comment expressing my position on the issue before I started to revert. No one has yet replied to it.  I have since re-expressed my opinion further down in the page.  It is because concensus has not yet been met that I decided against the revert at this time.  I'd still prefer to do it sooner rather than later, as it avoids Merge Hell, but that is merely for reasons of facility. Please continue this discussion in the article's discussion page. -Verdatum (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you put your earlier comments, and I did not reply because I never saw it. I have replied to your recent comments.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why in discussions it is beneficial to monitor the history. Otherwise it is easy to miss comments.  My first comment is here -Verdatum (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Characters in the Cloverfield Universe
Hi! I did a page, List of Characters in the Cloverfield Universe, and I was wondering that maybe you or others could edited and changed some things?--4444hhhh (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

DC Meetup on May 17th
Your help is needed in planning Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah
On the Kabbalah article talk page you wrote "Abafied, I realize Malcolm Schosha has been a regular source of contention, but I fail to see his edits as being vandalism. He does not appear to be (at this time) repeating the same edit blindly without discussion."

I find this puzzling, because I do not recall being "a regular source of contention" while editing this article. I have had plenty of editing problems because Abafied assumes every edit I make is in bad faith.

Truthfully, I have put a fair amount of my time into trying to make the Kabbalah article better. But if there is some sort of general view that I am being disruptive, I will leave without regret. There is, I know for a fact, life after wiki-death. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By contention I merely meant that you and abafied have disagreed on various points. I make no judgements on who's right or wrong, I just started following this page, I haven't read the talk archive. I'm just trying to take a middle ground as I've found it tends to facilitating improving articles in dispute. -Verdatum (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Verdatum, you wrote: "He does not appear to be (at this time) repeating the same edit blindly without discussion." Please do not make statements, such as this one, if you can not back them up. I have never "edit blindly without discussion"; so, of course, I have not repeated what I have never done. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please relax. I can back them up with the history of the page which I monitor closely.  The line you quoted was entirely in your favor, I see no need to treat it as libelous. -Verdatum (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Show me what was wrong with my editing and I will know what mistakes not to repeat in the future. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me where I said you made a mistake! -Verdatum (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Toledano Tradition
Verdatum, it's preferable to delete the page than have it hacked about. I can better use the article elsewhere than on Wikipedia, now. Thank you for your help in trying to play middle man and for help on the technical side. abafied (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Verdatum, I want to thank you for trying to act to bring reason to the discussion, and for trying to return the focus on the article instead of on the dispute. Thank you, grazia, toda rabah. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Knights who say ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-p'tang, zzoo-boing, gdgdbaaoizen
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Knights who say ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-p'tang, zzoo-boing, gdgdbaaoizen, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Knights who say ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-p'tang, zzoo-boing, gdgdbaaoizen is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Knights who say ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-p'tang, zzoo-boing, gdgdbaaoizen, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wardrobe malfuction
If you or any of your thug friends would like to have a go at justifying what you are doing at wardrobe malfunction I'm all ears. Kappa (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand how I or anyone else involved is a "thug". The article went up for Articles for deletion (discussion archive) as not being a notable topic.  Without further improvement to the article by way of the inclusion of reliable sources, members of the community felt that it was sufficient to leave it as a redirect to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy.  Guidelines and policies used to justify this include Notability, Reliable Sources, Neologisms.  You should also take a look at Three revert rule.  As I requested in my original revert comment, you should discuss such changes at Talk:Wardrobe malfunction in order to reach consensus first if you wish to avoid haveing your changes reverted.  So, if you would like to have a go at justifying what you are doing at wardrobe malfunction, we're all ears. -Verdatum (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent post at Talk:Bohr model
Why the hell didn't you notify me at [] where I started a thread about this? I shouldn't have to waste my time looking through archives to figure out what's going on. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume your aggression is in jest. I had only just learned of the actions of this poster through the comments of another on one of the AfD pages.  After seeing and confirming mention of his deletion, I took it upon myself to look at the user's contribution page to see if he made any other messes.  Bohr model popped up, and the section he edited appeared to be in edit-war so I checked the talkpage and added the comment you saw.  I'm not a member of Wikiproject_Physics, nor do I watch it, so I didn't know you had raised such an issue. -Verdatum (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking for advice
At this moment I am more or less following the call on Talk:Kochen-Specker theorem to translate the analogous page on the German Wikipedia. I am rather new to this field, and I do not want to lose too much time reading all possible pages explaining rules that belong to Wikipedia custom. My question is whether I am allowed to copy the beautiful figure on the Kochen-Specker-Theorem page of the German Wikipedia (I have not been able to find the figure in the original papers by Cabello; so it seems to have been manufactured especially for that Wikipedia page). WMdeMuynck (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)WMdeMuynck (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question, and I am glad to see you ask first. I presume you are talking about the article "http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen-Specker-Theorem".  However, I am not sure what figure you are talking about.  If you are talking about text (including tables made in HTML and equations made in LaTeX), then yes, because of the GFDL, you are allowed to move any text between any wikipedia projects.  When doing so, say that they text is "transwikied from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen-Specker-Theorem" in the edit summary for that edit.
 * I don't see any images on the current revision of that page, but if you are talking about an image, it's a little bit more complicated. Click the image to bring up the image's page.  If the image says it is committed to the "GFDL" the "Creative Commons" or "Public Domain" licenses, then you can move the image.  In those cases, the Wikimedia people (who host Wikipedia) ask that you instead move the image onto http://commons.wikimedia.org and then update both the german and english articles to point to it there.  (If you don't feel like doing this, you can just copy the image to the english wikipedia, and it will be taken care of by someone else eventually).  If the image is copyrighted, then it is more complicated.  To use the image on the english Wikipedia, you must take steps to insure using the image is an instance of "Fair Use" and then upload to the english Wikipedia directly.  The links to explain what is and is not fair use can be found pretty easily by clicking the link to upload an image.
 * All that said, I'm capable of making mistakes, so I could be wrong about any of this. If someone notices you doing something against policy, chances are good that they will leave a comment explaining the problem, but I expect it will be fine.  I hope this helps. -Verdatum (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer. Although I do not know what GFDL is, I think there are no problems because the figure I meant is actually a table on the page you mentioned, which, I understand, can be transwikied. I hope to remember mentioning this when I insert the edited text, which I am still working on. WMdeMuynck (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Clover (creature)
Sorry, fixed it now. That was just clumsiness on my part. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Meetup/DC 4
Please note that there is a DC Meetup planned for May 17th at 5:00 p.m., though a place has not yet been set. You're receiving this notice because you posted to the page for the prior meetup - Meetup/DC 3 - but haven't indicated whether or not you're interested in attending this one. (Apologies if in fact you have.) BetacommandBot (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cave of Caerbannog
I reverted this merger previously as I had plans to expand the Cave article significantly - just haven't got around to it yet. I'm not sure this material needs sticking together and my experience with the rabbit is that there's a lot more out there than one might think. Where are you going with this? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. If you have content for expansion, that's fine by me. -Verdatum (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dead Code
I replied on my talk page. XLerate (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment in the AfD on the My Fair Lady (2009) article...
...is brilliant! Lerner, Loewe and Shaw would have been proud!



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

A question about Quotation
Hello, again, Verdatum,

Can you also please explain the Insert block of quoted text option in the Toolbar, which creates this:

Block quote

Block quote

Can you please place your answer in my Talk-Page ?

Many thanks for you help and effort.

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Verdatum, let me explain why
I added the "alleged" and "hypothetical" qualifiers to the article on psychokinesis. In my opinion the bulk of the article was implying that this was a real, validated and measureable (in a scientific sense) phenomenon. In particular the sections on "terminology" and "measurement and observation" read like fact rather than speculation over an abstract concept (to quote your phrase).

I completely agree that this is indeed an abstract concept and was trying to re-inforce that idea.

Yours,

Andy Gondorf —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyGondorf (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings. You should generally make comments like this on the talkpage for the article, Talk:Psychokinesis.  The fact that telekinesis is unproven is stated in the lead section.  This does not need to be repeated with every use.  The word "alleged" must be used with extreme care, as per Words to avoid.  "Hypothetical" was being incorrectly used.  The section in question was discussion what terms can be considered subsets of PK.  This categorization is true whether the phenomena is real or not.  So it has nothing to do with a conditional or a hypothesis.  Again, if you feel strongly about your changes, I urge you to bring them up on the talkpage so other editors can participate in the discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Brett Salisbury and his diet
Verdatum - thank you for getting involved in the AfD debate about Brett Salisbury. I'm wondering whether it's worth reporting the apparent sockpuppetry and/or personal attacks in that debate on WP:ANI. What are your thoughts? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd thought about that. The second IP address doesn't match; suggesting meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry; which is more difficult to prove.  As for the personal attacks, personally, I'd just chalk it up to new users who are simply unfamiliar with established policies.  The closing admins are clever enough to spot ranting anonymous IPs and dismiss them as appropriate, so I expect it will resolve itself soon enough.  Naturally, if attacks continue, by all means, take appropriate steps. -Verdatum (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sheesh Collectonian, what's with templating the regulars? We'd already discussed this... -Verdatum (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A regular should seriously know better than to pop copyrighted material into an article. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, as we'd already discussed, it was merely a failed attempt at paraphrasing. -Verdatum (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Miscellameness"
At the risk of being lame, I've posted a discussion on the WP:LAME talk page. For the record, I reverted instead of discussing because I honestly thought the edit I reverted was based on an out-and-out misreading rather than a judgement call. --Jfruh (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; I replied on the article talkpage :) -Verdatum (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I might need your input
I see from the edit history of User:G.-M. Cupertino's talk page that you have had a discussion with him/her/them over the content, specifically the filmography, of the Kyra Sedgwick article. I have had similar issues with that editor over WP:OVERLINK. Take this diff of the Danielle Savre article for instance where Cupertino wikilinked every hobby the person has including links for both "baking" and "cookies". The article is about an actress and has nothing to do with baking or cookies and both are common English words. The links add nothing to the article just as in the "Supply and Demand" example from WP:OVERLINK where linking of "potatoes" doesn't add anything to the S&D article.

Secondly, Cupertino has at least twice violated WP:NPA. The first as evidenced here at the bottom of the page. And the second time on my own talk page here.

I would like to post a notice on Requests for comment/User conduct and that is why I'm explaining all of this. I believe that Cupertino's linking of non-notable films/television shows/etc. as well as linking of unrelated common English words are related. They make the article messy and difficult to read. So, would you mind if I brought this to WP:RFC/UC with mention of your discussions with Cupertino as part of my evidence of their conduct? Also, do you have any additional solutions/suggestions/etc that may be of help.

And yes, I'll watch this page for your response per your notice at the top of the page.

Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 03:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings about WP:OVERLINK, the only thing that particularly irks me in that respect is when an one article links to a second article a dozen times.
 * From what I have seen however, Cupertino appears to maintain a regular policy against assuming good faith, against civility, and in favor of personal attacks that makes interaction with the editor very difficult. In general, I'd reccomend using WP:3O for resolving issues on individual articles, and using standard template user-talk warnings when the violates policies.  Aribitration exists for resolving specific disputes between two people.  Beyond that, you can build up a collection of specific diffs of edits Cupertino has made that are examples of policy violation.  In my observation, it is often a bit difficult to get administrative action undertaken against editors who do indeed make positive contributions but dance on the line of the above mentioned policies.  So it is important to have plenty of evidence.
 * I'm not terribly familiar with WP:RFC/UC, (I'll review it later) but if you feel it is beneficial to reference my correspondence with Cupertino, you're welcome to do so, and I can add comments on discussions where ever it is appropriate. -Verdatum (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I had thought of just making my edits, getting them reverted, narrowly avoided an edit war, and then bringing in a WP:3O to settle the dispute with that article.  Then moving on to the next article that Cupertino has edited.  That seems needlessly tedious though.  Although I don't have a lot of links to evidence of their behavior, I do have the links that I've posted here and it really won't be hard to find other examples of their conduct from their edit history.  For now, I've asked on the help desk for suggestions on which avenue to follow.  Thanks again,  Dismas |(talk) 01:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Hey, I replied to you over at my talk page, thanks for your concern. --Banime (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Space elevator image
I just looked at the Space elevator article and noticed an edit you made about a year ago, removing an SVG I had added. I saw your note on the png talk page, but the link it points to has been deleted. Could you please respond here: Talk:Space elevator - thanks. ~ Booya Bazooka 23:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cupertino
Thanks for letting me know that you've had problems with him in the past. As I'm bringing an arbitration case against him, it helps a lot. I'm not entirely sure how they work, but is it possible to bring you in to comment after I've already submitted it? Thanks again. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 22:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

CodeProfiler marked for deletion
Verdatum, you marked the CodeProfiler page for deletion. Could you be more specific regarding the reason? You said it's a product brochure. It is. But all the scanners in Wikipedia are more or less product brochures. That's because they describe products. Our scanner is new, therefore there are no blogs about it yet. But it is still the first scanner for ABAP. And SAP is using it. We published their success story. What else does it take to make something unique notable? Vfeditor (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: cruft
Re your essay on cruft on your user page, you maybe interested in this:


 * Talk:Stargate_SG-1 travb (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino
The "G.-M. Cupertino" arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available at the link above.

G.-M. Cupertino is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Should he return to editing following his ban, he is limited indefinitely to using one account to edit. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)