User talk:Sdedeo/archive

Welcome as well[edit]

Glad to see you joined the party, thanks for your work on VfD nominations. EvilPhoenix talk 07:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

VfD nominations[edit]

Thank you for your solid nominations on the VfD page. Good catches! Tobycat 20:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pages not in English[edit]

Hi, please don't tag articles in foreign languages for speedy deletion, use a {{notenglish}} tag instead. Kappa 05:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Area photos[edit]

Heya. Next time I'm near by there I'll get another Pamplona shot :) and I'll get one of the Grolier Poetry Bookshop if I can find it. Dunno where I could get a picture of Tasty Diner though. Sorry :( Lyo 03:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RSoF articles[edit]

Sdedeo, I just wanted to take a minute to welcome you to the RSoF project. You've been busy today! Thanks for your contributions. Most of the people working on the project have been tight on time of late, so progress has been slow. It's nice to see some fresh energy. --Ahc 15:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Ahc said. Thanks for your excellent contributions. Logophile 10:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/David R. Smith[edit]

I noticed you voted on this VfD. There are 7 others that are basically the same. I'm posting this note to everyone who voted for one and not the others, so we can get at least a consistent result when they are all processed. If you could vote on any of the below that you so far haven't I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks:

At some point someone should hammer out a consistent policy on politicans of this vein, but until then case-by-case voting is king. Getting the same result across the board will be helpful for now. -R. fiend 01:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei[edit]

Thanks for the reminder and correction, Sdedeo. You are right about the two articles: priestly society and incorporation. However, the other one on source of controversies is not copied. So may we reverse this please? Thanks. Lafem 02:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something to Sing About Copyright Notice[edit]

How is Something to Sing About a Copyright Violation? It is the lyrics to a song by the Oscar Band as stated in the article. The website you show as its origin did not make the song either. Does Wikipedia not let you print lyrics to songs? Matthew Samuel Spurrell 12 August 2005, 12:40 (PDT)

See:Wikipedia:Lyrics. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

uh-oh, EFI-oh[edit]

The following represents my understanding of the situation, only. Pacific Yearly Meeting has been discussing taking up formal ties with Friends United Meeting for some time now (PYM only sends observers and does not function as a member of FUM), and the principal sticking point is that FUM will neither marry gay couples, nor allow members of gay couples to be employed by them (on the grounds -- I think -- that they engage in sex outside of marriage). This is too much for Pacific YM to condone. My understanding is that EFI's positions are much more extreme than FUM's.

I'd like to resist the temptation to dismiss EFI as "wolves in Friends' clothing", because EFI has strong ties to the many large and vibrant Friends meetings in Africa and Latin America. This goes even more so for FUM, but FUM probably doesn't fall outside the claim that I originally edited in Quaker views of homosexuality. Thanks for your work on this article. --Eric Forste (Talk) 23:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Social Issues[edit]

Good idea, cutting this off into its own article. I'll try and get the Gender thing done, and maybe see if anything on it right now needs some sort of touch up (already added a bit on the race bit).

Anywho. Yup, I'll put the Gender text there as soon as I get to it. And thanks for the tip; stupidly enough, I hadn't noticed in my watchlist that the change'd been done. Zeppocity 21:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Article on Priestly Society is done[edit]

Please see Opus Dei: Priestly Society of the Holy Cross. Perhaps we can now remove the copyright violations template. My warmest salutation. Lafem 04:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sdedeo. Transfer is done. I just don't know what to do with the temp article. I suppose somebody with some powers/authority should delete it. Lafem 04:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also done the other article: Opus Dei: Admission and incorporation. It has a different but more exact title. I have taken into account that Asoane of Opus Dei Info Office UK has given GFDL authorization. But the article is not solely taken from the Opus Dei website, just quoting specific portions. I hope it is ok. Cheers! Lafem 06:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdedeo, Thanks for your note. I just opened my account now. Could you tell me how the text can be listed as GFDL? I think this is the direct solution to the problem. Thanks. Lafem 15:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I placed your request already. Anyway, I will rewrite the copied portions so you can be at peace. Thanks. Lafem 02:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok done. I've rewritten them. Also remember that the international copyright policy is that when you copy less than 2% of the total literature, then there is no problem. Also, I know for a fact (see Walter Ching's issue on copyrights of photos on the OPus Dei talk page) that the Wikipedia trusts the words of those who write and grant permission even if it is just written down here. :-)

"Faith-based spelling"[edit]

I got a chuckle out of that. :-) android 79 19:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Page deletion[edit]

Hello, Sdedeo.
I want to know why did you deleted my page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Presura.

Thanks,
George Presura
george@presura.name
http://presura.name

Hi George. I don't have the power to delete pages, however any user can recommend a page be deleted. In general, creating a page about yourself is strongly discouraged by the community, and most pages created by an author about themselves end up deleted. You are welcome to start an account and create your own entry on your "user" page however -- there are no restrictions there. I hope this helps. Sdedeo 15:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for your answer. George Presura.

No![edit]

How can you say such a thing?! That made me spit my coffee all over my cheesecake. The person next to me munching on lasagne was horrified too. The weirdo over there just carried on muttering. It's just as well the delightful kids' pictures of clowns aren't on the walls anymore, or I'd have got coffee on them.

Oftentimes have I operated on the principle of "when in doubt, and it's coming up to midnight, make them all go to Clowns". I realise that even now I don't know whether it has an apostrophe or not. Just a pity about the Ikea-esque upstairs, but wasn't the (re-?)opening of that a heralding of them selling toasted sandwiches? Or maybe I just visited upstairs after it opened and had a toasted sandwich or two. It has such wonderful character and local adoration, I'm almost tempted to write the article and rely on the inclusionists to say "keep, sounds wonderful".

Not sure why I had to call by to say this, so you can just ignore me. And it is interesting to suddenly discover how many Cambridge-people are prowling round VfD! -Splash 00:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:) Actually, I was metaphoricaliszing. "If I had been in Clowns, that would have made me...". So I don't know that they have WiFi. Bit of a big step! -Splash 00:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagle Pub[edit]

We've had the slew of pubs on King Street, and it turns out that this nice (if overrun) place still hadn't got its entry here. Do you have any photos to go with this. Myself, I have escaped Cambridge to the North. Pilatus 11:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked... (Sean Howard page VfD)[edit]

You asked "the current revision seems OK to me POVwise?" on the VfD for Sean Howard. Probably because, when you saw it, Howard had just deleted out a bunch of stuff he didn't agree with (which is part of the editing circus that led to the VfD). --Spinn2 15:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phones and beans[edit]

ROFL! That is an excellent example! In a similar vein, I've commented in the past that the article List of contents of Splash's bedroom would be factual, verifiable and expandable (apparently infinitely). But you trump that because of the probably tens-of-thousands of peoples lives that are affected by those phone boxes every year — probably more of an impact than many...say...schools, or underwater rocks. However, whilst it's very funny, I'm going to go and find an admin to block you for at least a year, for a direct violation of WP:BEANS. :) Splash 04:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion note[edit]

You voted previously to keep the article Rogers Cadenhead. You may have changed your mind now that the author has admitted to writing the article himself “as an experiment.” He himself says, “I am somewhat eager to see this vote end with my deletion.”

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_29#Rogers_Cadenhead

--Quasipalm 17:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you completely![edit]

Hello Sdedeo! I just read your comments on Tony Sidaway's talk page. I agree 100% with your correspondance with that user, and had my own issues with the way he (IMHO) closes AfD's according to a rather arbitrary process. A wiki is about a contributing community, and this particular wiki is singular in attracting my interest to make my own additions and changes to the knowledge base here.

Sidaway seems to have a very strong agenda to include minor information in the WP, as a matter of policy and purpose. I would point to his clear agenda to include every primary and secondary school that is submitted for article space here, and generally opposing the creation of a single bullet point link to these types of places in a more appropriate place, such as a list of schools in a partciular place. I suppose that type of article may encourage younger editors to make contributions to WP, but that is the only redeaming feature about articles that are as complex as "It is on Ashland road Mr Smith is the principle and the colors are black and gray" in their entirety.

I would have added some of these comments in his user talk space as corespondance to your own, but in my attempts in establishing a dialogue with him, I felt very much stonewalled and became rather offended with his intractable position on the bulk of my arguements to him. It is my continuing opinion that one user/editor who involved himself at the discussion and "Straw poll" at the VfD for Religion and schizotypy, and who was positively identified as having cast a sockpuppet vote at that VfD (besides authoring it under yet third pseudonym), should have had his keep vote disregarded out of hand for having voted twice. That particular editor/user is now banned for one month from editing as a result of his outrageous behaviour[[[1]]] and discussion concerning him occupies many pages in various WP spaces. The very fact that Sidaway gives more weight to include such a user/editor who has proven time and again to be, at the minimum, an irritating presence, while discounting other editors who have made and continue to contribute more positive and less troubling additions to the WP.

You are not alone [2]in your concern with the partciular process that the editor in question brings to his desicions lately in these pages. I am still shaking my head over the way that whole discussion (if it can be called such) with Sidaway went. Just adding my two cents worth of opinion here Sd. Good luck editing here at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource. Hamster Sandwich 03:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My basic impression is that Tony spends a lot of time "playing bureaucrat", and that he is very good at it. When confronted with that sort of thing I prefer to disengage. One annoying user is not that hard to ignore if you put your mind to it! All the best, Sdedeo 03:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents[edit]

I find your description of my actions at the above page in the history objectionable. I explained my actions on the talk page. I would have hoped other editors would assume good faith and at least engage in a discussion rather than simply reverting, but it appears that courtesy has not been extended in this instance. I would ask you yourself if you can categorically state your actions are not also making a point, and whether you even read my reasoning on the talk page. I hope you can do me the honour of a simple reply. Thank you. Steve block talk 19:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. I was not referring to your actions, but to Gorgonzolla's, whose statement in the article history implied that he was adding material that he did not think belonged in the article in order to demonstrate that the article was bad. I'm sorry for the confusion. Sdedeo 19:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play, then. I have to state that I think the rewrite of the Jefferson section is superb. Steve block talk 19:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much, Steve. Sdedeo 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Internet[edit]

Hi, thanks for your input on the History of the Internet article. I've put a reworked version of the article at Talk:History_of_the_Internet/rewrite, and would apreciate your taking a look to see if the problems are fixed. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 17:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism the main page and POV[edit]

Since this is not on the main page anymore I decided to ask my question here. I am curious about your point number 2. You are I think correct that most people would not think of the term monoploy in this way. However, the reason for that is that people tend not to apply the trem to socital functions such as government (or even FEMA as a subset of that). But, I think most people would immidatly be bable to understand what it implies in such a context without confusing it with cooprate monoploies, or anti-trust laws. This is a term that is frequently transplanted into diffrent arenas where it has a subtley diffrent but qualatativly diffrent meanning and people make the transition. Since the sentence is pretty clear that it is applying the term in this 'new' area, I think few readers would be confused by the meaning, and I think most would agree that "if you apply the term to socital functions, then government is a monoploy".

That said, was your objection based on applying the term at all to social constructs such as governance, or was it that even applying the term the government does not constitute a monoploy. I only read part of the article but the article itself actually claimes that government is a terratorial monoploy which I suspect is an answer to the argument that someone could move away and live under a competeing government. In anyevent like I said I am just curious and since there is a new featured article now Its all pretty acedemic. Dalf | Talk 10:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a bit academic now. The real objection here is that "monopoly" is a loaded word when applied outside its usual domain (a particular industry); government as a whole is not called a monopoly except to push a particular POV (in particular, the POV that the government is somehow illegitimate.)

To put it another way, imagine an article about socialism that described corporations as "dictatorships". In some sense, yes, a corporation is a dictatorship -- non-shareholders do not vote on what the company will do next, how much they pay their workers, how much their products cost, who will lead, etc. etc.. But I think you can see how both these uses (government is monopoly, company is dictatorship) are very loaded and POV ways of referring to either situation.

Sdedeo 20:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inner light[edit]

Thanks for noticing my work on Inner light. It's still not as good as I would like it. Please don't be shy about expanding or improving it. Logophile 11:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina[edit]

I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey[edit]

Hi Sdedeo, I just saw your name on the Quaker Wikiproject. Do you know anyone from the Trenton meeting? Some of my family is near Trenton, and I visit Trenton MM when I'm in the area. (This is all assuming by Princeton you meant Princeton, NJ) Zach (wv) (t) 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boston![edit]

Hi SD, long time no see :-) Didn't you used to hang around aD one summer? At any rate, Boston is putting out a bid to host the next Wikimania con; see m:Wikimania 2006/Boston. Any interest in helping out? We also have regular meetings around here, so drop me a line if you want to join us for food or drinks one of these weeks. +sj + 07:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samira[edit]

Great effort Sdedeo. I believe we have a very descent article now on hands. Tx for your collaboration. Cheers -- Svest 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Samira Bellil[edit]

Actually if you look you will see that I have greatly NPOVed it so it is not a revert as such. --CltFn 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the version that you have put there is poorly researched and misses quite a bit of information , I appreciate your efforts. I have been following Samira Bellil 's story for several years and I have inserted all the important information. Granted my inititial versions had POV , but that has now been taken out. Thank you for you cooperation.--CltFn 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I know you have tried to compromise but some people just won't follow Wikipedia policy. I will help out as much as I can. Yuber^(talk) 05:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty Board[edit]

Sure thing - I've replied at the Bounty Board talk page. By the way, I didn't add Bounty templates to the individual pages; it was other participants who did that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ATLAS experiment[edit]

As far as I can tell from [3], the accident you are talking about didn't happen in the ATLAS pit. Do you have any more information? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for changing it! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Macintosh - Citation needed note.[edit]

Hey there! As one of the main copyeditors currently contributing to Apple Macintosh, I actively watch the article's history and noticed you placed a note in italics next to a market share statistic that says (Citation needed.) While the citation is most certainly needed, a note like this would best go in the talk page of the aformentioned article, as placing a note like that in the actual article detracts from the content of said article. Thanks for your time, TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As we speak I am currently working on locating a citation, and an accurate statistic. Thanks, TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: censorware[edit]

Hi,

You just removed the censorware installation links on the Censorware page, however I believe that they will be of genuine interest to people reading that article as it will allow the less able people to take advantage of Censorware technology at a negligible cost. If you could re-instate the links it would be much appreciated.

Kind Regards
Mark Rawson

Hi Mark -- a firm aspect of wikipedia is that wikipedia is not a web directory. While your company, Duck Computing, may be a wonderful thing -- as you say in the text after the link you inserted, "we install censorware or indeed any kind of content filtering or other software you require on a number of Unix-based and Windows systems, entirely customized but low-cost service for residential and business use" -- the "External Links" section is only for links that directly address, or provide sources for, issues raised in the text. Please note that the external links section for that page contained a large number of links to censorware products, which is possibly why you were confused; this was in violation of wikipedia practice, and I have now removed those links as well. Thanks, Sdedeo 04:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

quick note[edit]

Hi Rogue -- thank you for you help on the FIRE article. Just a quick note: I am trying to keep discussion on the talk page focused on the mechanics of the article, and hoping that we can avoid more general discussion — just because it can be an explosive subject for people and I think it would be best if we could sort of "cover up" differences of opinion between editors to arrive at a neutral and balanced article. So can I ask that if you get a response to your comments about media bias etc. that you maybe follow up on the user's talk page or perhaps let them slide? Of course you are free to do what you want! Yours, Sdedeo 04:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes covering up those differences can do more harm than good. Yes, perhaps including the media bias angle was a bad idea, but I honestly believe that LTC's involvement with SAFER has heavily biased his thinking about FIRE; if we ignore this fact, he will continue to inject that bias into the article. Sometimes it's better to face that and see if he can't realize what he's doing is ultimately detrimental.

FIRE is demonstrably non-partisan; that's part of the reason why I added Lukianoff to the article, along with his notable status separate from his political affiliation. I have followed FIRE's record with interest for some time now, and cannot reach the conclusion that they have a solid right bias; the majority of their cases are conservative, but that's because the majority of school administrators are liberal and see it as their duty to educate their students in that fashion. Conservatives are most often defended by FIRE because in the environment FIRE specializes in, conservatives are most often in need of defense. I don't think LTC and the anonymous attorney quite realize that. Rogue 9 05:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I don't plan on making him change his opinion; I just want him to realize what he's doing. Letting him make a crusade out of the article over that one case is unacceptable. Rogue 9 05:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Fox, founder[edit]

I have no objection to your putting "founder" in the caption of George Fox's picture. Some historians believe that several people, including Fox were arriving at the concepts of Quakerism at about the same time. Fox became the most prominent, historically speaking, because he left behind his journal. Therefore, he is not THE founder to be precise--but one of the founders. Because he is popularly thought of as the founder, I agree with putting that in the caption. Logophile 06:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cole's law[edit]

Greetings! That's odd. At Special:Contributions/Sdedeo it shows you as removing De Morgan's Laws and adding "Ralph's Observation." I thought it was out of character that you would do that, judging by your past usage of the Wiki. Don't worry about it...You're positive you didn't do any of that though? Heh. Kidding. --Recnilgiarc 09:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony of Simplicity[edit]

Nice job on the issue of simplicity of speech in a francophone environment. Logophile 06:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

civil unrest article[edit]

Hi Sdedeo,

The deletion of references to race and religion in prominent parts of the article has been discussed many times. It is not necessary to repeat the same arguments over and over. Please check the background of the people insisting on those references. You will get a clearer vision on their agenda. Emile123 09:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Baptist University[edit]

I obviously messed-up on my edits regarding ACSI (which I partly, not fully fixed before your edits). So, for that I'm sorry. However, while ACSI does not accredit universities, they do indicate who is accredited, and who is not accredit by others (and what other accreditation bodies those accrediations are with). For instance if you search for organizations with the word "University" in their name, you'll get a list of ones that have a grey-star indicating they are accredited, but no blue-star for ACSI accreditation (which is shown in text form, when you look at the individual record). Hence, wouldn't they be a valid secondary source of information (as opposed to a primary source that an accrediting body would normally be)? --Rob 16:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with leaving it out of the article, and not mentioning ACSI. I still think it's basically a valid secondary source, particularly because LSU itself validates it, but I can accept that mentioning it is redundant. I probably wouldn't have put it in, if it wasn't there in the first. But, the first wording implied a kind-of endorsement from ACSI, that I didn't want to let stand. So, long story short, I'm happy with your changes, and won't put it back. --Rob 21:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs[edit]

I see that you've added some content on blogs while on Wikipedia. I thought, therefore, there was a chance you would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging. Phil Sandifer 17:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAFER and Wikipedia[edit]

Did you read over the blog entry that our SAFER contributor (whose new screen name says he's a sysop; isn't there a rule against that?) wrote and then used as a source? I mean, really read it? The author icomes out and says that objectivity should be eliminated. Given that, I don't think we should trust SAFER as a source; if it is honestly their position that objective analysis and fair reporting are harmful then it casts into doubt anything they say. Rogue 9 20:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I just thought I should let you know and tell you my reasoning. Rogue 9 04:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Hey, no no, I just impulsively thought it was a vandal deleting text. My revert was a mistake. --DanielCD 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK! Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You got there before I could revert my revert. Sorry, I just got on and it's been a long day. --DanielCD 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Class Action Lawsuit against Wikipedia[edit]

Sorry for mentioning the war, but a reference to the class action lawsuit against Wikipedia is hardly a legal threat and I think you probably knew this before you said it. So please take care not to deliberately misinterpret. Fluterst 22:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there -- it's good policy to avoid all discussions of possible legal action on wikipedia when in the middle of editing (except for copyright violations.) If you wish to join a class action lawsuit against wikipedia, then you are obligated per WP:NLT to refrain from editing until that action is complete. Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 22:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Stop deleting the TotallyDisputed markers on the O'Reilly article. Thanks. As for the class action, I think it's a great idea and I totally support it. I am not part of it and I don't think I could as I'm not one of the many defamed and I'm not a lawyer but I certainly wish them well and look forward to it either improving or burying Wikipedia once and for all. I will continue to exercise my First Amendment rights to discuss it. Here and elsewhere. I personally believe the lawsuit will encourage accountability and perhaps forever end the anonymous mass-scale libel that goes on. Only when Wikipedia 'policy' reflects a respect for the truth and the legal rights of people will it be taken seriously by anyone. At the moment it does not. Fluterst 03:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you have now started particular and substantial discussion on NPOV and factual questions in the article, I will certaintly not remove the tag you've placed there. Hopefully we will solve these issues in the near future. Sdedeo (tips) 11:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the kind remarks. I enjoy the give-and-take on the O'Reilly page. Your considered efforts are appreciated as well. Steven McCrary 16:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quakerism and Homosexuality: Friends United Meeting[edit]

I posted to its talk page the links to all the related minutes. As soon as I get a chance to dig through my archives I'll get other meetings' responses to the FUM policy and to BYM's response to FUM's policy. Artsygeek 22:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how I came to quis-ego[edit]

Hi. This is just a note out of courtesy to let you know that I did not make a systematic trawl of your contributions to look for cases where you may have engaged in original research. (I realize it might look that way.) I just checked out your user page (as is only natural when you're in an argument with somebody) and my eye was caught by an interesting-looking article. Cheers, Doops | talk 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee -- no problem. I put the articles there on the user page to encourage people to look them over and improve them! Sdedeo (tips) 20:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit someone else's comment[edit]

Well, thanks for the welcome! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:128.119.199.43). However, I didn't edit someone else's comment and I am registered. That was my own comment. I came back about an hour later from another computer and saw that it had a few typos. I forgot to login when I corrected them, hence the lack of a signature and the generic IP address. I was just FIXING MY OWN TYPOS DUDE! Crunch 18:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It's just I didn't know it was you because you weren't logged in! Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 18:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I'm going to delete the talk comment on the anonymous IP talk page, OK? Crunch 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, np. Sdedeo (tips) 20:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can be so bold, I'd just like to say that it seems to be that in order to track me down, you had to view the history of the Sago Mine article discussion page, view the changes, and then go to the trouble of finding out who made the teeny tiny grammar edits. That's both a lot of work and kind of, you know, not very friendly. Actually if I wanted Barney Fife around, I'd be sitting home watching re-runs of the Andy Griffith show. I think your traffic copping is a tad excessive and personally intrusive. In other words, back off and trust that your fellow Wikipedia editors know what they're doing. Crunch 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch, I'm sorry you feel my editing was intrusive; that was not my intent. I'm not sure who Barney Fife is, but I think you understand that I made it in good faith. All I did was see that an anon was editing someone else's comment, and revert the edit (I didn't read closely, so in my quick glance it appeared that the edit was to reverse the intent of your comment.) In the future, I will try to be more relaxed, and will in particular make sure not to revert anonymous edits to your own talk page comments. Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 22:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link to The Andy Griffith show and you can learn who Barney Fife was -- a fiction over-zealous police deputy on an old television show. What puzzles me is why you felt it was necessary to comment on a comment on a Talk page. I mean I can understand the desire to comment on questionable editing in an actual Article, but this was the most minor of editing in the most minor of comments on a Talk page! As you said yourself, you didn't read closely. I fixed a misspelled word, I think, and an extra word. The lesson here it not to not muck with My stuff but maybe for you to chill a little and stick to policing the actual articles. Look, say the anonymous user and I were not the same person, don't you think I could have handled it myself? Crunch 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch -- don't you think you're overreacting just a little bit? We've spent like five paragraphs discussing two quick reverts! I've apologized, and explained why I thought I was being helpful to you and acting in good faith. I'm sure both of us were enjoying ourselves working on the wiki beforehand; let's forget and get back to something more fun. Sdedeo (tips) 00:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem so, but the kind of butting in you did, calling what I did vandalism,(with three exclamation points), reverting my own words. is going to scare away a lot of good Wikipedia editors if you keep it up. And it seems to be something that you do regularly. But, yeah, {'m willing to drop it, but please understand that butting in to other users comments on talk pages is something that is going to harm Wikipedia worse than the John Siegenthaler incident if it's kept up. Peace. Crunch 14:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sago[edit]

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner; I just lost track of a few pages over the last few days, and Sago was one of them. In any case, I think the article has been greatly improved since my last edit, and I no longer have any objections to the paragraph in question. (I'm still rather strongly against the use of blogs as sources in general, but there are other, better places to have that debate, I think.) Best, --Aaron 23:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aaron! Your criticism was important, in particular because it forced me to think about where the criticisms should be better placed to achieve NPOV. Sdedeo (tips) 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New main page draft[edit]

Hello! I noticed your negative comments regarding the proposed redesign, and I'd like to invite you to review a radically revamped revision, and to post your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft#Proposed_version. Thanks! —David Levy 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web specific content, false claim of site rank[edit]

You voted to keep Psycho-Babble (virtual community). I've already offered ample explanation on the vote page, but I want to clarify my stance, since I've been one of the major editors in the article I voted to delete. I did not vote to delete the page because editors acted badly, I voted to delete it because it doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria for Web content. The arguments I offered in my lengthy explanation explained why those criteria are useful guidelines.

Being ranked second most popular mental health site on the Web by an automated ranking system doesn't comprise a major award, which would meet the guidelines. Instead, the rank is an artifact of the forum owner's savy in presenting his particular forum to the ranking engine, and to some extent his authoritative declarations contrary to fact that the status is solely a result of traffic at his forums.

The ranking software used to describe Psycho-Babble as second most popular does not distinguish the Psycho-Babble forums described in the article from any of the other sites in dr-bob.org domains. Traffic in the dr-bob.org domains ranked second most popular mental health site includes visits by students to the doctor's virtual pamphlet collection, which is not part of the subject of the article. Other schools offer on-line health assistance to students, but don't include the Alexa toolbar in their site code, so they are not ranked along with other ostensibly "mental health" sites - they are academic sites. What's more, the doctor has claimed contrary to Alexa's explanation of how they rank sites (by domain only) that the data that make his site second in the ranking is not the same as the data that indicates his is now only the 90,000th most visited site, and declining in rank. What these statistics don't tell us is how much of this traffic is the result of persistent activity by a comparatively small number of visitors to his site. His site has gained ranking in Alexa because he uses the Alexa toolbar, which other sites don't, because he operates his site as an open site for search engines, whereas other virtual self-help communities operate behind passwords or as e-mail lists. We have no good information about the scope of on-line self-help groups, and the editors from Psycho-Babble have show no interest in contributing to general articles about virtual communities or about on-line self-help groups other than Hsiung's. The criteria for Web content attempt to explain how automated statistics for Web sites can construct a false notion of notoriety.

Without the "second-most-popular-mental-health-site" claim, there is nothing about this site that meets the criteria for articles on Web content. The psychiatrist writing here about his own site has not participated in editing articles about a broader topic about which he could potentially contribute expertise, thereby immersing himself in a community of similarly qualified editors who could balance whatever narrow focus his expertise might offer. Instead of contributing to an article about virtual self-help communities that could be a hand-out at the his public presentations, he encouraged members of his group to edit an article specifically about his site. His involvement then needs to be considered in the context of guidelines against vanity editing. The difficulty of balancing vanity edits is also well understood among Wikipedia editors. ProveReader 22:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to wax so wordy, but I checked some facts more carefully, because you said "if the following is correct" that Pscyho-Babble is the second-most-popular mental health site, it is noteworthy. If you revisit the vote for deletion, you can read my extensive documentation that the claim to be the second most popularamong 5,710 Alexa-ranked mental-health sites was based on the site's standing among only 20 of those sites. ProveReader 00:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProveReader -- thanks for the info; I've changed my vote on the AfD. Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pheonix Labs[edit]

The legal threat was made off-Wikipedia, on OTRS. Ask User:Michael Snow for the specifics. Thanks.--Sean|Bla ck 07:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't know the specifics. Please direct any other questions User talk:Michael Snow. Thanks.--Sean|Bla ck 07:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bastard![edit]

It's not like I didn't pull an allnighter to find a new medcab coordinator last night, but you're gonna set me to work in my half befuddled and mindspilled state? Sounds like Elian and Jimbo. I'll have you know that jimbo ultimately rebelled Elians dictatorship however :-P

Now then hush about dragging me in, I'll just saunter on by... :-) Stick around and help out if you can, please :-)

Kim Bruning 23:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee, poor Kim. If it makes you feel any better, I have a dissertation as well! Just turned in a final draft to my advisor, which is why I've had time to ball around on wikipedia. I won't judge you (you bastard) if you bail on the DPT case! Sdedeo (tips) 23:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mind if I get some sleep? :) I'll look into the case some more tomorrow. I've already speed-read some stuff on it. :-) Kim Bruning 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may have four hours. :) I don't know if we can do anything, those guys have already been through an RfA. Sdedeo (tips) 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One way to find out, but tomorrow :-) Kim Bruning 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then the first thing you do in the morning is tell everyone I'm a mediator. (see above under "hush about dragging me in"). You enjoy punishing me, don't you, young padewan? Now I immediately get told off, -as a mediator- for interfering in the page. Ah well. In the old days we did this 20 miles both ways, uphill, in driving snow, so what the hey.

Oh, but what's this about "best of luck"? You will be mediating here. Now's your chance to relive those good old days. Kim Bruning 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since we're cooperating on this, it might be handy to discuss on irc or aim, or msn. Do you have a client for any of those? Kim Bruning 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and I love grumbeling. So take the above with a couple of shakers of salt, if you hadn't already ;-P Kim Bruning 18:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I'm new at this so didn't realize how touchy these things could get! I will do my best to help out; I don't actually IM or even e-mail that much -- try to keep wp time to editing alone. I will be around though, and watch the page on my watchlist; I'll try not to step in for a little bit! Sdedeo (tips) 20:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Live the Mediation Cabal[edit]

Thank you for your help mediating on the Reed College page. I know it wasn't easy. -- Gnetwerker 23:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Gnetwerker[edit]

And what a rare pleasure it is to do so. My only problem is that you have (inadvertently I think) archived discussions that were not directly related to the drug use section under that heading. You may not have noticed amid all the back and forth between Gnetwerker and myself, but I took strong exception to his having done something similar a few days ago, and made it clear that, while I fully endorse the drug use section we all agreed on, I did not endorse moving my comments about subjects other than the drug use section hidden elsewhere. What complicates the issue slightly is that, for example, the discussion regarding Gnetwerker's official position with the college and my request that he recuse himself morphed into a discussion of the drug policy. I have, therefore, gone through and culled out any reference to the drug section, and left the parts unrelated to that discussion. (At least, I hope I have. If I made a goof and left something in/took something out I shouldn't have, it was inadvertent.) If you have concerns about this, Sdedeo, I hope you won't hesitate to let me know. IronDuke 03:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much both Gnetwerker and IronDuke. Being "on the other side" is very interesting, and I encourage you to try your hands at medcabal yourselves. It is definitely a learning experience. IronDuke, re: archived comments, I don't have a strong position on that sort of thing, and in general if someone objects to a talk page "refactoring", it's best to err on the side of not archiving stuff. Sdedeo (tips) 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sdedeo. Despite your excellent efforts, after you left, Gnetwerker deleted all of my comments from the talk page, and has now begun to systematically revert all the other edits I made. I think the easiest way to resolve this is to go to arbcom, which is what I'm doing. Hope this doesn't waste too much more of your time. IronDuke 16:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the new edits seem to have some NPOV problems, but I believe it's nothing that couldn't be resolved with patience and respect. I don't believe either of you have bad motives. I would suggest bringing it up on the talk page and doing your best to be conciliatory; try reading the "tips" after my signature. Arbcom results are in my experience mixed: they generate so much bad will that little changes after the fact. Best of luck to you both. Sdedeo (tips) 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic peace theory[edit]

Please read the (one) finding and remedy of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine; as I read them, the approach you proposed is what ArbCom had in mind. It is also what I have long desired for this article, so I may be misreading; do let me know. Septentrionalis 04:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's pretty much it. My guess is that Ultra is very attached to his version of the article, and is unwilling to "let go." It can be tough to deal with this aspect of wikiness. Sdedeo (tips) 04:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JW mediation[edit]

Greetings Sdedeo, In the Mediation Cabal, the Jehovah's Witness mediation is still active; what is the reason for moving it to the archive?

Thanks, SteveMc 17:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SteveMc -- sorry, made an error! I'll move it back; just was trying to do a whole bunch at once. Sdedeo (tips) 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Request for Mediation Assistance ==[edit]

Sdedeo, I need to ask for your help to mediate a minor dispute between myself and a user called Exploding Boy. I made a post earlier today to the Homosexuality Talk Page, which Exploding Boy removed. He claims he archived it, which from what I can see, he did not. I replaced it, and he removed it again and left a note in the edit history to state He had archived it. I asked on his talk page, and again, he has denied deleting my comments. His claim to have archived the page as a whole does not stand up, since mine was the only comment which disappeared.

He also states that maybe someone else removed the comment. This also does not uphold, since between my comment posting, and me replacing it the second time, the only editor was Exploding Boy. I feel that the user is not being entirely truthful with me, but I cannot state this directly to him, since it would amount to a personal attack, which I will not commit.

Your assistance in mediating with this user would be welcomed.

Regards, Thorsteinn A. D. Malmjursson 01.02, 29th January 2006 (UTC) Talk to Thor

Hi Thor -- I looked at your comment [4]. Please remember that wikipedia is not a place to discuss your own opinions; it is generally not appropriate to use talk pages to discuss your own personal feelings about the subject of the article. I can't tell if EB made a mistake in thinking he had archived something, but in general, your comment (as well as AFAICT many other comments there) do not belong. Sdedeo (tips) 07:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYT links[edit]

Okay, that makes sense. Bye ;) --GTubio 13:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CS mediation[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to deal with the Computer science mediation. It no doubt required a lot of patience on your part, and I for one appreciate it. Nice work! --Allan McInnes 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Allan; I find mediating a very interesting experience, and I encourage you to try your hand at medcabal yourself! Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, thanks for efforts, I believe they will lead to a lasting solution. --24.42.191.204 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sdedeo: Thanks for checking in and giving your thoughts. I admire the spirit behind your proposal, but don’t think it will work in practice. For starters, I very much doubt that Gnetwerker will voluntarily give up editing the Reed College page for any length of time, and even if he did, what would happen when he and I returned? I supposed you could argue that by then tempers may have cooled, but, speaking for myself, I think I can say that this isn’t a matter of temper or ego. Also, and this may be less clear, the main thrust of this RfA is not to “punish” Gnetwerker, it’s to settle a question that WP should be addressing: how close is too close when it comes to editing a page you have a personal stake in. Even if arbcom reject my thoughts on this, it will still be valuable as a signpost for what is and is not acceptable.

On a more minor level, there are the civility and personal attack questions. Again, this is not about me having bruised feelings, but rather, I see instances on WP where people become discouraged with editing because they are dealt with harshly or in a nasty manner by other editors. Lest you think I’m just picking nits, you should check out the evidence page as far as NPA goes [[5]]. If I thought Gnetwerker was going to change, I’d probably forebear from the RfA. The amount of time I spent just finding the diffs has about sucked the brain out of my skull.

Is it possible, as you suggest, that the arbcom will also chastise me for personal attacks? Indeed it is. Is it likely? Perhaps I’m not the best judge, but I doubt they will, unless they accept Gnetwerker’s argument re: affiliation as a personal attack (which I think would be odd). And if they do, perhaps it is because (without ever meaning to or intending to) I did somehow attack Gnetwerker in a proscribed way, and being told this by a neutral party could help me see the error of my ways.

Thanks again for your input. IronDuke 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image[edit]

Hi - I will try to replace the photo[6] you mentioned, but I don't know when I can get to it since I am not on the machine with the clean photo now and as you know I leave. I do ask for attribution on the page, but have had my photos ripped off so many times that I sometimes resort to this... --RaffiKojian 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about doing it right away. I understand your concern about getting "ripped off", but I think the best solution is to release under a different license with the text in a corner. It actually is rather easy to remove the text currently there (I tried it in photoshop as an experiment, but didn't upload it because I thought it might offend!) By the way, note that on the image page the license is "public domain", which means anybody can do anything to it at all -- including claim they did it themselves! The best license, if you are concerned with acknoledgement, is GDFL or CC-BY-NC. Sdedeo (tips) 05:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tired light[edit]

Sdedeo, thanks for the input. I am way over my head on this one, would you be interested in mediating. I can give you the essence of the disagreement, which will save you having to muddle through the entire (and very long) discussion on the topic. Plus, I am very busy at work right now, so I am having trouble giving it the attention it deserves. Thanks, SteveMc 14:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve -- sure, I'll give it a shot. Why don't you post a brief summary of what's happened to date on the talk page (or wherever the debate's been going on), tell everyone that I'm taking over, and let me know when you've done so! Sdedeo (tips) 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdedo, the mediation is not about "Tired light" but about fair scientific journalism according to Wikipedia rules, on such minority interest articles as Tired light. However, indpendent of mediation, your scientific contribution would be very welcome - especially more references! Harald88 02:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McMillan[edit]

Hey -- saw you added the importance tag to the KM article. I think that all of the info there is the extent of her claim to fame (well known blogger, hangs out with politicians, etc.); if you think it's not enough then do go ahead and put an AfD on it. (I think it's important enough, but there really isn't much to add beyond what's already there AFAIK, and would not be opposed to a second AfD to see what people think.) Sdedeo

Thanks for your comments. I think another AfD would be equally inconclusive. I hardly think "hangs out with politicians" should be a criteria. I agree with those who voted to delete that this is a feud/rivalry that has spilled onto Wikipedia. I still say that the page was created in bad faith. I'm not trying to defend Kate McMillan. I just don't see the importance. I did say that the information should be merged elsewhere. --Cyberboomer 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those wiki things, I guess -- whatever a few people think should stay, stays. Again, if it bothers you, do go for another AfD; the ensuing debate might be helpful for firming up the wikipedia blogger criteria. Another option is a merge/redirect to a different place, which does not require an AfD vote. Sdedeo (tips) 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbit Choudhury[edit]

I'd be reverting your changes to the above because there were at least 2 other independent sources - pl. avoid FUTON bias, check the Businessworld issue and check onlinecomics.net to see if you find any b-school student comic strip there. Also, if you find a potential problem, you shd rather flag it on the talkpage, than remove stuff and use edit summary making claims such as "unsourced." --Gurubrahma 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've replied to this on the talk page of the article; we can continue discussion there. Sdedeo (tips) 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]