User talk:Dman727/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia from Che Nuevara! 2 SPA 3 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 4 RE: Your revert message to 194.8.192.4 5 RfC 6 "ALFALFA" 7 Thanks 8 Cisco 9 Democratic Underground 10 Buckhead's "Assertions" 11 thougths on a reverstion 12 outsider... 13 havnt seen any discussion to say what was said in that version. 14 sankies 15 Regarding prods to articles created by User:Zach3 3 16 Hi 17 Mary Mapes article 18 Cindy Sheehan page Vandalism 19 Your're edit waring against consensus

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia from Che Nuevara!

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. ShootStraight 03:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed your tag again. You have not posted what changes need to be made, nor have you posted your what your evidence is. I look forward to discuss those items on the DU talk page. Without evidence, or discussion on talk pages about your allegations, it would appear that you are vandalizing the page. Btw, WELCOME to Wiki. I see that you are new and that DU is your VERY FIRST contribution. You are new right?Dman727 03:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. ShootStraight 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just readding the comments that you blanked. Ironic that you blanked my comments then warned me about blanking comments, however since this is your first day on Wiki, I assume that it was an honest mistake. Anyway. Thank you very much for posting your allegations on the talk page. Thats all I wanted. Please understand that posting tags with allegations without evidence can be detrimental to consensus building. Now that you have posted your concerns on the talk page, Im happy to discuss the issue (I posted my thoughts on it) Dman727 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. ShootStraight 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that unsourced information about living people that could possibly remotely be considered negative by anyone can and must be removed by any editors, and that doing so is a specific exception to WP:3rr. JBKramer 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPA

Hi, just a quick questions why'd you SPA User:ck4829 when here shows he has some 283 edits? If you don't mind I'll revert that SPA. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See you've already done it, and commented no harm done anyway ;). Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea I read it wrong. I added it walked away, then something clicked in my head and I realized that I read a wrong page. Went back checked it and found that ck4829 did indeed make quite a few edits..so i rv'ed. thanks for noticing Dman727 19:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. Though the RfA was unsuccessful, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your revert message to 194.8.192.4

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. BenBurch 04:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ben, both you and NBGPWS... er, I mean... FAAFA need to pay attention to the part of the AGF policy that clearly states, "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." The subsequent sentences are applicable, too. Jinxmchue 05:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --NuclearZer0 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "ALFALFA"

On Talk:Democratic Underground, you said, apparently referring to user User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, who goes by the handle "F.A.A.F.A" :

Btw, ALFALFA asked me (and others) to state where I post

This is a personal attack. Stop it right now. Please see WP:NPA if you have any questions.

Atlant 23:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This took me a minute and a couple re-reads to understand what you are referring to. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This is not an attack. I write as I think and since FAAFA is mentally pronounced "fay ah fah" I transcribed it wrong from what I was thinking. I'll fix it before anyones feelings get hurt. Dman727 23:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Evidence presented by dman727

Thanks for posting that. I am sure that certain others who might have found that same info would not have done the same. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Its the right thing to do. I offered up my opinion on you, Dean and Ben and it wouldnt be right for me to withhold that info. Dman727 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cisco

please define "recent history". according to Google Finance, their annual net income and operating income are down from 2005 --Zr2d2 00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats proably true but its not a loss..just less income than the prior year. The edit you made indicated a loss. The only loss they have experienced was in FY 2001. Dman727 01:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Underground

Hey, look at that! We managed to cooperate! I agree it improves flow. Can I convince you to engage in talk on the question of my "censor opposing views" citation?--68.54.18.57 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buckhead's "Assertions"

As I mentioned on the Free Republic discussion page, I will allow you and others some time to discuss matters a little bit more, but unless someone can come up with a fact-based reason not to, some sort of a disclaimer regarding the contents of Buckhead's original post will have be added back. I have no interest in that wiki at all beyond this one issue, and I don't want to get into a revert war. I just want to keep the encyclopedia honest and up-to-date. I'm open to suggestions for a compromise, but it can't be left as is since it's highly misleading, to say the least. -BC aka Callmebc 21:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page. All you need a RS that addresses Buckhead. A general document on the state of word processing in the 70s amounts to WP:OR due to WP:SYN concerns. Dman727 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, no -- your logic is a bit faulty. If person A claims that proportional printing was extremely rare in the 70's, if done at all; but authoritative source B shows that proportional printing was actually a common feature then; then this amounts to a defacto discrediting of person A's claims. There is no logical way to get around this, meaning that WP:OR and WP:SYS have no applicability here. I'll keep any further discussions on the FR discussion page. I'll compromise to some extent, but I really can't let things stand as is. -BC aka Callmebc 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not my logic. Its Wikipedia logic and rules. I think it should be included, but WP:SYN doesn't allow it. This is the last time I'll respond here. Lets discuss the issue in one place..the talk page of the article thanks!. Dman727 21:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thougths on a reverstion

im sorry but saying your reverting it because of the talk page, while there is still an active discussion doesn't seem all that good. please put it backCharred Feathers 08:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I cannot do that. I believe the edits were positive and taken to remove elements contrary to wiki policy (see talk page). Putting back in what I believe to be WP:OR and bias cannot be justified by active discussion imo. See you at the talk page!. Dman727 08:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] outsider...

im not american, so i have none of the o so typical objections to what some would call defaming america. i is only interested in truth.Charred Feathers 08:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand yoour point. Remember though, everyone has biases. Being a non-American does not free you from biases. Yours are just rooted in a non-american culture, while mine are rooted in the culture I hail from. Thats all ok. We're just human beings. Our goal at wiki is to write these articles as free as possible from these biases. Dman727 08:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

seems more and more like that might be an unreachable goal, like the greeks looking for perfection....Charred Feathers 08:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• CF I thought you were from Canada --Rebent
• Also, to say that because you are not an american, you have no problem going against us is illogical. There are many people who are not americans who still benefit from our country, and there are many people who are americans who try to defame it. --Rebent

[edit] havnt seen any discussion to say what was said in that version.

thereafore i removed hte change, cause its not neitral, its more or less trying to softly remove the point of hte article in my eyes.Charred Feathers 07:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sankies

for being nice enough to warn me.Charred Feathers 08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding prods to articles created by User:Zach3 3

Hi!, I replaced the proposed deletion templates with {{db-bio}} because the articles were obviously about non-notable people and should be deleted on sight. See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion for more info. Also, you should consider warning the user to stop vandalizing by using one of these templates here: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Thanks! -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 07:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Is there an e-mail address where you can be reached?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. (see article history). Dman727 04:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just curious, but did you receive an e-mail from Morton Devonshire asking you to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so but I'll check. In any event I've been involved with that article and have it on my watch list, so I knew about the AFD within the first couple 'votes'(I generally wait a bit before adding my comments as I like to see other comments first). Dman727 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and I have no problem with you weighing in about the status of this article obviously, I'm just trying to establish if e-mail canvassing is going on for this AfD (one person has already says it was) as this is a real problem and very much goes against the WP:CANVASS policy regarding votestacking. If you did receive an e-mail about this, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know. Thanks!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Mapes article

It's your right to revert what you think is a silly rant. Thanks for not reverting the latest change, from "disgraced journalist" to "former journalist", and in the book section. Although I am a supporter of Mapes and I believe Bush disregarded his Guard obligations, I believed the article was biased and opened Wikipedia up to a libel suit.

So I take it we can leave the article as is, with the NPOV changes?

"Former journalist" is the better NPOV term. When I looked at the diffs I thought that you (I assume it was you), were actually putting it in as "disgraced journalist" In other words, I looked at the diffs backwards. Once I realized that I had undid what was a better edit, I reverted myself. Dman727 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. We did our good deed for the day, making the article more NPOV. You don't have to run out and help an old lady across the street. Unless you want to, of course - Edward G. Nilges

[edit] Cindy Sheehan page Vandalism

Hello, looks like that user CPRDave has been warned about vandalism on previous occasions. Why wouldnt he be blocked from wikipedia for vandalising the Cindy Sheehan page? That was some serious vandalism he did...my few cents.

I agree he should be. He's been warned a few times. I'm not an admin so I cannot do it though. Dman727 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your're edit waring against consensus

Since you said you didn't see any consensus on talk, I'll point out the section for you: [[1]] As you can see, ALL editors on both sides of the fence agreed for its inclusion, except Tbetty, who didn't provide any good reasons. This section was the end product of all these editors working together, tailored to the various conditions they requested for me to abide by. In addition to this clear talk page consensus, various other editors have supported it in edit summaries, restoring it, once it started to be taken out by the likes of yourself, Mongo, and Tbeatty. Since this section is well sourced, a product of a majority of editors from different POV's, and supported by a majority of editors working on the article, your removing it is unacceptable edit warring, and will be opposed. If you have specific objections to the content, please discuss this on the talk page instead. I'll be happy to discuss any objections you have here or on talk, and if there is a new consensus to remove or making any changes, then we can do so. Until then, you are advised to stop being disruptive to this article.Giovanni33 00:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Giov. I disagree. That section does not belong in the article and there is no consensus that supports it. In fact I think that folks who insist on adding irrevelant cruft are being disruptive. Dman727 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Disruptive: "Anything Giovanni33 disagrees with." Works nicely that way.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Such a silly definition fail to meet necessary and sufficient conditions. To prove the former, one need only point out an instance of distruption that can exist or does exist indepenent of my agreement. I'm sure you can think of an example and thus invalidate this definition. For the latter condition (sufficiency), I can show disagreement about things, where there is no disruption. Thus, it fails as an adequate definition. This is basic philosophy 101. Review your Plato.:)

Now, what does qualify as distruptive editing is to edit against consensus, blanking sourced material that a majority of editors support, and agreed to add in the talk page: a total of 16 editors supporting this section and reverting its blanking, with only ONE editor who stated his disagreement, but failed to offer reasons for his objections that stood up. In fairness, Mongo changed his mind later--after it was added and all the work was done-- but was part of the consensus to add the material discussed on the talk page (which is exactly what I added). For Dan to blank this, is distruptive given this action is against consensus and will just be reverted. Instead, I invite him to discuss his problems with it on the talk page and get a new consensus among editors about changes he wants to see in it. I'll respect consensus on the matter, and I insist on the same from others.Giovanni33 01:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Morton, I'm still waiting for an answer to a question I posed on your talk page. Is there a reason you can't or won't answer it? Or are you thinking of how to answer? Its sure taking you a long time and the question is a rather simple one, I thought.Giovanni33 01:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanny33, what if I were the one who reverted your edit? Consensus is not like minded editors who agree to POV push until the desired result occurs. Consensus is agreeing upon what is best for the project, based upon Wikipedia policy. Many users (and a very few admins) lately do not care about adhering to Wikipedia's rules lately. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also ask you to use the talk page, and reach consensus among editors who all agree to reference WP policies to settle disputes as their guide. This is what is best for the project. Before when I brough up this subject, I did not have consensus, and thus, I did not edit war and try to put it in the talk page. It was only after getting the agreement of the editors of opposing POV's that consensus was acheived, and a compromised version that was acceptable to all editors discussing the topic was agreed to be added. Now, if you, Dan, or someone else has a problem with the section, the solution is to bring it to talk, cite the relevant issues/policies, and forge a new consensus. Is not this the correct thing to do? That is all I'm asking.Giovanni33 02:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to follow your own advice. You ignore consensus constantly and routinely add information that is not consensus and cry "consensus" when it is removed. You are the one edit warring and you should keep that material out of the article until consensus is achieved which it obviously has not. --Tbeatty 02:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not consensus when every editor agreed, except yourself on talk when we were discussing the content? I even held off after consensus was reached for a few more days to allow more time just to make sure. To review, we have Bmedley Sutler, SevenOfDiamonds, Mongo, Merzbow, BMF81, BernardL, Strothra,Seabhcan, Lifarn, Pexise, StoneinTheSky vs. Tbeatty (and you did not provide any valid reasons that were accepted). While you, Dan, and Mongo, have now decided to blank the section, be clear that it is against the consensus that was reached on talk. This disruptive esp. since its being done by you without discussion on talk for any objections you might have, which can be then addressed. I'll add, to make it clear consensus was for this material, that in we have even more ditors who show their support for it by reverting this blanking, inclding the admin John, Lifarn, Jack Merridew, East718, Pexise,SevenOfDiamonds, and myself. That is like 16 or more editors, not even including the ones that accepted it by simply making other edits after it was restored. Do we need a Rfc, about this section, and the best practices for your small handful of editors now blanking it, and not useing the talk page to try to achieve a new consensus? I think this is a very basic issue and you can figure out what it the best way to go aboug addressing any issues you have moving forward.Giovanni33 02:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read the section and I see no consensus to include this obviously irrelevant material. Please take this discussion to the talk page. Dman727 05:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you probably didn't do this on purpose, but when you changed the article to say that I released vulnerabilty details publicly you made a really big accusation, had I done that I would have opened myself up to a large number of new legal problems, not to mention ethical ones. The Fact that i didn't even so mucha as discuss the vulnerability at issue at all is not a POV its a hard fact, my presentation materials are all out on the net, unless you can find a source stating otherwise, please remove any such assertion --Michael Lynn 03:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the offending edit on my own, see talk page Michael Lynn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion of why. I do realize that you probably didn't know the implications you were making with this edit, so I'm not mad or anything, but given that this time of year (when Black Hat is ongoing) i get more attention, and I'd hate for some stupid reporter to throw my name in their story and include false information because of a simple mistake. --Michael Lynn 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you went ahead and fixed it. I just got back and saw your messages. Certainly wasn't trying to cause you any further grief so I do apologize for the misunerstanding. Best of luck and I hope Black Hat went well for you this year. Dman727 09:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)