User:Daenumen/archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Daenumen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

September 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Homophobia. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. CTJF83 chat 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Homophobia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CTJF83 chat 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Homophobia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

why are edits not automatically signed?? Daenumen (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As you will note at the top of every edit page, it tells you to manually sign all of your edits (for Talk pages, etc - not for article space) because there is no automated page signing routine in the default editor (some tools will automatically sign things for you, but those tools are usually (though not always) used by reviewers, rollbackers, administrators and Recent Changes Patrollers - none of which apply to you - nor are they tools anyone unfamiliar with them should use). Hope that helps. Though there is a bot (Sinebot, as you probably guessed) that goes around fixing much of that, it does not always get to an edit in time, leaving various sections un-signed. Thus, it is always best to sign every addition to a discussion/talk page. Failure to do so doesnt prevent others from determining who they are conversing with - it just makes it difficult to figure out without extra work (for instance, viewing the page's diff's or history, which will have the contributor listed). So, it simply makes it easier and keeps the conversation coherent by indicating what each person wrote. Hope that helps explain it. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks.Daenumen (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Posts to article Homophobia

You have been repeatedly adding a section to the article for Homophobia, first as an anonymous user and now as a registered editor, and it has been repeatedly removed because of problems with its sources. Your work has potential, so rather than take the chance of getting banned, please take this suggestion under advisement.

This link -- User:Daenumen/Homophobia Classification -- will let you create a "sandbox" for your work. Put your text there. Then go to the discussion page for Homophobia and create a new section, directing people to your text and inviting critique. People will be able to edit your work, and your article will have its own discussion page. Once you the additions are brought up to Wikipedia standards, you should be able to add it to the public article with little or not controversy.

Welcome to the Wikipedia, and please don't get discouraged. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daenumen, I have responded to the issues on the Homophobia page on it's talk page. Please feel free to respond there with any questions or requests for assistance to make your contribution both (a) Wikipedia worthy, and (b) reaching a consensus with everyone involved. I have fervent hopes that (a) you are willing to work to a consensus and (b) do not get discouraged against making additions to Wikipedia. The WikiProjects are a community effort, and hopefully your contributions can be made in that spirit. Sometimes you will find that consensus does not agree with your viewpoint or additions/edits (in which case, you will either need to abide by consensus or provide compelling reasons that convince other editors to change their consensus), while other times it may. Though I disagree with the information you have provided (I cannot find a single reputable reference that supports it) and the method in which it is written, that does not mean I disagree with it's inclusion - as long as the appropriate Wikipedia rules and guidelines are met and a consensus is reached. I am sure that myself and other editors are willing to assist with that if you have need for help or do not understand how to satisfy whichever rules or guidelines are in question here. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How to create new user pages to work within.

Hi Daenumen,

Here's a tip for you: If you want to work on articles in your userspace, you can do so pretty easily by simply creating new pages in your user space. For instance, for Atheism, you could go to this URL: User:Daenumen/Atheism and then simply create the content in the edit box. That'll help keep your user page and talk page cleaner and make it easier to work on each document individually. Simply go to your user page (main page), put a slash after your username, then type the name of the new page you wish to create, and viola! New page in your user space!

If you lose track of a page, you can always find it again by using this tool: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/ (put in your username, and then change "Namespace" to "User"). Hope that helps. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Daenumen (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Another little remark...

... regarding this edit. Please do not edit your article talk page comments after someone has replied to them. See also WP:REDACT. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

oh ok, sorry.Daenumen (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC created for ongoing debate on the article Homophobia

Hi Daenumen, I have created an RFC for the ongoing debate on the article Homophobia. This will get outside, unbiased review of this by other editors. If that does not solve this, end the name calling and disparaging remarks, and ensure you understand policy and consensus, then we can bring this to WP:ANI. When an item is brought to RFC, random and uninvolved editors will review and comment on the situation. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 14:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

okay thanks. as ive said before, im happy to make some amendments, simply being told 'its wrong', doesnt progress the work anywhere. thanks for your time and patience. Daenumen (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Any time. If you are unfamiliar with how an RFC of this type works, uninvolved editors (ie: not you, me or the other editors who have been commenting on the article) will now respond on how they think we should proceed. They may ask for comments or clarification, at which time, we respond. In this case, they will be reviewing all of our actions (every editor involved) due to the type of RfC I filed.

So far, the opinions posted are that I should refile as a different type of RfC - one directed at your actions as opposed to one directed at the content in dispute. That's a more serious RfC. We'll see how this goes though and whether a consensus of uninvolved editors agree we need to move this (or whether an admin does). Perhaps other uninvolved editors can explain things better on what is in contention. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it is definitely in the wrong place. I have asked an administrator to help ensure the RfC goes onto the correct notice board. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 22:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The admin I asked for assistance has moved the RfC to this noticeboard: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_sports,_and_culture - conversation will still be taking place on the Homophobia Talk Page, which will be where uninvolved editors comment on the addition and possibly our actions in the conversation. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia - Ongoing

I've moved the text from here to the talk page of the proposed article addition in your talk space: User_talk:Daenumen/Homophobia_Classification Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

were you high when you wrote this?

Dude were you high? I was not high when I read it but I'm going to get buzzed tonight and read it again.

"In effect, atheism in respect to all approaches of proof, is entirely flawed. However, agnosticism does still hold valid, as a respective directionless null hypothesis and stance with no burden of proof."

Assuming atheism is the belief that one is certain that no deities exist, based on what you wrote you think we should all not entirely reject nonsense, and instead develop an agnostic approach. You must be high. I am certain the tooth fairy does not exists either, and that approach is not flawed at all. Don't get me wrong, in view of new and compelling evidence I could amend if not completely change my utter rejection fairy belief. But my fairy atheism is not flawed, and keeping an open mind, i.e. being a fairy agnostic is not any more valid than wholesale rejection. We should smoke some dope together some time. Have you ever really looked at your hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is uncalled for. Daenumen, I have issued the anon editor a warning on their talk page. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

there is quite a difference between knowing and not knowing. believe whatever you like. godhead or not, there is freedom, even if its an apparent illusion, one still feels the master of their self. it is doubtful you could verify such a claim as the tooth fairy in any regard, or to do so plausibly, so im glad you agree - except on communal/social/recreational drug use together. Random? Daenumen (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Daenumen, dont sink to the levels of an anon who's making disparaging remarks. They've already been warned about those remarks from me. Let it drop. Spend the time discussing the content with people who will actually enter into discussion instead of people who will resort to name calling. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why assume my comments were disparaging? They were not. This dude clearly has an expanded consciousness.

Daenumen (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)