User talk:Bentheadvocate/archive 1

First Message Ever Received[edit]

Hello Bentheadvocate, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Jhn* 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Quebec[edit]

Except the revision I'm putting it at has a consensus among editors, unlike yours. The person changing from consensus has to prove their point. The onus is on you, not us. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of your edits at Corporate branding has been mentioned at WP:COIN[edit]

Hello Bentheadvocate. Please join the discussion at WP:COIN#User:Majken schultz. One of the problems is: how can we verify that any factual claims referenced to an unpublished book are actually in the book? (A statement from the previous edition might no longer be there). EdJohnston (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy article probation notification[edit]

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. You are being informed of this due to your edit here: [1] --DrEightyEight (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment[edit]

I appreciate what you said. —Whig (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanti Mardia[edit]

I removed "A game-server on Global MapleStory was named after him, according to TheMagnolia of Sleepywood.net." again in the Kanti Mardia article. This sentence is rather unintelligible: why was it named after him (Mardia is a statistician!), and why is this relevant? Also, the reference is completely obscure ("TheMagnolia of Sleepywood.net"?). If you think there is indeed a good story here that needs to go in the article, take it to the article's dicussion page, so we can reach consensus. Thanks! Tomixdf (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you were right, a quick search of sleepywood.net shows no mention of Kanti at all. BE TA 13:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "observations"[edit]

Please see my comment to your message to El_C here. What you have said is wrong and irresponsible, and should be deleted or struck out the minute you see this. ←Gee♥Alice 10:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Notes[edit]

Hi Beta:

You posted the following on the AN/I page:

I have a shitload of pills", suicide notes almost never contain references to the intended life-ending method.

Suicide notes are almost always written to a specific person.

This message does not contain a rationalization, a reason why this person feels it is ok to end their life.

The note is too short. (The reason why someone writes a suicide note is to basically talk themselves into it. Sometimes a suicide note can can reach 5-10 pages long)

Contrary to popular belief, suicide notes are usually written with a calm, purposeful hand. The disparity between the style of writing at the beginning and at the end is frankly not believable.

LCompare this: "i have to i am nothing anymore" with this: "Tell Shonna I Love Her", the sudden capitalization of "I" does not fit. :Also, the writing style is more likely get worse as the person writes, than to get better.

The final nail in the coffin, pardon the expression, is this: "I'm", first of all, this is too casual in context with the rest of the sentence. And second of all, contractions are a sign that the person is lying. It is one of the only signs of lying in written prose.

Can you tell me where I can find the information that you provided about suidcide notes, and about the fact that contractions denote that a writer is lying? This is all very interesting, but very new to me. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beta: You seem to have archived the beginning of this discussion already, so I have started a new section here.

You wrote the following on my talk page:

"Statements containing contractions are usually more likely to be true, however, in this particular context the statement is more likely to be false with a contraction, because it trivializes an otherwise very serious sentence. --BETA 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bielle}"

I have never heard or read anything to confirm either that statements containing contractions are "more likely to be true" or that using a contraction "trivializes" an otherwise serious statement. I'd like to read up on this subject. Could you provide me with some texts on this matter? Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. It was interesting reading, although I could not find either the name of the author or any reference to contractions as "trivializers". The note about using contractions to denote truth was there, although the whole article was devoted to speech, which is quite different from writing. The Final Note was also important: "Obviously, just because someone exhibits one or more of these signs does not make them a liar. The above behaviors should be compared to a persons base (normal) behavior whenever possible." As we don't have any behaviour (only some writing) "normal" or otherwise, to compare, I think it unwise at best and dangerous at worst, to draw conclusions about whether or not the author is serious from this information. As for "taking pot-shots", there is nothing hidden about my comments. I ask for sources because the kind of comments you were making should have some authority behind them; a person's life may be at stake, and you are making claims that are not general knowledge. (I have copied some of these comments to my talk page in order to have a coherent record.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't tell me that you copied the same comment that you placed on my talk page to the noticeboard. That was an archived discussion and I explicitly said "no further comments, please." So, please, that means no new threads with analyses; that's exactly what I asked people not to do. And, further, the title containing the word "update" was misleading as there was no actual update, it was just you analyzing the note. Please exercise greater discretion in the future, by not reading such archived instructions as optional. Thx. El_C 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Suicide[edit]

On my talk page you asked what your post meant to me, why I was so antagonized, and the best question, "what effect would [your] post have?". For this last question: The effect could have been dire, and giving out wrong information for others to follow is irresponsible in a life-altering way. As to the others; I work with mentally ill patients and know of two successful suicides and many attempts. You were wrong on all points, with the exception of calling the authorities. My main point being, is one should never play doctor on the interent period especially on some arbitrary hints regarding some stranger's writing style. I don't care if the person was lying or not. This sets a poor precedent. I won't go into more detailed explanations why this is wrong and how I could rebuff any other points on your list, other than the "six" you gave. I only ask you not to play with others' lives like that, and do not analyze a situation where you are not qualified and post it for others to follow. I agree with what Bielle and El C said above. Thank you for considering this for the future. ←Gee♥Alice 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use vs. free images in userspace[edit]

Fair use images must have a rationale for each use - if you can't (and you can't) justify a fair use rationale for the use of these images in your userspace, then they cannot be there. Free images only in userspace, in other words. The fact that the logo came in a box to your house doesn't mean you own the copyright or the company gave up copyright claim. ^Avruchtalk 19:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben[edit]

Did you use to edit under the name Magnonimous? PouponOnToast (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a focus on the same article he was solely focused on, your account was created the day after he was blocked, and you have a number of the same typographical "tics." Did you previously edit under that name or not? PouponOnToast (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messages[edit]

BE TA BE TA BE TA
BE TA BE TA BE TA
BE TA BE TA BE TA 03:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)BE TA 05:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BE TA

Suicide Note[edit]

I feel that I have done nothing wrong on this issue. I appreciate the feedback, but my mind has not been changed. As far as I'm concerned, this issue is closed.

Warning: due to the subject closure as stated above, any new messages on this issue may be deleted outright, will not garner a response, and may not be archived.

Thank You. --- BE TA 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead of Book of Genesis[edit]

This seems like a small matter of semantics, but I was wondering why you objected to the use of the word "mythological" in the intro to the article. That's how it was originally, and it's really not much different than "theoretical". In fact, the term myth actually fits this to a tee. A myth isn't necessarily incorrect. It's simply a story regarding the origins of the world. Only in popular culture has it come to mean something that's not factual in any way. I'll wait for your response before taking any action. --clpo13_(talk) 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits being challenged[edit]

Recent edits to the article Woodrow Wilson are being challenged because they lack specific references to a reliable source. Please comment at Talk:Woodrow Wilson and establish consensus there BEFORE re-adding the edits. If there are sources for the information you are trying to add, please provide them on the talk page so that other editors may examine them for their reliability. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you[edit]

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I just want a bit of clarification on this statement, if you don't mind. I believe that SirFozzie should take a chill pill. This has gotten very out of hand. [2]

Just wondering what it was that you've seen me do that would indicate that I need to chill out? While I've been admittedly frosty towards Mantanmoreland due to past times the two of us have butted heads, but I don't think I've done anything to deserve that comment. But if I've been over the top, please let me know exactly, so I can correct it. SirFozzie (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austria at the Time of National Socialism[edit]

I read your message to Barbara Shack on the article about Austria at the time of national socialism, and that you asked for reference. The point is that she and I are working on the translation from German into English, If you could explain to me how we should provide reference in such a case that would be great! anyway as translating as such takes up already a lot of time and if you look at the German article we are far from done, I am sure neither I nor her had really time to provide reference so far. --VeronikaMM (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - inappropriate edit.[edit]

This ~~was wholy uncalled for. Do not repeat such conduct.~~ PouponOnToast (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User now defunct.

Wikipedia is a project under construction[edit]

Don't remove "red links" for the sole reason that an article does not currently exist. Only do so if you can make an informed determination that it is a subject for which Wikipedia should never have an article and if the article existed it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not complete; it is an ongoing project. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing for you[edit]

Is this a comment from you via an ip? --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest, I wish the world could have been blessed with two of me, but sadly 'tis I who has been editing via IP. BE TA 18:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding common ground[edit]

"Its good that you removed the patently obvious advertising links in Samatha. Thank you."

Thanks. I hope that you won't mind my ignoring your further comments for the time being. If you're choosing to ignore some of mine, could you please let me know so we move forward in understanding each others' perspectives? --Ronz (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Record Of "further Comments" From Myself to Editor Ronz[edit]

Its good that you removed the patently obvious advertising links in Samatha. Thank you. However, your manner of defending disputed deletions concerns me, as it may lead to more disputes in your editing future. Remember, WP:CON says "Consensus discussion has a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." Simply pointing to a particular policy page does not indicate your reasoning behind an action, or a proposed action. It may well be that you have a justifiable reason for removing something but other editors can't know that if you don't let them know what that reason is. So no more hap-hazardly sending people to policy pages. Tell them why. Especially when removing something, because wikipedia is designed to be a constantly growing reservoir of knowledge, so it is essential that removal of material is accompanied by good reasoning and consensus based decisions. Thank you. :o) BETA 03:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FOC, WP:BATTLE, and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY.

I'm not interested in persuading anyone of anything. I'm happy to discuss how policies/guidelines apply to content and content disputes. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

Hi, Just a quick note to make sure you are aware of WP:3RR. Mt king ^(edits) 11:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment removed) --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again!! This note is redundant, it is clearly stated above by Mtking that I should be aware of 3RR. Thank you for your concern. BE TA 02:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]