User talk:DancingPhilosopher/Archive 0

Welcome!

Hello, DancingPhilosopher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Arnoutf 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viddler[edit]

A tag has been placed on Viddler, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Viddler. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Moonriddengirl 11:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-Emotion[edit]

Interesting article. I am not sure, but believe that the long quotations in meta-emotions may be a copyright violation. If you can work around by paraphrasing or, better, summarizing the argument, and using less quoted material, then my concerns would be alleviated. You could ask for a check at WP:COPYVIO if that seems easier. If you have already investigated, put it on the talk page. I will ask for a check myself if this isn't resolved in a week or so. DCDuring 15:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram's (2,3) controversy[edit]

Hello DancingPhilosopher. I see you created the article about Smith (the Wolfram prizewinner), and figured you'd be interested in this. I've written a synopsis of the Wolfram (2,3) controversy, as best I understand it, in user space here. Comments, rebuttals, etc are welcome. Thanks, Pete St.John 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interest (money)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Interest (money), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Interest. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

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) 12:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted - you should propose and discuss this redirection before implementing, it has been discussed before and rejected. Apologies if I've missed anything but it appears to be a sole initiative.--Gregalton (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Interest (disambiguation)[edit]

While that is really an adorable header, I'm afraid I had to modify it for encyclopedic reasons. There's still plenty of room on Wikipedia for Wikipedia humor, though... $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 02:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 1970[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Peter Higgs has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\byoutube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw0iRW2hoC4) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and POV pushing on Dissociative identity disorder[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please also see the WP:NPOV policy on why you cannot use Wikipedia articles to advance your own viewpoint. DreamGuy (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for you, dear DreamGuy! DancingPhilosopher 14:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March, 2009[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: dissociative identity disorder. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your edit summaries are far too adversarial, do not assume good faith, and do not adequately justify your edits. There are three editors who object to your changes now, so please stop making them and seek consensus on the talk page first. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a battleground, holds a neutral point of view and is based on reliable sources (in this case, medically reliable sources. You are almost certainly in violation of the three revert rule and are pushing for a block, if not an outright ban. Please edit more cautiously and treat your fellow editors with greater respect. Base your comments and edits on the appropriate sources, giving due weight to each point of view, rather than your own opinion and advocacy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15/ch197/ch197e.html is not medically reliable source, then I don't know what you have in mind, maybe your skepticism/denial of them??? DancingPhilosopher 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your status quo is far from neutral point of view DancingPhilosopher 14:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And it makes me hard to assume good faith when you are in denial, if you can understand me, can you? DancingPhilosopher 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Merck is certainly useful as a source. As is pmid 15503730, pmid 7794202 and a variety of other sources you removed in your edits. However, this is not. This is a personal webpage, and as much as the author may be a practitioner and possibly even an expert, it is not a suitable source; peer reviewed publications are required. Your POV, if suitably supported by reliable sources, CAN be included. However, by trying to include it the way you are, you are essentially guaranteeing that it WILL NEVER BE. And again, this is your choice to do so; building consensus, even for controversial additions, ensures the longevity of your contributions. Being a giant dick will get you blocked. You can do us a favour and simply let us block you, sweeping your concerns under the rug, or you can actually dialogue in a meaningful way. Your decision.

Your assumption that I am in denial is kinda meaningless; I believe in supported information being used to expand the page. I can't deny a reliable source. So find them, and use them.

After your block expires of course. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Status Quo Will Never Be Safe Again[edit]

Your status quo will never be safe again, you will never know when I might change it, you can't block all IP I can do it from... DancingPhilosopher 14:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:PP. We don't have to block a series of IP addresses, and if you continue this, your edits will be removed regardless of their merit. If you do have a desire to help wikipedia and believe there are issues with the DID page, you will never see any of your work appear for longer than a couple minutes. Right now you are trolling and essentially vandalising. You can keep it up, and be blocked, or you can stop, and possibly contribute fruitfully. Your decision. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing including edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Please discuss any disputes politely with other editors and give them credit for trying to improve Wikipedia. The dispute resolution guidelines may also help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, in absence of counter-arguments you now use force to silence me up, or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SloContributorSince2005 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You can still post on this page using DancingPhilosopher. You don't need to use your alternate account. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I laughed at this so hard. My ribs hurt. =( Anti venin 14:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it is not funny at all. I have never been blocked and I contributed a lot to wikipedia - how can you expect me to act after being told that I am blocked? Spare me your laugh, you .... whatever you think you are.

Not laughing at you getting blocked. I'm laughing at what SheffieldSteel wrote. I can understand that you contributed a lot to Wikipedia, but then why the POV-pushing and terrible attitude? The sock-puppet threats? Anti venin 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antivenin, you are asking why all of a sudden my terrible attitude?!! Because it is terrible to have one dreamguy pushing his POV about denial of DID in the article, that's why! Wouldn't you be as upset as I am if you would be told that child sexual abuse does not have clinically significant consequences and then that one of the consequences is not dissociativeness because one dreamguy is in denial, wouldn't you? DancingPhilosopher 15:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if what DancingPhilosopher said is true and you're just one of his "compartmentalized personalities", then you still have never been blocked, so why would you care? Different personalities and all? Hello? Man, it's amazing how quickly that bit of fantasy got tossed out the window.... DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You poor dreamer, of course NOW my switching was deliberate and was not a symptom of DID, not anymore thank god... I have integrated in last 10+ years enough to be able to do plain sockpuppetry... but it was not always so... you must be really... whatever you are... to suggest that I am still suffering DID, but you don't belive in it DancingPhilosopher 15:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Block extended to one week for sockpuppetry. Any further incidents will result in an indefinite block. seicer | talk | contribs 15:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer, thank you for censoring me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADissociative_identity_disorder&diff=276984417&oldid=276981804

Comments by blocked or banned users may be removed without notice, especially if they are off-topic or incoherent. seicer | talk | contribs 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, contributed a lot is not accurate. I see less than 500. I think this is getting to the point where it's WP:DNFTT time, there's no merit to continuing to engage here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. Levine / Robert A. Levine confusion[edit]

On 7 June 2007 you created an article Robert A. Levine but within the article both the names Robert and Peter were used. The next month another user moved the article to Peter A. Levine with the comment "moved Robert A. Levine to Peter A. Levine: Real name" and subsequently all instances of Robert were changed to Peter. A related redirect has been nominated over at RfD, and we'd appreciate your input if you recall whether this was a typo (wordo?) or if Robert is a name he is known by. -- ToE^T 01:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. LeVine is an Anthropologist and it must have been that his name was stuck in my mind and cause me to misname the actual Peter I was going to create the article about... It happens, what can I say :) and the nature of wiki is that it gets corrected sooner or later, if not by the original editor then by other ones.

AfD nomination of Alex Smith (The Simplest Universal Computer Proof contest winner)[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alex Smith (The Simplest Universal Computer Proof contest winner). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Smith (The Simplest Universal Computer Proof contest winner). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello DancingPhilosopher! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 937 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Carroll Izard - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]