User talk:Danger: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:41, 14 November 2011

This user has chronic health issues that may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. This user may not be able to respond to talk page messages in a timely manner during affected periods.

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

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

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

Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Archives

January – April 2008
May – June 2008
July – December 2008
January – February 2009
June – July 2009
August 2009 – June 2010
July 2010 – 26 January 2011
26 January – June 29
June 30 – present

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Thank you

I appreciate the withdrawal and close for Umbrage (film). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penyulap

Hi Danger, in looking through User:Penyulap's pages, it seems like you had at some point adopted/agreed to mentor him. Right now there is a discussion on going at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Penyulap_and_disruption_at_Talk:Tooth_fairy concerning some of his recent behavior. Is there any insight you can give? Thanks, only (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'd like to invite you Danger, to comment here if you have time. Penyulap_talk 01:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Black Mamba move dispute

Yes, I already knew that administrators aren't automatically more authoritative than other editors when it comes to content disputes. I was just throwing it out there. I respect everybody's opinion, even if it is in direct opposition to my own. It's just very frustrating because this subject is something that I am well versed in and my college degree (clinical laboratory science) covered such herpetology, especially toxicology which of course included snakes and their venom. I've even had hands on experience with snakes, including some venomous snakes. I have done work and improved several articles about different species of snakes and I put in a lot of work on the black mamba article. I'm still not done yet, but I just wanted to change the name of the article to its scientific name just like the majority of other snake articles. I think it's appropriate and plus when you type in "black mamba" in the search bar it will take you directly to the same article - it will just be titled Dendroaspis polylepis. If you go to the article now, you'll see that at the very top it gives you a list of the "common names". I don't understand what the big deal is and why everybody is opposing the request. However, this isn't over. It's far from over, so we'll wait and see. The admin in my support and I just got Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles members involved. I'm a member myself, so we'll see what happens. Bastian (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have education in herpetology. This is not a dispute about herpetology, it's a dispute about editorial practices. At Wikipedia, we use common names for species when such a name exists. The fact that redirects are possible is also not at issue. Danger (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you'll notice that I made an apology to the IP user if you go to the discussion in the black mamba talk page. Look for "Reply to Roger" - it's in bold characters, so you won't miss it. Bastian (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "fix it" do you mean take it off or just make another post apologizing? Bastian (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed it. I didn't realize that I hadn't put the 80 at the end. Thanks for letting me know. Bastian (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be courteous and use standard talk page formatting when commenting. You can see how that's done either by looking at how others are commenting or by reading this. Danger (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IEP

Hi. If you are working on IEP clean up, for easy checking and follow up of students and their articles, please see:

IEP student and article lists and how to use them

If you are not working on this clean up, please pass this message along to anyone you know who is. Thanks, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal taipan picture

Hey, I uploaded this file File:Oxyuranus-scutellatus.jpg and you brought up some copyright issues. Well here is what I found on their site, which is a government website:

The Queensland Museum retains ownership of all material on this site unless otherwise specifically stated. Permission is granted to copy material owned by the Queensland Museum under the terms of the Copyright Act 1968 (as amended) and in accordance with fair dealing provisions; provided that the content is not altered and the source is acknowledged. (Copyright information can be seen here.

So the picture is safe and can stay. Bastian (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Our license requires any reuse, including alteration of content, so their license is not compatible with ours. --Danger ^{High voltage!} 20:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Danger,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what's your objection to ccMixter?

(in the open source article)

I didn't put it there, but I left it because I thought it was rather interesting. I did not however look to see whether it was a commercial product, so perhaps you are right. Just wondering why you thought it was spam. Elinruby (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a commercial venture, but non-commercial promotion is still misuse of Wikipedia. The "reference" was just to the main page of the site, which made it look spammy, and the article of the site wasn't linked, so it seemed to be isolated promotion. At any rate, the claim that CC license is especially useful in online music isn't supported by that reference and is an example of original research in that the writer used the example of ccMixter to make an original claim. Danger ^{High voltage!} 01:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah

I try to hold back, actually...--Mr Fink (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI reply

Hello, Danger. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help urgently needed on unblock-en-l - barnstars available.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (t) (e) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Danger - Cue Cat

Good Morning Danger,

I see you have edited my edits to the record of Cue cat.

First, my user name stands for proof reader plus researcher and has been that since 2003 doing freelance projects for childrens school books. All, commenting on the group accepted such. Second, 10 different users were in the comment record on the edits for the cue cat record. Which was posted for weekd before the edits made. Group agreement was reached as to what to be added. I am reversing the record to what the group decided. Thank you for participating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you must have me confused with someone else, as I've never made any edits to Cue cat. I did remove your name from an administrative category; perhaps you got some sort of notification when I did that. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry Danger. What does "remove from an adminstrative category mean? Thank you for any clarification. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

When The Bushranger put this message on your page, it added you to a category–type of page that lists other pages–that is used to track users who have had objections raised about their name. Since the objections were cleared up, I removed you from that category. Make sense?

Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tilde (~~~~). Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danger, can I borrow your wise eyes? When I started updating the Cue cat record with facts they were deleted repeatedly by a Bbb23, and then a Cullen, well users came to help me and I updated some of the record, and suggested more, BUT - here is the weird point- when moving ahead on gathering the other facts, I find that Bbb23 and Cullen have done the same thing related to ALL the various records related to Cue Cat DigitalCOnvergence and Net Talk live - all inter-related companies and products. Isnt ti weird that TWO different users make the same deletion of records to any records regardinjg this company and supposedly are two different users? I pointed this out before and now have found the same thing in other records by these "two". Could this just be randon? I think it not rally possible? Can you lend your wisdom to this and enlighten me?

here is what I sent to the others posting to the article: "Hey Bushranger, can you look at the Cue cat discussion and see the topic where Kbb23 and Cullen make the same edist to any and all records for digital convergence? Look up net talk live and cue cat. Seems weird to me that two different users make the same edits to different records totally but interconnect to the history of this company???/ ANy suggestions??? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)"

Help? Suggestions? And thanks for the clarification above. Trying to get better at all this ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

To be clear, are you suggesting that Bbb23 and Cullen328 are the same person or are acting in concert? This is a very serious accusation here; using two accounts is called sockpuppeting and often leads to a permanent block.

I see no evidence that anything inappropriate is going on. Bbb23 and Cullen are making the same edits because they agree with the action the other has taken. This is very common and completely acceptable. Suggesting without excellent evidence that other editors are using sockpuppets is not acceptable.

And again, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). You are making Sinebot sad. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I am suggesting is the following: How are TWO different editors- editing different records - different names - different companies, but all have an inter-relation. Meaning ALL the records point back to the top level company DigitalConvergence, and IF you go through and look at the various records, BOTH Bbb23 and Cullen are making deletions to those records - in the same order- in the same log in difference - to completely different records, but BOTH supporting each other? Are you suggesting that two editors editing records universe aparts but relating to different companies is JUST HAPPENSTANCE? The various records are not linked together in wiki, and therefore would have to be looked at independently, and that just happend by accident? Unless you dug into the companies baackgrounds, one would not know the connections, yet these two are making deletions to the same records, in the same manner, and mucking the real record? You are saving thats normal and not weird? Look at the records of edits> DigitalConvergence, CueCat, Net Talk Live! and see no linkes between, but if you reserach the companies, these two make deletions non stop? Come on Danger, this is kinda obvious... Help ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is normal. They are looking at your edits and that is why they are editing both articles. If you'd like to continue on this vein, you can add your "evidence" to the discussion here.

And for pete's sake, sign your posts by adding four tildes to the end. For more information about signing, see here. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Danger. Nice to meet you here. I'm Goldlionist and new here. I am editing an article called the Lucas island model which is a part of the Wiki Education Program for India. I wish to continue with editing Wiki articles in the future but for now am facing a time crunch issue. As you are aware we students don't like to adhere to deadlines particularly. I am unaware of protocol except that I can choose a mentor. Your name sounded cool, so I thought why not just ask you for help straight away. Since you are a science major you would have some idea about going about editing articles based on theoretical models, I presume? Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Goldlionist (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Goldlionist[reply]

Definitely. Looking over your additions, two things stand out. The first is that you need to connect each idea explicitly with a source by using inline citations. I see that you have a few, but definitely make sure to cover all the claims in your writing. See any featured article, like the one one the main page, for an example of what that will look like. Basically every sentence will have at least one citation. (Sometimes two consecutive sentences will come from the same source, but it's a good idea to add a citation to both so that the attribution isn't lost if someone inserts another sentence in between in the future.)

Secondly, you should add internal links to relevant terms in your writing, so that a reader who isn't familiar with the topic can easily find more information. But it looks like you're writing is original (which is a big deal) and you are fairly clear.

Another point is to make sure that your writing is pitched at a level where a reasonably educated person not very familiar with economics can understand it. So perhaps "Robert Lucas eliminated the assumption often made in macroeconomics that people are easily fooled by government policy-makers." (Assuming that that is in the source.) I had to reread that sentence and the next one a couple of times to figure out how they fit together and in the case of econ, I'm an educated layperson. But that's just an example.

Does this all make sense? Let me know if you have any more questions or need anymore help. Danger ^{High voltage!} 20:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for looking at the article in such short notice. I was afraid it would take a while for you to reply considering your profile description! I followed your advice (thank you very much indeed) and simplified the assumptions but since the model is one of great importance in macroeconomics and equally tough to understand (I still don't understand it) I will definitely be keeping you busy. Will keep in touch. :) Goldlionist (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Goldlionist[reply]

Great job on the Assumptions section. I definitely can follow better. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost done with the final bits. Just half an hour to go. One final query.. Could you please elucidate how I can edit the title of the article? It seems when I go to "edit" only the main body can be edited. Thanks, again :) Oh, can I do any final additions (in lieu of coming deadlines) ? I'm extremely sorry for bothering you like this. Your assistance is very much appreciated. You are like a true mentor- person. Tashi Delek! Goldlionist (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Goldlionist[reply]

In order to edit the title of an article you need to move the page (it's a separate software function than editing). There's a tab at the top of the page that should allow you to move it. Take a look at article naming conventions before moving the page. You're probably going to want to move it back to "Lucas island model", but make sure that's what's used in the literature.

And of course you are welcome to make additions and to continue editing Wikipedia after your deadline. (If anyone gives you grief about it, which is possible given the problems with the India Education Program, just let me know and I'll help you sort it out.) Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over biography page for Art Pope

Before studying the guidelnes (lazy man) I posted a question wondering if the person in question was worthy of the designation of philanthropist. My query on the articles talk page was deleted with the motivation that it violated several principles, etc.; while admitting the merit of asking for more examples. All my diatribe was my own opinion, no citations. And I was threatened with blocking, etc.

I admitted my mistakes in a lengthy reply, but my invitation to a discussion of the merits of judgements based solely on citations, resulted in no discussion.

I am writing to you since you helped me in August 2011 and said I could contact you if other help was needed.

Now I have done a brief check using the persons name for a tag search within the domain of Wake County School Board activities, including tumultuous recent elections after transfer of power to the Republicans some two years ago, resulting in major changes in policy.

He has been the subject of or been mentioned significantly in four articles, including references to being the principal person named in an article by the national paper Huffington Post, and also by NPR in a newsprogram.

These articles were published in the News and Observer, N&O, established as one of the two leading newspapers in N.C. since 1899, with a subscription list of over 200,000, I believe,---and the subject of an article here in the Wikipedia.

Quite simply, I don't know how I can use these articles, without violating some principle again. Being a defenseless newbie I don't want to violate any principle out of ignorance and be blocked.

My motivation is my disgust with our system which allows those with money to create illusions about themselves

My personal suspicion is that this biographical article is a promotionally oriented. He is a political figure with prominent power and finances which he uses to start think tanks, etc. My personal opinion or suspicions are irrelevant, but the opinions and judgements made in public newspapers should, in my mind, not be ignored when creating a biography. Fact which are verified through verifiable public reknowned sources. It could be that this newspaper has allowed its political position to bias their reporting. But in which case it is carefully based on facts, and references to items in Huffington Post and NPR programs.

In summary, shall I note this as another example of abuse of our systems, including production of self-aggrandizing biographies (IMHO) in Wikipedia; and simply let it go?

Or shall I raise this issue again with these citations as verifiable sources?

As proof of the sources mentioned, they are enclosed:

QUOTE. News and Observer

Submitted by KeungHui on 11/11/2011 - 09:00

Cash Michaels is speculating on Debra Goldman becoming the new Wake County school board vice chairwoman and lists three actions that he says the new Democratic majority must do.

In this week's issue of The Carolinian, Michaels writes that the new majority must revise the student assignment plan "to ensure that no more high poverty schools are created, and that low performing students have access to high performing schools." He also says the new majority will "also have to prioritize the removal of several acts by the current GOP board."

"First, they must cancel any contract the board has with the conservative Civitas Institute, the right-wing think tank funded by conservative activist Art Pope that was hired to train new Wake School Board members," Michaels writes. "Their services are clearly not needed now." 94 comments .

Huffington Post calls school board election results a repudiation of Art Pope Submitted by KeungHui on 11/09/2011 - 12:28

The Huffington Post is calling the Wake County school board election results a case of how "voters repudiated the Tea Party agenda backed by North Carolina's notorious political boss, Art Pope."

In a piece today for the liberal Huffington Post, Michael Carmichael writes that Democratic election victories across North Carolina were a "landslide." But Carmichael says "the coup de grace took place in Boss Pope's backyard." He writes that the election victory by Kevin Hill is "a major embarrassment" for Pope.

"In the run-off for the controlling seat on the Wake County School Board, progressive Democrat Kevin Hill defeated Pope's Tea Party Republican candidate, Heather Losurdo," Carmichael writes. "Hill stalwartly opposed the Pope-orchestrated re-segregation of Wake County Schools, while Losurdo supported the return to 'neighborhood schools,' a code for the end of cultural, racial and ethnic diversity." 7 comments

7 new comments

.

NPR's Morning Edition on Wake school board elections Submitted by KeungHui on 11/03/2011 - 18:32

The Wake County school board election runoff made today's edition of National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" show.

During the segment, Dave DeWitt of WUNC painted this year's election to the national audience as a d Democratic backlash to Republican businessman Art Pope. He credits Pope with the 2009 school board election results that brought in the new majority, a hotly debated charge over the past two years.

"The chief architect of the 2009 turnaround was a local businessman named Art Pope," DeWitt says. "He spends millions of dollars funding a statewide network of conservative think tanks, election advocacy groups and PACs. '

UNQUOTE

Please advise.

BTW does citation like this violate copyrights? Perhaps I should have only made short extracts, but then context would be lost. Are links preferable in these discussions?