User talk:Causa sui/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Causa sui. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archived talk from 10:50, 10 September 2004 - 02:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Chess notation in articles

I responded to your question in Talk:Magnus_Carlsen but though I would add the reponce here as well.

You can have a look at Category:Chess_games to see how some other people have done it. Additionally if you look at Immortal game at the bottoms there is a link to a .pgn of the game which is also described in the article. The link is to upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia which is I think diffrent form how files that get directly upladed here work. I have been investigating this in spare moments to try and figure out if you have to use wikicommons or can use wiki[edia directly for this. When I get it figured out I think I am going to add pgn files for all the atricles in that category, and possibly also for Category:Chess_openings where approprate. Dalf | Talk 20:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I used the same formatting as is in the Immortal Game article and I think it does look much better. However, I can't figure out how to upload this PGN file I have, as the file uploader only seems to accept images. Ideas? --Malathion 00:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking into this last night but I had to stop and do somethign else. I am going to try again tonight but the basic idea is. Wikipedia is a wikimedia project, I don't know how to do the interwiki links but wikicommons is a project just for uploading files ment to be used in other wikimedia projects. The link at the bottom of Immortal game you will notice points to an address in http://wikimedia NOT http://wikipedia. The only problem is from the main page at wikicommons it is not clear how to do other file types or if the same rules apply. I imagine figuing it out wont be hard though. If i figure it out I will elt you know, if you figure it out leave me a note on my talk page. Dalf | Talk 01:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to the edit where the link was added. So we can probbly ask User:Camembert how to do it :) Dalf | Talk 01:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I asked User:Camembert about this and he answered on his talk page. The gist of the answer is that some time last year uploads were changed to a limited set of file-types for security reasons. PGN was not one of the allowed types, but old uploaded files were not deleted. I am going to find out what is needed to get it added. I will let you know once I start that conversation somewhere. Dalf | Talk 22:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I ONT O

Malathion, you should probably copy-and-paste your links. Oddly named, but your vfd wasn't showing up and wasn't linking to the correct page. Hope you don't mind! --Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

199.217.32.2 vandal

You wrote: "It looks like this guy has made hundreds of malicious and possibly difficult to catch vandalisms. I haven't gone back far in his history but I notice you reverted many of them. Is this guy under control?".

They wrote he got blocked, I don't know for how long. Pavel Vozenilek 09:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheating in Counter-Strike

Your changes are again a bit premature imho. While it is likely that the 'mouse hack cheat' is merely an urban legend, as I don't know if anyone has ever seen such a mouse in action and even the possibility of the technique is questionable, a lot of pro gamers seem to believe it and insist on forcing everyone to use ps2 mice instead of usb. It may be a sort of superstition but blankly omitting that part isn't exactly wise, as, see, I do not know if this is just an urban legend or something that someone actually did, and you don't either. I figured it would be most wise to include it but clearly state that this is probably just an urban legend. Why are you insisting on removing it? Dabljuh 12:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Existence of God merger

I'm attempting to develop a consensus in favor of merging the Arguments against the existence of God and the Arguments for the existence of God articles. A beta version of the resulting article is available at Existence of God. To date, there seems to be consensus in favor of this merger on the "for" talk page, I'm now trying to get a consensus together on the "against" talk page. Please visit Talk:Arguments against the existence of God to weigh in. I'm copy-and-pasting this message to everybody who has contributed to that talk page. crazyeddie 05:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Nice work merging the articles together! Neilc 4 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Re: Dragon Metal

I think it might of been re-created. Either way, it got deleted again. Hedley 4 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

I don't think its being re-created enough. If it continues, tell me. Hedley 4 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

Regarding www.searchextreme.com

Good Evening,

In keeping my eye on the Jenna Jameson article, I've noted that you removed the www.searchextreme.com link, claiming it to be link spam. (Same with other pornographic pages, such as Taylor Rain, as well.) Any particular reason why? It doesn't seem like link spam from my POV, so if you can fill me in on your justification for your edits (or a link to an official wiki policy of what types of sites qualify as link spam) I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 6 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

Good enough. Thanks for the information. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 6 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar FAC

Malathion, could you please review your vote and have a good read of this article? The POV you cited has been removed, but your opposition now remains with the claim of "quite a lot of POV" remaining and no specific info of what you're unhappy with. I'd appreciate any more suggestions and feedback you have. Thanks, and great work with merging the Bobby Fischer articles by the way. I was the one who kicked up a fuss about that, remember :)? Harro5 July 6, 2005 09:56 (UTC)

• Any advice as to how I can change this one? Caulfield offers students a wide range of subjects. It's pretty brief, and I don't know how else I would start a section on academics. If you have any ideas, just whack them straight into the article and I'll have a look there. Fxing the other points now. Thanks. Harro5 July 6, 2005 10:22 (UTC) Same for Caulfield Grammar offers a wide range of activities for students to participate in. These sentences just say that there's a lot of stuff going on. No real POV there I would think. Thanks. Harro5 July 6, 2005 10:23 (UTC)
  • Good wording on the academic line. Could you have a good at the one in The Arts? Thanks for the help. Harro5 July 6, 2005 10:27 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. Any more? Has you objection been satisfied? Harro5 July 6, 2005 10:37 (UTC)

Utilitarianism

I have given my views on the utilitarianism talk page, as you requested. Take care. icut4u

Thanks

Thanks for the note on my user page. I should have come up with this compliment magnet idea sooner!

Dave (talk) 16:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem has been accepted. There is a pending temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alfrem/Proposed_decision#Alfrem_banned_from_Libertarianism. Fred Bauder 13:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I unprotected it. If you see any Alfrem socks, let me know and I will apply the appropriate instrument. Noel (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Welll...

... Alfrem wasn't trolling. He genuinely believes what he writes. Perhaps we could just archive older discussions that aren't active any more? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Not Vandalism

You suggested that my recent edits were vandalism but they are not. Look at this pagewhich clearly states: Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

My edits have all been content-relevant and never excessive. Indeed, they add value by taking you to a site with more information for further reading. As I am new to Wikipedia, if there is a better way to do this then I am all ears. But I have been surfing Wikipedia for months now and have found such links very helpful to me in the past. 68.89.167.97 (talk · contribs)

thanks, and yet....

my stupidity extends even further. Could you also fix the mucked up template on List of White supremacists itself? I would be indebted.... NoahB 19:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer as FAC

I have nominated Bobby Fischer as a WP:FAC. I haven't done a FAC nomination before, so I hope I got this right. Quale 17:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ecologics

YES! I definitely need some more time to fix this submission up. I had no idea the wikipedia was so judgmental and immediately moves to delete submissions without offering some real help "first" to the author. (Note: This comment was posted unsigned by 222.96.232.116 (talk · contribs))

Race and intelligence

Thanks for trying to step in on this lopsided discussion. I note that you nominated this for a FAC, even though it clearly does not meet the criteria. These half dozen "race" guys have gone substantially unchallenged as this article got developed, even though the folk taxonomy POV on both race and intelligence is a significant challenge to the knowledge produced by researchers who assert utility and correlation regarding these two nebulous categories. This is race science at its worst.

I am also pleased that you have the courage of your convictions to put your real name on your work. That helps reduce the kind of passive-aggressive posturing and sniping conveyed in terms like "mess" and "irrelevant" by anonymous editors. My concern is getting this summary NPOVed (it's not even close), but if we are going to have to go to a word-by-word substantiation like Michael Moore did with Fahrenheit 9/11, so be it.

Hope others got the same plea from you. Jokestress 22:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft Jet

What do you think now? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer FAC

Sorry for the late response, but I have now decided that Bobby Fischer was a great article and doesn't need more expanding. Thanks. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thank you for the welcome. Perhaps it is out of sheer coincidence that, seeing that you are a student at IU, I am a resident of Bloomington as well, assuming you are at the Bloomington campus. Eightball

I also thank you for the welcome. I like gnoming around; although, a user account is too useful not to have. Was that a standard greeting? Also, is your user page based on a template? -- Jimmy C. 04:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Tarja Turunen photo

Hello. That is a promotional photo as all the others I have uploaded. They are free for use over the internet, in magazines, newspapers and so on, as you may well know. MissSwan

Ok then. Thank you very much. And it was my pleasure. Please check out the Tuomas Holopainen article I expanded and tell me if there is anything else that needs to be added.

Yeah sure... I got the Tarja one from www.tarjaturunen.com, the Nightwish one from www.fan-sites.org/tarja, the Tuomas one from www.spinefarm.fi and the Therion one from www.megatherion.com

how delete the user page

can you please tell me how to delete the user page.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.47.18 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 July 2005

I am that user. I just don't know how to leave messages. I am trying to learn how to do this. I am in the wikipedia boot camp. Sorry.

{{Deletevanity}}

You created {{Deletevanity}}. Were you unaware of {{nn-bio}}, which serves the same purpose? I like that name better, because not all non-notable biography articles are, strictly speaking, vanity. Even when they are, I think it is more polite to call them non-notable, and that is what the WP:CSD specifically deals with. Also, not all vanity articles are specifically about a person -- many band articles are vanity, for example.

But what ever the name used, I think it would be better to have only one template for this specific purpose. I documeted {{nn-bio}} on the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. Whichever template is agreed on i think ought to be documeted in thsoe places. Would you consider converting {{Deletevanity}} and {{dv}} into redirects to {{nn-bio}}? DES 14:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: Yes, I was unaware of {{nn-bio}} because it was never listed on Wikipedia:Template_messages/Deletion, so two IRC users and myself created the new template. As I understand the Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles, articles that do not assert the notability of the subject are "vanity". I've considered rewording the template to deal with groups of people, like bands and so on.

Such articles are often called "vanity" but not everyone approves of this term. In any case non-notabilioty is ONLY a reason for speedy deletion for individuals, not for bands and the like. A proposal to make it a valid reason for bands recently failed a vote. there are discussion underway on a revised proposal for bands. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C for more detail, and please do join thsoe discussions. DES 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You also wrote: I wouldn't mind redirecting to {{nn-bio}}, but I like the wording of the {{dv}} one better. I think I'll fix the wording of {{dv}} to adress the concern you brought up about bands and other groups, then copy that into {{nn-bio}} and redirect the others. --malathion talk 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The current wording of {{dv}} is fine, pleaase do NOT add anything about bands or groups, becauyse non-notability is currently NOT a valkid reason to speedy delete such articles. Please do add a specific refernce to CSD A7 if you re-word {{nn-bio}}. Thanks DES 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Also {{nn-bio}} has been nominated for deleteion, and the nominater mentioned {{dv}} and {{deletevanity}} as well (which is how I learned of them}. You might want to comment on WP:TFD. DES 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: If not all people agree with the official policy, they should post their objections on the talk page of the policy and try to get it changed there. But until it is changed, it's policy elsewhere. I've voted in the TfD to keep the template. --malathion ^talk 16:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

True, and Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles is a policy page, but the term "vanity" was not used in the vote that made it policy, and at least arguably that term is not part of the policy, and should not have been used in the title of that page. DES 16:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I revised the text of {{nn-bio}} after your edit to conform to the specific wording of WP:CSD A7 by removing the stuff about groups of people. DES 16:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop vandalizing "Natalee_Holloway". This is your official warning. Another instance of vandalism will result in you not being able to edit pages.

Thank you, Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BunkyBoopy (talk • contribs) 23:49, 28 July 2005

thanks

Hi Malathion, No problem at all -- remember I'm an academic and very much used to (sometimes scathing) peer review :) It was a misunderstanding of the wiki-ways and wiki-mores. On reading the various desiderata after I formally signed up, it IS "dick-ish" to write your own entry :) . As for a looking to get a personal entry, well, I've since nosed around the pages and note that some folks whom I respect almost to the point of adoration are not listed (including folks who I'm sure are going to be short-listed for Nobels in the not to distant future). So I figure I can enjoy obscurity for a while longer :) Also, thanks for sending me this "talk" message -- I had no idea what that "talk" thing meant! I now have to figure out how to put an idiot-proof talk link on top of my own page so other wiki-ites as unsophisticated as me can ring me up. Cheers Chris 06:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Shane Lively

You beat me to it, I was just about to change it to that. Looked like non-sense at first, till I went to the userpage. Thanks for the fix. ∞Who?¿? 09:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Hui Hai

Hi,

I am the publisher of this book and am trying to place an extract on this page. Why is it being deleted by someone called Malathion ???

Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.85.126 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 29 July 2005

I have posted this comment on your talk page, but I will post it here as well:

Hello. The segment you are adding to the Baizhang article does not appear to be encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia to host it for you. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a personal webhosting service. Only content which is encyclopedic and meaningful to the article can be posted. If you would like to edit our encyclopedia in some other way, please feel free to do so. Cheers --malathion ^talk 17:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Hui Hai

You have not given me an answer -- was it the format or do you have some other reason?

R

The answer to your question is on your talk page and also right above this message. I'm sorry but I cannot respond to further queries from you on this subject. --malathion ^talk 18:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to ask you again. Why are you deleting these teachings of Baizhang (Hui Hai)from this page. Have you got something against Zen?

:)

It's therapeutic, huh? Oh the fun you can have on...a Friday night. Hmmmm. -Splash 00:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The Fresh Princes

Hello. I am the manager of Hoop Dreams, The Fresh Princes' distributor. As the legal voice behind the entity, I ask you to reconsider your opinion on this article. To think that some people would not respect the integrity of four of the most hard-working and honest musicians this side of Miles Davis is beyond me.

Love and respect, Troy Binford Hoop Dreams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.172.80 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 July 2005

Fire by friction

Thank you, no; I've finished the VfD entry. It takes me a minute or two to work through the process, that's all. Ken 03:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia in general

Hi Malathion,

I've been reading up on Wikipedia as well as browsing the various articles and realized I have a question about the general ethos. Why are the editors essentially anonymous unless they self-identify? Yes, there is some utility to having a level structure in which only logic is the determinant, but some issues are subtle enough that they could be better served by knowing whether the contents were carefuly vetted by experts or not. This is where traditional encylopedias have something like Wikipedia beat -- uniform vetting.

Of course, then there's the issue of drawing experts into the mix deliberately and some form of compensation (intellectual/academic as opposed to monetary). That is, I'd be hard-pressed to browse Wikipedia to check articles in my areas of expertise since it would be a time-consuming labor of love for which there is no credit given. And then there's the issue of self-interest which I innocently blundered into with my various linked posts. As an "expert" I felt that some mention of the "matter channel" work in the Nature paper was indicated in the SETI article and I'm certain that other experts in the field (even those with different viewpoints) would feel the same. However, any suggestion that the ideas be included is in some sense self-dealing "vanity." (I do understand the personal citation issue and would not have done it had I RTFM first :) .)

So, since I'm sure these notions have been mulled over quite a bit by folks associated with Wikipedia, I'd love to get the inside scoop. At some point, Wikipedia has to grow up and provide some indication of the veracity of articles. The old way is to close down open submissions and empower a panel of experts -- this seems stultifying and prone to certain types of censorship. Perhaps there's a different way which vets without restricting participation -- simply allowing identification of editor qualifications? Note, the use of "allowing" as opposed to "enforcing" -- you could choose to identify or not.

Cheers,

Chris 03:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Rose

Yes, I agree he's probably notable enough. I saw that you already spoke to him about it on his user page. Are you also going to recreate the Gregory Wright article? Binadot 05:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite

Clearly much better than my prior weak cross ref -- I'll leave it to seasoned wikipods to decide whether it's an aye or nay (and obviously would not think of editing myself unless it were libelous :) ). The ONLY thing (for accuracy) is that the Nature cover tag line was

Dear ET ... How to communicate with distant aliens

which could probably be shortened to just "Dear ET ..."

"ET Might Write, Not Radiate" was the original carefully chosen title which Nature nixed just before publication for exactly the reason that one Wikipod noted on the now nearing deletion "ET Might Wright/Write.." pages -- not informative enough.

Once again, thanks both for the rewrite and the education. I am intrigued by the wiki model and do believe that it is worthwhile -- perhaps even more powerful than people might realize. In fact, I have more than just a passing interest in the general area since I could imagine the basic concept extended to a variety of other venues -- and in many of them, vetting becomes increasingly important while still leaving the floor open for a range of views and input. For instance, imagine wikiMD :) Or perhaps even more important to society, wikiLIFE with where everything experienced by everyone (that they wanted to share) was posted and indexed (see a letter I wrote to Bill Safire of the NY Times about two years ago -- I placed it on my wiki-home page).

BTW: Since I'm a bit of a wiki-naif, is there a way I could copy more than one person at once on a note (such as this). I could just post the same on Binadot's page, but it seems like redundancy --- perhaps I'll just ask him to read this note... on your page.

In any case, I look forward to playing around with wikipedia and offering my two cents on things I know about, and perhaps adjudicating objectively on things I don't -- and learning something into the bargain.

Cheers,

Chris 08:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [1] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching and reverting vandalism on my user page. I was about to ask for sources for me being an asshole, but I see that your way is quicker. Friday 18:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexual characteristics

Thanks. I won't presume that you agree or disagree with my stance on the POV/inaccuracy of Sexual characteristics, but clearly I got the template-management protocol wrong. Thanks for catching it and correcting my mistake. -Harmil 19:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing the vandalism on my JAXASS page. I realize you may or may not agree with the topic, but the fact that you helped fix the vandalism until the vote is complete is much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepnomore (talk • contribs) 17:16, 31 July 2005

• • My appologies for not initially signing. I'm still new to wikipedia and trying to learn the ropes. Sleepnomore 22:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sakuraba article

Hey, this is kforcer--to lazy to log in--curious as to what the latest revision to the Saku article was and if you had any suggestions as to further improving. As a Saku fan, I'd like his article to be an excellent but--as I said before--obviously Wikipedia is not the place for hagiographies and that is often what diehard fans inadvertantly find themselves writing. I'd like feedback as to whether you think any of the additions I made to the article constitute that or whether there is a NPOV issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.243.171 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 July 2005