User talk:Saxifrage

Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page. Thank you! (Leave a new message)

Archives
beginning — 15 August 2005 August 2005 — 5 January 2006 January 2006 — 11 April 2006 April 2006 — 12 June 2006 June 2006 — 26 July 2006 July 2006 — 8 September 2006

Hey

So much for the break then! I wasn't going to leave on in case it tempted you back but ... Thanks for the previous info. Hope the break (such as it is) is good for you and means that life continues to be an enjoyable adventure - Nigel ^(Talk) 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

you're not supposed to be here! Applied for semi protection on both pages & got it - hope that is ok - take care --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem & glad you are ok (?). Think I acquired your troll for a while but it went away (talk page if you are interested). Bit tied up with some ext links stuff at pres - ongoing disputes, still we live & learn (maybe!) - take care --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Trace (artist)

Hi, this is the original author of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_%28artist%29. I apologise for using copyrighted material, but today I was actually talking to the subject of the article in question (ie, the copyright holder of the source information) and he said that everything looked fine, if I were to get this in email from him would it be acceptable to re-add that information given that I post a copy of the email in the discussion page? or how should I go about this? oh, and my email address is [email address removed], thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepwnz (talk • contribs)

Protections

No problem. They're unprotected now. -- Steel 22:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Spectra vs Dyneema

Spectra and Dyneema are not the same product as any chemist can tell you. The Dyneema page is more promotional than any I've seen. Also Spectra developed much of the technology going into military vests including the Shield which is not reflected on this page. There is a full page on Kevlar a full page on Dyneema and nothing on Spectra? Makes no sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.133.34 (talk • contribs) .

Stop abusing Wikipedia for diffamation campaigns

I urge you to revert the pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rg_Schilling

to the non-diffamting text that has been present before you did abuse Wikipdia.

Your action has been reported to webmaster@en.wikipedia.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schily (talk • contribs) .

Responded on your Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You did relace my corrected neutral text by an offensive text with many false claims.

This makes you definitely _not_ a part of the Wikipedia community. It seems that you are just arbitrary cracker that hides behind a nickname.

If you like to have a discussion on content, you first need to restore the named pages to their neutral and free of false claims content I did set up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.190.246.181 (talk • contribs) .

Responding at User talk:Schily since you're obviously the same person. Please log in when you post and sign your posts on talk pages so that it is clear who is speaking. Surely you can handle that modest level of technical effort. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A view?

Hi - ok I've actually placed this one now but I honestly would be glad to hear any opinion you have of the posting [1]. No problem with criticism just trying to learn as I go - some of it is from you! Take care, regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

for clarity - my posting not the reply tho it appears to have gone down ok --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated --Nigel ^(Talk) 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - me again

I really am not trying to involve you (may need you later <g>) but personal guidance on tone and handling (if you can be bothered) would be appreciated [2] - I am not out of my depth but the water is quite high! The transparency of some editors is lacking as I see it. Hope you are not fed up --Nigel ^(Talk) 11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice you left the discussion on Discuss dont vote

There may be no other choice because of the nature of the discussion. Anyway I have provided a comment on the Wikipedia talk:Discuss, don't vote that I think supports your view. --Blue Tie 17:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to stop deleting notable content

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exact_Software —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boul22435 (talk • contribs) .

Please refer to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you believe there has been a mistake. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Alan au

Hi Saxifrage. There seems to be some user (User:Alan au) impersonating me, as I discovered when checking my watchlist today. I don't suppose you're an admin, are you? --Alan Au 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just to let you know, this has been cleared up now. --Alan Au 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Judgenot77 on logo

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that the reason this new user is so incensed is that Jsmorse47 just lost this sockpuppetry case. So his solution is simple: create a new sockpuppet. Cheers and keep on your good work.Pascal.Tesson 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou!

I must have lost my head, thankyou very much for letting me know i put that note on the wrong talk page :D --Carterhawk 03:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw person

I am a professor of rhetoric. Current peer reviewed articles in the field refer to the fallacy as "straw person." In fact, most universities have a policy of using gender neutral language that prohibits the use of the phrase "straw man" in their publications. Please undo your vandalism.

Thanks

PStrait 06:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied in detail at your talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A google search of the phrase "straw person" yields over 20,000 hits. Are you convinced that this phrase is only used in academic circles? It is clearly used less often than "straw man," but there are ethical reasons to prefer its use (e.g., it avoids being offensively sexist). I am new to wikipedia editing, so I don't know, but do the WP guidelines ever take ethical concerns into account vis-a-vis common usage? PStrait 06:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments on my talk page. Thanks!PStrait 11:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dhanks' talk page

Dhanks (talk · contribs) left a note on WP:AIV, asking for administrator intervention for your repeated "vandalism" of his talk page. I have left a message explaining to him that it is not an issue for WP:AIV and encouraged him to take up the issue on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The community is currently divided about how to address the removal of talk page warnings. In this case, I feel it is acceptable for Dhanks to remove the warning. However, I have cautioned him not to revert the page with incivil comments as he has been doing. I would like to ask you to hold off on reverting his talk page until community consensus can be reached. (It's a frequent topic on WP:AN/I, and will likely be addressed soon.) Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. -- Merope ^Talk 02:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand. I will be monitoring the situation, but it does seem that the easiest thing to do for right now is to just let the talk page be blank. If the personal attacks and hostility continue, then we can think about a block. Thank you for being so reasonable! -- Merope ^Talk 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

mediation cabal

Hello Saxifrage,

My application for mediation was initially flatly rejected, but after further discussion, the mediator reinserted my content. S/he did not notice sources I was relying on for evidence, and changed it. See the article "mung."

PStrait 06:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anchor Blue Clothing Company

Thanks for the sensible mediation on this article. --Marriedtofilm 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I'm fascinated by the interest of one user who really doesn't like this article. It's been nominated for afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor Blue Clothing Company )and as I know you're unbiased and sensible, I'd like to know your vote on this. I promise not to be offended if your opinion differs from mine. --Marriedtofilm 04:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

straw man

Thanks for the edit, still trying to get the hang of things. PStrait 16:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

And you Saxifrage would do well to explain why my msg is incivil and the one it is a comment to is not. I have removed your comment as I beleive yours is far more incivil than mine.--84.9.193.208 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced my comment and replied to you here: User talk:84.9.193.208. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you can fuck off you pompous ass. I have singlked you out for some education in respect and honesty. You aren't fit to talk to me please stop untill you have an education and understand the full requirments for Civility and non abuse.--84.9.193.208 08:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As I am User:Irate you don't think I'm going to listen to you or be stopped by you do you?--84.9.193.208 08:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you are being so very kind, inoffensive, and gentle, or rather the complete opposite, I do believe that it will not be surprising if you get blocked from editing, possibly banned, should I ask an administrator to review your behaviour. It doesn't seem like you have a temperament that is fit for being an editor at Wikipedia. Besides, if you're telling the truth and you are User:Irate, then you are already banned and all I have to do is point out that you're editing again from IPs. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Grrr.

I've restored Dhanks' talk page history. I try to be respectful of people who wish to leave the project since it is frustrating that you can't delete your account. But claiming you're going to leave the project and then editing not even a few days later really gets my goat. I'll keep an eye on him. Thanks for letting me know.

In response to your previous comment, I know exactly what you mean. It's kinda sad, but whenever a user responds politely to a message or warning, I'm always surprised. I'm so used to vandalism and rudeness that when someone is, y'know, reasonable, it just makes me really happy. So thanks again for being so nice. Please let me know if there's anything I can do for you. -- Merope ^Talk 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Potomac Senior High School

Hello I have been working on my page and I feel that it looks good. I have a question someone keeps putting up information about individual state champions and is doing vandalism now. I feel that team state champions should be there but not individual state champions. Is there anything wrong with that. John R G 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

84.9.193.208

I noticed that we both had a run-in with this user yesterday. I've looked into the situation--his style and knowledge of policy (and his knowledge of banned users) seems so suggest his claim is possible. His IP matches one of the ranges known to be used by Irate. I've left a note on Blnguyen's talk page asking for his input, but, I gotta admit, I don't really know how to handle this. (I'm still a baby admin; not even a week old!) I'll keep you posted, though! -- Merope ^Talk 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Barangay Health Volunteers, Philippines

Thank you for your edit notes (NPOV) on the article we (a bunch of professionals) are currently collaborating on. This is the first wiki I have ever posted and it is less than a day old.

I don't know if we are building the article in the manner acceptable to Wiki and your edit notes help us understand the process better.

Rest assured, that if you allow us a little more time to gather the contributions of the professionals involved in the process, the article will meet your standards.

Thank you and God bless!

Editing of Barangay Health Volunteers

Many thanks for the editing. It does have a better wiki feel and look now. And I see that it really should be more in the style of journalism, or research rather than a feature article.

Many thanks again, I will learn fast, promise!

History Files

Is there a way to delete permanetly not a particular page but something that was put a particular page that is still in the history files that I would like to be deleted. I hope that makes sense. John R G 08:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Potomac Senior High School

Here is the history file I would like removed.

(cur) (last) 13:51, 11 October 2006 205.174.125.54 (Talk) (→State Champions)

It has somethings in there that I do not like. If you remove that history file I would appreciate it. Thanks. John R G 23:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"copyrighted" matial

hi on home equity you edited out the links, but from the site they were from i am pretty sure you can redistribute them - it is under the gnu license (see bottom of the page) what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbath (talk • contribs)

DDV

Ownership has nothing to do with it; indeed, if you would read the talk page you would find about a dozen high-profile admins agreeing with me. Contrary to what you say, having DDV marked as an essay does cause problems and has steadily been causing problems over the past months, in that it encourages people to arbitrarily invoke straw polls for no good reason, instead of using debate, compromise and consensus. Note that I have asked Nedscott on his talk page what exactly his problems are with the guideline; he has so far declined to respond. >Radiant< 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I quoted you

I quoted you here and thought you should know. Cheers! -- Paleorthid 04:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Food for thought

I have noticed that your objection to someone who unilaterally stops a straw poll. What, then, do you think of somebody who unilaterally starts a straw poll? >Radiant< 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think nothing in particular because I don't see starting a poll as being meaningful. A poll is only meaningful once those discussing agree that it has meaning. The correct and Wiki Way of responding to an unwisely-started or badly-constructed poll is to continue the discussion, of course. Polls aren't binding, no matter how loudly someone squawks about the numbers. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, this occurred to me. It seems to me that you are trying to convince me that your view of polls and voting is right. You may be, but your persuasive method is wrong. Most of your leading questions ("leading" not being a bad thing, just a technique) rely on me working from the same paradigm you are using, and so they rely on me seeing things as you do already. Let me suggest a more fruitful approach then. The trouble I have with the paradigm you express is that I think the problems it poses for accountability and free flow of discussion are greater than the benefits garnered from economising discussions by avoiding distracting elements. To convince me that your approach is right, you'll have to address the shortcomings of your approach as well as the benefits, so that I might be converted to seeing how they balance the same way you do. Does that make sense? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I do not understand how accountability factors into this (please elaborate). However, free flow of discussion is precisely why I do not like (unwise) polls. In a discussion, you can pretty much think freely, say what you mean, and compromise sensibly. In a poll, you are forced to "think in the box" and reduce your opinion to one of (few) specifically stated phrases. Often, when a dichotomy between two choices exist (e.g. for or against a proposal as currently worded), there is a third choice that works best (e.g. editing the proposal to address objections) - and an (unwise) poll will only list the first two. >Radiant< 13:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  But, of course, discussion doesn't magically get sucked into the confines of a poll when it appears, right? Discussion can continue regardless of the existence of the poll. I do agree with you about educating new users, since if people somehow think polls are "special" or a "priviledged" thing during a discussion (which they are apt to do coming from societies where votes are A Big Deal), then they can be guilty of giving the poll greater attention than the surrounding discussion. But, that is a failing of individual users, not the fault of the poll. Assuming that all editors involved understand the status of polls (as in, they're just another way of discussing), then how they allot their attention to plain discussion and to polls must be respected as an expression of their position and contribution to the discussion. To try to channel how other editors focus their attention in a discussion is to assume that one knows better and to take action in disregard of them. The proper way to do this (in my view) is to keep to the core principles of consensus and discussion: convince other people that their attention needs to go in a particular direction, not force it. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  I just realised I didn't adress accountability. It follows from what I said above. If one is attempting to channel other editors' attention, whether this works or not very much depends on how much perceived authority the attemptor has. If you were running a poll for what you thought were good reasons and an IP who's been part of the discussion removed it, very few people would consider the IP to have acted with any authority. However, if an IP started a poll for what they thought were good reasons and an admin who's been part of the discussion removed it, then people are likely to consider that the admin has acted with authority. As you said, this is a clutocracy, and people tend to assume that admins know what they're doing. However, those with authority (whether real or perceived, because here it's the same thing) need to be careful about using that authority in situations like this. Because it is necessarily a judgement call, it can be mistaken. This normally wouldn't be a problem, but it is precisely because the judgement is about discussion and because discussion (and thus consensus) is the only way to reveal mistakes at Wikipedia, admin actions that can inhibit discussion also inhibit the community's ability to correct for admins' mistakes. It's about conflict of interest, essentially. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that's the crux of the problem. I do not assume that all editors involved understand the status of polls; in my experience, in many cases polls do detract from, or even take the place of, discussion. Part of it is cognitive laziness; it's easier for people to go "support, sign" than to write up a meaningful argument; part of it is that polls in most places outside Wikipedia are binding and official, so novice users tend to assume the same here.
  • If a poll is (1) not helpful to the issue at hand, and (2) potentially distracting, then it's a net detriment to encyclopedia building. Mind you, I do not believe that all polls by definition are not helpful and distracting. As you say, this is a judgment call. However, I believe your argument about accountability is flawed, because no attempt was made to stifle the discussion (rather, the action was to encourage discussion). There have been instances of people not responding to queries, or protecting talk pages to prevent dialogue; that would be dodging accountability, but that clearly has not been the case here. >Radiant< 08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what it comes down to is the relative weight we each give a single editor's judgement versus the collective judgement of a bunch of people interacting. I believe that the wiki way works even when a large number of people are operating from flawed concepts: essentially, that it comes out in the wash. For instance, in the case of the discussion at WP:NNOT (or where-ever, I've not investigated it enough to say precisely), the discussion didn't need to be "saved" by having the poll removed because if the discussion came to a conclusion that was at odds with the rest of Wikipedia, then nobody outside the discussion would have accepted the conclusions. This is part of "consensus changes". I think that the process works well enough that "bad" things in the process can be ironed out. Think of this: really, was there ever any danger of that conversation actually creating new policy when you consider the weight of everyone else's opinion outside that conversation? I doubt so. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts in removing linkspam and excessive external links in Wikipedia articles. Thankyou for your hard work. — Moondyne 14:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Change to EL

It seemed that without those words some may want to exclude a website that has a collection of articles, therefore I limited that to a collection of websites. Therefore I clarified it. If you feel differntly, feel free to change. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Web operating system

Thanks for the harmonious editing session, even with us stepping on each other.. - JohnPritchard 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem! My talent lies in tweaking the work of others, so thanks for giving me something to tweak. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only a joke man :) 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)