User talk:Diza/May08-Nov09

Lisi

E8 is esceptional in the theory of sporatic Lie groups; the phrase "in its own terminology" is confusing or redundant. Pete St.John (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There might be a better wording for it than my own, yet the current phrasing is VERY confusing, coming from a very specific field of math. this pun should be better explained --Procrastinating@^talk2me 09:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

michael jackson

Hey i noticed the bais tag, ive made a few word chances, anything else needed to get rid of the tag? Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the attention, but 498 versions later it's hard for me to keep up :) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 09:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, I have just noticed your message from March. Sorry not to have replied. I haven't been looking at Wikipedia much recently, but had returned to try and help re-edit the Orch OR article. You asked about my background. I have been studying consciousness theory, particularly quantum related theories for about the last 20 years, but I don't have a formal background in either physics or neuroscience. My site is www.quantum-mind.co.uk, which has some general intro, and then tries to summarise/review books, articles etc as they come, plus lists of references. Persephone19 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Please note that to create talk archives, you should use a forward slash "/", rather than a backward slash "\", so as to create a subpage. I've fixed this with your user talk archive (I also fixed the spelling--hope you don't mind): recently a lot of these pages have been deleted. Regards, --RFBailey (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the remedy, I've made an additional archeive. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 09:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

It certainly isn't noteworthy but is it fake, I'm not sure. It's probably worth adding to the WP:Articles for deletion and get a consensus on it. It seems unlikely that the article will be improved by anyone. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Out of Nothing

A tag has been placed on Out of Nothing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Hitro 12:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Self made billionaires

Hi, I reverted a few of your edits in which you added this template to a few articles because the template doesn't exist. If it's ever created it should probably be 'Self-made' as well...Regards, NcSchu_(Talk) 17:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect "Financial Processor"

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on "Financial Processor", by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because "Financial Processor" is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting "Financial Processor", please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Diza! FYI, I have deleted the page User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes, which your userpage links to. I don't want to edit your user page without notifying you first, so I'm doing just that :) Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Joseph

I did give you a reason in the deletion log. An article on this person was deleted as a result of this deletion discussion, and the version you posted did not try to address the concerns brought up in the deletion discussion. If you don't think the discussion was closed correctly you can complain to the closing admin or file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review, though it's very unlikely that will get you anywhere. You need to find independent, third-party sources giving substantial coverage of this individual for them to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you like I can move the article you wrote to your userspace so you can work on it. Hut 8.5 13:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I think that this is the descent thing, and should probably be done automatically, or at least by community costum to move a so called worthy page to the user space who created it. reasons given almost a year ago might not be relevant to today.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 21:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's now at User:Diza/Peter Joseph, you can work on it there. The deletion policy hasn't changed very much in the past year, and the version you posted hadn't attempted to address the concerns of the deletion discussion, since you presented no new sources. Hut 8.5 13:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Erasing articles is a very destructive thing to do, and should be approached to with great caustion. I do not believe in re-erasing articles by quoting year old justifications (did you see a vote back then?). Moreover, the article I created was embraced by the community, and alas has grown to be quite wonderfully insightful. I take this as a sign of the community's willing to participate and contribute in a subject that they have much interest in. Personally, I believe we are here to create knowledge, not censor it. In less than 2 weeks the article has grown wonderfully, and I hope the rest will do the same.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 19:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

YouTube

How would you like the section on video rankings controversies to be expanded? Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is too convoluted, too many details hiding the truth. Who is accusing who of what? and why? and then, and only then how data supports it. Is it a system bug, or a conspiracy? The sections has to be augmented to better facilitate understanding. Thanks for the help! :)--Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is in the article because it is an issue that has received mainstream media coverage. Unfortunately, the truth of the "Music is My Hot Hot Sex" affair may never be known. However, it is generally agreed that the ratings were faked, because despite over 100 million views, very few people had favorited the video. The use of a spamming mechanism is the most likely explanation, and this is discussed in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not rewrite the section, since I find it not satisfactory in it's information, and I have no alternative source. Moreover, I didn't criticize the very importance of the section, on the contrary I find it very pertinent. It's just that from all of this convoluted trivia, it is hard to distinguish the meaning. a possible format will be: what's the controversy, what has been suggested, what were the responce, and only then trivia and data pertaining to the case at hand. The bigger issue here is the suggestion that YouTube ratings are hackable, and that the system allegly has known exploits. Are they used in moderation without us knowing? what does YouTube's spokesman has to say about that? That is the controversy.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go at expanding this section. You might want to take a look at this YouTube video. Note that it has 98,182,890 views but only 4229 ratings. This is a ratio of over 23,000 to 1. It is generally agreed that this shows signs of spamming.[1]. YouTube's Terms of service state: You agree not to use or launch any automated system, including without limitation, "robots," "spiders," or "offline readers," that accesses the Website in a manner that sends more request messages to the YouTube servers in a given period of time than a human can reasonably produce in the same period by using a conventional on-line web browser. See also User talk:ZimZalaBim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fruits of Fascism

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fruits of Fascism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:N

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. THF (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Fogbugz

A tag has been placed on Fogbugz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 09:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Rockefeller

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nicholas Rockefeller, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.nicholasrockefeller.net/rand_dinner. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV edits

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Waco_Massacre. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Your edits to the lead[2][3] carried a strong point of view against the FBI. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to have offended you Agent Naval. some might suggest that all those 60+ people who got murdered in the fire, that was induced by the FBI, might hold some sort of a strong argument against them. Also, the official report holds that view. Read the transcripts, and tell me your self. I have. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 12:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Name of article

(I put this in its own section to separate topics) Additionally, the sources call it "Waco Siege" in its majority, only a few call it "Waco Massacre", so per WP:COMMONNAMES it should be under the siege name. The article already mentions "Waco massacre" an alternative name in the first sentence of the lead, so it's not like we are trying to hide that name or something.... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been more than a decade since the government murdered all those people, so naturally less and less will name it a massacre. Moreover, the mentioning of this word will elude as time flies by, the wordings will change and very soon it will all be a big happy misunderstanding blamed at the victim. this is what people do when facing a reality they do not acknowledge. Just look at the article now, and see the change and complete lack of this word. I find this either naive or stupid. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 19:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

FYI, articles should not be moved, as you did to Waco Siege, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a controversial page move is being proposed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ckatz^chat_spy 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You please stop. either you bring a relevant claim against some content or I can use the same argument against you, my self. The media coverage of the ANTI-WTO protest was problematic (by initially avoiding any coverage, and later avoiding coverage of the reasons for the massive protest), because the same media is part of the same world-wide corporate structure. (ie, world-trade-organization).

This is the main point of the entire event. this is what brought more than 40,000 people to the streets, not having a voice in the main tool for public information/dis-information. Personally, I always thought that wikipedia, being a user generated content platform might be a little more intelligent and slightly less sheepish in these regurgitated views. This very year, Irani news papers initially did not cover the massive protests in the streets, and later dismissed them as trivial and fringe. so if ou'r quoting the offical government papers, you got your self a "reliable source". Neutral point of view? I'd love to. After you. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 12:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV? / Eris

Eris is not the 10th planet as your improper edit suggests. Besides all currently classified dwarf planets are closer to the Sun than Eris is. -- Kheider (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It obviously is, also since the same article mentions it. This was the planet that create the "dawrf" planet retroactive defention. Proximity to the sun got nothing to do with it, and it is already mentioned that it is the farthest.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor planets (asteroids) are not classified as real planets. Think of the term "dwarf planet" as a compound noun. *If* dwarf planets were counted as real planets, Ceres would be the 8th planet discovered (1801), Neptune the 9th (1846), and Pluto the 10th (1930). -- Kheider (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My friend, you are using modern terminology that has existed for less than 3 years to reshape history dating back centuries. Ceres was never considered a planet by anyone. Humanity has grown around a 9 planet system, evolving religious myths and astroligical symbolisms. Actually, only a few years ago a "new one" has been found orbiting our sun. It was actually larger in mass than Pluto which was already considered a planet for 80 years. Due to the estimation that more "trans pluto objects" will be discovered, a new classification of planets was formulated to help shape future findings. This rule-of-thumb, although useful does not propagate back in time to all of the culture of this planet to tell them that actually some of the planets that they saw are now technically "non-planets" so as to rewrite the colletive memory...:) Don't forget, wikipedia is a global endeavor..

From 1801 until about 1850 many asteroids where treated as planets.[4][5] Since Pluto has only been known for 80 years, why should science care how modern myths and religion classify the object Pluto? In 2006 the IAU created a new category of objects and decided to call them "dwarf planets". Sorry, but you really need to do more reading on the subject. -- Kheider (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Planets are visible heavenly bodies circling the sun, those that can only be traced through radio telescopes or by the pertubation they make on other planet's orbit are traditionally considered non-planet sollar objects (like TNO's), since they can not be observed without special means. If you take this western standardization and apply it globally, not only will you contradict thousands of years of human cultural evolution, and tradition, but you would have effectively reduced the number of planets to five.. Now, I am not trying to engage in a technical debate, rather this is a cultural obfuscation issue. Kind of like what Americans think about Iraq, not as a cradle for at least 3 world-civilization, but a harbour of "terror" or "WMD's". some believe, that these zeitgesits are threatening Wikipedia's legitimacy and accuracy. We are here to serve the global population, not the hegemony of European/empire grade US technocracies. For thousands of years, cultures around the world have observed the plantery system, built pyramids, establish religions and astrological signs, wrote myths and encourage the very foundation of science. The ego of a small group of bureaucrats can not eradicate half of the planets in our sollar system by declarying them as non-planets, although they certainly have the audacity. If anything, as a physicist, this reminds me of another zeitgeist such as the flu-scare or the tap-water scare. Both capitalistically motivated, yet got nothing to do with reality. Sometimes the sheepish behaviour of humanity scares me by the magnitude of it's mental manipulation. making up new symbols can confuse the mind for their meaning. "Black is the new Pink", and you got your self a fashion trend shared by millions. Yet black and pink are not the same colour, nor did Iraq have any weapons of mass destruction. and yet, almost million people died by that lie. Personally, I believe that as custodians of knowledge we have a responsibility to not be swayed by these local waves of mass-hallucinations, and be true to history and reality of all humanity. If one believes that since 2006 half the planets have gone missing, due to becoming "asteroids", then the alien federation told me otherwise.. :)--Procrastinating@^talk2me 19:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since 1930 only one planet (Pluto) has been removed from the list of official planets. -- Kheider (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And another 5 planets have been demoted by the wikipedia's technocracy. I don't mind the definition of "dwarf planets",perhaps it is helpful. I oppose the retroactive classification of human history and scientific tradition. This deceptive spirit of renaming articles in the wikipedia from "planets" to something else. Our tradition is to serve the essence of what will carry the message across in the spirit that reflects our collective history. some would see a demoting of 5 planets to whatever kind of new terminology

(trans neptunian obeject type IIa) as something that does not serve our interest.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 03:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceres was considered a planet for about 50 years along with several other members of the asteroid belt. Pluto was considered a planet for about 80 years, although the discovery of the Kuiper Belt in 1992 started shedding doubt. Eris, Haumea, and Makemake have never officially been considered planets. As soon as Eris was discovered, the whole debate was thrown into question and the result was the IAU classification. I think it's disingenuous to talk about thousands of years of history when we're talking about things discovered at most 200 years ago. Disputing the classification of dwarf planet is fine, but a there's no historical argument for Eris being a planet. There is a historical argument for Ceres and Pluto being planets, as they were both considered to be at different times. Also, talking about a reclassification going against 'scientific tradition' doesn't make any sense to me. Science is all about learning more and more accurately describing things. Reclassifying things based on new information is completely scientific. --Patteroast (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, much as the world not being flat was known and lost through the ages, so were the planets. Many cultures, even including ancient sumerian, have known about 8 or even 10 planets since before Christ was it's memes were conceived. So, although same argument goes to Pluto and Ceres that is a minor point. The problem with this reclassification is the over emphasize it might receive from technical zealous, who are denominating more than half of whole the planets. some of which dating more than 200 years. even in western culture.

Secondly, I was talking about Wikipedia tradition and vision. Documenting and augmenting human knowledge aspiring to a neutral point of view. Science has crazes and trends much like any other human institution that is authority based. conforming the public to race theories, global cooling or quantum telepathy.. all I'm saying is that we have to stand vigilant and try to avoid these traps. I all for each article to have as much information as possible, under all cllassifications. Yet, we have more than 4 or 5 planets. I mean, we can and always have been watching them in the night skies.

Hence, I've augmented the article's header section with a compromising articulation. perhaps we should move this debate there[6].--Procrastinating@^talk2me 06:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)