This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
You are the vandal here, Wikidudeman.
I deemed that paragraph on steroids to be highly flawed and biased, and even provided the reasoning behind that on the talk page. That is not vandalism, that is simply fixing a flawed, subjective article.
Removing someone's post on a talk page, THAT is vandalism. Tomsintown 15:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I refuted your reasoning on the talk page. See the talk page for more information. YOU removed MY post. You don't even know how to edit talk pages.
Wikidudeman 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hawking11.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was a bit annoyed about that. We were fixing a few minor details and somebody else came along and failed the GA nomination without giving any detailed feedback. You would be best to get in touch with that reviewer and ask what they think you need to do to improve the article. TimVickers 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It was Adam Cuerden, if you have a look at the edit log. TimVickers 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Yankees76 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to do that from now on. Wikidudeman 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice contribution to making John Edward NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belbo Casaubon ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
HI, Wikidudeman. I've lived here longer than Scientology has been here. The claim seems proposterous. Is pro/con Scientology propaganda? What is the source for this? Is it creditable? Never read such a thing in the St Pete Times, and the Times has had a number of things to say about Scientology over the years. My one encounter with Scientology was when my car broke down, and they refused to let me use a phone to call for help. Thanks. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 02:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Will-Re add later. Wikidudeman 13:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Testing.. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The RFM will be deleted soon, it has been moved to the archives, and should be deleted in the near future. However, I personally cannot delete pages as I am not an admin here on enwiki. ^ demon [omg plz] 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying this here because the talk page is getting pretty clouded. I think that the AfD you put up is inappropriate (because the issue of merging the article was under discussion) although I agree that Ebonics should not be a separate article from AAVE. I understand that you want the article named to Ebonics rather than AAVE but if it isn't, what do you lose? It seems to me that you're raising a big storm for what amounts to almost nothing. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There is and never was an official request for merger for the "Ebonics article". I requested AAVE be moved to the "Ebonics" page but that was before there was an 'Ebonics article. I requested deletion after someone decided to make an article on that page with redundant information mostly already contained in the AAVE article or information that can easily be moved to the AAVE article. Technically the discussion going on at [ [1]] is a request for deletion not a request for merger though some advocate a merger. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to suspect the problem is that you really don't understand what AAVE is. It is not hip hop slang à la Snoop Dogg. If you want to hear good AAVE, walk into any black church on a Sunday and listen to the preacher's sermon.-- Pharos 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I try to avoid Church at all costs, But the speech Snoop Dogg and other rappers use is indeed AAVE. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It's related to regular AAVE, yes, but hip hop slang is very deliberately "playful", comparable with some of the strange fad slang that other subcultures use. Noone uses " -izzle" in church. If you want to look at typical AAVE use, don't look to Snoop Dogg; look to stuff like Go Down Moses.-- Pharos 04:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't call my edits and opinions "trifling", I found it offensive and disparaging of my opinions, and that could be construed as a personal attack.. or at least uncivil...:D
Per WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Dreadlocke ☥ 07:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you need to read
WP:NPA more carefully. Your description of what a personal attack is, is not inclusive. Per
WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Yet you insist in insulting and disparaging me by calling my opinions (as stated in my edits) "trifling".
Also, you are incorrect that I cannot edit your posts, further examination of WP:NPA#Removal of text clearly shows that I can do it under certain circumstances - circumstances which I believe cover my removal of the single word that find highly offensive.
Third, you continue to have the WP:NPA discussion on the article's talk page, when the Policy clearly states it should be done as per "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters."
I suggest you go back and remove the offensive statements, as well as the continued NPA discussion from the article's talk page. I'll be more than happy to escalate this through Wikipedia:Resolving disputes or finding an admin to sort this out. Your offensive comment serves no purpose at this time.
As for your "challenge" and the Randi forum...yeah, been there, done that. And really, once you've insulted and demeaned my opinions without apology, it's very difficult to gain my cooperation. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | The community has not reached a consensus about whether personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate, and an
essay about
removing attacks has been written on it. To cite the Arbitration Committee:
Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is much less of a concern than removing comments from other pages in Wikipedia. For text elsewhere, where such text is directed against you, removal should be limited, except in unusual circumstances, to comments that are listed above as clear violations of this policy. |
” |
Me calling your comments 'triflings' does not meet the criteria of personal insults and it should not be removed. Moreover, No I have never insulted you personally. Moreover, The challenge still stands. The forum link is here.[ [4]] Post your assertions that James Randi's challenge is a "Gimmick" and then I will refute your assertions there in an easier and more open format. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
1.My quotations refute your assertion that what I said fits the criteria of "Personal attack". Me calling your comments 'triflings' does not meet the criteria of personal insults and it should not be removed. Just because you disagree with something or consider it "offense" does not mean you can remove it. That's not how wikipedia works. 2. You did not 'refute' bill's statements. If you kindly accept my challenge to debate in a more open environment and a relevant setting I will show you why. 3. WP:CIV clearly states that refactoring other peoples posts and words is considered controversial and should usually be avoided except in the most extreme cases. I.E. constant use of abusive profanity. 4.This discussion is highly pointless and irrelevant. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Then go ahead and start a topic on the James Randi talk page asserting his challenge is a "Gimmick" and see how that works out. The only reason I wanted to move it to the JREF forum is because it's much easier for me to post and read there. This format is not meant to be used in such a way. The posts get jumbled together and are very difficult for me to read. That's the only reason. It seems you are afraid to support your assertions about James Randi in a format that is much easier to navigate. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at these articles. The images feature in them may not fit the criteria of fair use...
Wikidudeman (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
{{subst:rfu}}
(for images uploaded before July 13, 2006) or {{subst:rfu2}}
(for more recent uploads). This marks them for speedy deletion and sorts them into categories by date. Thanks! —
An
gr 13:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this image should be fair use? If not then please help me get it removed. Image:EdwardFace.jpg Wikidudeman (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Shadow1 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've got Wikipedia:Template messages open in another tab on my browser, and am doing a rapid copy/paste between the two windows. -- Mhking 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, you need a program similar to VandalProof to automatically create notifications. Otherwise, you'll need to have the list of template messages open in another window (for rapid cut-n-paste), or modify an existing script to allow posting that notification. You can also give the illusion of posting those notifications at the same time by having multiple edit windows at once. ;) -- Sigma 7 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me that my page will be deleted, i was just wondering, what was wrong with it? I don't want to make the same mistake twice.
Sorry, the last message was from.
I think claims about having psychic powers are a load of crap. So we're pretty much in agreement. =P It's just really not our place to comment on it in the John Edward article. After all, we're striving for WP:NPOV. Let people believe what they want... doesn't hurt any of us in the slightest. ;) – Lantoka ( talk) 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Fair use images don't go to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images -- we already know that they are unfree. If they fail Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, tag them with the appropriate speedy deletion criteria or take them to Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Jkelly 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I undid this edit. Please do not change the spelling within quotations—if something is wrong in a confusing way, insert ‘[ sic]’ there, otherwise leave them as they are. Also please do not change an article which is in American English spelling to British English. This is generally considered inappropriate and even more so in an article dealing with a phenomenon that is primarily American. Feel free to correct genuine spelling errors, but be tolerant of local varieties of English different from yours. (For the record, I prefer British English, too.) — xyzzy n 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this true? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
An answer by me is waiting you on User talk:Mhking. Happy Editing by Snowolf (talk) CON COI on 14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your consistant, humane, and intelligent contriubutions in general but specifically Talk:Sylvia Browne Anynobody 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
I'm sorry this is belated, but I've found myself engrossed elsewhere and forgot about Sylvia Browne. I didn't want to put it straight on your User page, but rather let you decide where to put it. Anynobody 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar most appreciated. Belbo Casaubon 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Simple question. Do you believe in psychics? Wikidudeman (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm simply asking for your opinions to determine why you're supporting the bias parapsychology article. Anyone can see it's bias except for the people who have an inherent belief in it. So It's curious you defend it so staunchly. Even going as far as saying the article doesn't need a NPOV dispute tag is very disturbing. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The "totally disputed" tag needs to stay because both the factual accuracy and the POV is disputed. If you think you can make the article neutral then try and I'll tell you what I think. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Explain..? thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What's this? Wikidudeman (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar, it's my first. I really appreciate you taking the time to give one to me! abarry ✓ 07:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A good rule of thumb on Wikipedia is...if someone finds something incivil, then you have to take that as just that. By policy it might not be incivil but policy and perception don't always match up. What I have problems with is that you seem to have made attempts to extend the discussion instead of just saying ok he finds it incivil. Let's move on. Instead, you mentioned him being afraid and all of that stuff and you seemed to exacerbate the situation instead of calming it down. And Dreadlocke did nothing wrong by mentioning Randi on the Edward talk page. Again. Let it go and move on. I would recommend taking a few days off from each other or maybe email Dreadlocke and work it out that way. Try to work with him. Yes you mentioned the forum but maybe he would be more comfortable working it out through a less public medium. Ask him. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Explain to me how discussing the validity of James Randi's challenge on the John Edward talk page has any relevance to the John Edward article itself. Secondly, I doubt Dreadlocke ignored my offer to discuss the issue on a message board because he thought I was "evading the issue". If he did then he would of decided to take the discussion to the James Randi page(but he didn't). The only reason he didn't want to discuss the validity of the challenge is because he knows he isn't right. He knows that if we were to bring the discussion to a place where it could be discussed in length, He would not have a leg to stand on. That's why he denied discussing it on the message board. A more open environment that's much easier to navigate than wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman I have two friendly observations for you. 1) Respectfully, you may have made a slight tactical error in regards to not wanting to discuss Randi on the John Edward page. Even though I haven't read much on him I'm 95% sure John Edward is probably evading the Randi challenge for the same reasons Sylvia Browne is, he knows he probably can't guess his way through an actual double blind test. If he accuses Randi of being biased, point out that Randi only puts up the cash and designs the test. As I understand it Randi wants neutral scientists running the experiment on readings given to believers. (I may have some of the specifics wrong, but you know what I mean in that he takes steps to show it isn't rigged or bogus.) If Randi himself were less of a prick, people would really have no reason to doubt the challenge. Because he is who he is the nature of the experiment must be explained, because when it is anyone who really thinks they have the "gift" is nuts not to take a shot at a cool million at no cost to themselves. If the person in question knows they are fake, and makes many times more than a million dollars a year they have everything to lose, which I have always found to be the genius of the challenge itself. 2) With User:Dreadlocke as long as you keep your comments about the subject I think most people will understand that User:Dreadlocke is just sensitive as opposed to your victim. Anyone who goes to as much trouble as he/she did to accumulate links to perceived incivility is hoping for you to cross the line even accidentally. A few years ago I would be tempted myself to give a person like that something to complain about, overly sensitive people used to bug me. It's just not very satisfying to give in because that's exactly what they want. As soon as you do something which can be called uncivil they become the victim and get to tell everyone how awful you are. I once tried to step up the niceness when dealing with "victimizer" and I could tell it really pissed them off. I figured because I was being so nice, they knew that there was really no legitimate reason to complain about me victimizing them. In one case a person actually started insulting me who had been complaining about others doing the same to him/her, it may sound sick but it actually felt good. That time, and pretty much every time since, I know that by actually being nice I've ruined somebodies day who was out to ruin mine. 99.9% it's wrong to take pleasure in another's pain, the .1% are the times said sufferer was out to harm you and you stop that by being nice. You may feel like a tool at first, but it does pay off and almost everybody wins. Sorry this post was so long, Anynobody 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Give Woohookitty Woohoo! a break, he/she is just doing their job as an admin. Plus if Woohookitty Woohoo! didn't mention anything to you after User:Dreadlocke asked I'm pretty sure User:Dreadlocke would have just escalated matters further. Anynobody 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
Woohookitty, Thank you for your observations. However let me address your points. 1. I would of accomplished nothing debating Randi's challenge on that John Edward talk page. Assuming I actually convince Dreadlocke that he is wrong and that the Challenge is legit, What would that accomplish? I can't say on the John Edward page that "Edward refuses to take Randi's challenge because he's a fake" because that would be POV. I could say "Some people accuse Edward of being a fake especially because he won't take the challenge" which I could do right now without even debating the legitimacy of the challenge itself. 2. I don't believe Randi is a "prick". Randi deals with con artists on a daily basis and it's not easy to be nice to people who are conning others out of money. 3.I highly doubt anyone would actually even take the time to read all of the long drawn out arguments between me and Dreadlocke, So I wouldn't be convincing any onlookers. The argument would be on some talk page of a 2nd rate "psychic" and be 'rebuking' dreadlocke would not get me anywhere. That's one of the reasons I asked to take it to a popular message board (Randi's) or to the Randi talk page itself. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's cool, I didn't mean to come off sounding holier than thou or "adminish". Anynobody 08:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Go take a look at the page, at where you added the 2006 win, and read the note immediately below it. That should explain my frustration. No offense intended! Frankg 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Youll need to ask an admin. Regards. - Ste vertigo 05:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really. I'm just asking you to add it back if you see some new user has removed it. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a contradiction in the license, which might cause you problems. The image is tagged as GFDL which gives complete freedom for use and modification to anybody, while the caption describes it as a copyrighted image for educational and non-commercial use only. TimVickers 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I formatted the list to 3 columns using the Template:Reflist and merged a duplicate. However, I don't know of any way of hiding the reference list entirely. I suspect this isn't really a big problem, as people can scroll past it in seconds. TimVickers 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that those links you added (see here) don't really provide information about bodybuilding so much as advertise. Also, the proper way of indicating a subsection is with ===, not ''. Thanks! Veinor (talk to me) 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I figured I'd put it here, 'cause there's already a section for it. For the section headings, I always prefer a sub-heading 'cause of the allowance of wikilinking; it also makes it easier to expand individual sections. But I don't feel strongly enough to argue for the change to subheadings. Have you considered <!-- invisible commentary --> in the sections to let people know about the preference for bold over headings?
As for the EL, it's pretty much the same as others doing the same things - lack of reliable sources in the pages, advertising, etc. I've never liked about.com just because it's unreferenced, and I was under the impression that blogs and whatnot were mostly out. But anyway, I'm just passing through the page, so I'll bow to the preferences of regular contributors. A comment on the talk pages though, thetlab.com isn't justified, and also info on the page isn't referenced, ditto for the about.com. Just my $0.02 and I'm sure you get similar comments a lot so feel free to ignore them. WLU 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I appreciate your edits. I wish you wouldn't be so rough on the natural bodybuilding article - it's important to identify the difference between juicers and natural bodybuilders. - Richard Cavell 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi i sent you an email via yahoo. my screen name is scottn2fit, should i have registered soemthing more annonymous? Thanks for your help
Scott Scottn2fit 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an ok name. Check your messages here... User talk:Scottn2fit... Wikidudeman (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, Wikidudeman. As you are interested in this area but aren't a scientist I'd be interested to hear your perspective on this article. The nomination page is here. Thanks! TimVickers 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
WOW! learn something about bodybuilding and you will see who those teen bodybuilders are .. very famous from Virginia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.48.59 ( talk) 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
Apologies for the poor formatting of my changes. That does not change the fact that the article is riddled with inaccuracies and contradictory to the conclusions of evidence based medicine. Many of the citations did not support the actual statements in the article, and others have since been disproven by cohort studies or large clinical trials. I did indicate this in the talk page, but either you did not see my response or I misentered it. TT 01:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If you believe the article has inaccuracies then please give examples on the articles talk page. I will be more than happy to work it out with you. Just click the "+" button at the top and give examples and I'll take a look at them. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
You are the vandal here, Wikidudeman.
I deemed that paragraph on steroids to be highly flawed and biased, and even provided the reasoning behind that on the talk page. That is not vandalism, that is simply fixing a flawed, subjective article.
Removing someone's post on a talk page, THAT is vandalism. Tomsintown 15:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I refuted your reasoning on the talk page. See the talk page for more information. YOU removed MY post. You don't even know how to edit talk pages.
Wikidudeman 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hawking11.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was a bit annoyed about that. We were fixing a few minor details and somebody else came along and failed the GA nomination without giving any detailed feedback. You would be best to get in touch with that reviewer and ask what they think you need to do to improve the article. TimVickers 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It was Adam Cuerden, if you have a look at the edit log. TimVickers 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Yankees76 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to do that from now on. Wikidudeman 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice contribution to making John Edward NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belbo Casaubon ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
HI, Wikidudeman. I've lived here longer than Scientology has been here. The claim seems proposterous. Is pro/con Scientology propaganda? What is the source for this? Is it creditable? Never read such a thing in the St Pete Times, and the Times has had a number of things to say about Scientology over the years. My one encounter with Scientology was when my car broke down, and they refused to let me use a phone to call for help. Thanks. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 02:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Will-Re add later. Wikidudeman 13:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Testing.. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The RFM will be deleted soon, it has been moved to the archives, and should be deleted in the near future. However, I personally cannot delete pages as I am not an admin here on enwiki. ^ demon [omg plz] 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying this here because the talk page is getting pretty clouded. I think that the AfD you put up is inappropriate (because the issue of merging the article was under discussion) although I agree that Ebonics should not be a separate article from AAVE. I understand that you want the article named to Ebonics rather than AAVE but if it isn't, what do you lose? It seems to me that you're raising a big storm for what amounts to almost nothing. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There is and never was an official request for merger for the "Ebonics article". I requested AAVE be moved to the "Ebonics" page but that was before there was an 'Ebonics article. I requested deletion after someone decided to make an article on that page with redundant information mostly already contained in the AAVE article or information that can easily be moved to the AAVE article. Technically the discussion going on at [ [1]] is a request for deletion not a request for merger though some advocate a merger. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to suspect the problem is that you really don't understand what AAVE is. It is not hip hop slang à la Snoop Dogg. If you want to hear good AAVE, walk into any black church on a Sunday and listen to the preacher's sermon.-- Pharos 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I try to avoid Church at all costs, But the speech Snoop Dogg and other rappers use is indeed AAVE. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It's related to regular AAVE, yes, but hip hop slang is very deliberately "playful", comparable with some of the strange fad slang that other subcultures use. Noone uses " -izzle" in church. If you want to look at typical AAVE use, don't look to Snoop Dogg; look to stuff like Go Down Moses.-- Pharos 04:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't call my edits and opinions "trifling", I found it offensive and disparaging of my opinions, and that could be construed as a personal attack.. or at least uncivil...:D
Per WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Dreadlocke ☥ 07:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you need to read
WP:NPA more carefully. Your description of what a personal attack is, is not inclusive. Per
WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Yet you insist in insulting and disparaging me by calling my opinions (as stated in my edits) "trifling".
Also, you are incorrect that I cannot edit your posts, further examination of WP:NPA#Removal of text clearly shows that I can do it under certain circumstances - circumstances which I believe cover my removal of the single word that find highly offensive.
Third, you continue to have the WP:NPA discussion on the article's talk page, when the Policy clearly states it should be done as per "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters."
I suggest you go back and remove the offensive statements, as well as the continued NPA discussion from the article's talk page. I'll be more than happy to escalate this through Wikipedia:Resolving disputes or finding an admin to sort this out. Your offensive comment serves no purpose at this time.
As for your "challenge" and the Randi forum...yeah, been there, done that. And really, once you've insulted and demeaned my opinions without apology, it's very difficult to gain my cooperation. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | The community has not reached a consensus about whether personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate, and an
essay about
removing attacks has been written on it. To cite the Arbitration Committee:
Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is much less of a concern than removing comments from other pages in Wikipedia. For text elsewhere, where such text is directed against you, removal should be limited, except in unusual circumstances, to comments that are listed above as clear violations of this policy. |
” |
Me calling your comments 'triflings' does not meet the criteria of personal insults and it should not be removed. Moreover, No I have never insulted you personally. Moreover, The challenge still stands. The forum link is here.[ [4]] Post your assertions that James Randi's challenge is a "Gimmick" and then I will refute your assertions there in an easier and more open format. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
1.My quotations refute your assertion that what I said fits the criteria of "Personal attack". Me calling your comments 'triflings' does not meet the criteria of personal insults and it should not be removed. Just because you disagree with something or consider it "offense" does not mean you can remove it. That's not how wikipedia works. 2. You did not 'refute' bill's statements. If you kindly accept my challenge to debate in a more open environment and a relevant setting I will show you why. 3. WP:CIV clearly states that refactoring other peoples posts and words is considered controversial and should usually be avoided except in the most extreme cases. I.E. constant use of abusive profanity. 4.This discussion is highly pointless and irrelevant. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Then go ahead and start a topic on the James Randi talk page asserting his challenge is a "Gimmick" and see how that works out. The only reason I wanted to move it to the JREF forum is because it's much easier for me to post and read there. This format is not meant to be used in such a way. The posts get jumbled together and are very difficult for me to read. That's the only reason. It seems you are afraid to support your assertions about James Randi in a format that is much easier to navigate. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at these articles. The images feature in them may not fit the criteria of fair use...
Wikidudeman (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
{{subst:rfu}}
(for images uploaded before July 13, 2006) or {{subst:rfu2}}
(for more recent uploads). This marks them for speedy deletion and sorts them into categories by date. Thanks! —
An
gr 13:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this image should be fair use? If not then please help me get it removed. Image:EdwardFace.jpg Wikidudeman (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Shadow1 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've got Wikipedia:Template messages open in another tab on my browser, and am doing a rapid copy/paste between the two windows. -- Mhking 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, you need a program similar to VandalProof to automatically create notifications. Otherwise, you'll need to have the list of template messages open in another window (for rapid cut-n-paste), or modify an existing script to allow posting that notification. You can also give the illusion of posting those notifications at the same time by having multiple edit windows at once. ;) -- Sigma 7 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me that my page will be deleted, i was just wondering, what was wrong with it? I don't want to make the same mistake twice.
Sorry, the last message was from.
I think claims about having psychic powers are a load of crap. So we're pretty much in agreement. =P It's just really not our place to comment on it in the John Edward article. After all, we're striving for WP:NPOV. Let people believe what they want... doesn't hurt any of us in the slightest. ;) – Lantoka ( talk) 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Fair use images don't go to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images -- we already know that they are unfree. If they fail Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, tag them with the appropriate speedy deletion criteria or take them to Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Jkelly 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I undid this edit. Please do not change the spelling within quotations—if something is wrong in a confusing way, insert ‘[ sic]’ there, otherwise leave them as they are. Also please do not change an article which is in American English spelling to British English. This is generally considered inappropriate and even more so in an article dealing with a phenomenon that is primarily American. Feel free to correct genuine spelling errors, but be tolerant of local varieties of English different from yours. (For the record, I prefer British English, too.) — xyzzy n 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this true? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
An answer by me is waiting you on User talk:Mhking. Happy Editing by Snowolf (talk) CON COI on 14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your consistant, humane, and intelligent contriubutions in general but specifically Talk:Sylvia Browne Anynobody 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
I'm sorry this is belated, but I've found myself engrossed elsewhere and forgot about Sylvia Browne. I didn't want to put it straight on your User page, but rather let you decide where to put it. Anynobody 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar most appreciated. Belbo Casaubon 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Simple question. Do you believe in psychics? Wikidudeman (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm simply asking for your opinions to determine why you're supporting the bias parapsychology article. Anyone can see it's bias except for the people who have an inherent belief in it. So It's curious you defend it so staunchly. Even going as far as saying the article doesn't need a NPOV dispute tag is very disturbing. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The "totally disputed" tag needs to stay because both the factual accuracy and the POV is disputed. If you think you can make the article neutral then try and I'll tell you what I think. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Explain..? thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What's this? Wikidudeman (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar, it's my first. I really appreciate you taking the time to give one to me! abarry ✓ 07:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A good rule of thumb on Wikipedia is...if someone finds something incivil, then you have to take that as just that. By policy it might not be incivil but policy and perception don't always match up. What I have problems with is that you seem to have made attempts to extend the discussion instead of just saying ok he finds it incivil. Let's move on. Instead, you mentioned him being afraid and all of that stuff and you seemed to exacerbate the situation instead of calming it down. And Dreadlocke did nothing wrong by mentioning Randi on the Edward talk page. Again. Let it go and move on. I would recommend taking a few days off from each other or maybe email Dreadlocke and work it out that way. Try to work with him. Yes you mentioned the forum but maybe he would be more comfortable working it out through a less public medium. Ask him. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Explain to me how discussing the validity of James Randi's challenge on the John Edward talk page has any relevance to the John Edward article itself. Secondly, I doubt Dreadlocke ignored my offer to discuss the issue on a message board because he thought I was "evading the issue". If he did then he would of decided to take the discussion to the James Randi page(but he didn't). The only reason he didn't want to discuss the validity of the challenge is because he knows he isn't right. He knows that if we were to bring the discussion to a place where it could be discussed in length, He would not have a leg to stand on. That's why he denied discussing it on the message board. A more open environment that's much easier to navigate than wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman I have two friendly observations for you. 1) Respectfully, you may have made a slight tactical error in regards to not wanting to discuss Randi on the John Edward page. Even though I haven't read much on him I'm 95% sure John Edward is probably evading the Randi challenge for the same reasons Sylvia Browne is, he knows he probably can't guess his way through an actual double blind test. If he accuses Randi of being biased, point out that Randi only puts up the cash and designs the test. As I understand it Randi wants neutral scientists running the experiment on readings given to believers. (I may have some of the specifics wrong, but you know what I mean in that he takes steps to show it isn't rigged or bogus.) If Randi himself were less of a prick, people would really have no reason to doubt the challenge. Because he is who he is the nature of the experiment must be explained, because when it is anyone who really thinks they have the "gift" is nuts not to take a shot at a cool million at no cost to themselves. If the person in question knows they are fake, and makes many times more than a million dollars a year they have everything to lose, which I have always found to be the genius of the challenge itself. 2) With User:Dreadlocke as long as you keep your comments about the subject I think most people will understand that User:Dreadlocke is just sensitive as opposed to your victim. Anyone who goes to as much trouble as he/she did to accumulate links to perceived incivility is hoping for you to cross the line even accidentally. A few years ago I would be tempted myself to give a person like that something to complain about, overly sensitive people used to bug me. It's just not very satisfying to give in because that's exactly what they want. As soon as you do something which can be called uncivil they become the victim and get to tell everyone how awful you are. I once tried to step up the niceness when dealing with "victimizer" and I could tell it really pissed them off. I figured because I was being so nice, they knew that there was really no legitimate reason to complain about me victimizing them. In one case a person actually started insulting me who had been complaining about others doing the same to him/her, it may sound sick but it actually felt good. That time, and pretty much every time since, I know that by actually being nice I've ruined somebodies day who was out to ruin mine. 99.9% it's wrong to take pleasure in another's pain, the .1% are the times said sufferer was out to harm you and you stop that by being nice. You may feel like a tool at first, but it does pay off and almost everybody wins. Sorry this post was so long, Anynobody 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Give Woohookitty Woohoo! a break, he/she is just doing their job as an admin. Plus if Woohookitty Woohoo! didn't mention anything to you after User:Dreadlocke asked I'm pretty sure User:Dreadlocke would have just escalated matters further. Anynobody 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
Woohookitty, Thank you for your observations. However let me address your points. 1. I would of accomplished nothing debating Randi's challenge on that John Edward talk page. Assuming I actually convince Dreadlocke that he is wrong and that the Challenge is legit, What would that accomplish? I can't say on the John Edward page that "Edward refuses to take Randi's challenge because he's a fake" because that would be POV. I could say "Some people accuse Edward of being a fake especially because he won't take the challenge" which I could do right now without even debating the legitimacy of the challenge itself. 2. I don't believe Randi is a "prick". Randi deals with con artists on a daily basis and it's not easy to be nice to people who are conning others out of money. 3.I highly doubt anyone would actually even take the time to read all of the long drawn out arguments between me and Dreadlocke, So I wouldn't be convincing any onlookers. The argument would be on some talk page of a 2nd rate "psychic" and be 'rebuking' dreadlocke would not get me anywhere. That's one of the reasons I asked to take it to a popular message board (Randi's) or to the Randi talk page itself. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's cool, I didn't mean to come off sounding holier than thou or "adminish". Anynobody 08:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Go take a look at the page, at where you added the 2006 win, and read the note immediately below it. That should explain my frustration. No offense intended! Frankg 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Youll need to ask an admin. Regards. - Ste vertigo 05:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really. I'm just asking you to add it back if you see some new user has removed it. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a contradiction in the license, which might cause you problems. The image is tagged as GFDL which gives complete freedom for use and modification to anybody, while the caption describes it as a copyrighted image for educational and non-commercial use only. TimVickers 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I formatted the list to 3 columns using the Template:Reflist and merged a duplicate. However, I don't know of any way of hiding the reference list entirely. I suspect this isn't really a big problem, as people can scroll past it in seconds. TimVickers 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that those links you added (see here) don't really provide information about bodybuilding so much as advertise. Also, the proper way of indicating a subsection is with ===, not ''. Thanks! Veinor (talk to me) 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I figured I'd put it here, 'cause there's already a section for it. For the section headings, I always prefer a sub-heading 'cause of the allowance of wikilinking; it also makes it easier to expand individual sections. But I don't feel strongly enough to argue for the change to subheadings. Have you considered <!-- invisible commentary --> in the sections to let people know about the preference for bold over headings?
As for the EL, it's pretty much the same as others doing the same things - lack of reliable sources in the pages, advertising, etc. I've never liked about.com just because it's unreferenced, and I was under the impression that blogs and whatnot were mostly out. But anyway, I'm just passing through the page, so I'll bow to the preferences of regular contributors. A comment on the talk pages though, thetlab.com isn't justified, and also info on the page isn't referenced, ditto for the about.com. Just my $0.02 and I'm sure you get similar comments a lot so feel free to ignore them. WLU 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I appreciate your edits. I wish you wouldn't be so rough on the natural bodybuilding article - it's important to identify the difference between juicers and natural bodybuilders. - Richard Cavell 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi i sent you an email via yahoo. my screen name is scottn2fit, should i have registered soemthing more annonymous? Thanks for your help
Scott Scottn2fit 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an ok name. Check your messages here... User talk:Scottn2fit... Wikidudeman (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, Wikidudeman. As you are interested in this area but aren't a scientist I'd be interested to hear your perspective on this article. The nomination page is here. Thanks! TimVickers 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
WOW! learn something about bodybuilding and you will see who those teen bodybuilders are .. very famous from Virginia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.48.59 ( talk) 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
Apologies for the poor formatting of my changes. That does not change the fact that the article is riddled with inaccuracies and contradictory to the conclusions of evidence based medicine. Many of the citations did not support the actual statements in the article, and others have since been disproven by cohort studies or large clinical trials. I did indicate this in the talk page, but either you did not see my response or I misentered it. TT 01:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If you believe the article has inaccuracies then please give examples on the articles talk page. I will be more than happy to work it out with you. Just click the "+" button at the top and give examples and I'll take a look at them. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)