User talk:Danger

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 — excluding welcomes and warnings — please do not post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

If a message requires my immediate attention, or a few days have gone by and I haven't answered, please post a message here in some form so that the big yellow bar attracts my attention. I am somewhat like a crow.

• Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• 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 (~~~~).

Message from WikiProject Punk music

Announcements and news for WikiProject Punk music
Febuary 2011: Update: There is currently a roll call going on at the project's talk page. If you are actively participating in the project please add your signature to the list. If you do not, you will be listed as inactive. Your name will be moved to the Inactive/former members section and/or the the project punk userbox will be removed from your user page. Thanks for your help

You are receving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile and move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list.
Cheers

--Guerillero | My Talk 01:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token cc7d0b814a9b4f0e490a41cf363c4f7c

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

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.

• Outline of Sikhism

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)

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)