User talk:Bentheadvocate/archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] First Message Ever Received
|
[edit] Quebec
Except the revision I'm putting it at has a consensus among editors, unlike yours. The person changing from consensus has to prove their point. The onus is on you, not us. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] One of your edits at Corporate branding has been mentioned at WP:COIN
Hello Bentheadvocate. Please join the discussion at WP:COIN#User:Majken schultz. One of the problems is: how can we verify that any factual claims referenced to an unpublished book are actually in the book? (A statement from the previous edition might no longer be there). EdJohnston (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Homeopathy article probation notification
You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. You are being informed of this due to your edit here: [1] --DrEightyEight (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your comment
I appreciate what you said. —Whig (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kanti Mardia
I removed "A game-server on Global MapleStory was named after him, according to TheMagnolia of Sleepywood.net." again in the Kanti Mardia article. This sentence is rather unintelligible: why was it named after him (Mardia is a statistician!), and why is this relevant? Also, the reference is completely obscure ("TheMagnolia of Sleepywood.net"?). If you think there is indeed a good story here that needs to go in the article, take it to the article's dicussion page, so we can reach consensus. Thanks! Tomixdf (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you were right, a quick search of sleepywood.net shows no mention of Kanti at all. BETA 13:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your "observations"
Please see my comment to your message to El_C here. What you have said is wrong and irresponsible, and should be deleted or struck out the minute you see this. ←Gee♥Alice 10:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suicide Notes
Hi Beta:
You posted the following on the AN/I page:
- I have a shitload of pills", suicide notes almost never contain references to the intended life-ending method.
- Suicide notes are almost always written to a specific person.
- This message does not contain a rationalization, a reason why this person feels it is ok to end their life.
- The note is too short. (The reason why someone writes a suicide note is to basically talk themselves into it. Sometimes a suicide note can can reach 5-10 pages long)
- Contrary to popular belief, suicide notes are usually written with a calm, purposeful hand. The disparity between the style of writing at the beginning and at the end is frankly not believable.
- LCompare this: "i have to i am nothing anymore" with this: "Tell Shonna I Love Her", the sudden capitalization of "I" does not fit. :Also, the writing style is more likely get worse as the person writes, than to get better.
- The final nail in the coffin, pardon the expression, is this: "I'm", first of all, this is too casual in context with the rest of the sentence. And second of all, contractions are a sign that the person is lying. It is one of the only signs of lying in written prose.
Can you tell me where I can find the information that you provided about suidcide notes, and about the fact that contractions denote that a writer is lying? This is all very interesting, but very new to me. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Beta: You seem to have archived the beginning of this discussion already, so I have started a new section here.
You wrote the following on my talk page:
- "Statements containing contractions are usually more likely to be true, however, in this particular context the statement is more likely to be false with a contraction, because it trivializes an otherwise very serious sentence. --BETA 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bielle}"
I have never heard or read anything to confirm either that statements containing contractions are "more likely to be true" or that using a contraction "trivializes" an otherwise serious statement. I'd like to read up on this subject. Could you provide me with some texts on this matter? Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. It was interesting reading, although I could not find either the name of the author or any reference to contractions as "trivializers". The note about using contractions to denote truth was there, although the whole article was devoted to speech, which is quite different from writing. The Final Note was also important: "Obviously, just because someone exhibits one or more of these signs does not make them a liar. The above behaviors should be compared to a persons base (normal) behavior whenever possible." As we don't have any behaviour (only some writing) "normal" or otherwise, to compare, I think it unwise at best and dangerous at worst, to draw conclusions about whether or not the author is serious from this information. As for "taking pot-shots", there is nothing hidden about my comments. I ask for sources because the kind of comments you were making should have some authority behind them; a person's life may be at stake, and you are making claims that are not general knowledge. (I have copied some of these comments to my talk page in order to have a coherent record.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You didn't tell me that you copied the same comment that you placed on my talk page to the noticeboard. That was an archived discussion and I explicitly said "no further comments, please." So, please, that means no new threads with analyses; that's exactly what I asked people not to do. And, further, the title containing the word "update" was misleading as there was no actual update, it was just you analyzing the note. Please exercise greater discretion in the future, by not reading such archived instructions as optional. Thx. El_C 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Suicide
On my talk page you asked what your post meant to me, why I was so antagonized, and the best question, "what effect would [your] post have?". For this last question: The effect could have been dire, and giving out wrong information for others to follow is irresponsible in a life-altering way. As to the others; I work with mentally ill patients and know of two successful suicides and many attempts. You were wrong on all points, with the exception of calling the authorities. My main point being, is one should never play doctor on the interent period especially on some arbitrary hints regarding some stranger's writing style. I don't care if the person was lying or not. This sets a poor precedent. I won't go into more detailed explanations why this is wrong and how I could rebuff any other points on your list, other than the "six" you gave. I only ask you not to play with others' lives like that, and do not analyze a situation where you are not qualified and post it for others to follow. I agree with what Bielle and El C said above. Thank you for considering this for the future. ←Gee♥Alice 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use vs. free images in userspace
Fair use images must have a rationale for each use - if you can't (and you can't) justify a fair use rationale for the use of these images in your userspace, then they cannot be there. Free images only in userspace, in other words. The fact that the logo came in a box to your house doesn't mean you own the copyright or the company gave up copyright claim. Avruchtalk 19:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ben
Did you use to edit under the name Magnonimous? PouponOnToast (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to have a focus on the same article he was solely focused on, your account was created the day after he was blocked, and you have a number of the same typographical "tics." Did you previously edit under that name or not? PouponOnToast (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
