User talk:Danger/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

PUF archive problem

[1] "...hoping that this will cause the page to properly archive". Now 44 hours later and doesn't look like the bots have triggered on it:( DMacks (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it has something to do with the file being on Commons, but I don't have the foggiest what to do about it. --Danger (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No worries! Doesn't seem to be damaging anything to have a stray listing in one of the queues. DMacks (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Not damaging anything but my mental wellbeing. ;-) I'll ask on the PUF talk page and if that doesn't work I'll do something drastic, like ask the Village Pump technical folk. --Danger (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Wait, you take them off manually? .... I'm going to be bloody from all the facepalming. --Danger (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I...I don't know. I saw a few that were still listed with no open discussions on the actual pages. From the history, looks like a bot automatically adds them but recently some other editor has been removing them manually. I don't know anything about the "actual" proper process in either respect here. DMacks (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh goodness, I hope you didn't think I was facepalming because of you! I ought to have checked the history before assuming that a bot took off the completed days. Apparently Explicit usually does it. --Danger (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I didn't feel part of the facepalm. I put a comment on the talkpage requesting actual description of how the process is supposed to work. DMacks (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hi, newbie here, I am not sure this is the right place for this, if wrong please remove it.

First of all thank you for the great job in wikipedia! I was notified you removed an image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OpenCaster_broadcasting_big_buck_bunny.png that I uploaded but the content should have Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license as I am a newbie to wikipedia editing I probably did a mistake on upload description so you got the wrong idea, anyway here there are more informations about the copyright: http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/index.php/about/ is it suitable for wikipedia? Thanks anyway! Lorenzopallara (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you definitely came to the right place. So, the two issues that I saw were the copyrights for the movie and the copyright for the player that the movie was being played on. (The license tag you used was also incorrect, but that's an easy mistake to make. Since you don't own the copyright to the file, you cannot release it. If the image is free it will use ) The movie is under a free license, but the player, OpenCaster, does not appear to be. I'm going to restore the file and post it to the possibly unfree files board, which is what I should have done in the first place. I apologize for my mistake; I am sort of new here too (new to the administrator job anyway) and I'm still getting the hang of it. --Danger (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You can find the discussion about the image's copyright status here. --Danger (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

When closing discussions at PUF, please put {{puf top}} after the section header instead of before. AnomieBOT doesn't like them before, mainly because it can't tell the difference between "someone put {{puf top}} before the section header" and "someone forgot {{puf bottom}}, or just randomly put {{puf top}} in the middle of a section". Thanks!

BTW, in response to your comment at WT:PUF#Archive problem, I adjusted AnomieBOT to remove the completed dates from the holding cell itself when every section is closed. Thanks for the idea! Anomie⚔ 03:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! I did not mean to make AnomieBOT unhappy! Does she/he/it like cookies or flowers or something? Thanks for the heads up. --Danger (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem at all. Anomie⚔ 03:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Best comment in the thread

[2] Thanks for injecting a bit of humour and clarity. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although I really ought not be so sarcastic. I've been pretty grumpy of late; my opinion of Wikipedia, Wikipedians and the Wikipedian cultural norms have really taken a turn for the worst since my RfA.
By the way, I am quite taken with the personal reflections on your user page. I also have a chronic pain causing condition (well, a few) and I notice but don't really think about how the ebb and flow of the pain affects my cognition. Thus, your insights are appreciated. --Danger (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Just a point: it is possible tonic suffering (constant, varying only gradually in intensity) may have a different impact on affect and cognition than episodic/paroxysmal. Sadly, very little work has been done on any of this, so that's just conjecture for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
That would certainly bear out my experience regarding tonic pain versus paroxysmal. I've been blessed with both, so perhaps that would be worth observing, on a personal level. --Danger (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I never get paroxysmal pain, except when I (fairly regularly) step on a bougainvillia thorn in my garden.
I just read through your RfA. The fools were out that night. Thanks for going through it. If you can bear to watch, I believe your measured responses and clue would be invaluable in arenas like AN/I. (But I always come away from there feeling like I need a shower.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
That is a truly fantastic piece of flora. It would not be allowed to have such a plant in my climate; the weather gods are watching specifically for such follies.
I may return to AN/I after my current flare ups have cooled down enough that I can trust myself not to be too intemperate in my responses. Showers and mind bleach ought be provided to all watchers of that page. --Danger (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Advice?

Can I ask your opinion? An indef' blocked editor has asked if I would mentor him if he can get his block lifted. I've agreed. The block came out of this ANI discussion. Should I start a thread at ANI asking for the block to be lifted, or should the user simply post the standard unblock template on his talk page? Or both? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read over everything, but my initial instinct is that if a block came out of AN/I, the unblock should probably go back to AN/I, since, in theory, the block isn't really the result of the blocking admin's judgement, but rather of the judgment of the community's judgement. (Or at least the community as represented by AN/I watchers.)--Danger (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. No need to read the history; it's the principle I was curious about. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Please fix your humour as it appears to be broken, as demonstrated at User_Talk:Danjel. Please attend a local comedy club and/or introductory history of Medieval Europe lecture and laugh heartily before attempting any further humour. Also, please stay cool and keep this in mind when considering that this is a humourous warning in flagrant breach of WP:DTTR. Thank you. -danjel (talk to me) 10:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

=) I need a humour tag to add to that... Or I should probably just delete it now that it has served its purpose. -danjel (talk to me) 10:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No! Keep it up! I insist!--Danger (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Heh. Let me find a tag then... -danjel (talk to me) 11:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't think it's necessary. I don't think I've peeved anyone off enough for them to block a sysop for getting a fake warning. --Danger (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bicycles, apples and mailboxes

Yeah, yeah, I know. I shouldn't be writing this, it's going to make us both sad. But I've got a maths degree and therefore I have an uncontrollable urge to find out more maths jokes, especially terrible ones. What do you get when you cross a mountain climber with an elephant? So... why IS "neither can ride a bicycle" quite so funny? Worm 12:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Careful, you're on your way towards a broken humour warning too. This sounds like a Linguistics joke... So I'm vaguely interested...
As for you, Danger, don't make me warm up the Disruptive Barnstar Usage warning. In other news, heh, thanks. -danjel (talk to me) 12:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I know nothing of this concept "humour", I can only assume it's one of these trendy new-fangled things not aimed at me. Worm 12:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
So, to me this is pretty much the funniest thing ever because of what happens when one hears the joke. You start out by trying to find the intersection of the sets "things about apples" and "things about mailboxes" and you believe that this set is empty, so you ask, "I don't know, how are they the same". And then you're given the answer and it's obvious, but true and immediately you realize that you were completely mistaken about the sets "attributes of mailboxes" and "attributes of apples" and the intersection thereof because you only included positive characteristics. Then you realize that there are, in fact, an infinite number of ways that an apple is like a mailbox, all trivial, but all true. It's not really a math joke and the sets aren't that involved. I told you it would make you sad.
So, does this have something do with with you can't cross a scaler? --Danger (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it does :) and looks like I did get the joke, but very well explained. It reminds me of the old addage, "There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't", as it means one thing if you can count in binary and something else if you can't. Worm 14:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Adminning advice

Copy of original query from User talk:Kaldari for archival purposes: Should that have two ns or just one? I would be greatly appreciative if you would take a look at a revdel I performed at Middle Men and let me know if I a) did it right and b) if it was appropriate? Like, should I have explained more about why I thought it should be redacted in the edit summary or... I don't know. Thank you, much wiser one. --Danger (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you handled it perfectly. Probably best not to get too detailed in the edit summary, just list the criteria unless it's contentious for some reason. Other admins can dig out the original if necessary. Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Danger (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Hi Danger,

Thanks for the shiny barnstar! I like seeing your name around too: your posts can be relied upon to be well-thought-out and insightful. :)

All the best, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliyahu Federman

I'm just wondering if tagging this article under business-related Afd people discussion is appropriate given the fact that the entry is not exactly in that category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.138.24 (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it as such because the subject is a CEO. The purpose of deletion sorting is not to get a precise categorization of the subjects, but rather to publicize deletion discussions to people who might be interested, so sometimes the categories don't fit perfectly. The other material on him did not fall into any of the deletion sorting categories that I could see, but if you think that he also fits into another one of these categories, feel free to add the discussion to that category by following the instructions on the page I linked earlier, or let me know and I can do it. --Danger (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Article on Mick De Giulio

Thank you for your review of the article on Mick De Giulio on February 8. I have made recommended revisions (adding of inline citations). Can you tell me how to proceed to have the two notations that appear at the beginning of the article (regarding references and clean-up) removed? Thank you. Karinhedwards (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed those tags since you've addressed the issues that they highlight. (They're just a way of organizing editorial work and trying to motivate readers to begin editing; there's no formal process that you have to go through to remove them.) To answer the question you left on the article talk page, when a link is red, it means that the article that it would lead to doesn't exist, either because it is under a different name or it hasn't been created yet. If have any more questions or need anything on Wikipedia, just let me know. Danger (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again for your assistance. It's very much appreciated!Karinhedwards (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

hey

Apologies for my rather inactivity on wikipedia and reduced partition in our mentatorship program.

I was recently diagnosed with a serious of illnesses so my presence on wikipedia will be quite limited to say the list. I'll still lurk around to answer private messages and minor edits. I just don't want you to get the impression I am bailing the mentorship.

thanks for taking the time to help me improve my performance on wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries, trust me, I understand (see box at top of page). You just focus on your health; Wikipedia will still be here when you feel better. --Danger (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hi Gimme Danger, Thank you for help with the WikiProject on Disability, by specifying the major disability articles which were stubs. I had a look at the article on physical disability last night (February 28 2011) and agreed it was a stub - and also a major article! Many people would, I am sure, be shocked that such a major topic could be a stub. Thank you again for your work here, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm going to be copyediting Disability related articles for the League of Copy Editor's March drive, so I'm not going to have the time to work on the top level stuff at the moment. --Danger (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Danger alert

Here's the latest addition to the religion section of Portal:Contents/Outlines. Wikipedia has rich coverage on this subject. Very interesting, especially from sociological and historical perspectives.

This is a call to all members of the Outline WikiProject and outline aficionados to help refine this outline. It needs annotations, missing topics added, and the entries in the general concepts section placed in more specific sections.

Come join in on the fun and get acquainted with members of the Outline WikiProject!

The Transhumanist 04:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I had no idea this religion was so extensive or that it had so many followers.

Kitten template

Hey, I reverted your changes to {{Kitten}} due to not wanting to completely redo my WikiLove script. However, I created a separate {{Kittens}} template to fulfill all your multi-kitten giving needs :) Kaldari (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari has given you some kittens! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kittens}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

This is extremely pleasing to me. Thank you so much. --Danger (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

Hi Danger,

You were one of the first users to support my RfA, you gave a thorough explanation for your support, and you took the additional time to counter an oppose. Thank you very much for your confidence in me.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I like gnomish admins. Have fun mopping. I hope you receive more of the promised genitalia pictures than I have. --Danger (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Adopt me?

Hello, I saw your details on the Adopt a user page? Are you still adopting? I've got interests in a range of areas, and one of the articles I'd really like to work on is Augmentative_and_alternative_communication, which I though you might be a good mentor for because you listed disability as one of your areas of expertise. I'm very slowly finding my way around wikipedia and would dearly love a guide.

Failedwizard (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm going to be pretty swamped in real life for the next week and change, so if you'd like a lot of help immediately, I'm probably not your human. Augmentative and alternative communication looks like a good place to learn, since it's got a good basis but still needs a lot of work. Do you have any specific questions right now?
I have couple for you. What are you looking to get out of adoption? What are you interested in doing on Wikipedia? Best, Danger (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for replying - I'm just looking for a go-to person who I can bounce idea off and who might be willing to look over my shoulder on an occasional basis in case I'm doing some very odd stuff. I mainly want to be able to say, "Hey I found this thing, is this normal?" so that I'm looking before I leap a lot. I'm not looking to get anything *out* of wikipedia really. I'm more thinking that it's about time I started giving stuff back. I'm certainly not looking for much of a commitment, I'm pretty swamped too with changing jobs and such but hopefully can make a small difference :) Failedwizard (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good to me. I usually make a subpage "classroom" for adoptees but if you want this to be more open then we don't need that. (Let me know if you'd like one, for a place to put all your questions on one page.) If you have questions, ask them on this page, and if I have comments about your editing, I'll tell you on your talk page. Danger (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful, my first quick question is a structural one. I'm looking at Augmentative_and_alternative_communication and it's had the {{{Very long}}} tag since June 2009. I think it might be a touch unwieldy and think it might be worth spinning out at least one of the sections as a separate page, I've put up a quick bit of stuff on the talk page asking people's opinions. My questions go like this a) Is it reasonable to think that the article is overly long for the subject matter b) do you think there are more urgent issues to take care of on the article before spinning out and c) if I get no responses to a proposal on the talk page, how long is it polite to wait before making a bold edit? I was assuming at least a couple of weeks...Failedwizard (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It's probably too long. It's not so long that it really gets into issues of accessibility (it probably won't crash many browsers, even old ones), but it's still too long to be reasonable. I think in this article's case that there's a lot of material outside of the scope of the topic that's making it longer than it should be; the most obvious example being the descriptions of different types of diseases who's patients might use AAC. (To me it makes a lot more sense to group by type of communication method. Having read the article, I'm still not sure what exactly AAC encompasses.) That and clearing up "disability-ese", the kind of jargony language that people "in the know" use to talk about disability related topics (look for acronyms!), will help get a better sense of how long the article actually is and then the decision can be made on whether it should be split off.
Just an example of some reasoning, please don't feel pressured to follow any of this. With regards to your last question, I think a week is more than enough. The bold, revert, discuss cycle is the time-honored way of doing things on topics that aren't particularly controversial. Since there hasn't been talk page activity on this one for almost two years, I'd say it's not particularly controversial. (Palestine, on the other hand!) Was this helpful? Best, Danger (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you :) I like the idea of one week, in the meantime I'm doing some general copyediting and such (feel free to look over my shoulder but probably very boring) - having spent some more time on the article I think that a bit of content will have to move over to Speech_generating_device in any case.
On a nearby subject dynaVox is in the 'See also' section. Dynavox makes a large proportion of the devices in the area but their article is written like a PR release - I tagged it with (I think) the relevant tags, but do you think the article should still be in the see also? There are lots of companies in the same line of work... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Failedwizard (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I had answered this. My brain is so scrambled lately. I don't usually use "see also" sections at all; it's better if links are worked into the article more fluidly using internal links and templates like {{main}}. In this specific case, Dynavox should definitely be removed for precisely the reason you identify. Wikipedia should not show preference for one manufacturer of this sort of device over others, per neutral point of view policy. --Danger (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome thank you - done - and to compensate I've added some content (a couple of sentances) about producers to the Speech_generating_device - I'm a bit unsure of myself with adding stuff about companies so it would be great if you could have a glance over my shoulder on it. Failedwizard (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The section looks okay to me. These sorts of things are always a little iffy. On one hand, they're pretty important pieces of information (you don't want the article on cola soda to not mention Coca cola and Pepsi). On the other hand, sections like these invite marketing folk from companies to add their company to the list, and pretty soon every bottling company that's come out with a generic cola soda is listed. But I think this looks like a good balance. You've got the sources to back up identifying these companies/devices as major players so that's good. Come the weekend I'll actually be a human being again, and be able to provide more proactive feedback on your editing, but in the meantime, if you have any questions, you know where to find me. :) --Danger (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Danger :) would it be possible to get a quick overview of the importance rating system from you (possibly also the quality rating system as well) - I think Speech_generating_device would be nice as a case study example - admittedly because I think I might have got slightly carried away with adding content... :s Failedwizard (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, as a random question - is there any special reason why references [25] and [49] can't be combined into one reference in Augmentative_and_alternative_communication and are there any handy tools to merge them? (there are a couple of similar cases but I think they'd all fit together under the same question Failedwizard (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ping

Hi. I don't plan on editing heavily in the near future. I just have a little free time this weekend and may spend it here. Let me know what you think. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

edit: Also, I have a few questions. The terms of my topic ban are rather broad. Israeli casualties of war and Palestinian casualties of war have not been updated in quite some time. I started both articles and spent considerable time compiling data and making sure statistics are recorded and up to date.

Recent incidents haven't been counted in the data tables yet. I really want to add the numbers but the information is obviously very much part of the I/P area. Is it a deal-breaking violation to make those kind of edits? It's been three months since my ban...Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. It's good to see you. Take a look at the adoption page; please post a few comments, if only to make me feel useful. :) I have finals next week, which naturally means I'll be on Wikipedia all weekend avoiding studying.
Re:those articles. Dude, it's your second topic ban and those are clearly in the scope. No touchy. Copy and paste the edits into multiple files on your computer if that helps with the urges. Don't know what you mean by "deal-breaking" but I certainly wouldn't fault an admin who gave you a block for that.
If you're interested, someone came to EAR with an issue about Christianity and homosexuality. The talk is a bit tl;dr, but there's clearly something going on. Take a look? --Danger (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I posted a short comment. I'm not sure what else could be done there. Religion really isn't my thing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The great thing about mediation is that you generally don't need to know that much about a topic to step in. What I was sort of getting at was the ongoing conflict on the talk page itself, where it seems like the parties involved (of whom the requester is not one) need a little help working together. But no worries. I didn't do very well, although I'm glad I didn't post my original message to the requester! --Danger (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ping

Your honest opinion is requested. I hope you will remain my mentor even if my ban is extended over these allegations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have commented there. I use the pronoun "they". I am no longer interested in mentoring you. I am sorry that I did not get to this sooner; I did not have time to check on your editing during finals. --Danger (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry you feel that way. The edits you listed as proof such as this were made in good faith. And I have not received a single warning or notice I thought would come regularly. It was only recently we had a friendly discussion here and you did not bring up any of my edits you include in the AE. So, I ask - do you really see a pattern here? These edits were made nearly a month ago and you did not bring them up until now in an AE request. The overwhelming majority of my edits since the topic ban have been consistent with the narrow focus of your mentorship. Edits like this that you think is evidence of misbehavior is IMO hardly the case. The article was posted on the mainspace and lacked a template. And in any case, none of the edits were in violation of my topic ban just to emphasis this.
Please let me know if you plan on re-considering our mentorship. Remember I have been sick and dealing with school at the same time. I am not 100% right now so apologies for any errors here. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It took me a while to notice a pattern; though I ought to have been more vigilant. I'm sorry that I let you down in that regard. The discussion you cite is one of the reasons that I'm finding it difficult to continue to extend my good will. It seems like you are more interested in pushing the boundaries of your bans than contributing to areas outside it. The two edits that cemented the pattern occurred after that conversation, wherein you had asked to make edits violating your ArbCom restrictions. And you are right, the edits that I listed might not have violated the community-sanction topic ban, but they did violate the agreement that you made with me. I am not an ace-in-the-hole who will defend you at hearings, nor is your mentorship a card to play to win favor. Regards, Danger (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, up until the AE I thought your mentorship was in good standing. If you didn't have the energy or faith to focus on my editing, I wish you made your views bluntly when the edits were made months ago. My request to update the articles I created was again in good faith and as a mentor I sought your advice. I followed your advice and weighed in on a dispute at editors request. I'm not looking for a defense, but clarity. You have not warned me once since our mentorship began or given me the idea I am contributing in a dishonest fashion as you infer here (card to play...) Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
If you check the dates, half of the edits I cite were made after I explicitly warned you about violating your editing limits during the friendly discussion you mentioned above. Perhaps I should have been more severe. Your citation of me in your AE statement seemed to assume that I would back you up; I dislike that in the extreme.
Clearly my mentoring has not been helpful to you and I am sorry that I have failed in that regard. I suggest that you find another mentor. Best, Danger (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Assumptions assumptions. You speak as if I am trying to manipulate you here. If you look at the above discussion, you will see a friendly chat devoid of allegations of abuse or violations of our agreed mentorship terms. The edits you mention in the AE were made more than a month ago. Look at my edit history. You claimed there is a pattern of some violation but I see nothing but a few minor edits. I devoted a lot of time and energy to this mentorship - even being seriously ill. I linked you to the AE because you're my mentor and I assumed that is protocol. How would you rate my performance since this mentorship began? I spent several hours at the various noticeboards you linked me to, is this not relevant? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I am done now. Best wishes on your future editing. --Danger (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

aerodynamic mudflap Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Danger ...the statement as you reverted to( "mudflaps" ) dealing with aerodynamics as read ...Mudflaps can be aerodynamically engineered, utilizing shaping, louvers or vents to improve airflow and lower drag. This statement, though true, is not the way it can appear. Under the circumstances, its has to be a statement of fact. The fact is "aerodynamic mudflaps are now a reality", but cannot be without Patents. Without it, such a statement opens up the "Danger" for patents to be violated. Bottom line is, though it would not be your intention that you or other folks violate my patents, reality is removing the patent refrences does just that, I trust you, nor anyone else at wikipedia want to be responsible for that.

Reality is Mudflaps, cannot be aerodynamically engineered, utilizing shaping, louvers or vents to improve airflow and lower drag WITHOUT MY APPROVAL AS I OWN PATENT RIGHTS.

While, keeping the afformention in mind, if you have a better way to word it take your liberty. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To aid in further communication with others on this site, please do not use bolded text, all caps, or large letters in your talk page messages. I understand your patent claims. They are not relevant to the article text. Consider, for example, the iPhone article. In it, patented features of the iPhone are described without explicitly noting that Apple holds the patents to these features. Consult the general disclaimer regarding design rights in articles. We are not responsible for patent violations of those who read our articles. Regards, Danger (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

I fucked up a move. Please delete Index of ancient Egypt-related articles, which is currenty blocking the page I meant to move there (I moved the talk page there by mistake. Doh!). The Transhumanist 21:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Favonian beat me to it. That's what I get for sleeping! Danger (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Danger

I am very distraught over the edits and blatant disregard for my article that I had been working so hard on the last few days. This editor is an admin and certainly takes advantage of it and won't discuss the edits but only reverts it to the previous condition which was not good. Do you have any information for where I can go to resolve this dispute of this overzealous admin? Thank you. user:theonelifeTheonelife (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the fact that Future Perfect is an admin has not entered into this at all, so no, I cannot suggest where you might go to complain about overzealous admin behavior. What has entered into this is that Future Perfect is an editor with a great deal of experience in the standards of Wikipedia. You would do well to listen to their advice and the advice of the editors at the editor assistance board. I understand that it is difficult and frustrating to have your work criticized and changed by others, but that is the nature of Wikipedia.
If you truly wish to complain, you can go to the administrator's noticeboard. Regards, Danger (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
So maybe these seasoned wiki admins and editors need a refresher course on 'Please don't bite the newbies'...because I was accused of edit warring and I didn't even know what that is...clearly there are some holes in the system when two people can be editing an article at the same time, and I wasn't aware that anyone else was editing it at the same time. I have read alot on here, and I can see that even though there are policies for wikilove, that it isn't being practiced except for you coming thru and saying hi with some friendly advice, I appreciate that. Also, a nice guy JohnInDc is helping me and explaining things to me, he seems to have alittle more patience and undestands what I am saying about my edits. I know you are neutral and you are the welcoming wagon...Thanks for the extended wikiwarmlove...Blessings, user:theonelifeTheonelife (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Your deleteion of user comments from RfC

Hi Danger, I'm curios to know why with this edityou deleted comments from two users. I'm sure it was unitentional, please consider restoring them. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh goodness, I'm so sorry. I don't know how that happened; please know that it was completely unintentional. Of course I've undone it! Thank you so much for letting me know. If you see me do anything like that again, feel free to revert! Danger (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I was 100% sure it was a genuine error. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Top Ryde City (once again)

Thank you for your previous advice. I have attempted to add - "Receivers called in as Top Ryde Shopping Centre runs up $700m debt six months after opening". Includes a reference but I am once again being told that it is not a NPOV. Its just a fact. No emotive terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

cries for help in the darkness

hello danger,

can you give centrifugal compressor a quick once over after you help me verify what to do with two issues. The first issue is that I would like to try to unify all of turbomachinery under one chapter heading similar to see other. The turbomachinery having is near the bottom of the table of contents. It is not complete and actually has a couple of links that are not exist. The second issue is that my "see other" is so large that I would like to create columns just is like in my references. Again thanks for all help. Best regards Martin koronowski Mkoronowski (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin. I'm afraid that my real life is going to be too busy for me to take any real look at centrifugal compressor for a few weeks. Thankfully, there's no deadline! If you need any long help until I get back, you might find someone on the list of editor assistants who can help with formatting and copyediting.
Quick comments. First, you might want to make the list of turbomachinery into a template like the one for components, systems and terminology at the very bottom of the page. ... actually, you'll probably want to request that a template be made; it's rather ASCII intensive. If you can hold on for a while, I can make it for you. Otherwise, editor assistance would be a good resource.
Second, "see also" sections generally should be very short. If an article is internally linked in the article text, it generally shouldn't be listed in the see also. Articles that aren't directly related to the topic but could easily be found by following a natural line of other links also shouldn't be in a see also section. (For example, ideal gas doesn't immediately relate to centrifugal compressor, but would be one of the things linked from a more general article, like fluid dynamics, that does relate immediately to centrifugal compressors.) Does this make sense? Danger (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheer up, man

Sounds like you need a dose of reading and old-fashioned editing.

Despite its having a community comprised of an insane mixture of fools and eccentrics, Wikipedia (the encyclopedia itself) has emerged as a work of art and spectacular achievement of human collaboration.

That's something to be proud of having contributed to. So don't let wiki-drama get you down. Just sit back, relax, and explore this virtual world of knowledge that we have created. It is as interesting as it is vast.

And while you are at it, if you feel like getting back to actual editing... That's good for the soul too.

Have some fun. The Transhumanist 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I had always wondered why diet cola makes me unnaturally happy. Phenylalanine. I'm going to pull that one out the next time someone gives me grief for my near addiction.
I took everything in the Wikipedia namespace off of my watchlist. I feel better already. --Danger (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

schools

Hi Danger/Archive 9. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities or other degree awarding institutions.
If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You deserve a Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For consistently reverting vandalism and warning the vandals - essential but often unappreciated work. Philcha (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • blush* Thank you. Any praise from a Wikipedian I admire so much means even more. Danger (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

GOCE drive newsletter

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Jane S. Richardson

Perhaps this will cheer you up: Someone that you wrote an article about is now apparently apparently running for the Board of Trustees! NW (Talk) 17:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that is awesome. Thank you for letting me know. --Danger (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Mentioned

Hello Danger. Your name was mentioned at WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Wikifan12345 as the former mentor of Wikifan12345. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

ping

Okay. I didn't know gender was considered outing. Anyways, a strike will still show my edit - so if this is a real issue perhaps an admin with the tools to erase edits should be called? Of course this convo would be removed as well. I know the importance of privacy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, should you drop a notice at EdJohnston's talk page? He/she referred to you as a man? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It's merely annoying when people use incorrect pronouns; Ed wasn't trying to make a statement of knowledge about my gender, since English traditionally defaults to male. Gender isn't explicitly listed at WP:OUTING... meh. I'll chance it. --Danger (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Ugh... now there's dirt all over my mop. Danger (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to help improve Wikipedia's Ming Dynasty content...

I took your advice and reached out to Pericles; see User_talk:PericlesofAthens#Improving_Wikipedia.27s_Ming_Dynasty_content...

For the better part of 5 years I've felt outside of the Wiki discussion, so thank you for talking to me... --NickDupree (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had hoped that you would phrase your post as a request for advice on how to proceed rather than a somewhat brusque message that comes off as a notice that the articles are in violation of policy (which is debatable, by the way). I see that I probably was not sufficiently clear in my previous messages about this. But I am pleased that you decided to contact him; given Pericles' expertise not only in the subject area but in constructing summary articles (he is the author of featured topics on the Han and Song Dynasties, though one may not still be featured), he would prove a valuable guide and ally.
Also, you indicate interest in improving disability rights and history related articles. I invite you to join WP:WikiProject Disability if you wish. I am a member and we have a few other excellent editors, but the task before us is, as you've probably noticed, a bit overwhelming.
You are, of course, quite welcome. If you need help with anything else, or want to talk, my wiki-door is ever open. Regards, Danger (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be a really nice and very knowledgeable ethereal entity that edits Wikipedia. I like you. And I also secretly want to be an ethereal entity--real life sucks.
I am very impressed with how far WikiProject disability has brought disability articles; when I started contributing back in 2005, Wikipedia's coverage of disability was something akin to a vacant moonscape! There are so many issues related to disability, organizing it all is an epic challenge. I want to find a way to contribute, so far I've been wary of writing in disability articles because my published work in the field and fearing my temptation to overstep the line into WP:SELFCITING and wanting to avoid that completely.
Re: the message to Pericles, I didn't mean to be brusque, and I didn't directly say "this article is in violation" (at least in the note to Pericles personally) but I tried to clarify in my most recent response to Pericles. My goal is to make it so people want to visit History of the Ming Dynasty for a more in-depth treatment of the subject; the current text of Ming Dynasty makes visiting History of the Ming Dynasty superfluous, maybe it doesn't have much of a Raison d'être yet. Though I love it here on Wikipedia, my major overhauls of articles have been few and far between, so I do worry about the community responding to my major edit with torches and pitchforks, and my reticence has kept me from editing yet. I'm looking for the courage to be WP:BOLD.

--NickDupree (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmph. I also wish that I (the keyboard operator behind Danger) were ethereal. But enough from that person. :)
I don't think WikiProject Disability can take much of the credit for the increased coverage. We're quite new; Dodger67 only started it in September '10. But I think having an overall view of what's here, what's still missing, and what needs work ASAP is helpful. I can't say that I have any reason to fear self-citing [ :( ], so I'm not sure how one deals with that precisely, but I do know that expert input is sorely needed, provided that said expert is not particularly wedded to promoting their own point of view. I think, if you're interested in doing some work in the area, that most of the project members are watching Disability, so they will probably jump in if you go first/keep an eye out for unintentional self-promoting. I also have an adoptee (Failedwizard) working on Alternative and augmentative communication, if you're interested in some copy-editing/second pair of eyes type work.
Regarding the Ming stuff, I think it'd be fine if you just jumped in. I've got the page on watch to stave off any pitchfork-related incidents. The reason we have the History of the Ming Dynasty article is because there was a significant amount of material that got left out of the main article, but it's mostly extra details interspersed into the text that appears in the main article. It's probably possible to trim the main article more, in which case the history focused article will seem more balanced. Does that seem reasonable? I'm not sure how much to worry about the identical wordings; on face, there's nothing too wrong with a little repetition across articles as long as the scopes of the articles are clearly different. Does that make sense? Danger (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
And now that I see that you had that plan already with History of..., so you can disregard my repetitive advice. And indeed, I read your message as brusque, but I know that it wasn't intentional. I probably should have said that from what I know of Pericles you could have slapped a warning tag on his work and he'd be mellow, so, you know, just things to think about for the future interacting with less-awesome editors. Because, yeah, admin, I think about this stuff a lot. Man I feel sheepish. Danger (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The encouragement and advice from you and Pericles has been so invaluable, thank you so much. I'm going to go ahead and overhaul Ming Dynasty, trimming back and summarizing the content duplicated at History of the Ming Dynasty because I think it is crucial in order for further improvements to even be possible. Some of the most duplicative and detailed content will be deleted so people can view it over at History of the Ming Dynasty and one section moved to History of the Ming Dynasty. After a day or so more of notepad work, I'll make the big submit, and History of the Ming Dynasty will be the in-depth treatment of the subject, and Ming Dynasty will be a better-summarized overview (though my overhaul will only touch the history heading). Both articles will be better for it. Then... Then I will just pray greater editors (like you and Pericles) like and support the edits... --NickDupree (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I made the big submit... see Ming Dynasty and History of the Ming Dynasty.... NickDupree (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Machine section needs sources...

Thank you for your note. I try to provide sources but our colleague Derek farn deletes them. I give up. Prof McCarthy (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that you had done that. Thank you very much. At the very least having those recorded in the page history may be useful in the future. I'm very sorry that this experience is frustrating. C'est la Wikipedia, non? What I suggest is waiting a few days for any enmity toward Derek to cool and then asking if he would be willing to seek a third opinion. (If you need help creating the listing, let me know.) I also suggest listing the sources that you are using on the talk page, so that outside editors can see them right away without having to look through the page history. Of course, if you are absolutely finished with Wikipedia, then I'm sorry to see you go and I thank you for the contributions that you've made. Regards, Danger (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheer up

Hello Danger, Ilego 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I hope you are okay you are very nice Alex 21:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened, shrug it off.

Wikipedia is an awesome communication and educational resource, and it will continue to grow and improve. Collaboration by people all around the world is what makes this happen. Caring and sharing. This is a wonderful thing, Wikipedia bringing the world's people together to improve the awareness and education of all. Please assure me that you will remain part of this effort.

For the World, The Transhumanist 05:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

While have no doubt that Wikipedia is a wonderful thing for the world at large, I question whether it is a wonderful thing for me personally. It may be time for this old dog to be replaced by a new crop of idealists who are blissfully ignorant about how the sausage is made. Cynicism has little place in a fundamentally idealistic project like this, except, apparently, in the aforementioned sausage factories. I admire you for your lack of it.
On the other hand, I have little ability to avoid that which causes me stress. So be assured that my username will, at the very least, continue to appear on invertebrate related pages. Preventing the disparagement of worms is the least I can do. Danger (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Danger, Geoffjw1978 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, maybe >here<. (no pressure :-) Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
A lot of the user talk pages I have visited have just such a finality to them with a shared common experience. Glad to find I'm not alone. I saw a great comment from A C Grayling today on development of knowledge gathering - "At times sceptical challenge has been seen as a serious threat to the project of attaining knowledge."[ref1] He was talking about progress in the middle-ages. It appears Wikipedia finds itself maturing through its own dark ages. Just a few centuries for you to wait... Geoffjw1978 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

[ref1] Ideas that matter, by A C Grayling (2010), Page 168.

I also have an illness, and as a result did practically nothing at WP in 2010. At the start of 2011 I felt a little better and my enthusiasm recovered. I hope your enthusiasm recovers too, even if that means doing less at WP. Good luck. --Philcha (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ban this user

Racist comment from a user you've warned previously — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenrodman (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 June 2011

That diff is certainly very upsetting. Because this user is editing from an IP address and has not been active for a while, I cannot block them. I have, however, left a warning message on their talk page. Danger (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with another editor

Do you think it would be worth reporting User:Mykjoseph to one of the boards? He has edited articles for at least two of his PR firm's clients (Talk:Marshall Strabala & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Drug Mart for more on that), has made legal threats multiple times, and has made personal attacks in several places. He also reacted rather inappropriately, I would say, to your warning on the Strabala talk page. It seems Myk's relationship to Strabala (or at least to the Strabala article) has led to these problems. In fact every edit he has made in the last several weeks has been to the Strabala article, to add mention of Strabala to another article, or various talk or board postings regarding these. Anyway, do you have any thoughts on this? Thank you and happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think it would be worth reporting him to WP:AN/I. I would make sure to come armed with plenty of diffs, especially those where he has made legal threats, threatened you with "DR" (I'm getting the impression that he thinks that you will be placed in front of a wiki-firing squad when he finally files), the User:DavidSycamore incident, and the like. The admin corps are notoriously unresponsive to merely obstructive editors, but the smells of socks or legal threats do tend to rouse them to action. Don't be surprised if you're reprimanded for long-term edit warring as well, but don't be surprised if you aren't. If you do file, let me know; I don't watch WP:AN/I. (I got enough abuse at my RfA to seek out more thank you kindly!) --Danger (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism

Thanks for letting me know the best place to report vandalism. I looked all about and tried two places, one the page you left a message on and an e-mail. I received an e-mail with a date/time stamp earlier than your message stating "The vandalism you reported was done to a template used to reproduce content in multiple articles. We have repaired the vandalism." The vandalism was very gross and even had Nazi symbols on it. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It's not obvious where to report when you can't directly edit the page; I had to look it up myself. I'm sorry you had to see that. As I understand, it was noticed and repaired very quickly, so perhaps you can count yourself as one of the unlucky few who saw it.
(Though it may be a bit creepy, I have to admit I read your homepage and, as an invertebrate lover who hates computers, it gave me great joy.) Cheers, Danger (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Outline of Quebec (eom)

Transhumanist, what does this cryptic message mean? Throw a poor confused entity a bone! Danger (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
eom = "end of message". The Transhumanist 10:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
So it does. Wow do I feel sheepish. Danger (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Danger - alert page unnoticed - Danger

The Outline of relationships was nominated for deletion.

It was then overhauled and the nomination was withdrawn.

Before → After.

Only a couple members from the Outlines WikiProject showed up at the AfD.

Do you have Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Article alerts watchlisted?

If not, please watchlist it.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm no longer particularly convinced that outlines are appropriate as article types, so you may want to be careful what you wish for. I'm really not interested in working on outlines anymore; I'll fix the attribution issues that I've caused, but I have other priorities now. But thank you for the puns, I appreciate them. :-) --Danger (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Adoption please !

Adopt me please ! I need help, and I'm too new to know what to do with serious problems from two other users that are preventing my work. Penyulap talk 05:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to adopt you, although you've been around long enough that "mentor" is more apt. If you're simply looking to end a dispute you might try one of the steps listed here. But if you'd like to do a semi-formal adoption program, that's fine. I've created a classroom for you here. I'd like to know a few basic things. First, what do you want to do on Wikipedia? Second, what do you hope to get out of adoption?
PS. It seems like we might be on opposite sides of the planet, so communicating might be a bit slow. Danger (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to help, I need any help I can get, it has been unbearable sometimes dealing with problems one person, and now an extra one along with the first, have created for me. The first was a admin, my inexperience meant I didn't know who to turn to or how to apply for help. I made an application to arbitration as best i could, but he hijacked it into content rather than conduct i think. It cost me an incredible amount of research to make the application.
Long version, short version at the bottom.
I only edit one page, and I am very good at it. However, there have been existing wp:own problems there,ENG:VAR is a weapon of choice, 'prose' is the other and it's difficult for many new editors to use that international space station page as a result. the edit history tells a colourful tale, the talkpage shows I'm on my own at the moment, with three or four part time editors who have had their differences. There is a Troll who has caused no end of trouble in the last 36? hours. He's one, the other is the admin.
Another thing to point out, the WP:OWN people without exception demonstrate a complete ignorance of the subject material. I mean it's perfect and complete. anyhow back to the original problem,
In the last 24 hours he's run simultaneous trolling conversations on the article talkpage as well as my talkpage. He's jumped onto a straw poll, which was so clearly worded to point out it was not a poll, but just an enquiry. He responds in a way that makes it perfectly clear he hasn't read it, calls for it to be closed, I don't know if it was more than 24 hours altogether before he did this, the two of them jumped on to it at about the 7 hour mark, almost the same time, then over on another section he's complaining he can't understand the FAR because it's too long to read and will i explain to him in two sentences only. I think you get some of the picture, they are calling for a discussion that was 3 days old to be closed after one comment, which was constructive and I'd been continuing the conversation.
I've asked him to find as much as a single error on the page, there was a newbie editor's effort, a picture sticking out like a sore thumb, he didn't want to help with anything, didn't want to read anything look anywhere, just the perfect troll. The index at the bottom of the page takes you to all other space stations and spacecraft and so forth, and he's challenging me to provide a reference that there are other space stations. I think this is reasonable for a normal user, but not a spaceflight member.
The thing is, there is a FAR right now, which is overcoming and proving their 'prose' nonsense is just that, I've proven it on the talkpage. The FAR is the greatest opportunity for some time to fix up and expand many new sections of the article. but it was two or three days work to lodge the arbitration, plus another 10 hours to do the FAR, which obliterates their OWN by prose nonsense, and now to get a complaint done in the correct form, it's I don't know how much more study to apply for assistance. I'm not familiar with this at all. it's such a successful way at this time, for them to waste my time, and destroy the article. That is to say, it will go through either way retaining FA, but that is not the purpose of a FAR, the purpose of the FAR will be undermined by all this.
Short version, I need pointers on how to apply for help and to whom. Penyulap talk 09:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
If I'm understanding you correctly, you do not wish to engage in an ongoing mentoring relationship, but are looking for assistance in your current disputes. Do I have that right?
If so, I think that you have a lot of excellent advice already being provided at your talk page. If you have specific questions, of course I would be happy to provide assistance.
I note that you are yourself showing symptoms of OWNership of International Space Station. If you have a very strong interest in something, this is understandable, but it is still not acceptable. I strongly suggest that you disengage for the moment from the article. This FAR is going nowhere; FAR is not intended to be a blugeon for inciting other editors to change the article.
I also note that, as several other editors have pointed out, that your wordiness makes it very difficult to communicate with you. It may take more time, but please consider editing your talk page posts to focus on main points. Perhaps after you are finished, try to cut the length of a post by half. We are all volunteers here and digging through walls of text is much less pleasant than other things we could be doing.
If I've gotten this wrong and you actually would like to engage in a mentorship, do let me know. --Danger (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Danger, Someone somewhere suggested that I was seeking adoption for the purpose of finding someone to 'back me up' in a dispute. I emphatically deny that, and implore beg and request that you don't do so out of any Bias. I said that I would say as much in the next message I wrote to you, and as this is the next message, I have said it.
I am not looking for assistance in this dispute as an isolated case, I was looking for adoption or mentorship on an ongoing basis so that I have at least a fair and equal footing in the dispute resolution, which I in no way have at the present. I find it extremely difficult, taxing, and it's systemically offensive that new users are put at such a clear disadvantage. My considerable time and effort in the last 4 months on the article itself, separate to the talkpage and editor stuff, has been belittled and called 'counterproductive' which indicates to me nobody gives a crap to actually think before they write something. Fair enough people can call me derogatory names until the end of time, and call my discussions anything they like, but saying that what goes out the front of the shop for the students and researchers and the three thousand people a day who look to this place for facts is in any way below par is unforgivable. It's cruel malice. It's unbearable. and it brings me to tears.
these people who are meant to be looking at the back of the shop behavior hold my attackers actions up as exemplary, a fitting and proper example of how all newcomers should be baited, tormented with a chorus of frogs with two phrase vocab 'dontlikeit dontlikeit dontlikeit, pwosepwose pwosepwose pwosepwose' there will never ever be a fair examination of their behavior. the people who are meant to examine this are the ones with the sharpest knives that cut the deepest.
I had been looking for assistance on a longterm basis for dealing with this shit, but i have no idea if any of this is worth the trial and trauma. I too had been considering a long break from all this, but such things i won't publicly talk about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs)
Penyulap, please take the following in the spirit of sincere compassion: if Wikipedia is causing you this much pain, please take a break. It will still be here when you have cleared your head and come back. I very recently had a similar crisis of, er, wiki-faith, took a break and came back. It's okay; we all do it at some point.
I would be happy to mentor you when you return. --Danger (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
(thanks for adjusting my text there, please feel free to do as you wish in future) I shall take a break, and I do look forward to having more mentoring when I return. Penyulap talk 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danger/Archive_9&oldid=1142954735"