User talk:Sdedeo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

archive contains earlier material from the talk page; August 2005 -- February 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

archive2 contains earlier material from the talk page; March 2006 -- June 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

archive3 contains earlier material from the talk page; June 2006 -- September 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

archive4 contains earlier material from the talk page; September 2006 -- January 2007. Sdedeo (tips) 23:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please post new comments to the bottom of the talk page; I will almost always respond to comments on this page itself (makes comments easier to find -- I encourage you to do the same) so check back! Sdedeo (tips) 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

After a couple of months contributing to wikipedia in various ways, I've found that it's no longer as much fun as before. I've decided to go on an extended wikibreak, and I wish everyone luck. Sdedeo (tips) 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I'm back, and working on medcabal again. I still have a great deal of faith in the wikipedia project. Sdedeo (tips) 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC) I have gone on another break; please see my user page for more discussion of this issue. Sdedeo (tips) 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) back, occasionally! Sdedeo (tips) 23:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 President Ahmadinejad 2 3RR 3 Mediation Cabal 4 If only... 5 autoblock unblock request 6 WP:COI 7 meta-discussion 8 China article 9 don't understand that sentence (can someone explain or clarify?) 10 Question About Citations 11 Block needed on IP address vandalising your page?

[edit] President Ahmadinejad

Hi and thanks for your works on this pages. The student protest of December 2006 is very important from Iranian people's POV and needs to be covered properly. It is not true that the president welcome the criticisms. He was shocked by an unexpected protest. But later on many of those students have been detained and got stars. A student with three stars can not continue his/her education according to a new policy by Ahmadinejad's government.Sina Kardar 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sina -- thanks! I am not in any way knowledgable about contemporary Iranian society (though I have two Iranian friends here in the States.) Any kind of information (properly sourced, of course) on that incident, or on the situation in general, that you can contribute I'm sure would be fantastic. Very interesting to learn about this "star" system, by the way. Sdedeo (tips) 21:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I'm sure you're already aware, but you're up to three edits at Conflict of interest. Please discuss changes on the talk page instead of revert warring. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Milo, "three edits" is not "three reverts". I have not reverted on this page once, while you, unfortunately, have. Thanks for playing, though. Sdedeo (tips) 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

I deny the existence of the Mediation Cabal. There is no cabal. (Ok, I'm just kidding - I know that there is, in fact, a cabal. I've tried to help out there from time to time, but unfortunately have been too busy at work of late to devote the time required to mediate. Hopefully I'll be able to do more in the future when things slow down. Thanks for your note! --TheOtherBob 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

I think "fascinating" is the word. It actually gives me a lot of faith in the wikiprocess -- most of the mediations have been with good faith editors trying to deal with a noxious troll and needing a little "disinterested" help. Sdedeo (tips) 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If only...

If only I could come to your aid, by hitting Milo H Minderbender over the head with a garden spade, I would. But, alas, that would probably violate some self-contradictory Wikipedia rule. --ElkJaw MusicBoss 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:No spades! But do contribute to the discussion if you wish (and think you can keep your cool!) Sdedeo (tips) 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there lies the rub. I wouldn't be able to keep my cool, and would surely be banned within hours. --ElkJaw MusicBoss 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the above comment as I was not informed of the reasons for its deletion. (Am sure it was done in good faith, of course.) Sdedeo (tips) 04:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Ah, I see -- banned user. Sdedeo (tips) 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] autoblock unblock request

Hi Raul654 -- this is a cafe with wireless in Wicker Park, Chicago. I ran into a similar block from the café next door -- seems like me and Cplot share a neighbourhood. That said, there are tens of thousands of young wikipedians here and a partial unblock of this address would be greatly appreciated. Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted him about it, see User_talk:Raul654#Range_block_collateral_damage. Sandstein 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. This has happened before. Cplot I understand is incredibly persistent and a huge pain, but there is definitely collateral damage going on. The two cafés in question are in the heart of hipster-laptop-facebook-myspace land, and I'm sure I'm not the only one suffering. Sdedeo (tips) 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI

It used to be WP:VANITY. Gazpacho 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No joke! That is instruction creep for sure. Good to know. Sdedeo (tips) 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] meta-discussion

Hey Sdedeo, I thought you brought up some good points on WP:COI:talk, (and I proposed some changes on the talk page there to address them), but I hope you won't be offended if I offer some constructive criticism on how you've handled the discussion so far. While I realize there doesn't seem to be any consensus as yet on how long to wait, my personal feeling is to wait at least a day on lightly-edited articles, several days on more heavily-edited articles, and at least a week on community-wide consensus articles such as policies and guidelines. (Actually, I think I'm going to try to get this approved at WP:CONSENSUS.) By imposing a relatively short response-deadline before you revert the page, you prevent editors with an opinion who may be otherwise occupied with their "real lives" from responding to your comments. I would offer myself up as an example. I didn't get involved in this discussion until several days after it began, but I still have something to contribute. Even if you don't agree with my comments, there might be other editors out there who come along fairly late in the discussion and get everyone on board a new consensus. Anyway, I've really rambled on here, so I'll just stop and let you respond. :) --Aervanath 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's tricky. Milo was a pretty hostile discussion partner, and because he was strongly invested in keeping the article unchanged all he had to do was disappear or refuse to engage in discussion. If you follow the discussion, my first couple attempts went a little like this

1. Hey I have a problem with this article.
2. Anyone?
3. OK, I am editing the article.
4. OK, someone reverted me. Can that person explain?
5. Here is my response.
6. Where did you go?
7. Return to number 3.

On articles where some people are interested only in preserving a favourite version, in other words, "if you leave, I will edit as I see fit" is a good way to keep things moving and I used to propose it as a mediator when an arguing party decided to unilaterally leave the discussion while implicitly demanding that (whatever -- the NPOV template, etc. etc.) stay the same.

Now that others have joined in, the discussion has got going and these kinds of things aren't necessary. Sdedeo (tips) 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be clear -- I never reverted the article. Each time I edited, I tried something new to see if people could live with it. This is a rule to live by (though I don't always.) Sdedeo (tips) 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. It seems like I jumped to a conclusion on this, and I apologize. Seems like I should have posted my above comment on the other guys talk pages, instead. Actually, if you look at WP:Consensus, there is a flow-chart that pretty much mirrors your process above. Unfortunately, it seems like you came out looking like the bad guy on this one, at least initially, although now that we've got a debate going, hopefully people will calm down and we can come to a true consensus.--Aervanath 06:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really worried about looking like a "good" or "bad" guy to be honest -- worrying about what people on the internet think of you is a sure path to madness! Sdedeo (tips) 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Too true!--Aervanath 07:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China article

Actually the problem with the article is that it's a term paper: "Please offer reasons for and against the chances of China becoming a superpower in 5,000 words or less.". I'm trying to explain to Perceval under which conditions an article for the topic can be kept, but I agree it would have to be rewritten from scratch, with actual evidence that this is a topic discussed by academics, think tanks or suchlike. It's pretty interesting. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey T&E -- I just looked over the article pretty quickly. It seems there is a lot of crap, definitely. But as long as the reasons are sourced (i.e., not just the facts, but the fact that the fact is used by someone notable to claim superpower status), it seems OK, no? Sdedeo (tips) 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:OR#SYNTH forbids that pretty explicitly. It kinda silly because it's pretty good stuff, balanced and well-referenced at least (from what I saw, didn't read all of it), and the nomination is off because it makes all kinds of IR-related arguments which don't really play into it. The question is rather, did someone discuss the question in an acceptably academic fashion (think tanks are enough). If yes, it could be made into an article. The individual speculation that's in there needs to go somewhere else though. ~ trialsanderrors 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My reason for voting keep was that I was pretty darn sure that at least someone "discussed the question" of whether China was going to end up a superpower! I mean, I took a class on it actually. It just seems really obvious that it's not SYNTH to have an article centering on different answers to the question. Tacking on an OR tag to the top of the article -- as opposed to deletion -- seems to be the way to go. Sdedeo (tips) 05:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I agree. It was more about steering the discussion in the right direction. Although it TLDR already, so it'll probably go nowhere. ~ trialsanderrors 05:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I bet if you copy-pasted like a chapter of Finnegan's wake there (or into the Socionomics AfD) --

1. nobody would notice.
2. if someone did notice, they would disagree.

Sdedeo (tips) 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth a shot... ~ trialsanderrors 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] don't understand that sentence (can someone explain or clarify?)

I assume the question refers to the sentence in the "older edit" version of the A.C. Clarke Wiki page that you recently revised.

"*Larry Niven criticized the lack of using magic in fantasy settings by stating...." became in your version "*Larry Niven, in discussing fantasy, wrote...."

I agree the phrase "the lack of using magic" is confusing. I believe what was meant (and how I would have reworded the sentence) was "*Larry Niven criticized writers' failure to include magic in fantasy settings...."

IMHO, your edit changed the meaning. In the older version, Niven was criticizing and stating. In the newer version, he is discussing and writing. If it please the court, these are not the same things. —The preceding

David F 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi David -- two problems --

1. there is a dangling participle (who is Larry Niven criticizing for not using magic? The characters?)
2. I'm happy to assume that the quote is accurate, but I think one would need the context to establish that Niven intended his phrase to be in part a criticism. (There's nothing inherently critical in the quote.)

Yours,

Sdedeo (tips) 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question About Citations

You sent me a welcome when I first signed up here. I have a concern about RS citations. Let me know when you are free so I can discuss it with you. I need a neutral opinion. Thanks John196920022001 11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block needed on IP address vandalising your page?

Sdedeo, I bring to your attention the main page and talk page of the page I think you created, Censorware, for action as you see fit. I can take no further action so as not to violate 3RR, but blocks may be needed. And see the history page to see how polite I have been, including providing wiki-friendly guidance, only to be personally attacked due to my user page content. And lest that attack bias you, I am not on any such campaign -- the issue was decided long ago -- I just changed the redirect links now to the actual links as decided long ago. Thank you for looking into this, if you do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi LAEC -- part of the origin of this conflict is probably your user page, which engages in some pretty strident POV advocacy. I suggest a gander at User:Sdedeo/Advice_for_wikipedians. Sdedeo (tips) 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, given this and your experience, I'll likely change my page soon. Thanks. And thanks for the support on the Censorware page that has already been reverted by that IP address again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)