User talk:Michael B. Trausch

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Fd0man/Archive-2007. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michael_B._Trausch.

This is the User talk page for Michael B. Trausch

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page by starting a new thread. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Also, on this talk page, please indent your replies using one colon (:) character per reply level. Thanks!

Talk page guidelines Please respect Wikiquette, assume good faith and be nice, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not.

Welcome!

Hello, there, and welcome to my talk page. I only have one thing to ask here: Please “thread” messages here when one is after another. You can use the colon (“:”) at the beginning of a line to indent it one level. Thanks a million, and I look forward to reading your comments! —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rrtrent500

Hi, just wondering what that final warning template was for? The user created an article about a non-notable web site; I speedied it. And he made one unconstructive edit to Microsoft. Was there something else that I'm not seeing, like more nonsense articles? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the user’s history log, there were two bot reversions and one manual one. That’s three reversions by my count, and the fact that they all happened in a extremely short time indicates (to me) lack of good-faith editing—in addition to the account being less than two days old, that seems like a red-flag. That’s what the final warning template was for.  :-/ —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that the bot edits don't count...the bot was upset by the URLs that he was adding to his article about a web site, so it reverted them as possible spam. When you discount the bot edits, that leaves one unconstructive edit, to Microsoft, plus an article about a non-notable web site...but I believe that the article was arguably a good faith edit. Could you remove that warning, please? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have removed the warning and will give bots a lighter “weight” in the future when considering what warning(s) to give a user. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks. :-) I've got the option set to auto-watch a page every time I edit it, and I saw your revert of the warning message. Yeah, you can't always count bot edits, because bots are basically idiots. Useful idiots, and pretty accurate overall...but you have to look at what the bot reverted to make sure that it was actually vandalism. And for the article, there's a strong possibility that it was a good faith effort to contribute to the project. So really just one vandalism...and he's already got the warning for it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for “checking” me.  :-) —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

excuse me but... how did i 'violate' copyright?

You sent me a message about violating copyright... but i have no recollection of doing so.

I don't think i have even UPLOADED any images before.

Could you please clarify this?

Nateland 08:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Images are not the only copyrighted material—text is, as well. You do not need to upload an image to violate copyright. The web site you copied from is Copyright © 1996-2004 SIECUS. Please restate the information in your own words before including it in the article. Thanks! Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

please see the discussion on adolescent sexuality, the page contains PUBLIC DOMAIN DATA, from the CDC and the Kaiser family Foundation, this is being used PURELY for informational purposes and represents a LARGE addition i made to the article on adolescent sexuality to cut down on the POV, and make it include more data from reputable sources. Nateland 08:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already been there. However, the copyright notice on the web site is “Copyright © 1996-2004 SIECUS.” Remember, we’re all here for the same goal—to create a wonderful encyclopedia that is available to everyone. Just remember that your contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License—which means that you cannot copy from a web site where the content is copyrighted, as in the case of the SIECUS web site. Their web site makes no mention of the data being public domain.

Can I have an administrator’s help on this one, please? —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the information on this talk page (“excuse me but... how did i 'violate' copyright?”) and the Adolescent sexuality, Talk:Adolescent sexuality, and User talk:Nateland pages, as well—I would love to be corrected if I am wrong. I see no information on the [web site in question that releases any of its content from copyright restrictions. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

here's some more copyright info

The study data which I added IS from the public domain or is granted for educational use I am pretty sure, if you want me to paraphrase it then tell me so and I will, just don't suddenly revert it,

If the centers for disease control publishes data then it is AUTOMATICALLY in the public domain, the siecus website just has a brief summary of the data STRAIGHT from those study reports.

And the KFF data i am fairly sure is usable under fair use, that should be the only thing i would have to paraphrase.

check the links on http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0020.html Nateland 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.kff.org/newsroom/howtocite.cfm here is the KFF copying guidelines, however online reprinting is not mentioned, but linking is allowed, So i think that paraphrasing would be alright.

Essentially, yes, you need to paraphrase. Facts--no matter who produces them--cannot be copyrighted, but the presentation can be and is. Now, if the words were directly from a CDC report then I think that the report is public domain, but it would be a bad idea to copy directly anyway; the information should be integrated into to article. The revert is perfectly correct, though. Rather than working from a page which contains a copyright violation, just work from the clean version and add the information to it; then, there will be no problem. --Sopoforic 08:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ok sure

Yes ok, good idea. now once that's done all i've got to worry about is the POV in the article and it's IDENTICLE copy in the main article on adolescence (Yes i know, Illuminato created the main article in what me and another person percieve as a 'duplication of efforts', not to be too POV'd but he refused to allow the adolescent sexuality section in the main article to be a redirect to the main article on adolescent sexuality (He CREATED it for crying out loud), and i've tried to get him to discuss making it into a summary but nooooooooo he hasn't responded and instead has been busy making 'minor' edits here and there.)

On this particular matter your help would be appreciated, especially if he deletes my paraphrases etc. data once it's in the article (Which iexpect he will)

Nateland 09:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

adolescent sexuality

I saw your post on the talk page saying you were rewriting it. I just did a big rework of it. You may want to check that out first. --Illuminato 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read through it again, and it is better than it was—however, the works cited in the article have a heavy slant in them which seemingly fails to attribute various mental health and psychological conditions to their direct contributors. Being a topic that I am rather close to in my own life, it is a bit disturbing to see much of these “facts” being passed off as such; they are hardly neutral. I am also having a hard time with the verifiability of many of the sources mentioned, but that is a personal problem in reality—I simply do not have the ability to get to the books that are mentioned throughout the article.

For the moment, I am searching through journals and doctoral dissertations that relate to the studies of adolescent sexuality, though those are largely biased as well, mostly towards North American sexual development, attitudes, and behaviors. There are a few other studies that deal with oriental countries, as well, which show large differences in attitudes and the like. Sexuality is a project in and of itself as it pertains to Wikipedia, anyway—like any subject that deals with the complexity of human abstraction, ideas, attitudes, and behaviors. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree with my opinion on this fd0man, I have placed a final warning template on Illuminato's user page so that he knows if he makes that 3rd so called 'revision', then he'll be reported for a 3RR violation, You might want to check out the links i placed to the CDC page,

http://www.cdc.gov/Healthyyouth/YRBS/slides/2005YRBSslides.pdf

or the earlier siecus page i mentioned, it has plenty of purely (Or as close as they can get) scientific and statistical data from surveys of adolescents THEMSELVES and such, so if you find a study you like on that page, than i guess just google it etc. to get its original page.

The most NPOV resource for this topic I know of is the CDC, (Hell, they even call it a 'risk' behaviour, but that's standard nowadays and the rest is pure statistics ,thank god)

Well, I hope this helps Nateland 20:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the response to Nateland. He is only 13, which I think explains a lot of his actions. I hope he will listen to you. I'm afraid when I ask him to 'settle down' he only sees it as a personal attack. Your comments were well said and, I hope, effective. Thanks again, and thanks for your work on the article. --Illuminato 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew it'd come down to this....

Well, i ended up reporting illuminato for a 3RR violation, I hope it goes through and he gets what he deserves... (Some time 'off' from wikipedia) and that we can productively revise the article now.

P.S. thnaks for your help with the paraphrasing last night, it was gratefully appreciated :-)

Nateland 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

final warning for civility?

Um.... how?

I simply warned Illuminato about his repeated reversions and editing of large amounts of data in the article.

Maybe I acted a bit brash but he had repeatedly reverted the article AFTER I warned him not to and to discuss pages on the discussion page FIRST.

Compare the two, he deleted large chunks of data etc. etc.

I am sorry if it seemed uncivil but I only did what I think had to be done as he has been reverting and 'editing' these articles for some time now and it has significantly slowed down improvement of the article.

Nateland 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated a few times now, both by Illuminato and others, including myself, there is no fault that I can see with Illuminato’s edits to the Adolescent sexuality article. Illuminato has been around for awhile, has been nothing but civil and polite to you, and has explained his reverts satisfactorily. I do not see a problem with his reverts.

We’re here to improve Wikipedia—not bicker about and behave as children. I have asked you and suggested to you that you settle down so that you don’t get banned, to no avail. I am afraid that if it continues, I will not have any choice but to report you to an administrator myself, because much of your action and discussion is beyond not fruitful. I have no like nor dislike for either you or Illuminato—it just happens that Illuminato is doing nothing wrong that I can see from my vantage point. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 21:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

look, I simply am trying to improve it.

The Only reason why I even BEGAN trying to fix the article on adolescent sexuality (and originally the section in the other article as i've said many times before). Is because i was SHOCKED!!! to see the enourmous volumes of unbiased data and 'expert' opnions all coming from one source... Even though we have fixed the article a bit, illuminato Continues to edit it.

He deleted entire sections. Which i thought were quite acceptable, now maybe you don't agree. But In my opinion it looks as if Illuminato is trying to push his own agenda... just take a few minutes to look below the surface of things.

Anyways, see the call to action on the talk page for my other response.

Best wishes Nateland 21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, you are continuing to act contrary to the civility policy. Your tone, composition, word choice, and attitude are all indicative of someone who is not heeding the warnings which are set out. In the past sixteen hours, you have violated the copyright policy and the civility policy, as well as participating in an edit war. I encourage you to stop editing now—and take the time to carefully read how to edit, the civility policy, the copyright policy, the verifiability policy, and the neutrality policy.

In case it isn’t already clear: opinions do not matter here on Wikipedia, because they are contrary to the policies set forth that I have already referred you to. Facts, verification, and neutrality are what matters, as well as respecting others both inside and outside of Wikipedia by being civil and not causing infringements of copyright. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 21:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes i Know that...

Check the adolescent sexuality talk page for my response to Illuminato.

You see, In MY opinion and many other peoples opinions, CDC data is quite valid (It is the Federal Governments health department after all, and has a long list of things they've done and discovered etc. etc. etc.), and so is a Henry Kaiser Family foundation survey which got put on a page in SIECUS (SIECUS is a MAJOR organization on sexual education etc. in the united states), and I am pretty darn sure that trying to equalize the amount of represented views on either side of a conflict is quite alright.

But with the Leonard Sax data, I have asked illuminato to provide easily peer accessible some online links to some of Leonard's data. Yet he hasn't done that and as far as I can tell, (He hasn't responded to my newest response yet as of typing this so i am going on past replies of his) he has only replied saying WP:Be Bold.

I KNOW thats a valid guideline, but I just havn't had the time to get the book, and unless Doubleday books releases Why Gender Matters online or in my local newspaper, then I won't be able to get to it anytime soon.

So.. i am asking Illuminato to do a service to ME and the REST of us who can't get his book and provide some online links to back him up or that have his data in them.

That's all, and that's it... I hope you understand. (I am not out to bicker like a child, But I WILL take every reasonable measure i can to make sure that the article followes wikipedia guidelines and is acceptable to other people on this site, which there is a history of NOT being so for this topics articles and sections. And if it includes posting a 3RR warning.... then SO BE IT!) Nateland 21:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

proposed changes/additions to aodlescent sexuality article.

Text removed

Please do not duplicate content across talk pages. I can see that you added this to the Adolescent sexuality talk page. Thanks. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am Not harrasing wikipedians

despite what you think, I am NOT harrasing wikipedians, I simply told one of them a couple of times to clarify and be honest about the edits they made, and the other one i accidently thought had uneedingly reverted one of my edits and i asked them to be more careful in the future.

I find your constant picking me out for civility warnings REALLY ANNOYING, Yes i was using CAPS. Becuase it makes me MAD!.

Why odn't you ask those users if they thought they were being harrased?, BEFORE going onto my tlak page nad posting civility warnings... i am Simply reminding users to discuss changes on the talk page, and to just let that edit rest for the night until more people can review it instead of reverting it back to it's original state.

See talk:adolescent sexuality for more details

Yours truly, Nateland 06:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)