Jump to content

User talk:Danger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newsletterbot (talk | contribs) at 02:08, 21 June 2008 (Award center newsletter delivery.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).



A Plea for Help

Hi! Thanks so much for offering to help on the Sonam Gyatso article with the conlicting reports on the meeting-place of Altan Khan and Sonam Gyatso - I would be very happy for any help here - as I am terribly busy at the moment and it will be weeks before I can access other texts. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Richardson (chemist)

Came across your request for deletion as G7 while checking as reviewing administrator, ---but there was also an underconstruction notice. Is there something wrong with the article I don't see which gives a reason for deleting it? There's a very good reference for this at [1] DGG (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • blush* The only thing wrong with that article is that there's already an article on Ms. Richardson at Jane S. Richardson. I just didn't look hard enough/got stuck without a disambiguation. Thank you so much for the additional resource though! I'll definitely add it to the article. --Gimme danger (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the simplest thing to do when you make or discover a duplicate is to change one of the versions to a redirect. I did that just now. DGG (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!--Gimme danger (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palyul lineage source

Hi there, thanks for adding information to the Palyul article. Would you mind adding the source where you found that list? If you don't know how to format it, that's okay, just put what you think is relevant on my talk page and I can look it up. Of course, perhaps you just have that all down in memory, in which case... wow! --Gimme danger (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ref was the same as was on the page, but I have added a secondary source.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Gimme danger (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better source than the Nam Cho lineage prayer: a translation of a text on the history of the Palyul lineage by Tsering Lama Jampal Zangpo. I've gone ahead and corrected inaccuracies to the list of throneholders. Longchenpa (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy osborne

The article Timothy osborne was not only a hoax, it was nonsense, because it was basically a copy of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart with only the names changed. While I was closing the AfD discussion, User:Eliz81 simultaneously went ahead and both deleted the article and blocked the author indefinitely. JIP | Talk 05:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I've been bitten for misusing speedy templates a few times, so I didn't want to cross that line. I was under the impression that nonsense had to be something like: hd.uavdgiucda.ois or word salad.--Gimme danger (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Gimme danger (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. Saw your comments at AfD and thought I'd stop by. You are correct in that {{db-nonsense}} is supposed to be of the "aaljfotoayt" variety but, hoaxes are deliberate misinformation. Deliberate misinformation is one of the criteria to speedy delete for {{db-vandalism}} Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Wanted One

Thanks for signing my signbook. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww... how sweet. Thank you. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6/6 DYK

Updated DYK query On 6 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jane S. Richardson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford Pray 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up by pressing enter too quickly, then posted the mess to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves. it wasn't malicious :) ninety:one 15:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I didn't figure it was malicious and I agree with the move. I tried to add the paren, but something went wrong, so I figured I'd move it back for the time being. We can let an admin deal with the human-computer negotiations. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tried again, and it worked. thanks! ninety:one 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Maybe you can tell me how this is any better than my removal of a puppetmaster's soapbox trolling on a talk page. You should also rectify that with your argument that "refactor does not mean wholesale deletion." If you are indeed working for that Chinese visa as you claim, you're working really, really hard at it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that comment because it had nothing to do with improving the article; it was merely jeering at Conservapedia. One of the discussions you deleted was directed toward improving the article. The identity of the user has little to do with the arguments contained in the thread. Gimme danger (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. It was aimed at advancing that user's point of view. The only people responding to that discussion were that user and all of his sockpuppets. It doesn't serve any purpose on the talk page other than as a soapbox for Foxhunt99 to spout his nationalist propaganda. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see it, I'm sorry. In that section, as I read it, Foxhunt was attempting to explain what they thought the article should be about. You claim that the article is POV (I do not think it means what you think it means) without giving any examples. Foxhunt explains why they don't think the article is biased (I don't think they realized how offensive his language was initially), reasoning that he used Western sources. You rejoin claiming that non-neutral writers can't be included in the article, so their inclusion of pro-Chinese sources is invalid. You also argue that the article needs to include more viewpoints. Etc etc etc. (summary for my own benefit.) Apart from the exchange about sockpuppetry, none of the statements made in the thread are off topic; they are all directed at improving the article. I think you're mistaking pointless trolling ("The Dalai Lama eats puppies and was the mother of Hitler."), with disagreement and discussion ("I think this article should go in this direction and here's why."). Since at that point the only people who seemed aware of this article were you and puppetmaster, it's natural that you were the only persons involved in the conversation. Also, refactoring does not mean deletion; it means the summarizing of arguments to cut down on length and repetition, the removal of personal attacks, and organization to make a discussion easier to read.
If it were pointless trolling, on the level of "Tibetans are brutal mindless slavers long live the PRC." I would have deleted it too. I would provide you with diffs where I've done this on Talk:Tibet and other pages if you like. I remove trolling and off topic discussion on both sides, because I really don't care which side is doing the trolling. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not to fight a ideological war. Regardless, I'm sure we, the editors of Tibet-related topics, can work this all out. If Israel can be a featured article, there's no reason that Tibet can't.
Speaking of which, since you seem rather interested in Tibet, would you be willing to do some sort of collaboration this coming quarter with Wikiproject Tibet? I think John Hill, Longchenpa and a few others have expressed some interest in doing something like that. Right now, there's only one decent article about Tibet at all, Tibet during the Ming Dynasty (kudos to PericlesofAthens and Bertport), which makes me somewhat sad. So much interesting material. I dunno, just some thoughts while I procrastinate. Gimme danger (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you will have to rectify your argument about sockpuppets trying to improve the article with your wholesale deletion of a subject about Conservapedia. I could make the exact same (weak) argument about how this was intended to improve the article and why it should be retained. This doesn't happen to flush with your own personal biases, so you'd prefer to selectively administer your own censorship of talk pages. Trolling comes in many forms, both subtle and overt, and does not need to make allusions to Nazi Germany to qualify. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please refrain from making assumptions about my biases and I'll do the same, alright? The Conservapedia comment wasn't about the article at all; the comments you deleted were about the article. If you can make an argument, please do. Saying that you could theoretically make an argument really isn't helpful here, since we're clearly not on the same page. I'm not going to be able to fill in the blanks for you here. I really don't see how Foxhunt et al were trolling. I'm honestly asking which part of the comments you found offensive so that I can evaluate what you're saying, because right now I'm utterly at a loss and wondering whether we're even talking about the same discussion.
I understand that Nazi Germany needn't be mentioned to constitute soapboxing; I was trying to think of the most outlandish example possible. But I think one has to at least stop talking about what should be in the article before one's comments can be soapboxing. Otherwise, trolling can be defined arbitrarily. I assume that Foxhunt et al were trying to improve wikipedia and take their arguments at face value. Are they wrong? Maybe. But they're still making arguments about the article and those should still be kept on the talk page, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees. Gimme danger (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I really want to know is this: what is the standard to determine whether a comment is constructive or not? Gimme danger (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foxhunt99 is a blocked puppetmaster. That user has a history of abusing the processes of this encyclopedia and any of their contributions should be viewed with great suspicion. That their comments were framed in the context of editing that article should not fool anyone into believing they were anything except tendentious, nationalistic propaganda. Their arguments are all invalid and they should not be retained for any reason. The fact that you share that editors POV does not make it any less biased or nonneutral.
  • The discussion on Conservapedia was not wholly without merit. It contrasted the text of our article with theirs and looked for improvements that could be made from one to the other. Your conservative ideology didn't agree with what you saw as a wholesale attack on your position so you removed it. Now you're arguing that, somehow, these comments have some relevance to any discussion on that article so they should be kept. This seems to contradict your edit earlier and you have not yet explained this discrepancy. Please rectify your position on both. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the Talk:Atheism comments and realize that you are right, I did delete parts dealing with article improvement. To err is human. I've reinstated the relevant bits. Gimme danger (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the puppetmaster front. Generally I feel that arguments should be evaluated on their individual merit, not on the person who's making them. A broken clock is right twice a day and all that. Plus, I find it easier to just deal with arguments than people.
I'm genuinely upset by your accusations that I am gaming the system here in order to advance some point of view. I would appreciate if you would cease making them. The fact that you believe my bias is the opposite of what it actually is, while mildly irritating, is overshadowed by my perception that you seem to feel that I'm acting in bad faith. This of course is just what I'm taking away from your comments and I may be misinterpreting them entirely; I hope that I am. Gimme danger (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome again

Hello, Danger! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Hey, I heard you wished soemone would welcome you again =) Larklight (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo! Thank you! I think I'm shy of 10,000 yet, so it's not too late. :)Gimme danger (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome! I've been looking through some of those files already and it's nice to have them all in one place so I don't have to skim the links so often. Buubuub (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite ... er... welcome. Yeah, I had myself re-welcomed for the purpose of having all those links handy. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?

Not quite Wisconsin. John Reaves 00:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Err... Sorry 'bout that. Another misfire. I've been doing Wisconsin assessment too and it was saved in the browser. I'll have to study up on my geography. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexism

Hi. First, I don't know why anyone would revert something without reading it esp. if it was a good edit. Your recent edit to the Heterosexism article wasn't good - it was excellent. Teasing out and recycling what the original contributor was trying to say was tedious enough for me. Thanks for polishing it!! --CJ Withers (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! --Gimme danger (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response to your message

Hi I am lordlactose I am responding to the message you sent me. I have rackked up several infractions. I got them for posting my you tube video. Gwernol says it is against the rules. I asked him why this link exist then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:YouTube_videos. How come all of these people are allowed to do this, but I can't.

I also hope to edit the pages for adult twin studies, nature vs nurture, and maybe some others. I am a little afraid to though, because I have so many infractions. If I make one little mistake, I could be banned for ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlactose (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, about the Youtube video, Gwernol and I have both left detailed messages on your talk page. In general, the link you added didn't meet guidelines for external links (WP:EL) for the following reasons. First, since you are the creator of the video, your posting it is a violation of our conflict of interest policy; if you wish content that you have a personal interest in to be added, you should suggest it on the article talk page. Second, it doesn't seem that your link adds anything essential to the page. Third, linking to an opinion piece without balancing opinions violates our neutral point of view policy.
In regards to adoption, if you wish to accept my offer, please replace the {{adoptoffer}} template on your user page with {{adoptee|Gimme danger}} . In the future, if I leave a message on your talk page, respond there; this is a personal preference. And remember to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soqotri Classification

Hi, Taivo. It means "ber farangiyya" in Soqotri like I am, too. There is a hard trend to see Soqotri as a West Semitic, like Prof. Alexander Militarev in Moscow does (his Semitic tree is hand-made due to the Russian publication conditions up today, but he is a real McCoy in Afrasian). talk 09:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... what on Earth are you talking about? --Gimme danger (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award Center Newsletter

Wikipedia:AWC/newsletter/archive/4 - Newsletter Bot Talk 02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC) If you would not like to receive this newsletter, please add your name here.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danger&oldid=220686612"