Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) →Wording Part 2: More. |
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk | contribs) →3RR: new section |
||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
:::Exactly, that's what I've been trying to say by "misrepresentation of facts", but possibly your wording can make it clearer for debaters than mine. My main frustration is with Richard's insistence on proving '''him''' wrong, which is as impossible as believers asking atheists to "prove" god doesn't exist. But I'm not sure where that stands in Wikipedia guidelines, something about which side of facts does the burden of proof lie within...--[[User:Tallard|Tallard]] ([[User talk:Tallard#top|talk]]) 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
:::Exactly, that's what I've been trying to say by "misrepresentation of facts", but possibly your wording can make it clearer for debaters than mine. My main frustration is with Richard's insistence on proving '''him''' wrong, which is as impossible as believers asking atheists to "prove" god doesn't exist. But I'm not sure where that stands in Wikipedia guidelines, something about which side of facts does the burden of proof lie within...--[[User:Tallard|Tallard]] ([[User talk:Tallard#top|talk]]) 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
== 3RR == |
|||
{{3RR}} |
Revision as of 21:02, 3 February 2009
I will be away for a while, if you need to contact me please email
fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Tallard
WikiProject Food and Drink re Lactose Intolerance
Looking forward to your contributions, as you were talking about citing sources on Wikipedia I thought I would give you a link that might help you out Wikipedia:Citing sources. Good luck, and feel free to contact me for any questions you have.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tallard,
thank you for editing "Lactose Intolerance" in such a professional and objective way. To be honest, every time I look at it, there is another version online, sometimes it is completely unbelievable rubbish... I was already thinking about asking for protection for this article, as it is obviously 'edited' very often by dairy lobbyists, who delete any point about cutting dairy out of one's diet, even people with severe lactose intolerance have to 'train to consume dairy again' etc. Could you keep an eye on this page or pass it to any Wiki admin? An article like this should be protected, as it contains very highly discussed subjects...
Best regards
--Reiskeks 21:49, 11 October 2007 (GMT+1).
Dear Tallard,
at least a sort of answer, I think the reversing tool of Wikipedia works good enough, nevertheless I usually save any writings on my HDD (it seemed faster to access for articles which are very often reversed and renewed). I just asked you for watching this particular article, as your contribution was very professional.
I am always having a hard time to cope with 'professional' English, I suppose I should contribute in German, but I left the German Wikipedia after the absolutely unbelievable deletion of dozens of articles about different Linux distributions, which was not even reversed for months, and the only reason for this was "those articles were not relevant" (among others, the major polish Linux distro and PcLinuxOS, the most user friendly, and number 3 or 4 on Distrowatch.com, short after Ubuntu, Suse and Mandriva, were deleted).
That is the reason why I started to watch all the pages, which write about lobbyists deleting and rewriting articles in Wikipedia. I think, as lactose intolerance is such a controversy, and there is so much money involved in this game, there should be any kind of monitoring or some control for the 'Lactose Intolerance' article. Wikipedia is the most accessed and most known Open Source page of the internet, and it one of the 10 most accessed and known pages in generally, alongside with such giants like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. Therefore, I think it has a certain impact on what people think about different subjects, and so, dairy lobbyists may be of course be interested in changing the 'unpleasant' parts of 'Lactose Intolerance' (even if this would harm the health of thousands of people who read the article). I know well that lactose intolerance is not a disease, but some of the symptoms may be very frightening, especially for people who already have poor health (cancer, HIV, Morbus Crohn, Diabetes etc...).
Best regards
--Reiskeks 11:50, 14 October 2007 (GMT+1).
Infobox
Sorry, I don't recall ever seeing the animation you refer to (even if I did, I wouldn't know where to find it). It's easy to get simple image editing software (like Adobe Photoshop or Corel Paint Shop). I doubt this is what you wanted exactly, but I gave it a shot and made this userbox. Just copy the code and paste it along with all your other userboxes.
Code:
<div style="float:{{{float|left}}}; border:{{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}}px solid {{{border-color|blue}}}; margin:1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:{{{info-background|white}}};"
| style="width:45px; height:45px; background:{{{logo-background|white}}}; text-align:center; font-size:{{{logo-size|{{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}}}}pt; color:{{{logo-color|{{{id-fc|black}}}}}};" | '''{{{logo| [[Image:Hurricane Kate (2003)- Good pic.jpg|40px]]}}}'''
| style="font-size:{{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}}pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:{{{info-color|{{{info-fc|blue}}}}}};" | {{{info|<center>This user lives in<br/> '''[[South Florida metropolitan area|<span style="color: #0000FF;">Southeast</span>]]''' '''[[Florida|<span style="color: #0000FF;">Florida</span>]]'''.}}}
|}</div>
--Porsche997SBS 02:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
km² and {{fr icon}}
I'm not quite sure what you mean about km²; could you be a little more specific, please?
Currently there is no difference between {{fr}} and {{fr icon}}, but I'm trying to separate the two templates, so they can behave more like {{de}} and {{de icon}} — {{de}} is a message about the article being based on content from the German Wikipedia and {{de icon}} is the {{languageicon}} call, like {{fr}} and {{fr icon}} currently are; see Template talk:Fr icon#Language icon template refactoring for more details. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism on Yukon
There is no automatically updated page which shows statistics about vandalism, but there is Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. Also, in case of vandalism, you can warn the vandal with the templates listed at WP:WARN. If the vandal persists, you can file a report at WP:AIV. Hopefully, we'll have the FlaggedRevs extension on Wikipedia sometime in future, which will deter vandals. utcursch | talk 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Re:Provinces visited userbox
Hi, thanks for asking! Yes, userboxes are made for public use and anyone can copy them. To use it, add {{User:Reywas92/Userboxes/Provinces Visited|#}} to your userpage wherever you want it. I see that you have already added other Canada boxes, but this one uses a pipe symbol to include custom information. Sorry I'm a little late; I've been on vacation in Arizona. Question: How do you come from Quebec, Yukon, and Newfoundland & Labrador? Happy editing! Reywas92Talk 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yukon Template
All you need is paint an IfanView. I'll go ahead and do it myself if you are still interested. Kc4 00:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: Vandalism
Thanks for catching the vandal on my userpage. I just don't understand them. I wonder if maybe... I am in the middle of a little argument on the lactose intolerance page, where the other user is getting... POed, is it possible they are related? or is vandalism typically a random act?--Tallard 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hello again. No, I don't think the vandalism to your userpage was related to your other Wikipedia activities. The user who did it was warned by me for creating a defamatory article (the usual schoolboy idiocy - insulting their classmates, that sort of thing). I tagged the article they created for deletion and placed a warning on their talk page. In retaliation, the same user blanked my user and talk pages, and apparently yours as well just because your previous message was the only one currently left on my talk page (I archive old posts fairly regularly). Obviously this vandal just wanted to cause more trouble and clicked the only other link in sight. Anyway, the guy is now permanently blocked from editing. I wouldn't take it personally - my user page has been vandalized many times in "retaliation" for handing out warnings. Just don't rise to their bait, and ignore them (WP:DENY them recognition). ~Matticus TC 21:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Tallard. I like your changes to the lead of the Sexual intercourse article, but the reason I had "in its biological sense" and recently added that part back in is due to a 2007 debate I had on the Sexual intercourse talk page called Lesbians have sex too, even if they dont have a penis. As I explained to that editor, the primary definition should go first, but this editor felt that I was not giving a broad definition of the term. Therefore, I eventually expanded the lead to have more scope. I still do not feel that sexual intercourse is every sexual act we can think of, but I added "in its biological sense" as to not give a definitive definition at its beginning. Do you object to this? Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I responded on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tweaked your rewrite only a tiny bit, as explained in my edit summary, but I am really liking the new lead. There's no "kind of" liking it at all on my part. I like our combined edits to make it better. The lead is more professional sounding/looking. It's been really a pleasure working with you, Tallard. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- One more thing, Tallard: Do you feel that fingering/fisting should be moved down to the mutual masturbation part (and put in parentheses there), considering that even the Fingering article says that it is the most common form of mutual masturbation? I mean, where it is now in the lead it gives the impression that it is separate from mutual masturbation. I felt that I would come and ask you about that before tweaking it. I don't mean to be a bother. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the solution, though, (even if we leave fingering/fisting where it is) is to add the word "usually" at the part "Mutual masturbation and non-penetrative sexual contacts are referred to as outercourse." I'm thinking that part should go like this: "Mutual masturbation and non-penetrative sexual contacts are usually referred to as outercourse" as to not have some people think that those acts are never referred to as intercourse; it also keeps the previous paragraph from seeming as much like a contradiction (since it says that intercourse includes fingering/fisting in recent years).
- One more thing, Tallard: Do you feel that fingering/fisting should be moved down to the mutual masturbation part (and put in parentheses there), considering that even the Fingering article says that it is the most common form of mutual masturbation? I mean, where it is now in the lead it gives the impression that it is separate from mutual masturbation. I felt that I would come and ask you about that before tweaking it. I don't mean to be a bother. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tweaked your rewrite only a tiny bit, as explained in my edit summary, but I am really liking the new lead. There's no "kind of" liking it at all on my part. I like our combined edits to make it better. The lead is more professional sounding/looking. It's been really a pleasure working with you, Tallard. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I won't mess with the fingering/fisting part until you weigh in, but I will go ahead and add "usually" to the part I mentioned above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know why I'm telling you again that I replied on my talk page. Surely, you'd check, LOL. But I am telling you I replied again.
- I won't mess with the fingering/fisting part until you weigh in, but I will go ahead and add "usually" to the part I mentioned above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Wording Part 2
How is "Sexual intercourse for most animals other than humans" more appropriate wording, biologically-speaking, than "Sexual intercourse for most non-human animals"?
Plenty of scientists and researchers use the wording "non-human animals." Why? Well, of course, because the other animals are not human. Yes, humans are animals, but we are clearly above the level of non-human ones.
You yourself even said that English is your second language. At least...that's the impression you gave when you said, "I am bilingual and binational in Canada, which makes my cultural sensitivities and awareness a little over the top. Add arrogant Frenchmen into the mix and it makes editing French pages extremely litigious and the same vein as certain brit/american/auz litigations on language use."
Also, are you going to revert everything I do to the Sexual intercourse article that you don't like, without even talking it over with me first and even when it is valid? Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
AfD Removal -- Not I
Hi Tallard. You took me to task on my talk page for removing your request for deletion of the List of animals with hymens article. It was not I. If you check the article's [history page] you will see that my edit of 6 January was as described in the edit summary: Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content ("Slugs"). The page appears to have been vandalized twice between your edit and mine, first removing the various tags, then adding "Slugs". Furthermore, at that point I had never commented on the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia, but had simply tried to keep it clear of vandalism. (BTW, I'll put your talk page on my watchlist, so you are welcome to respond here.) -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Hymen Redundant Section
Hello Tallard. The new Talk:Hymen#Regligious bias NPOV needs fixing section appears to be a continuation of the previous Talk:Hymen#Needs complete rewriting and remove all illustrations (needs real pictures) one. Would you mind if I merge the two sections? (I'm "watching' your talk page, so feel free to respond here.) -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Most of that section focused on the low grade illustration serving as a "normal situation" image per se; and it's long and unweildly, that's why I started a new one. I guess I was hoping this section would focus more on the general tone and scientific neutrality of the article. But I'm not emotionally attached to the discussion's presentation, maybe we should change the other title to reflect image use only...?--Tallard (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that the discussion has become unwieldy, and but as it is now currently running full steam in the new section I am reluctant to merge them. As far as the discussion related to the image use, I see that we have another new section, this one added by RAN for the RFC. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the new RFC section, it is currently lacking your voice. Some of your objections have been quoted, but I know that you are concerned not just about the accuracy of the drawing, but also about the tone it sets, as the lead illustration, for the entire article, and I have not attempted to paraphrase your thoughts in that regard. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I was very interested to see your remark that the image in question was no longer used in the most recent edition of Gray's Anatomy. I tried to look into this myself, but was unable to view any but the very old editions online. What edition and year was this, and were you looking at a hard copy or did you find it on the net? -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I feel your understanding of my understanding of the implications of the article are quit correct. I'm frankly at a loss of proper wording to express what I see as a gross misrepresentation of cited references.
- I am in Whitehorse, the Gray's Anatomy (mid 70s, but I'm confused because I thought it also said said 40th ed which doesn't quite make sense). A four inch thick hard cover book good technical illustrations, not low resolution drawings. I went to the library not knowing for sure I'd find the questioned image. The index page pointed to a single page. That page's entry for hymen was shorter than this paragraph and had no attached figures. The small paragraph merely points out that it's usually completely resorbed by the time of birth and it's developmental pathway. OK, back to the discussion page...--Tallard (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Whitehorse! That is so cool. (I miss snow; I haven't seen a latitude greater than 8 degrees in a couple of years.) Yukon College's library is presumably not up to university standards; that must be frustrating. Regarding my understanding of your understanding, thank you, but I think that I am only now starting to see your concerns. Your remark asking, "Does the phimosis page go on and on about the various shapes and configurations and inconsequential rape examinations" in particular has given me pause for thought. Even if an article was entirely factually accurate (not that this is necessarily the case here) every part could be correct, but as a whole it could be very wrong. Correcting this, and even more so explaining how and why it is wrong, could be quite difficult. Still, the first job is determining the factual errors, which should be easier. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, that's what I've been trying to say by "misrepresentation of facts", but possibly your wording can make it clearer for debaters than mine. My main frustration is with Richard's insistence on proving him wrong, which is as impossible as believers asking atheists to "prove" god doesn't exist. But I'm not sure where that stands in Wikipedia guidelines, something about which side of facts does the burden of proof lie within...--Tallard (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3RR
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.