User talk:Wikidudeman/Archive 1

Tom's discussion
You are the vandal here, Wikidudeman.

I deemed that paragraph on steroids to be highly flawed and biased, and even provided the reasoning behind that on the talk page. That is not vandalism, that is simply fixing a flawed, subjective article.

Removing someone's post on a talk page, THAT is vandalism. Tomsintown 15:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I refuted your reasoning on the talk page. See the talk page for more information. YOU removed MY post. You don't even know how to edit talk pages.Wikidudeman 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true that I was unaware of how to properly place a post on a Wikipedia talk page. I still find that paragraph to be highly subjective and think it should be revised or removed, you can rant for all you wish. Tomsintown 15:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph will REMAIN as it is until you prove your point in the talk page properly. If you continue to edit the article without conversing in the talk page and us settling on something. I will notify an ADMIN and have you taken care of for vandalism. What you're doing is against wikipedia policy.Wikidudeman 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Hawking11.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Hawking11.gif. 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. 05:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid
Yes, I was a bit annoyed about that. We were fixing a few minor details and somebody else came along and failed the GA nomination without giving any detailed feedback. You would be best to get in touch with that reviewer and ask what they think you need to do to improve the article. TimVickers 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Who did it?Wikidudeman 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It was Adam Cuerden, if you have a look at the edit log. TimVickers 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Yankees76 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to do that from now on.Wikidudeman 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been having a hard time following all the changes to the anabolic steroid article, as it's a pretty controversial article, I just wanted to ensure your edits are clear for admins who monitor recent edits. Cheers! Yankees76 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a controversial article. Maybe a controversial topic in society but the article itself doesn't generate a lot of argument in it's talk section. I seem the be just about the only one making frequent edits to the article aside from your regular vandal who posts profanity and what not in it.Wikidudeman 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

John Edward
Nice contribution to making John Edward NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belbo Casaubon (talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Clearwater, Florida scientologist police
HI, Wikidudeman. I've lived here longer than Scientology has been here. The claim seems proposterous. Is pro/con Scientology propaganda? What is the source for this? Is it creditable? Never read such a thing in the St Pete Times, and the Times has had a number of things to say about Scientology over the years. My one encounter with Scientology was when my car broke down, and they refused to let me use a phone to call for help. Thanks. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 02:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I provided a source which is a link to a video done by xenu.net and they profile numeorus police officers who are also scientologists.Wikidudeman 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Will-Re add later. Wikidudeman  13:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Testing..
Testing.. Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFM
The RFM will be deleted soon, it has been moved to the archives, and should be deleted in the near future. However, I personally cannot delete pages as I am not an admin here on enwiki. ^ demon [omg plz] 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

AAVE
I'm saying this here because the talk page is getting pretty clouded. I think that the AfD you put up is inappropriate (because the issue of merging the article was under discussion) although I agree that Ebonics should not be a separate article from AAVE. I understand that you want the article named to Ebonics rather than AAVE but if it isn't, what do you lose? It seems to me that you're raising a big storm for what amounts to almost nothing. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is and never was an official request for merger for the "Ebonics article". I requested AAVE be moved to the "Ebonics" page but that was before there was an 'Ebonics article. I requested deletion after someone decided to make an article on that page with redundant information mostly already contained in the AAVE article or information that can easily be moved to the AAVE article. Technically the discussion going on at [] is a request for deletion not a request for merger though some advocate a merger. Wikidudeman  (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there wasn't an official anything but it was under discussion. Mergers are usually casual like that.  Anyway, can't argue that you haven't tried things.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we can wait a few more days before harassing them about agreeing to mediation on the dispute. In the meantime, take it slow.  I think that Pinkville brings up a good point.  We ought to address one issue at a time.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We only have 6 more days for them to all sign up. Wikidudeman  (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer it if you did not send messages addressed to me in other editors' talk pages, especially confrontational ones. I would also prefer that the next time you think I have violated any wikipedia policy or tenet to either report me in the appropriate fashion or not mention it at all.
 * I would also like to tell you that I'm pretty upset at you right now because my message to Hoary was not addressed to you and was designed to motivate him to participate in the mediation. I find your behavior towards Hoary to be inflammatory and if you believe that he is also acting in an inflammatory way to you then the proper thing to do is not respond in kind but try to be even more civil.
 * You don't need to respond to this and, for now, I'd prefer that you did not. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I only send messages that have relevance and usefulness. When I see people violate WP policy, I don't instantly report them for small infractions. I assume good faith and notify them of it. I don't know what message you're "upset with me" about but I can assure you that nothing malicious was meant from it. I will respond to this message since you posted it. Don't expect me not to respond to messages when you accuse me of being 'inflammatory'. Wikidudeman  (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about comment on Hoary's page. Please try to be easier to work with.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You proclaim that you might want to try to take 'administrative action against me' due to disagreements and you're asking ME to be easier to work with? Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you think I mean when I say "take administrative against" you? If you've done nothing wrong then nothing will happen.  If you're acting like a dick then the most you'll get is a biting comment by an administrator, and if you're acting blatantly uncivil then threats like mine should be meant with behavioral modification rather than being more confrontational.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand how wikipedia works. A "biting comment from an administrator? In case you didn't know Hoary is an Admin. He has had nothing but 'biting' comments towards me. Wikidudeman  (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Then what are you afraid of? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Who said I was afraid of anything? Wikidudeman  (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you said I was threatening you. What, do you imagine, this threat would entail?  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Threats don't have to be realistic to be threats. I could threaten to "vaporize you with my magical wand". It is impossible but it's still a threat. Wikidudeman  (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're grasping at straws here. If you feel threatened by the statement that I may request that an administrator do something if you step out of line then so be it.  It's a threat.  I'll do it and there's nothing you can do to stop it.  Lock your doors and bar up your windows.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental misunderstanding
I'm beginning to suspect the problem is that you really don't understand what AAVE is. It is not hip hop slang à la Snoop Dogg. If you want to hear good AAVE, walk into any black church on a Sunday and listen to the preacher's sermon.--Pharos 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I try to avoid Church at all costs, But the speech Snoop Dogg and other rappers use is indeed AAVE. Wikidudeman  (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's related to regular AAVE, yes, but hip hop slang is very deliberately "playful", comparable with some of the strange fad slang that other subcultures use. Noone uses "-izzle" in church. If you want to look at typical AAVE use, don't look to Snoop Dogg; look to stuff like Go Down Moses.--Pharos 04:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I really haven't heard anyone use "izzle" in a serious sense other than Snoop Dogg. Snoop Dogg's form of speech is clearly AAVE excluding the words he himself made up. As it is with most 'hip hop' people. Wikidudeman  (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Izzle" is only one example; a lot of hip hop terminology is slang and not regular AAVE. If you don't want go to a church, I suggest you tune one in on Sunday (where I live there are several churches on public access television), or find something online.  For something really authentic, you can listen to some former slave recordings.  Hopefully, it will become clear to you that most AAVE does not sound like hip hop slang.--Pharos 05:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what AAVE sounds like. I live in a predominantly African part of the south. However a lot of the "hip hop" terminology is being incorporated into AAVE. Most of the speakers of AAVE also use "hip hop" terminology such as "dawg" or "hommie g" etc. Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I had responded to your query on my talk page. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 06:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Randi discussion
Please don't call my edits and opinions "trifling", I found it offensive and disparaging of my opinions, and that could be construed as a personal attack.. or at least uncivil...:D

Per WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Dreadlocke ☥  07:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because you find it 'offensive' does not make it a personal attack. Read WP:NPA. What I said does not violate any policy. Calling what you SAID "triflings" is different from personally attacking you as a person. Moreover my challenge still stands. Register a name on the Randi forum and post a thread there. Give me the name you registered here so I will know who you are. Wikidudeman  (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you need to read WP:NPA more carefully. Your description of what a personal attack is, is not inclusive. Per WP:NPA, "''Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." '' Yet you insist in insulting and disparaging me by calling my opinions (as stated in my edits) "trifling".

Also, you are incorrect that I cannot edit your posts, further examination of WP:NPA clearly shows that I can do it under certain circumstances - circumstances which I believe cover my removal of the single word that find highly offensive.

Third, you continue to have the WP:NPA discussion on the article's talk page, when the Policy clearly states it should be done as per "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters."

I suggest you go back and remove the offensive statements, as well as the continued NPA discussion from the article's talk page. I'll be more than happy to escalate this through Resolving disputes or finding an admin to sort this out. Your offensive comment serves no purpose at this time.

As for your "challenge" and the Randi forum...yeah, been there, done that. And really, once you've insulted and demeaned my opinions without apology, it's very difficult to gain my cooperation. Dreadlocke ☥  08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly..It says "disparaging" as in disparaging the EDITOR not their comments. Calling your COMMENTS triflings was disparaging them. Not your personally. It clearly states "Comment on content, not on the contributor." When I said what you said was 'triflings' it meant your COMMENTS not you personally. Get it? Moreover. NO. Removing text is NOT a wikipedia policy. It's usually not accepted. In an ESSAY it says that it could be done but that's an ESSAY not policy. See WP:RPA. There has been no consensus on whether removing text is acceptable. Finally, You refuse to join the James Randi forum and debate that issue with me there in a more open and easy format? That says a lot about your opinion, you are unwilling to openly debate it with me on an open forum. Wikidudeman  (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, I definitely "get" what you're saying. Unfortunately, you are not getting what I am saying.  I was quoting from the policy, not the essay - the policy refers to the essay.  I never said removing text was policy - but it is not against policy, either - as I have described above.  Please carefully read what I have written, as well as the policies, guidelines and yes - even essays that I have referenced.


 * I would suggest you calm down, have a cup of tea and try to remain civil. Now you're clearly commenting on the contributor and not the content, I would say.  Dreadlocke  ☥  08:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's what it says..Emphasis mine..[]

The community has not reached a consensus about whether personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate, and an essay about removing attacks has been written on it. To cite the Arbitration Committee:
 * The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.

Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is much less of a concern than removing comments from other pages in Wikipedia. For text elsewhere, where such text is directed against you, removal should be limited, except in unusual circumstances, to comments that are listed above as clear violations of this policy.

Me calling your comments 'triflings' does not meet the criteria of personal insults and it should not be removed. Moreover, No I have never insulted you personally. Moreover, The challenge still stands. The forum link is here.[] Post your assertions that James Randi's challenge is a "Gimmick" and then I will refute your assertions there in an easier and more open format.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure what your quotations from Criticism and WP:NPA are supposed to refute, they actually appear to back my assertions that I can remove statements that are considered personal attacks - and even if it doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack, I've seen administrators and editors remove even uncivil remarks per WP:CIV. Your opinion about what you've insulted is something I disagree with, especially considering your unapologetic tone.  You'll note that while I refuted BillC's statements, I didn't label them with names (e.g. "trifling") and I was apologetic in tone.  I respect the man too much to even think about doing that - even though we sometimes disagree.  I have posted with the utmost civility to both you and everyone else - including Mr. Randi. I've clearly told you that I feel your use of the word "trifling" applied to my opinions, and was an uncivil thing to say about my edits and therefore my opinions - you cannot artificially separate the two, the content is my opinion - this is not the same as the content of an article. Let me refer you to this quote: "When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."  My posting was my opinion and thought, it was not article content.  I took the liberty of removing the offensive word for you, thinking that you would do what I considered to be the right thing and remove it yourself.  Anyway, our conversation seems to just be going in circles and escalating matters.  Bye!  Dreadlocke  ☥  08:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

1.My quotations refute your assertion that what I said fits the criteria of "Personal attack". Me calling your comments 'triflings' does not meet the criteria of personal insults and it should not be removed. Just because you disagree with something or consider it "offense" does not mean you can remove it. That's not how wikipedia works. 2. You did not 'refute' bill's statements. If you kindly accept my challenge to debate in a more open environment and a relevant setting I will show you why. 3.WP:CIV clearly states that refactoring other peoples posts and words is considered controversial and should usually be avoided except in the most extreme cases. I.E. constant use of abusive profanity. 4.This discussion is highly pointless and irrelevant.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you be so kind as to provide the direct quote from WP:CIV that says "refactoring other peoples posts and words is considered controversial and should usually be avoided except in the most extreme cases." and "I.E. constant use of abusive profanity." I see that it says it's "controversial" but I'm missing the part about it being used only in the most "extreme" circumstances. Your comment definitely falls under WP:CIV, similiar to the "petty violation" "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")" It's just not civil, dude!  Can't you see that?  Ach.  You're right, this discussion is pointless because we're not communicating well - but it is not irrelevant - civility never is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreadlocke (talk • contribs).


 * Per the quote. I was paraphrasing. What WP:CIV says is what you said yourself, What I said "might" fall under petty incivility but simply does not warrant butchering my text to remove it.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, the actual place to have our "Randi/gimmick" dispute is on the Talk:James Randi page, not an external forum. My entire point was about the quality, relevance and detail of the issue in Wikipedia article contents, not an external forum.  I find that the Wikipedia rules provide an excellent environment for such discussions and disputes!  Dreadlocke  ☥  09:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The only reason we would hold such a debate there would be in direct relation to that article. I.E. if you were trying to claim Randi's challenge is a "gimmick" on his wikipedia page. Then a discussion would be warranted. However currently it isn't. The challenge still stands. I will be waiting. Don't be afraid. Wikidudeman  (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. That was my actual point, to move the entire discussion to Randi's Wikipedia talk page - where it belongs - thus I would indeed be claiming that Randi's challenge is a "gimmick" on his Wikipedia page!  It's a smooth transition.  As for JREF forum, don't hold your breath.  I'm sorry if you find Wikipedia rules too restrictive for this discussion, I find them liberating.  I fear not, instead I find that I have no desire to return to JREF Forums right now.  I may change my mind one day, if I do, I'll be sure to let ya know - I'm sure it would be lively!  Say hi to Darat for me!  LOL!  Too bad we got off on the wrong foot, you're fun to debate with!  Dreadlocke  ☥  09:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Then go ahead and start a topic on the James Randi talk page asserting his challenge is a "Gimmick" and see how that works out. The only reason I wanted to move it to the JREF forum is because it's much easier for me to post and read there. This format is not meant to be used in such a way. The posts get jumbled together and are very difficult for me to read. That's the only reason. It seems you are afraid to support your assertions about James Randi in a format that is much easier to navigate. Wikidudeman  (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! No, sorry, that's not the reason I resist posting there - not at all. I don't feel comfortable sharing those reasons with you at this point. Feel free to view that in any way you like, I'm just not biting today.  Hey, I like Wikipedia's format and rules.  I gotta say that the continual comments you keep making about the contributor (and not content) is disturbing: (e.g. "It seems you are afraid to support your assertions").  That's a disparaging comment about me, dude.


 * Before anything at all can go forward in any dispute or discussion other than this civility matter, I'd need you to apologize and remove the wording I find offensive! Including all this "you're afraid" business.  That's what I mean by "wrong foot".  No further walking or jumping till that false step has been rectified!  Unfortunately, our discussions will probably be limited to that particular topic until then.  Dreadlocke  ☥  10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to do any such thing. If you don't like my comments then that's your problem not mine. If you really feel offended then talk to an administrator about it. I'm not here to play games. If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen. Nothing I said was even borderline "offensive" in my opinion. Now unless you want to discuss something constructive then stop wasting space on my talk page. Thank you. Wikidudeman  (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations
Please take a look at these articles. The images feature in them may not fit the criteria of fair use...  Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay Cutler (bodybuilder)
 * Ronnie Coleman
 * Craig Titus
 * Shawn Ray
 * Lee Haney
 * Lee Priest
 * Markus Rühl
 * Gunter Schlierkamp
 * Alexander Fedorov
 * Kevin Levrone
 * The use of copyrighted magazine covers to illustrate an article about the person depicted on the cover is against our policy on unfree content usage, as is directly addressed by item #7 of Fair use. Some of the articles contained one line like "John Smith appeared i a lot of magazine covers, including Magazine BodySmither". This is of no help, as this line is obviously a piece of irrelevant information used to try to justify the used of an unfree image (and even if this line was relevant, it doensn't need an image to convey it's information).


 * Thanks for the note. Feel free to remove any such images you find. --Abu badali (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Wikidudeman  (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. When you find "fair use" images that violate counterexample 8, please be sure to tag them with  (for images uploaded before July 13, 2006) or   (for more recent uploads). This marks them for speedy deletion and sorts them into categories by date. Thanks! —Angr 13:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's very difficult. Don't I have to mention them on the WP:PUI page also? There are literally dozens of them on the Bodybuilder pages. Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use or not?
Do you think this image should be fair use? If not then please help me get it removed. Image:EdwardFace.jpg Wikidudeman  (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is already tagged as replaceable. I would say there's no chance the admin closing the case (by January 20) wouldn't delete the image. It's a clear and typical violation of WP:FUC#1 and WP:FUC#8. Good work. --Abu badali (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I tagged about 25 of them last night. Wikidudeman  (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great job! --Abu badali (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone just reverted your deletion of that John Edward image. Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that. The editor seems to be convinced (in good faith) that that image is acceptable in Wikipedia. But as I said, that image is going to be deleted by the admin reviewing that tagging. I don't think it's worth to war for removing the image from the article right now. --Abu badali (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What about this image?Image:John Edward on stage.jpg. Does it fit the fair use criteria? I see it's been tagged by someone as having no copyright information. Will it be removed today? Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV reports
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Shadow1 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tabs/notification
I've got Template messages open in another tab on my browser, and am doing a rapid copy/paste between the two windows. --Mhking 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? That must be difficult. I use scripts to add them but I can't find a script to add that specific message. Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It takes a bit to keep up, but no worries....I've pretty well got the hang of it --Mhking 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, you need a program similar to VandalProof to automatically create notifications. Otherwise, you'll need to have the list of template messages open in another window (for rapid cut-n-paste), or modify an existing script to allow posting that notification. You can also give the illusion of posting those notifications at the same time by having multiple edit windows at once. ;) --Sigma 7 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that my page will be deleted, i was just wondering, what was wrong with it? I don't want to make the same mistake twice.

Sorry, the last message was from.

Lara11lara11

Just for the record...
I think claims about having psychic powers are a load of crap. So we're pretty much in agreement. =P It's just really not our place to comment on it in the John Edward article. After all, we're striving for WP:NPOV. Let people believe what they want... doesn't hurt any of us in the slightest. ;) – Lantoka (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use at PUI
Hi. Fair use images don't go to Possibly unfree images -- we already know that they are unfree. If they fail Fair use criteria, tag them with the appropriate speedy deletion criteria or take them to Images for deletion. Jkelly 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design
I undid this edit. Please do not change the spelling within quotations—if something is wrong in a confusing way, insert ‘ [ sic ] ’ there, otherwise leave them as they are. Also please do not change an article which is in American English spelling to British English. This is generally considered inappropriate and even more so in an article dealing with a phenomenon that is primarily American. Feel free to correct genuine spelling errors, but be tolerant of local varieties of English different from yours. (For the record, I prefer British English, too.) —xyzzyn 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "unsolveable" is just incorrect spelling. In Britain and in America. "undergirds" isn't even a word. Wikidudeman  (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, this is what was written in the cited sources and we cannot deviate from them just for the sake of good English. As long as the quotations are intelligible, it is better to leave them literal. —xyzzyn 06:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Govero
Is this true? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Jimbosp1.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jimbosp1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Atomic1609 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Mhking#A_question_on_tabs...
An answer by me is waiting you on User talk:Mhking. Happy Editing by Snowolf  (talk) CON COI on  14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One for you
The Original Barnstar

I'm sorry this is belated, but I've found myself engrossed elsewhere and forgot about Sylvia Browne. I didn't want to put it straight on your User page, but rather let you decide where to put it. Anynobody 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the Barnstar most appreciated. Belbo Casaubon 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikidudeman, thanks from me as well. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe in psychics?
Simple question. Do you believe in psychics? Wikidudeman  (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really a simple question : ) Honestly, I don't believe in pop psychic bull. I personally don't think parapsychology has provided proof of anything either. Evidence of -something- sure. I buy the statistical anomaly business, but don't agree that it is necessarily psychic. I do completely support inquiry into psychic phenomena, however, and haven't ruled out the possibility of it. I don't think the out of hand dismissal by people like Randi has any more merit than the absurd claims of Sylvia. Super-skeptics like him and others I'm not into because they don't seriously think about it. They simply dismiss it.


 * I support the notion that parapsychology is a failed science but probably for different reasons than you do. I think that some things are outside current experimental research. There's other approaches to study than the experimental approach and those are what I'm interested in personally. Parapsychology is tied mostly to experimental research. I don't think they're going to get very far with that.


 * All that said, my opinions don't matter. If it's a duck, and most of the scientists call it a duck, you say duck. The super-skeptics are just as fringe as the drank-the-kool-aid-believers and most scientists are somewhere in the middle.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 09:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply asking for your opinions to determine why you're supporting the bias parapsychology article. Anyone can see it's bias except for the people who have an inherent belief in it. So It's curious you defend it so staunchly. Even going as far as saying the article doesn't need a NPOV dispute tag is very disturbing. Wikidudeman  (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing the neutrality of the article, which does need work. I'm focused on the one issue of the factual accuracy of it being labeled "scientific" as a term. I completely agree that the NPOV tag is appropriate for now. I asked why it had the Totally Disputed tag, which I feel is not appropriate, especially since we have agreed on some things. Really simple things, like the dates of certain organizations is not in dispute and is factual. It would really help if the Totally Diputed tag was removed and individual NPOV things were tagged instead. Then we can work those out one at a time.


 * I personally feel I am pretty good at wording things neutrally. Tag something, tell me what it is, and I'll propose a neutral version.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 19:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The "totally disputed" tag needs to stay because both the factual accuracy and the POV is disputed. If you think you can make the article neutral then try and I'll tell you what I think. Wikidudeman  (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanation
Explain..? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Matthew, you could start with an explanation of your edit since you haven't on that talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What's this? Wikidudeman  (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar, it's my first. I really appreciate you taking the time to give one to me!  abarry  ✓ 07:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Wikidudeman  (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreadlocke
A good rule of thumb on Wikipedia is...if someone finds something incivil, then you have to take that as just that. By policy it might not be incivil but policy and perception don't always match up. What I have problems with is that you seem to have made attempts to extend the discussion instead of just saying ok he finds it incivil. Let's move on. Instead, you mentioned him being afraid and all of that stuff and you seemed to exacerbate the situation instead of calming it down. And Dreadlocke did nothing wrong by mentioning Randi on the Edward talk page. Again. Let it go and move on. I would recommend taking a few days off from each other or maybe email Dreadlocke and work it out that way. Try to work with him. Yes you mentioned the forum but maybe he would be more comfortable working it out through a less public medium. Ask him. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, If I said I found your accusing me of being uncivil uncivil that would make it so? C'mon. However, You're right about exacerbating the discussion with him about what would qualify or would not qualify as incivility. However concerning the James Randi discussion on the John Edward talk page. What Deadlocke was trying to do was debate James Randi on the Edward talk page. What he was saying about Randi had absolutely nothing to do with the Edward article. I suggested that debating the validity of James Randi's challenge on the Edward article was off topic and we should either take it to the James Randi page(something he didn't want to do) or take it to James Randi's message board and resolve it there. He didn't want to do either. Moreover Deadlocke has been continually removing my posts from his talk page. In the edit summary he claims they are "Abusive" but in reality there aren't. Here was my post that I left on his talk page in relation to a mediation he was supposed to do 3 weeks ago but said he was too sick to do.[]

 Wikidudeman  (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found this with Dreadlocke, in that his reponses almost always accuse editors with differing pints of view to be abusive, rude, uncivil and uses WP:NPA with a startling degree of regularity. Belbo Casaubon 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess "woohookitty" isn't going to address my rebuttal. Yes, It's true that Dreadlocke seems to cry "abuse" anytime someone disagrees with him. Wikidudeman  (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Generally though, once I respond on a talk page, I don't always go back to that talk page to see responses. Why? Because most users respond on my talk page when I respond to them on theirs. I know. It's a poor reason but that's why. Anyway.
 * Just a couple of points. Firstly, I did warn Dreadlocke about removing posts from talk pages. Secondly, I haven't acted on several of his posts to my talk page because I haven't found them valid. I am always very very leery of people who find me their "champion" because honestly, it just doesn't work that way with me. I don't believe in becoming "friends" with people on here with a few exceptions. Why? Because I want to be unbiased. So yes, Dreadlocke has been making a lot of accusations of policy violations on my talk page. But I'm not acting on a lot of them.
 * This brings me to the current situation on John Edward. I warned both of you on it because you both could've acted better. Dreadlocke should not have removed a part of your notice on his talk page. And frankly, both of you should have just taken a day or more off from each other so you could find a better solution. I didn't see any problem with Dreadlocke discussing Randi as long as it pertains to the article in some way. And from what I saw, it did. And honestly, you should've taken more steps to work with Dreadlocke on Wikipedia itself. I have no problem with mentioning 3rd party websites, but some users take that as ignoring the issues. Not saying that you were. But I guarantee you that that's how Dreadlocke took it if you read his posts on my talk page. My warnings were meant to get you too to talk to each other on each other's terms. Dreadlocke thought you were ignoring the issues. You thought that Dreadlocke was talking about a subject that didn't belong on the Edward discussion page. Discussing it for a bit is fine, but at some point, it becomes an argument. And you know. In my 2 years on here, I've learned that nothing good comes out of arguments. You just need to agree to disagree and move on something else. All arguments do is lead to rancor, blocks and arbcom cases. They are not productive. And that's the point I was trying to get through.
 * I will see if I can get Dreadlocke to be less...I don't even know what the word it. But I'll try. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Explain to me how discussing the validity of James Randi's challenge on the John Edward talk page has any relevance to the John Edward article itself. Secondly, I doubt Dreadlocke ignored my offer to discuss the issue on a message board because he thought I was "evading the issue". If he did then he would of decided to take the discussion to the James Randi page(but he didn't). The only reason he didn't want to discuss the validity of the challenge is because he knows he isn't right. He knows that if we were to bring the discussion to a place where it could be discussed in length, He would not have a leg to stand on. That's why he denied discussing it on the message board. A more open environment that's much easier to navigate than wikipedia. Wikidudeman  (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It has relevance because Randi's challenges are mentioned in the article. As for Dreadlocke's perceptions, why don't you just ask him if that's what he thought. The impression that I got is that he felt as though you were ignoring the issue. But the best way to find out is just to ask him. That's all I'm asking for. Try to talk to him on his terms and not what you perceive his perceptions to be. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it's mentioned in the article doesn't mean the details of the challenge itself should be mentioned on that talk page. Only on the talk page of the article about the challenge itself. Dreadlocke thought I was 'ignoring the issue'? Ignoring the issue by asking him to participate in further discussion? Hmm.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep I think so. In any case, even if that's not the reason, obviously, something about that offer bothers him in some way. As I said, just ask him. Try to work it out. And hopefully he'll do the same thing. That's all I can ask for. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What bothers him is his lack of any defense for his claims. No, I don't have time to deal with him. Anytime I post on his talk page he erases my post and calls it "abusive". I don't get into discussions with him unless I have to to help improve an article. I don't have time to waste trying to appease him. I'm too busy doing much more important things. Wikidudeman  (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 Wikidudeman  I have two friendly observations for you. 1) Respectfully, you may have made a slight tactical error in regards to not wanting to discuss Randi on the John Edward page. Even though I haven't read much on him I'm 95% sure John Edward is probably evading the Randi challenge for the same reasons Sylvia Browne is, he knows he probably can't guess his way through an actual double blind test. If he accuses Randi of being biased, point out that Randi only puts up the cash and designs the test. As I understand it Randi wants neutral scientists running the experiment on readings given to believers. (I may have some of the specifics wrong, but you know what I mean in that he takes steps to show it isn't rigged or bogus.) If Randi himself were less of a prick, people would really have no reason to doubt the challenge. Because he is who he is the nature of the experiment must be explained, because when it is anyone who really thinks they have the "gift" is nuts not to take a shot at a cool million at no cost to themselves. If the person in question knows they are fake, and makes many times more than a million dollars a year they have everything to lose, which I have always found to be the genius of the challenge itself. 2) With User:Dreadlocke as long as you keep your comments about the subject I think most people will understand that User:Dreadlocke is just sensitive as opposed to your victim. Anyone who goes to as much trouble as he/she did to accumulate links to perceived incivility is hoping for you to cross the line even accidentally. A few years ago I would be tempted myself to give a person like that something to complain about, overly sensitive people used to bug me. It's just not very satisfying to give in because that's exactly what they want. As soon as you do something which can be called uncivil they become the victim and get to tell everyone how awful you are. I once tried to step up the niceness when dealing with "victimizer" and I could tell it really pissed them off. I figured because I was being so nice, they knew that there was really no legitimate reason to complain about me victimizing them. In one case a person actually started insulting me who had been complaining about others doing the same to him/her, it may sound sick but it actually felt good. That time, and pretty much every time since, I know that by actually being nice I've ruined somebodies day who was out to ruin mine. 99.9% it's wrong to take pleasure in another's pain, the .1% are the times said sufferer was out to harm you and you stop that by being nice. You may feel like a tool at first, but it does pay off and almost everybody wins. Sorry this post was so long, Anynobody 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Give Woohookitty Woohoo! a break, he/she is just doing their job as an admin. Plus if Woohookitty Woohoo! didn't mention anything to you after User:Dreadlocke asked I'm pretty sure User:Dreadlocke would have just escalated matters further. Anynobody 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Woohookitty, Thank you for your observations. However let me address your points. 1. I would of accomplished nothing debating Randi's challenge on that John Edward talk page. Assuming I actually convince Dreadlocke that he is wrong and that the Challenge is legit, What would that accomplish? I can't say on the John Edward page that "Edward refuses to take Randi's challenge because he's a fake" because that would be POV. I could say "Some people accuse Edward of being a fake especially because he won't take the challenge" which I could do right now without even debating the legitimacy of the challenge itself. 2. I don't believe Randi is a "prick". Randi deals with con artists on a daily basis and it's not easy to be nice to people who are conning others out of money. 3.I highly doubt anyone would actually even take the time to read all of the long drawn out arguments between me and Dreadlocke, So I wouldn't be convincing any onlookers. The argument would be on some talk page of a 2nd rate "psychic" and be 'rebuking' dreadlocke would not get me anywhere. That's one of the reasons I asked to take it to a popular message board (Randi's) or to the Randi talk page itself. Wikidudeman  (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I knew I should have explained the prick comment better. I am a Randi supporter, he does deal with con-artists for a living and it isn't easy to be nice to them usually (which is why I said prick rather than dick). In my opinion he has to play toward Edwards audience if he wants to make a real difference. People like us are the choir, and we really identify with his frustration (at least I do). He puts off a lot of people who believe in Edward just by his "prickish" frustration. Keep in mind we're talking about a person who has as a large portion of his fanbase are 30 to 80+ something suburban women who vote for people because they seem "nice". Facts mean nothing to people like that, and there are a lot of them. (I point to the 2000 and especially the 2004 Presidential elections.) Believe me I understand his and your frustration, it really angers me that some people make a living by exploiting human tragedy and not even provide a useful service. Say what you want about an ambulance chasing lawyer or a mortician, the former is out to get you (and him/her) some money and the latter is looking to provide you a tangible service. Edward, Browne, and the rest just want money regardless of how much they exacerbate a person's sense of loss. The problem is most people don't have a clue that's what's happening, even those who don't believe but ask "what's the harm" see him get short and assume he's a bitter old man out to spoil the magic, so to speak. (A note to women, I don't mean to sound sexist when I point out a large part of Edwards fans are women. I personally have not encountered a lot of men who really enjoy his show.) Anynobody 08:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought woohookitty left that message I addressed. Wikidudeman  (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's cool, I didn't mean to come off sounding holier than thou or "adminish". Anynobody 08:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It did seem a bit less "in favor of dreadlocke" than usual so I thought that was odd. Wikidudeman  (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found Dreadlocke to be one of the worst editors on WP. Bubba73 (talk), 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay Cutler: Response
Go take a look at the page, at where you added the 2006 win, and read the note immediately below it. That should explain my frustration. No offense intended! Frankg 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bodybuilder
Youll need to ask an admin. Regards. -Stevertigo 05:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I'm just asking you to add it back if you see some new user has removed it. Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look and see what I can do. --Milo H Minderbinder 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a contradiction in the license, which might cause you problems. The image is tagged as GFDL which gives complete freedom for use and modification to anybody, while the caption describes it as a copyrighted image for educational and non-commercial use only. TimVickers 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

External links on Bodybuilding
It seems to me that those links you added (see here) don't really provide information about bodybuilding so much as advertise. Also, the proper way of indicating a subsection is with ===, not ''. Thanks! Veinor (talk to me) 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See your talk page.

Hi,

I figured I'd put it here, 'cause there's already a section for it. For the section headings, I always prefer a sub-heading 'cause of the allowance of wikilinking; it also makes it easier to expand individual sections. But I don't feel strongly enough to argue for the change to subheadings. Have you considered in the sections to let people know about the preference for bold over headings?

As for the EL, it's pretty much the same as others doing the same things - lack of reliable sources in the pages, advertising, etc. I've never liked about.com just because it's unreferenced, and I was under the impression that blogs and whatnot were mostly out. But anyway, I'm just passing through the page, so I'll bow to the preferences of regular contributors. A comment on the talk pages though, thetlab.com isn't justified, and also info on the page isn't referenced, ditto for the about.com. Just my $0.02 and I'm sure you get similar comments a lot so feel free to ignore them. WLU 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry I wasn't able to check up on the article, I was unexpectedly swamped this week in the real world and barely able to keep up with my usual topics. Sorry about that.  --Minderbinder 01:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I got it temporarily semi-protected for a week. Wikidudeman  (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural bodybuilding/Professional bodybuilding
Hi. I appreciate your edits. I wish you wouldn't be so rough on the natural bodybuilding article - it's important to identify the difference between juicers and natural bodybuilders. - Richard Cavell 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

female bodybuilders
Hi i sent you an email via yahoo. my screen name is scottn2fit, should i have registered soemthing more annonymous? Thanks for your help

Scott Scottn2fit 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an ok name. Check your messages here...User talk:Scottn2fit... Wikidudeman  (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Metabolism FAC
Hi there, Wikidudeman. As you are interested in this area but aren't a scientist I'd be interested to hear your perspective on this article. The nomination page is here. Thanks! TimVickers 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I came too late. Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

teen bodybuilding
WOW! learn something about bodybuilding and you will see who those teen bodybuilders are .. very famous from Virginia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.48.59 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop vandalizing the Bodybuilding page. Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Chantoke
Apologies for the poor formatting of my changes. That does not change the fact that the article is riddled with inaccuracies and contradictory to the conclusions of evidence based medicine. Many of the citations did not support the actual statements in the article, and others have since been disproven by cohort studies or large clinical trials. I did indicate this in the talk page, but either you did not see my response or I misentered it. TT 01:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the article has inaccuracies then please give examples on the articles talk page. I will be more than happy to work it out with you. Just click the "+" button at the top and give examples and I'll take a look at them. Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)