Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
A great many other editors have recently felt similarly about Dicklyon's behavior. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Persistent_incivility_by_user:Dicklyon here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Removal_of_content_by__user:Dicklyon here]. [[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 18:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
A great many other editors have recently felt similarly about Dicklyon's behavior. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Persistent_incivility_by_user:Dicklyon here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Removal_of_content_by__user:Dicklyon here]. [[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 18:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:You guys are nuts. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 04:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
:You guys are nuts. On the SA talk page, I was responding to the conversation where his bud Phaedrus7 started it; he needed to be reminded of what had happened. And then James Cantor is doing here what Hipocrite gives me a hard time for doing there. How is any of this hassling me going to help? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon#top|talk]]) 04:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:22, 1 February 2009
Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~
![]() |
The Photographer's Barnstar | |
To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
File:Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png | All Around Amazing Barnstar | |
For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
SA
On the page we all know and love with SA, my last comment might conseivably have edged into snarkiness ... then again, it might be him. (per blogs as sources). Collect (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have to fight the tendency to descend into snarkiness myself sometimes; don't let us get you down. 00:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Scanned Images of text?
Hello, I noticed that you have a bunch of scanned images of text that you put into articles. Wouldn't it be better to have the text as normal text for the images that are just text? If that page includes a graph, like File:H&D curve.png why not have just the graph as the image and the rest of the text be text in the article if it is helpful. An image of text would be an issue for people that have disabilities, since you can't resize that as easily, nor can a screen reader work with it, along with making the article a bigger download. It also makes formatting the article harder, and causes issues on smaller browser windows.
I am not saying that pictures aren't helpful, since I too upload many pictures and add them to articles. I am just wondering why text should be in an image instead of a more compact and easier to use representation, at least in the articles here on Wikipedia. Hustvedt (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes I like the look of old book pages; it makes the historical aspect of the material more tangible to the viewer. If there are some that you think would be better off converted to quotes, we can talk about those. Dicklyon (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, being able to say Cassell's Cyclopedia of Photography in 1911 had an article about diaphragm shutters certainly is interesting, and does give an idea of how old a topic is. However, I think it clutters up the articles with mostly redundant stuff. What about just having links to the pictures on commons, since the images really can't be made smaller? Hustvedt (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking for a device with a smaller screen, but they can use mobile.wikipedia.org which takes care of that. I guess if you feel that the historical context is enough to warrant including the scan of the book, then I will not interfere. Certainly if there is a graph or diagram that can be helpful. So, I guess never mind, and thanks for replying. Hustvedt (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I must ask you to stop deleting content by making the article wood wool a redirect again. This is not how wikipedia works. Allow time for other people to see the two articles and comment on the proposal. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- No. I won't stop stopping you from making a ridiculous content fork. You can make a split proposal on the talk page of the article you want to split; feel free to call for a third opinion or whatever. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that deleting content is not according to the way wikipedia works.--FocalPoint (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me also note here what is that which you are calling "a ridiculous content fork": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&oldid=266002509 --FocalPoint (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
If you think that this works:
January 2009
Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as excelsior (wood wool). Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. There is a proposal for a discussion in : Talk:Excelsior_(wood_wool)#Proposal for merging. You are welcome to present any arguments there. You are warned against removal of content by making articles into redirects:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=262335435&oldid=262334671
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=264956655&oldid=264936715
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=266005255&oldid=266002509
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=next&oldid=266079819
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=266149808&oldid=266141240
--FocalPoint (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
A Guide to the Good Life
Please delete the Stoic article of mine ~~~~
- You know, if you don't put the "nowiki" around the tildes, you'll get a signature. And I'm not an admin, so I can't delete your article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Wersin
Hi, do you know where can I get reliable information about Wersin's work on dynamic rectangles?? My guess is that he followed the line of Hambidge and Ghyka and went a bit further. I checked a bit of his works as architect and designer and his curriculum and I think it makes him pretty reliable as an author.
By the way, I have full pdf's of Hambidge, Ghyka and Livio. If you're interested, I can trade or just send them to you. --20-dude (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure Wersin is fine, though technical German as Valrie says, and hard to find (or expensive here). I have Ghyka, Livio, and Hambidge (Greek Vase) real books. Do you have The Elements of Dynamic Symmetry by Hambidge? Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, just the Greek Vase. How come you're so interested in this stuff? I ask because I find very interesting how people of different professions can find the topic of mathematical proportion useful or appealing. I my case, my interest comes from two angles, I'm an architect and I'm also finishing a thesis, which I’ll try to publish.--20-dude (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, if you have access to German translators, these images will be available at least for a little while. Sorry to tie up your page--not certain how to make them accessible otherwise.:
Sorry about the space! I'm continuing to research Wersin's book and have located some potential resources (tectonic forms and architecture). Your assistance is much appreciated.Valriejensen1 (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the images; I might have kept a copy of a few, but it is really inappropriate to use wikipedia this way. If you want to send me something, use the email feature, and I'll send you back my email address (or you can easily find it by searching). I can read a bit of German, so I'll give a look. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your patience. Translations of the material would be invaluable.Valriejensen1 (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete my discussion of Moore's Law not being a Law?
Why did you delete it? It was a perfectly valid argument. Also - even if I was wrong, then why didn't you leave it up to be talked about?
Jchrom3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchrom3 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- It looked more like a personal rant than an opinion on article content. The article is on what is called Moore's law. How can an opinion that it shouldn't be called that be relevant? But if you can phrase as being about the article, feel free to try again. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly, the way that I phrased my section was exaggerated. However, I still believe it to be relevant to the article. The article is about Moore's Law, yes. If Moore's Law is a misnomer wouldn't you say that that is relevant? I wasn't offering an opinion but an argument that was backed up by a reference to another Wikipedia entry. I put it into the discussion section because I wanted other peoples input. If my argument is incorrect, then I still believe that it has value because other people may have confusion. I am really interested in seeing what other people say. So if I clean up my argument please don't take it down. You can disagree with the content of what I am saying, but I think that our discussion of it still has value and has a rightful place in the discussion section. My tilde key doesn't work so I have to sign my name by spelling it out - Jchrom3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchrom3 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk it out
I think part of the problem may be Wikipedia communication styles with the disjointed discussion and the inability to respond directly. Do you want to try talking about this problem directly? Perhaps over some chat function or skype? I think we can get to a consensus if we just discuss the issues. I may be wrong, but that's my guess. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think my position versus yours is clear already. Although I'm a scientist/engineer/mathematician, I don't believe that articles on topics outside the scientific mainstream need to be debunked. A topic should be presented on its own terms, followed by a description of how and why the mainstream rejects it, but the mainstream view should not have dominant play in a non-mainstream article. No need to spoon-feed the reader with the anointed answer; let them read and believe what they want. This goes for the alternative medicine articles, too. I think you and QuackGuru do wikipedia and its readers a big disservice by trying to be the arbiters of what people should be told or what they should be allowed to believe. On the Eric Lerner article in particular, I think you attack him and his views way too strongly, especially in light of your position within the camp that he criticizes for its closed-mindedness. I don't buy his steady-state and thermo arguments, but the stuff about electromagnetic forces in the plasma of space dominating gravitational forces is totally plausible; it may be totally wrong, too, but it's all worth hearing about. The way you pile on the abuse in his article in shameful, in my opinion; you've been blocked for such things many times, yet you seem to get away with it routinely, as is certain people in high places want you to continue; it's unbelievable to me that they buy your complaints that I'm the one misbehaving in these disputes, when I'm the only one standing up to you. If you can accept where I'm coming from and want to chat about it, I can send you my phone number and you can call me sometime; start with email. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe that Wikipedia itself should ever provide a novel "debunking". I'm not sure where that myth got started. Your mistaken belief about the "plausability" of his arguments notwithstanding, the point is that "piling on" is manifestly NOT a policy/guideline that has any parallel at Wikiepdia except for an inappropriate twisting of WP:WEIGHT made to accommodate minority opinions -- a usage that has been roundly rejected by consensus more times than I care to name. We do not adopt "sympathetic points of view" or "in universe" treatments of nonsense for a reason. I've never been blocked for such claims of "piling on" in content disputes, though many have made them against me. I know exactly where you are coming from, but I'm going to consult with others as to whether it may or may not be appropriate to discuss with you these issues directly. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about "novel" debunkings, but an over-emphasis on debunking, like your paragraph aside attacking Lerner's premises before describing what his book is about. As to your assertions about "in universe" treatments, I'm pretty sure the preponderance of evidence says you're wrong on that, but that's not the issue here anyway. The issue is that novel and unorthodox ideas will not be fairly presented if the articles on them give the established viewpoints proportional weight. The weighting that is fair is one that recognizes the mainstream and reports its reaction, but does not use that to effectively censor the ideas and not allow them to be presented. Of course, Lerner's ideas will have litle weight, or no mention at all, in articles on mainstream cosmology; but they must be given adequate weight in an article about him and about his book. To do otherwise, is, I believe, censorship, of the type that you're always lobbying to make into official policy; fortunately, it's not working so far. Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- We aren't going to convince each other that either one of us has the finger on the pulse of what is or isn't current "best practices" or "consensus wiki-philosophy" on how to deal with fringe subjects in their own articles. I can point to WP:FRINGE which I have worked a lot on and which, in my reading, supports my particular spin over yours, but no matter. All will be clear in due time. However, as the article currently stands I have no objections. Not sure if the same can be said for you, but it would be nice to move on. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Only the Greek Vase
- Nope, [I don't have the Elements of D. S] just the Greek Vase. How come you're so interested in this stuff? I ask because I find very interesting how people of different professions can find the topic of mathematical proportion useful or appealing. I my case, my interest comes from two angles, I'm an architect and I'm also finishing a thesis, which I’ll try to publish.--20-dude (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Huh. So, you bought all those books just for that?? (I'm guessing the answer to this question is both the one I was originally looking for and the reason of my curiosity)
- Also, thanks for that, I wouldn't like a Wikipedia mede out of fanciful interpretations either, even if those were my own. --20-dude (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
ANI
Hello, Dicklyon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — James Cantor (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Dicklyon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of content by user:Dicklyon) Thank you.--FocalPoint (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Please see the above link regarding the mediator for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Not gonna be much chat in the merge discussion
Since, so far we're the only editors of both articles and the only contributors to their talk pages (... that's unless you consider certain can of worms I rather keep closed), so I thik its safe to say that if you do the merge, nobody will notice.--20-dude (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can go ahead if you like, too. Or I might get to it eventually. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
[Transistor channel]
I created this page for the purpose to collect various information about channels, not available in wikipedia. I started from a simplistic definition (I belieive there is no good one in wikipedia pages either) I believe not very wrong. But I may be mistaken. - 7-bubёn >t 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: En dash
Maybe the folks who are creating such "policies" should take a second look at the problems they are causing, and how they differ from common typographic practice. —QuicksilverT @ 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you can explain what problems and what typographic practice you mean. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Ambiguity
Re your post responding to Phaedrus7's "David Talbott" section on ScienceApologist's talk page.
"If SA would back off and respect NPOV, then Davesmith might back off, too. We had the bio in decent shape for a while, I thought, then he came in and started trashing it"
I don't take any objection to the post Dick, but the ambiguity of the "he" could leave people thinking I was the trasher, especially if they did not follow your link to SA's edits. Any chance you could replace the "he" with "SA"? Either way feel free to delete this post if you don't want it snotting up your talk page. Thanks. Davesmith au (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Davesmith au (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Civility
You should consider this the last warning on civility you will get from me - this is poor behavior. I have warned you before about poisoning the well ("who feels he has a license to add unsourced bad stuff to bios of people with pseudoscientific ideas.").If you cannot assume good faith of other editors, the solution is not to assault their motives, it's to engage in dispute resolution (like this). Dispute resolution does not include showing up on their talk page while they are taking an extended wikibreak and engaging in dialogue with other third party editors.
If this behavior continues, I will seek administrative correction. I suggest you either waive the 2-certifier requirement for a user-conduct RFC or voluntarily put yourself on civility patrol, and permit any uninvolved admin to ban you from any page which you disrupt with incivility for a short period, and see if the broader community sanctions the particulars of your behavior in these cases.
I would additionally welcome the retraction of your linked comment. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
A great many other editors have recently felt similarly about Dicklyon's behavior. See here and here. — James Cantor (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- You guys are nuts. On the SA talk page, I was responding to the conversation where his bud Phaedrus7 started it; he needed to be reminded of what had happened. And then James Cantor is doing here what Hipocrite gives me a hard time for doing there. How is any of this hassling me going to help? Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)