• Archived talk page comments: /Archive

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

"Wikipedia does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if NLP's claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both NLP's claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Wikipedia is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Wikipedia's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." user:Jdavidb [3]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, FT2! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you downloaded 1.2.1, not 1.2? The link to download 1.2.1 is here. Prodego ^talk 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a while, I forgot to change my status. You need to enable cookies in IE (set then to medium), and make sure you are using an admin account on your computer. Prodego ^talk 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (11 Nov 2004)
• Animal marriage (07 Jun 2006)
• Cultural and historical background of Jesus (02 Jun 2006)
• Empathy (30 Dec 2005)
• Hypoadrenia (22 Oct 2005)
• Judaism and Christianity (11 Oct 2005)
• Labrador Retriever (03 Jun 2006)
• Movement to impeach George W. Bush (14 Apr 2006)
• Mysticism (04 Feb 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (29 Oct 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (04 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (05 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (07 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (12 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (13 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (27 Nov 2005)
• -phil- (16 Mar 2006)
• Polyamory (04 Feb 2005)
• September 11, 2001 attacks (11 Dec 2005)
• Stimulation (14 Nov 2005)
• Stimulus (24 Oct 2005)
• Talk:Uses of torture in recent times (18 Dec 2004)
• Talk:Uses of torture in recent times (18 Dec 2004)
• Talk:Zoophilia (09 Dec 2004)
• User talk:Mushroom (12 May 2006)
• Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (28 Apr 2005)
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (11 Nov 2004)
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (13 Nov 2004)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods (06 Jun 2006)
• World Tribunal on Iraq (28 Apr 2005)
• Zoophilia (20 Oct 2005)
• Zoophilia (14 Dec 2005)
• Zoophilia (01 Jan 2006)
• Zoophilia (16 May 2006)

Temp save of working edits behind hidden comment section, view source to see

I really respect your decision to withdraw. Make sure you clean up the page into this format, and remove the RfA from the main WP:RFA page.

Though I hadn't met you before today, it would be my honor to renominate you when you feel your edit summary usage has improved enough. Λυδαcιτγ 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. Good work, and your decision to withdraw will only make my support even stronger when you are next up. --Guinnog 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please find a different source for Image:Camonica2.png. I don't believe the current source is entirely reliable. It looks more like a sloppy MS Paint job right now. An actuall museum would be a better source. --Phoenix Hacker 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you think I need a slap on the wrist for being a belligerent editor, and I admit I do have some rough edges, edges that you may have had some effect in smoothing off, but I'm not sure the mediation request is germane any longer. I can't conceive of any further issues we cannot work out together, now that the bulk of what I wanted to see achieved has been achieved. All along I was concerend about the overly positive tone in the zoophilia article, when I know from things I've read and seen that there are real dangers, which need to be be clearly stated. They are now, and I see far greater balance in the coverage.

Anyhow, I think the mediation request should be dropped, either by one or both of us withdrawing our agreement/signatures, or by whatever other method there is (I notice a "delete" button on the mediation page). Skoppensboer 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zoophilia. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hello there, my name is Peter M Dodge and I go by the handle Wizardry Dragon on Wikipedia. While I am not a member of the Mediation Committee proper I have offered to mediate this case. If this is okay with you, I would like to proceed. Please let me know either way, and if you have any issues with this please let me know so I may try to address them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other film with the title "THE Little Shop of Horrors." The musical and its 1986 film version are titled "Little Shop of Horrors." (Ibaranoff24 08:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• As the articles for the 1986 film and the musical play are linked at the top of the article for the 1960 original, there's no need for the year of release to be in the article's title. (Ibaranoff24 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

In one of your contributions to this article, you used a reference from the Telegraph to support your assertion. However, in searching the Telegraph website, I could not find the article. Could you supply the link and/or the author's name in order to complete the reference. As it now stands, the reference does not meet WP:V. Thanks. Jeffpw 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for replying. I don't dispute the cource, but according to WP:V (so I have been told when references I used were criticized) newspapre articles need to have the author of the piece so readers can look them up. I know it's a pain. If you can't find it, it's no problem. I was just using the reference elsewhere and wanted the name for competeness. And no, I don't know where that fact can be found elsewhere, but I am willing to try later (at work now). Jeffpw 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm just passing on what I learned whwen an article I wrote was up for FA. They got really picky about the references, and demanded to have authors and titles for newspaper articles. But anyway, it seems that's not the only problem with that reference. The reference supports an assertion that 31,000 Civil Unions have taken place, and according to someone on Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom(see section 9), the number is roughly the half. Either someone read the article incorrectly, or the Telegraph accidentally doubled the number (number of people cited as number of unions. Another possibility is that the person who is concerned about the number got it wrong. That's another reason I would like to double check the source. Jeffpw 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FT2, good to see someome else working on "Pain". Your edits look good. Please supply sources for stated facts - I'm no shining example for this in my edits on "Pain" but lately I have been off finding the sources - without cited sources oppinios get included very easily. SmithBlue 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction was along your lines, but I've moved away from that a bit after reading the other editors. I think the main reason not to include such a section is that not just anyone/any group should get a comment section in every article. Since only MJ supporters consider themselves Jewish, including a section on their view at all in an article about Judaisms view of Jesus, even a section that is heavy with disclaimers, seems to be something the others are resisting. And I think I understand why - it opens the door to pretty much anything. I'm still figuring this out but I think there is some merit to the idea that there are certain objective criteria to identify a Jewish denomination, beyond self-identity, but it is pretty complicated, isn't it? Kaisershatner 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day FT2. I've removed the copulation section from Canine reproduction, again. I'm not a prude, and I do respect the work you appear to have done dealing with sexual relationships of various types -- it's an area that must be reported. However, Wiki is not a grot shop, and anything as sensitive (as I am sure you appreciate) as this must be thoroughly cited. Alas, this probably means a cite in almost every (grammatical) clause. The one web reference you did supply is IMO inadequate, as it does not present veterinary research or study, only info for breeders. As well, the para on the dog turning backwards is pure crap. The only time I have EVER seen it is when the two animals have been violently disturbed, and it is extremely painful and distressing for both dog and bitch. The simple fact is that dog anatomy simply does not permit it.  Gordon | Talk, 11:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was born in the first half of last century, and both my family and myself have had dogs coming out of our ears, not to mention friends' and acquaintances' dogs. Our collective experience covers both pure-bred and mongrels. The "turning around" behaviour in our experience is totally abnormal. If you can find a number of references that demonstrate it is not abnormal behaviour, then it can -- should -- be included.

As I said -- and I do not wish to have to repeat it -- I am not a prude. What I did say is that in a subject as sensitive as sexuality (perhaps I should have been more direct and said "copulation") details of copulation must be amply cited. You claim that readers will be prepared for graphic descriptions of actual copulation -- I have no problem. But the description must be cited. Oh, BTW, given the proposed nature of the article, and some appreciation of potential readers, for example children and young adolescents, maybe some rating system might be applicable, don't you think? Like a "M 18+"?  Gordon | Talk, 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I came across you through your edits on Polyamory.

Courier had a whack of text dumped on it a while back; and after avoiding it for a few weeks I did some decisive editing (some remove text can be seen on the talk page). However the article obviously could use a pro and I'm hoping at some point you would be able to have a look at this very dry subject. I'm hoping to summarize/maximize what we have and come up with new sections for suggested expansion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [minor reformat+wikilink to ensure easy reading - see comment below. FT2][reply]

Sorry to confuse; the article in need of help is courier. :"D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, on all counts. This also means I'm unsure myself what needs to be added/changed; as it took significant will power to bring myself just to cleanup a text dump; let alone consider actually making editorial decisions. The first thing we could do is try to add it to a relevant (collaboration, or task list) to get others involved who may have more background/interest in the topic than us. And I think you share my sense that this is a basic topic that an encyclopedia should be comprehensive on. (I'll cc this to the article talk page; so that we can continue to collaborate/communicate there) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[4] made on January 5 2007 to Labrador Retriever

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(above discussed by email with editor concerned. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I concur that you were reverting vandalism. You might want to consider semi-protection for the article. Block lifted. Request handled by: Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously... thank you for protecting the Labrador retriever section and for your additions. I've been fighting vandalism on that page for months. -Erikeltic

The oddest thing happened when I was reviewing the article. I scanned through the first few paragraphs and was immediately struck by an incredibly inappropriate and biased statement that had almost zero relation to the article. I can't remember the exact sentence but these words are burned into my mind: "hypotetical bullshit" and "don't believe John Kerry". I was stunned to see such a ridiculous, poorly executed and poorly spelled attempt to discredit the theory of global warming. I immediately created an account with Wikipedia so that I could register my objection to this bizarre transgression against the spirit of unbiased information. After logging on and reading the rules for discussing articles I went back to the global warming article to cite the inane statement. As you might have guessed it was no longer there. I am fairly certain that the statement in question came after the last line in the fourth paragraph: Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming.

I know that I saw those words. I know that they no longer appear for me whether I log in or not. I am reporting this in the hope that whatever is going on can be stopped.

Thanks, Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I love Wikipedia! Thanks for the thorough response. I am an English teacher at an inner city high school (Dorsey) in L.A. and I take immense comfort in recommending Wikipedia as a resource for my students to conduct research. I was alarmed at the nonsense Arnold 19 posted, but the processes you described are as much as one could hope for in this information age. I have ridden the Wiki-Wiki bus many times in Honolulu and have just now discovered the connection to Wikipedia; one more reason to feel good about this online encyclopedia. Again, thanks so much for the rapid and excellent discourse over my concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(relates to this reply to this question. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it:).Nina Odell 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the exact same way - I can't stand ideological or copy messes. If you're also a professional masseuse with a decent car and a job, I might ask you to marry me:).Nina Odell 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You joined the neutrality project - I've been a member for a while. Check this out [[5]]. That's not even the half of it. I specialize in editing atrocities for neutrality, among other things. Nina Odell 15:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're married already, aren't you. DANG IT. :) Nina Odell 15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia article Covert Marriage. Nina Odell 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to force people to read my user page, but I guess you're probably right...Are you sure someone didn't slip you a mickey and marry you? I would...but marriage is a construct anyhow. I think a ceremony is lovely, but a real marriage is built on an daily (even hourly) basis, and subject to constant change and revision. That's my two cents, anyhow. Nina Odell 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give you a chance to tweak your essay before I read it tonight. I'm off to work.:)NinaOdell | Talk 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]