User talk:Mike D78

Another Kirbytime sock?

Who's sock are you then, if not Kirbytime's? You certainly jumped into editing pretty quickly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are obviously a Voice of Britain (talk · contribs) sock, and as such out of order for editing here again. Do not remove the tag from your user page unless you can prove otherwise as such an edit would be considered in bad faith, You troll me just like Vob did and your juvenile belief that pedophiles have rights in this world will not be a defence, SqueakBox 04:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Matt's accusation: jumping into editing quickly is not reason enough to accuse me of being a sockpuppet. I have long been familiar with Wikipedia and was somewhat familiar with the way things work at this site when I registered a username. Sorry if anything I have done has offended you.

As for SqueakBox's comments, I don't see how he can accuse me of trolling when he is the one harrassing me on my talk page. He likewise has no good reason to accuse me of being a sock, and I don't think I would be in the wrong by removing his unwarranted tag on my userpage, although I may leave it for now. I suppose an admin can run another checkuser on me if Squeak insists and vindicate me.

As for the repeated pedophile accusation, I have never claimed on Wikipedia to have any special sympathy toward pedophiles. I do, however, disagree with SqueakBox's attempts to delete articles which I think are encyclopedic and notable, and his recent page deletions without consensus. Mike D78 06:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not harrassing you but making reasonable assumptions based on your contribs and the history of the pedophile articles, but your reporting me 4 times in 3 days on AN/I is harrassment. Please desist, SqueakBox 23:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumptions are unreasonable; you are the only one who keeps insisting that I am this Britain guy. And when you blank without consensus and call me a wanker and a pervert, you get reported: you violated the rules and you know it.

Now, I'm sure you know the process to determine whether I am a sockpuppet or not. I will be deleting the tag you placed on my userpage.

Mike D78 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal

I checked on the history of that entry, and it is quite strikingly similar to the form it had reached by December, 2005. While the pitbull approach on one side may be too much, I'd say the vigorous defense of every precious word is more than a little pitbullish as well. I'm approaching this and every article as a writer and editor of many, many years experience. The entry isn't perfect, and any entry that's been around this long would normally be completely different after three years. Time to let go a bit, OK? -Jmh123 22:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FritsBernard2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FritsBernard2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 12:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EdwardBrongersma.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:EdwardBrongersma.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 12:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Stop being silly, I bet you any money you like this new user is not located in Central America, SqueakBox 03:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not, but it sure is awfully suspicious how he suddenly jumped in specifically to make a controversial edit that you were arguing for just moments before. It's even more suspicious how quickly you noticed his sockpuppet label.

Regardless, you accused me of being a sockpuppet on far less substantial grounds than this. I will be going through all typical procedures to determine whether this "new user" is a sock of yours or not. Mike D78 04:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. At least 2 anons have expressede their disgust re this page within the last fortnight. Random, I hardly think so. You trolling? definitely. ~~But a sad day for wiklipedia with admins suppoerting pedophuiles who want to get everyone in on the act and nmolest our children (ie pro pedophile activists)~~,SqueakBox 17:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can it, Squeak, your emotionalism regarding this topic prevents you from even coming close to approaching it with a proper attitude. A couple of anonomous users having a problem with a controversial article is no justification for anything. You need to learn quit treating editors with whom you disagree with such contempt. Mike D78 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotionalism? Nah, not on this subject. Maybe about Jah Rastafari, my newly adopted country or things concerning my work but not about pedophilies, SqueakBox 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I added a link to the article on your temp page as I belieev that the GFDL demands it, SqueakBox 21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike

I admire your highly informed approach to this "PAW" set of articles, and would like to recommend a little project.

It seems that some time ago (before you arrived), a few editors went about removing sourced material from the pedophilia article, often without consensus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=next&oldid=135660452

If you go > through > the diffs, you will see a lot of material being removed in such a fashion, especially by DPeterson. You may also get a grasp of these removals by looking at the old article and comparing.

I'm sure that there is a lot of good, sourced, ready made material for you to play with here. So unfortunate that I do not have the time to work on it right now. 86.131.37.130 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. The new article is fine. As for the history, that was also a separate article merged without consensus (see here). In fact, a previous vote, held when the articles were separate, pointed towards no merge. The editor, SqueakBox merged the articles sometime later, claiming that because some of the previous voters had been banned, consensus had automatically changed. However, even if we were to wrongly use that old vote, removal of banned editors would lead to a "consensus" of three editors for (one weak) and two editors against. I recommend that we have a vote over splitting some time soon. If you can get your vote in, it might as well start now. 86.131.37.130 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Sorry I haven't had time to look at your work yet. It'll be a few more days. -Jmh123 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I Could Help

I have noticed that their seems to be perspective dispute on PAW related articles. One side is a certain view point held by SqueakBox and DPeterson and on the other is a certain view point held by you and Farenhorst. I have always been interested in political debate and was wondering if maybe I could help out in bringing about a resolution to some of these problems. As far as the subject matter I can not claim to be an expert but I do think I could help out. Jmm6f488 16:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review of your Draft Version of the Pro-pedophile Activism Article

Yes, I'm around, but have been very busy lately. Sorry that I haven't been able to review your draft. The only Wikipedia work I've done this week has primarily consisted of making minor edits and correcting small typos that I happened to come across. I know reviewing your draft would involve careful reading and copy editing, so I would prefer to do that when I have appropriate time, as not to rush through the process. Although I was hoping to get to the draft earlier, I'll try to review it either this weekend or early next week. Thank you for requesting my input on your work. Your efforts to improve the Pro-pedophile activism article and to uphold Wikipedia's NPOV standard are very much appreciated, and I personally applaud your attempts to seek consensus when writing on such a controversial topic. ~ Homologeo 00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mike D78 10:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies yet again for the long time it's taking me to get to your draft. Something big came up, and I have been largely MIA from Wikipedia, only occasionally editing here and there. Still want to get to your draft, but don't want to rush it. Also, I think it was a good idea that you informed all editors involved with the Pro-pedophile activism article about your endeavor - more eyes usually results in a better finished product. I'll do my best to contribute what I can as soon as I can. From what I hear, your draft is turning out pretty well. Kudos yet again! ~ Homologeo 22:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rehash

It has my support, and I would be willing to continue my work on it.

BTW, you won't see SqueakBox around for a day or so. Look at my contribs for that one. Kind of a shame, but had to be done. Samantha Pignez 01:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Look at what I posted on User talk:SqueakBox. This basically how I feel on the issue of the pro and con pedophilia activism pages. I think everyone needs to come to some kind of consensus on the inclusion of studies. Not to attack anyone but I think the a certain polarization has taken place. I think both sides of the dispute of taken more and more extreme views of certain uses because of the struggle between different ideas. As I said before I am interested in politics. Many times people with start out with moderately different view points, but because of a constant struggle between each other will more and more begin pushing more and more extreme view points. I think if we took each article one at a time and discussed each point of contention one at a time we could all reach an agreement. As I said before I mean no disrespect to either parties, I am self have moved to an extremist point of view when arguing against rightists. Jmm6f488 10:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rightists? Oh dear, that includes me! But other than re pedophilia hopefully we can all avoid politics, SqueakBox 16:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Reasonable

I agree a minority view point will not have as many studies done on it. As long as a study can be shown to go through proper review channels than I think it is an acceptable source to site. However remember that because this is a controversial issue that people are going to put the responsibility of showing proper peer review on you. I think if you can show that a study has been duplicated and has gone through peer review that it should be included

PJ mention

You were mentioned here [1]. Is this true? Jmm6f488 06:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what kind of slander has been posted about me on that site, and I really don't care to know. You should be aware, though, that that site is run by PJ, so you should take that into consideration when reading anything there. These folks are likely to be upset about the recent banning of Xavier for his misconduct here, so expect to see increased attacks on Wikipedia and its members. Mike D78 07:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take any off wikipedia info as fact, I only judge people by there edits. I just that you should know and would hope someone would mention to me if was accused of something like this. Maybe if you contact them they will remove your name. I know nothing about you personally but I think maybe they put your name on the list because of your edits to pro-pedophilia orgs. Of course this means nothing I have edited the Protocols of Zion and am not a Nazi. Jmm6f488 07:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry, didn't mean to come off as a jerk towards you if I did, and I actually appreciate the heads up.

I wouldn't count on them removing any info about me, even if I asked them to. PJ's been attacking Wikipedia for a while now; unlike most people, who realize that even unpopular topics deserve mention in an encyclopedia, PJ wants articles related to pedophile activism removed completely from Wikipedia. Anyone who defends the very existance of these articles is labeled a pedophile, and Wikipedia, by extension, is labled a "corporate sex offender" for allowing such articles.

My inclusion on that site is likely due to the fact that I have been fairly vocal in defending this unpopular group of articles. I even called Xavier out a few times on his blatantly inappropriate conduct here, before he was recently banned. It really does not surprise me that these people would retaliate in such a manner; that's what they do.

I don't feel like visiting their site, as I believe they track users, but just out of curiosity, what did they post about me there? Mike D78 07:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually nothing that was why I contacted you. Only your name was there. That is why I think if you contact them this whole ugly business can be sorted out. Jmm6f488 07:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. It really seems that the only extremists who pose a danger to Wikipedia's NPOV policy are the anti-pedophile vigilantes themselves. They aggressively and repeatedly refuse to consider or debate reasonably anything that opposes their absolutist POV, instead appealing to emotions and ad hominems in order to slander anyone who disagrees with them or opposes their often quite uncivil tactics. Equilibrist 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equilibrist, I think you're onto something, for I have not encountered much of POV-pushing on the side of the so-called pro-pedophile campaign supposedly dedicated to subvert Wikipedia, but a number of strongly anti-pedophile editors have been quite disruptive to the work we do here. ~ Homologeo 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike D78, you're taking a good and constructive attitude towards this whole thing. There's no need to get worked up about what PJ does, cause their accusations, especially in regards to Wikipedia and its editors, are usually completely unfounded. I have chosen to take the same road as you, and withold confrontation with users such as XavierVE. With time, if such editors continue to disrupt Wikipedia and be uncivil, they get banned. ~ Homologeo 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

This edit is extraordianrily uncivil. Please see WP:Civility and make sure you dont repeat. i would also point out that we dont need to reach consensus with indefinitely blocked users or their socks, SqueakBox 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you accuse me of being uncivil and then in the same breath falsely suggest that I am a troll and a sockpuppet? You will be addressed with exactly the same level of respect that you have shown towards me. Mike D78 02:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FritsBernard2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:FritsBernard2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not undo the Bot's tagging of that image, let someone else who is not involved do so, you uploaded it, SqueakBox 01:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, what? The only reason the orphan tag appeared on the image was because someone made it hidden in the article it was in, for apparently no reason. The tag specifically instructs me to remove it from the image if the image currently remains in an article, which it now clearly does.

The rationale given for using this non-free image is more than adequate under Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm not sure why you seem to be trying to quietly get this image deleted, but quit vandalizing. Mike D78 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not sio, Mike, indeed quite the opposuite. I hid the image because it had been tagged, not the other way around (and you can prove the veracity of this by checking the date stamps). If the image is adequate under our policies you can flag that but removing the tag to an image you uploaded is not acceptable. I am not trying to get the image removed but if you accuse me of vandalsim you will get inot trouble so i suggest you sdtrike the really off comment, SqueakBox 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I hid the image because it had been tagged, not the other way around"

The tag on the image was an "orphaned image" tag, Squeak, therefore it wouldn't have appeared had the image not been hidden beforehand. If you claim this isn't the case, please show me edit histories proving otherwise, as I don't have time to dig through pages of edits.

"If the image is adequate under our policies..."

There's not any question of this; the rationale given for its use is extensive. The tag only appeared because the image had been removed from the page it was used on.

"if you accuse me of vandalsim you will get inot trouble so i suggest you sdtrike the really off comment"

'Fraid not; besides, you've accused me of far worse. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to consider some of your edits to be subtle attempts at vandalism, especially when you've been so antagonistic toward the very existance of this article in the past. Mike D78 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cant comment on the bot's comments and suggest that you ask the bot for clarification. I haven't accused you of anything and recommending you strike is for your own good as your behaviour might not please the admins here, ie false vandalsim claims, removing an image tag on an image you upl;oaded, restoring a fair use image to your user page etc, SqueakBox 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit wasting my time; again, the tag was an orphaned image tag, and the suitability of the image for use on Wikipedia was never in question. It technically shouldn't be on my draft of the page on my userspace, I'll give you that, but it's perfectly suitable for the article it's used in.

Quit trying to start bogus arguments about trivial things.

"I haven't accused you of anything..."

O rly? You haven't falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet and a troll in every other comment you've made that's been directed toward me? Mike D78 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]