User talk:Dachannien/Archive 2

This page 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.

Fundamental interaction

Just like to point out that gravity can be deemed to be inversely proportional with regards antimatter as the mass is opposite, can I put my comment back in? RMW42 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No, the mass of a particle and its antiparticle are identical. See Antiparticle for more info. Also, while it hasn't been experimentally proven, most physicists favor the hypothesis that antimatter attracts antimatter and matter with the same force that matter does. See Gravitational interaction of antimatter for more info. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Re: "On a side note, it would have saved some trouble for the page protection and near-blanking to be cited explicitly as an OTRS action rather than citing a policy that doesn't by itself justify page protection."

This is often not done, because it can serve as a glaring notice that someone contacted Wikimedia, when usually the person wants even less notice of himself. This is a similar problem with WP:OFFICE where pages that belong as Office actions are not placed with the huge template and listed at WP:OFFICE, etc. because it only serves to bring wider notice or media attention to something that would be better to be quiet. Most administrators know well the protection reasons that indicate certain kinds of problems. —Centrx→talk • 05:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems counterproductive to me. Which one is likely to generate more problems: being straightforward by stating that an article's deletion or protection was an office or OTRS action, or providing no insight into why a page is deleted or protected and allowing conspiracy theorists to have a field day? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 05:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not responsible for the idle speculations of people who are going to idly speculate regardless of what we do. What is productive is that a person contacting the Wikimedia Foundation does not have that advertised publicly, thus exacerbating their problems with Wikipedia. Usually there is no notice or concern about these actions by conspiracy theorists. The only reason people have flocked to this article is because of the associated news event. —Centrx→talk • 15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By "news event", you mean Mr. Crookes filing a lawsuit against several web-based entities, yes? If Wikipedia deems Crookes notable enough to have an article about him in the first place, shouldn't that article mention the lawsuit (properly cited, of course) due to its notability? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is questionable whether he is notable enough to have an article in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 02:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You could always AfD it and find out :) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That would likely cause more problems, and AfD is not some magical determinant of notability. —Centrx→talk • 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Magic doesn't enter into it. I'm talking about policy. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 12:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you don't know what you are talking about. Regardless, if you want to talk about policy, you should see WP:BLP, WP:CSD, and WP:V. —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is easily not a candidate for speedy deletion. The sheer fact that he has sued half the Internet is testament to that. Also, there's one other policy you're conveniently leaving out. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No consensus does not override neutral point of view and verifiability, or BLP for that matter, which are the highest forms of any consensus. Both WP:CSD and WP:BLP specifically say that articles used solely to malign a person should be deleted; both WP:CSD and WP:BLP say that articles for which there are no published third-party sources should be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 22:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But there are published third-party sources in this case, at least one by your own admission (the one about donations to the Green Party). Another source would be any of numerous reputable major news outlets describing the various lawsuits filed, including the suit against Wikipedia. Just because some of the sources in earlier versions of the article weren't verifiable doesn't mean that no source is verifiable and that there is somehow no data available anywhere that meets the requirements of WP:BLP. In fact, it is because there are verifiable sources for some of the content in the version of the article before your reversion that the article not only should remain but also should not be protected. If people add nonreputable sources and unsubstantiated content to the article, then revert those edits. But give the process of consensus a chance to work, instead of making a misguided and unilateral judgment that the article is somehow not salvageable. Earlier versions of the article were rather POV, but the correct answer is to fix the WP:POV and WP:V problems through community consensus, as with any other BLP article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oaks Christian School

hey, just wondering - why are you so interested in oaks christian school? Bhound89 01:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No particular reason. I had randomly reverted some vandalism to it (and a few other random school articles) a long time ago and noticed that most of the edits to it were vandalism, unverifiable original research, or highly POV, so I added it to my watchlist. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

ggmania

it is irrelevant what google deems gameguru.com to be. I myself have visited the site only once, and am not 'affiliated' with it as you seem to think. references to gamespot are already used in the article, and I want a diversity of citations. That is why that citation is there. and it is IRRELEVANT what google thinks about the source - under wikipedia it can stay and should stay.--Paaerduag 11:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Submitted page to RFC for resolution. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 12:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE READ!

COULD YOU REMOVE THE DELETION TAG FROM Power of 10 Ratings, IT HAS BEEN CHANGED QUITE A BIT. THANKS --Yankeesrj12 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

15 Most Wanted list of prominent fugitives

In the 15 Most Wanted List section, it looked like the article would at one point contain numerous names of prominent and/or infamous fugitives. However, for well over a year, it's contained only one name. I'll remove the "list of name" in a few days if nobody objects, for two reasons: one, most of the data presented with the name is off-topic, since it has to do with the fugitive himself (for whom there is already an article) and not the USMS; and two, the decision of which people from the list to include and which not to would undoubtedly become POV, if it isn't already. It should suffice that we already link to the USMS list. -- Dachannien 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right, so while having no intention of tromping on your toes, I went ahead and deleted it. Hope you don't mind. -- Davidkevin 01:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AIV reports

I think the people you've been reporting at WP:AIV have been hopping around multiple IP addresses (and maybe even multiple service providers) to vandalize various articles. I don't think blocking the individual addresses would help, and a range block would have a lot of collateral damage. The best thing to do would be to request page protection at WP:RFPP for the pages that are being vandalized. If they register accounts, like Jewpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which I just blocked), those accounts can be blocked from WP:AIV, but trying to catch IPs hopping around is going to be rather tough. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. I'll switch tactics then. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Alot of the articles have already been protected and I've done a couple of them, scan through all the ones you know, have a look in their histories if it hasn't been protected list it here and I'll protect them here and now. ^Khukri 17:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Kurgan hypothesis (and its talk page) is the only one left. Thanks much! --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Kurgan hypothesis is protected. I haven't seen any vandalism to Kurgan hypothesis, but if it starts there, one of us can take care of it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that must be which one it was. Thanks again! --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fellow has been very instructive in a few other ones that he edited when he started his jaunty escapade but never revisited. I've added them to WP:RFPP. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I've only semi-protected History of Athens for 1 week since there was more vandalistic activities there, but the others didn't have enough activity to justify protection and the two IPs have been blocked.--JForget 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed most of this vandalism war - the guy used well over a dozen IPs and registered three accounts. I'm sure if I reverted the vandalism on those other articles right away, the guy would produce enough activity to justify semi-protection. Thanks anyway. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Elkman had already protected some other articles that were not sent to RFPP, I've only mentionned about the articles that were sent to RFPP after Elkman protected some other articles. On the articles sent for a RFPP and that I have responded, I have only seen two IP's that were blocked (including one by myself) and JewPedia who has been banned from editing indefinitely so this is why I've put a user blocked mentionned on most articles because most of them one have seem one or two vandalistic edits which does not justify immediately the semi-protection. --JForget 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a message at WP:AN/I regarding the vandalism you've been fighting today. I think your hunch is right -- someone is following Dbachmann (talk · contribs) around and reverting his edits for some reason. If you have anything you can add to that discussion, it could be helpful. Thanks for helping out with these vandals. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for continuing to report to AIV under whilst under pressure from many IP's. Good work, keep it up & Illegitimi non carborundum. ^Khukri 07:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for taking care of this. In the rare cases where I vandal is both (a) switching through many IP ranges and (b) not focussing on a particular article, there is nothing for it but banning individual IPs as they come in. Since these are open proxies, it doesn't do much harm to permaban them. We can rangeblock the vandal's "home range" to force them to use open proxies, but after that, we'll just have to consider them external collaborators that help us spot open proxies that should be blocked :) dab (𒁳) 07:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Please, read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines and do not falsely accuse me or anyone else of vandalism again. Thanks! --217.87.98.171 03:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, instead of controlling me, you might rather have a look at such unreasonable reverts as this one [1]. This isn't even the first time, the same user reverted perfectly fine edits by me. Thank you very much. --217.87.98.171 04:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And those are not "perfectly fine edits". K, B, and G are not used, its KB, MB, and GB as stated. --Marty Goldberg 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the complete sentence. I've also added a more detailed explanation here: Talk:Binary_prefix#About_prefixes_and_units. --217.87.98.171 04:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And once again, that's missreading the si prefix article. Specifically, its talking about the K, B, and G prefix added to the unit (bit, byte, etc.). It is not stating to use K, B, and G alone. The traditional useage is KB (or kB), MB, and GB. --Marty Goldberg 04:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't need to read SI prefix because I learnt that long ago in school. Anyway, the sentence in question reads "the decimal meanings of KB, MB, and GB are often referred to as SI prefixes." So the decimal meaning of KB is referred to as SI prefix? I'll explain it again. The prefix in this case is K. KB is the unit, B for byte is the base unit and K is the prefix to this unit. "pre" means before. Any further questions? --217.87.98.171 05:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate place to have an evangelical discussion that I've only barely been involved with. Please take it elsewhere, such as your own user talk page or that of the relevant article(s). Thanks. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 06:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Although this concerns an article which you consider to contain "evangelic" content, this is actually about plain English. I've even linked to prefix and such over here so that anyone not familiar with such terms could look about their meanings with little effort. This specific edit has nothing to do with the war on kibibytes. Well, I had hoped you're a neutral party but while you're not as hostile as the other two, I was wrong. --217.87.98.171 07:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Registration mark (®)

I have a polite disagreement with you over the use of the Registration mark.

As we discussed in Talk:Zolpidem#Registration_mark_.28.C2.AE.29, all the standard medical and scientific style sheets of which I'm aware, including the AMA Style Sheet, MLA Style Sheet, Chicago Manual of Style, etc., tell you not to use the registration mark, and all the medical books and journals on my bookshelf don't use it -- except in the package inserts in the ads, and in press releases from the manufacturers.

I went through this once before in a newsletter I was editing, where we had a legal department to advise us.

The only purpose of a registration mark is for the owner of the mark to use it to indicate that it's a registered mark. Using the mark makes it easier for the owner to protect it in court against infringers. The only people who use the registered mark in their copy are working for the trademark holder. There's no purpose for anyone else to use it.

The standard way to distinguish generic names from trade names of drugs is to use the generic first in lower case, and to follow it with the trade name in initial caps (since it's a proper noun), like this: "doxorubicin (Adriamycin)".

Do you have any objection to using that? Nbauman 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. It was Boghog2 who inserted the registered marks and you deleted them, as I did. We agree with each other. Never mind. I'll take it up with Boghog2. Nbauman 00:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Letter

Dear Dachannien,

Saw your message in the talk page of this ip address. Actually this(59.93.7.94) is a Dynamic IP address located at Angamali,Kerala,India. The service provider is BSNL(National Internet Backbone) As this is a dynamic IP address, every time the users are different. So that edit must have been made by some one who was logged in with this dynamic ip at that time. I am a regular wikipedia user and i happened to see your message just before i was logging into my account. So i felt it would be rude if i don't post a reply. So just clarifying. Many thanks for your message. Keep up the Good Work. Regards, Dr Binoj Mathew 59.93.7.94 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw This is my wikipedia id BGM^{Talk | Work} 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians

I doubt it. My edits are generally restricted to copy editing the article, trimming extraneous crap and adding meaningful information. Montco (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RE User:Nathann sc

I've looked at his contributions, and you're right that many of them seem superfluous or odd, but they don't seem to be vandalism, and some are fairly OK (like this edit). As far as I can tell, he's a user who doesn't really understand Wikipedia but is trying to help. I could, of course, be wrong, but I'd rather assume good faith and be wrong than jump to the conclusion that he's acting in bad faith. Walton^One 13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Danish Mafia

The creator of the article only has the right to add the hangon template if the article is not patent nonsense/vandalism --Reklamedame (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Wikipedia is not the place for anyone to create nonsense articles, and then add the hangon template. It does not contribute positively to the project, and may inspire other vandals to do the same. --Reklamedame (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so why put the hangon template in the first place if it wouldn't change the admin's decision? Hangon templates are for articles that have merits. --Reklamedame (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

off-topic edit

Sorry. I mean no harm. I need lessons. Do not mean to be a problem. thought it was adding info. Sorry again. I read the write-ups and do not understand, really, what is off topic or disruptive, when all I want to do is to help. If you can give lessons on what is good and right, it would be good. Wish wiki people be kinder to new editor like me, instead of calling me names that make me sad. AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. try only to help. Pls be nice to me and everyone. Thanks much AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand. CM (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the notice - I happened to come across that RFCU a couple days ago, and I'm glad someone looked into it. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 01:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

I've reverted your restoring of very problematic to Talk:Muhammad - the atmosphere there is poisoned and a lot of off-topic posts, baiting, trolling and the like need to just be forgotten about. Wily D 19:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD

If you wish, I could do as I did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LTTE and Maoist Relations and close the current AfD to relist it with semi-protection so that it's easier to determine a consensus. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nazi eugenics

		The Original Barnstar
		You are awarded this barnstar for monitoring and reverting inappropriate changes to the Nazi eugenics article Chessy999 (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)