User talk:20-dude

Hi, I'm 20-dude (actually I'm T-man, does anyone care anymore?). I have considerable experience with wikis in general and I actually have my own. I'm currently more commited to other wiki's and therefore lack time to make significant contributions to wikipedia. However, as frequent reader of this wonderful site, I promise that if I notice mistakes or missing data, info or links, I'll make productive edits.

I am looking to meet editors intered in pop-culture (tv, movies, music, sports, fashion, technology, etc), religion or kid's stuff or children education.

--20-dude 10:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My crap

• /My sandbox
• /My Archive
• /Lista de contactos de Ana Rosa Payán Cervera

Hello. I found your sandbox in Category:WikiProjects, and because I suppose you don't intend that page to be part of that category I commented out the categorising line in your crapsandbox. Nothing really problematic, but it's one of the quirks that can occur when you copy stuff around the wiki. -- StevenDH (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Episodes

Nice job saving information. One thing you should probably be aware of is that text copied from WP needs to be kept under the GFDL, and there needs to be a way for people to find the edit history so the writers (or their ips) can be credited. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

CHAFLÓN OLMOS, Carlos.

Can you provide a copy of this source, or let us know where we can consult one? I'd like to see what it says about the items for which you cite it. I can't determine even what it is, and can find no online mention of it in book search sites, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

help

{{help}} The wikipedian above, Dicklyion, doesn't stop erasing entire sections of List of works designed with golden ratio. We both want the article to be perfectly sourced, actually I asked for his help first for that reason. He doens't help providing some, and only eliminates mindlessly, even when I'm sure he knows there is a great deal of sources he could be bringing instead. The stuff he is ereasing would be like erasing "Newton enunciated the gravity law. just because, although already pointed, the line doesn't cite a source yet.

He was the most insistive in the section that made less sense to erase, it was sourced before he started his erasings, once I proved that (to my surprise) not only other internet pages use the source, but also other wikipedia related articles, he moved on to other irrational erasings. As you can see in his talk page, I'm not the only one that disagrees with his procedures. He might already broken 3RR, but I'm not sure.

Even though I explained myself I was the first to notice I didn't find the correct template for the copyright license of those scans of part of a book page (2 are big parts of the pages, and one is less than half). The source is in Spanish, but acording to WP:SOURCE I know it is ok, because it's mostly for graphic self expalining material--20-dude (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a dispute. Would you like to try WP:ANI or dispute resolution? BoL (Talk) 04:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Frederik Macody Lund

A translation of Frederik Macody Lund is now amongst us. It might need a cleanup. Have a nice evening. --Orland (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I cleaned it up a bit, but some words are still uncertain; I changed Fredrik to Frederick, since that's the only spelling I can find associated with Julius, and it's the more common one I find in books. My friend in Oslo writes: "Macody Lund was from Farsund, close to my home town. My parents grew in Farsund and my father talked a lot about this guy. Husan is a famous building Macody Lund used to live in. Not sure, but maybe he build part of it as well. I will try to get hold of that book." Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes. It should have been Frederik all along. My wrong. --Orland (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now we're talking!!!--20-dude (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Proportions of the Parthenon.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Proportions of the Parthenon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Notre Dame of Paris' regulator lines.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Notre Dame of Paris' regulator lines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Laon Cathedral's regulator lines.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Laon Cathedral's regulator lines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright help

{{help}} What's with the above posts. In which way are those images not ok. I'm not getting it, how is that any worst than the millions of screenshots in Wikipedia? I'm just using a portion, I'm specifiying source, I think the copyright tag is in order and are basic for the article in which they're used, what can I be possibly missing?? All of those are scans that has to be way better than the average taken-from-some-site-X pictures all over wikipedia. --20-dude (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that these images could be argued to be fair use in discussing the book or the author, but not for discussion of the object depicted. If this doesn't help, I suggest you ask the user who tagged them or seek wider input at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Bovlb (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Dear Dude: I have tried to be patient with you and to give you guidance. You appear to have been influenced by unreliable writings on the golden ratio, which you accept uncritically as fact, and which you do not balance by consulting more reliable sources that have been pointed out to you. The idea that ancient Egyptians used the golden ratio in their designs is nonsense: it is impossible, given the limits of their mathematical knowledge at that time. Your behavior on Wikipedia, although well intended, is disruptive, both in your sloppy, unsourced, and factually inaccurate edits and in your posts on Talk pages. It is one thing to write in the expectation that others will improve or expand on what you contribute. It is quite another to make messes, continually, so that others have to clean up after you. You have twice uploaded copyrighted material without an adequate justification, which exposes Wikipedia Foundation to potential legal liability. I have asked you to modify your behavior and to learn Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, but you have not. While I do not condone Dicklyon's tone or manner (and have him so), that does not justify your attacks or your rambling rantings. You invited the help of Wikipedians with more expertise on the golden ratio, you are getting that help, but you reject its results. If nothing else, consider the likelihood that you are correct and that those with more knowledge of the subject are wrong. While I would welcome future contributions by you if you will abide by this community's standards, you might be more comfortable participating in other wikis that have less rigorous standards. If your disruptive behavior continues, I will invoke appropriate procedures within the Wikipedia community to limit your disruption. I would rather not have to do that. Finell (Talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't condone my behavior either. But when my patience is pushed to the limit, shit happens. I tried to help in various ways, including tough love, fixing what could be fixed and removing what was intolerable. But my annoyance came through as abrasiveness; I hate it when that happens. Dude, if you want to make progress in a good direction, admit that Pile is a flaky source and take all that stuff out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WARNING

[To Finell:]

You gave me constructive criticism, I'll do the same for you:

• a. What makes you talk with such tone? it kinda sounds like authoritarian arrogance. Nobody likes that either. I suggest you relax, be careful and take it easy. We're supposed to be a community, never forget that.
• b. I looked for help, especially in those who oppose my view, and results speak for themselves. It worked.
• c. If you think, mathematics is indispensable for applying golden proportion in aesthetics; you need to learn beyond that. As long as it is man made (or even nature made) it will NEVER get be phi. Divine proportion is, as its name indicates, an ideal of perfection. It is weird to you I know, but art approaches phi like that: A perfect square, a string, a nail, marker and perhaps a hammer is all an artist needs to IMITATE phi. The best approach to GR is the Parthenon: it features the proportion in the global dimensions, in the inner spaces, and in the thickness of the structure.
• d. I'm fine with Dicklyon, my appreciation of his work and perspective is real.
• e. Your comments are more than welcomed and your sort of constructive criticism is fine, but never forget, it's very easy to speak when you don't create.
• f. Wikipedia is all about having articles that are not necesarely complete, but are pushed to appear so. I explained from the beginning I was trying to make a "page under construction", in which tags could indicate so. I the end, I gave up and continue to develop the article with your systems.
• g. Check the editorial houses and the curriculum of my sources. You come from the math angle; most of my quotes are from historians, architects and designers (and then again, even some engineers).
• h. You can't blame me about the images as if it were a crime. Actually, according to me, I was giving the author even more credit by not modifying to much the context of the images. And I'm not sure you're even right on that one. What's a fourth of a page compared to a full screenshot, which are so welcomed in WP articles there is a copyright tag for them.
• i. I don't mind that much, but you come off as rude and have your own flaws. You are also always the first to point fingers. I'm just chatty, and sort of opinionated, nobody is disrupting, not even rude. The evolution of the article speaks for itself, it's not mine or dicklyon's, is the best of both.
• j. C'mon, the Bangkok thing was priceless. It's moronic, but it has a honest mistake, I kept reading a column as if it were an internet page, haha.
• k. everybody can make warnings. Please, keep them for when it's worth.
• l. I was planning on keep going until I finish the alphabet, but when I actually contemplated repeating the same comments with different letter I decided to give it a rest.
• m. Take care. Bye, now.

--20-dude (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dude: YOU were the first one to issue a "warning" here, to Dicklyon, and to threaten him with 3RR because he has to clean up your nonsense. In the same discussion, you had just before begun a long equation with "φ = φ² + φ³", which is Wikipedia:Patent nonsense; it is equivalent to saying that 2 = 4 + 8. We should not have to tutor you on Wikipedia's copyright policies; they are clear, and you claim to have read them. So stop uploading copyrighted material without a sufficient fair use rationale. Finally, this is just a small point, but I have repeatedly asked you to respond on your Talk page to the messages that I leave here, to preserve the continuity of the discussion, but you refuse even that simple request. I moved the discussion back here, so it is altogether. Finell (Talk) 17:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it appears that you are sometimes making edits or posting to Talk pages without signing in, so only your IP address shows. Are you? Why? Finell (Talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dude (in reply to your last message on my Talk page): There are many times when I have had to dine on my words, but not this time. As you have been told repeatedly, by common convention and as used on Wikipedia, φ ≈ 1.618. So, using the conventional notation, φ ≠ φ² + φ³. However, the math to which you are referring (notation aside) is interesting and is definitely phi-related; it is discussed in in Golden ratio and in a related article.

Are you the anon who twice reversed all the notation in Golden ratio? When I saw those edits, I thought that you might have made them because you have used this reversed notation yourself. However, I did not think that you would edit without being logged in (most registered Wikipedians don't do that, although anyone can make a mistake). I asked the question about your not being logged in because I saw an anon post on a Talk page that, from the context of the conversation, had to be yours. Finell (Talk) 08:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Proportions_of_the_Parthenon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Proportions_of_the_Parthenon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Proportions of the Vitruvian man.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Proportions of the Vitruvian man.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC) --Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Catedral de México's regulator lines.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Proportions of the Vitruvian man.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Proportions of the Vitruvian man.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please answer

I would appreciate an answer to this question, which I asked above: Are you the anon who twice reversed all the notation in Golden ratio? Thank you. Finell (Talk) 21:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

I was asking specifically about the edits from IP 168.103.222.216 on March 12 and 13, 2008, as reflected in the article's revision history. Finell (Talk) 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

Nah. but please, by all means, DON'T let me know what was that about. (No ofense, but this issue has becomed so tiresome, I couldn't care less)--20-dude (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand "Nah. but please, by all means, DON'T let me know what was that about." Could you please clarify what you mean? Thanks. Finell (Talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

It was not me and your contant watching over my every step was cute at first(actually it was creepy-weird, but let's just leave it a cute), but it is really getting old and I don't enjoy this kind of nonsense, waist of time accusations. It was not me and you seriously need to relax. I don't wan't to know about the results of your inquisitions either. The previous message was clear and yet you bothered me again.--20-dude (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not watching you and have not accused you of anything. I asked a simple question and, until your last post, did not get a straight answer. Now you have answered, and I accept your answer. If, when I first asked the question under #WARNING_2, you had simply answered instead of ignoring my question, that would have been the end of it. Likewise, if you had simply said No the first or second time I asked you under this heading, that would have been the end of it. "Nah. but please, by all means, DON'T let me know what was that about" is hardly clear. Fini. Finell (Talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

Yes, for slow people I guess that could be unclear. You're right. :)--20-dude (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to template substitution

I completely agree with you on Wikipedia:Template_substitution. Maybe you could fill in a quick example? I still don't know how it works. OptimistBen (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil

Dude, when other editors are doing their best to clean up your mess, when your sources and what they say are unclear and badly expressed, they may make mistakes that only you have the source info to recognize and corrent. That is not a reason for you to write abusive edit summaries. Just thank them for their effort and politely offer the correction. It's called collaboration. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Kepler triangle

It wasn't clear what you point was about "check the angles" in the Kepler triangle. Perhaps you are trying to measure the 2D projection of the triangle in the solid? Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Final warning for incivility

Re your recent comments on Talk:Root rectangle: Dude, you need to re-read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please keep your comments focused on the article content, and avoid making disparaging remarks about other editors; consider this a final warning, as I will request a block if you do it again. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not interested

Dude, I removed your long thing from my talk page, mostly without reading it. It's probably good that you wrote it, so you could think it over yourself. But you demand too much attention, and I'm not that interested. I'd rather focus on article content than on getting involved in an interpersonal squabble. Get over it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Zeising

Dude, please clean up after yourself on your new article Adolf Zeising. You need a references section, primarily. And a source for the translation, especially since it contains the agrammatical hyphenated compound noun (which is what is done in German, not English). Add an appropriate stub tag, category, a bit of biographical info, which should be easy to find if he's notable, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He is notable, don't ebarrass yourself by doubting it, because I know you know who the guy is. Zeising is responsible for bringing back phi in the XIX century, doing exhaustive studies of it's precense in nature and works in which the author din't used it on purpose (which is anoying).

In a personal not relevant way, I also consider his work somewhat BS, because I care little for GR in terms of aestethics and perception, even though there is some conection. If you reflect on my contributions, I tend to explore acient works produced bfore the knowledge of phi, because they led to the knowledge of phi. I'm plenty aware Egyptians didn't use aKepler trinagle because they wanted it to have "divine proportion" I'm more concerned apud how did they get to produce (in a probbably accidental but geometrical way) a kepler triangle. I also don't like Zeising work because there are other important rectangles, like root-2, 3 and 5. Root-5 was used a lot by the Mayans, root-2 is almost as big as phi, and root 3 is in the hexagon.

I also don't believe it is a formula to universal beauty, I think it's all the "outlet effect". When you se an autlet it's normal to asociate it with a human face (two eyes and an open mouth), the same way we see so many pentagrams and references to phi in nature that we asociate it with art works that have it, it is as simple as that. Same thing with the other rectangles and types of proportion.--20-dude (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Finell#Edits

Please link the diffs to which your message at User talk:Finell#Edits refers. Finell (Talk) 07:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

All of them. Also you comments! You never ask anything or do research of your own, you just go wherever I've recently been working and spit offensive nonsense like when you called my work "utter nonsense" or "embarrasing", which on purpose or no IS also an indirect insult to the author (me). And you never learn, you keep doing that even tough you're always proven wrong.

Don't get me wrong, this is a free medium, you can keep following me around if you want, I guess in a way I should be flattered by the anormal deal of attention you give to me. But watch your statements and know what kind of person you are dealing with: if you don't know where does, just ask, then being sure you know about what you're talking about, start the constructive criticism if you want. It's only natural that if somebody is building a stub on a topic you are not familiar with you'd have to ask (or go elsewhere to contribute within you field of knowledge).--20-dude (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Bob talk 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it was specifically on the The Black Adder (pilot episode)‎ page. Your later addition is much better though, thanks. Bob talk 10:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your attitude

Hi 20-dude and thank you for the considerable work that you are doing for Wikipedia. I noticed especially your many contributions today to List of works designed with golden ratio. Unfortunately your attitude does not seem to be in tune with how we work here and I would hate to see you heading towards conflict with other editors or you getting blocked by an administrator for something avoidable such as failing to WP:AGF. I am not an administrator. My comments on what you have contributed are:

• You make spelling mistakes and introduce changes to the encyclopedic language for no apparent good reason. Others have to clear up after you. I am sorry to be so blunt but the diffs that are available to everyone do show this.
• WP:NPOV really means that what you do or don't "care about" should not influence what you contribute or delete. I notice that you use this expression on your talk page and therefore point out that it is all too easy to offend people by being dismissive about matters that they do care about.

My advice is to step back for a while and let yourself and other editors cool off. You can use that pause to enjoy Wikipedia and learn from the comments given to you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I use "care about" in context, especially when something is POV, which I fight. Other than that your advise[sic] is very valuable. I'm tempted to say that I can't help it, but I believe the correct thing to say would be: I HAVE to help it just as you said.

The spelling is the worst part to solve, since I can't go beyond what my word processor appove[sic] (note: I never use spellcheck on talk ages[sic], just on the articles). Any thoughts on that last part? I'd love to have great spelling and grammar, I love English.--20-dude (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Since "All's fair in love and war" (unsourced cliché ) and I take you 20-dude at your word as being a lover of English, I have been so impertinent as to insert [sic]'s after your latest misspellings. As to fighting POV, this urge may arise quite naturally as part of our fight or flight response but I believe that we can and should state facts neutrally here. The alternative is to "raise hakles" and go to war in cyberspace, in which horrible words may seem justified in the heat of the moment. My thoughts on spelling and grammar are to suggest that you first look over a new post in the editor. Don't press Save page immediately but pour your favourite beverage, look around the room, do whatever helps distract. Then read it again as though you had never seen it and were curious about the character of the writer. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?? ...I think I missed most of your comments. But if I got you right, you're sugesting[sic], to write, checkspell, do something else, re-read, correct it. Why, it sounds brilliant... but I especially didn't get the part about war (just when I think my English is coming along good!). "Cyberspace"! that word is quite a blast from the past haha, I feel so 90s--20-dude (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You got me right. I call edit warring and Internet incivility "war in cyberspace" and I confess to being a 20th century person who quotes such pacifist things as:

War does not determine who is right — only who is left. (unsourced, Bertrand Russell?)

It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.[1] (Winston Churchill)

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Dude: The editors with whom you interact have been making essentially the same comments about your editing behavior over a long period of time. Please try to listen and adjust your behavior, rather than dismissing what everyone else has to say and counterattacking. Finell (Talk) 12:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

If you read me dismissing Cuddlyable3's comments you have to read again. I tend to dismiss you because you the opposite of what you preach (including messing content and word twisting) and that is very hard to respect (the action). --20-dude (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that notion. Your recent long string of edits at List of works designed with golden ratio has left that article in a really sad state, and I'm depressed about the amount of cleanup it will require. I think reverting the last 20+ edits would improve it, but that wouldn't be very productive. If you could take on the job of repairing the mess you make, that would help; or go more slowly so we can clean up along the way. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re read yourself, Dicklyon. On one hand you're complaining about me not being civil, which is fine (save for the fact that, due to his past comments, the guy you’re backing can't really talk about behaving without looking like a walking contradiction) but on the other, your choice of words to describe my work is very misleading, to the point that it seems a personal attack. I mean, how on earth is it smart to address the product of somebody's work as sad and still expect to him to reply? Answer: it is not, because you're pushing the border of civility. Insulting the work is a disguised and passive way to insult the author, which can also be seen gut-less (a.k.a. passive, a.k.a. disguised), what sort of answer are you expecting from me with those manners? At least I've always been honest in that sense (when I attack, it is widely obvious, fear and square). Furthermore, a) remember, the language barrier renders me blind towards your complains, you have to explain to me better what do you want me to do with the article and as you know I'll do it (in fact, the last 10 edits I tried to please you, and what remains wrong is what I wasn't able to see as wrong); b) at least now the article is now honest with the sources, I founded an impressive amount of word twisting on quotes that I'm almost positive are yours. Then it is all matter of personal perspective when did the article needed clean up the most, before my edits with the invisible word twisting or now with the apparently obvious Grammar/spelling mistakes...--20-dude (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides, that Devlin guy you seem to like might be a big shot at Stanford, but he is no researcher at all, at least not if you take his article as reference: the only guy he quotes when he ditches (Markowsky) made his measuring by making phone calls, which is almost a felony (at least to architecture researchers) and very poor researching, the golden rectangle is not in the overall shape and nobody has ever said so. If he had more brain cells than fingers, he should have researched for the original plains or at leas some showing the system Le Corbusier used, but if he had more brain cells than brain hemispheres, he would have just consulted Le Corbusier books where he explains several of his drawings, what a deucebag (that Markowsky). Besides, Devlin ditches the theories of the Parthenon by doing the same thing he criticizes from the researchers: not measuring himself. How the hell does he know so? Besides, I have not seen the defects he talk about, the Parthenon is one of the few cases in which the golden rectangle is in the overall geometry and in the datails. Another stupidity of his is to go call some few local architects and make a point of that, I did the same and only the most successful were positive and gave me plans to publish. Nobody has ever said GS is in contemporary architecture (take in consideration gs is one of many methods). Both Devlin and Markowsky have some good quotable paragraphs, but tons of bs. Both of them fail to understand the usage of GS is platonic and mostly produced through geometric configuration. It be like me quoting the statements that see intentional gs in Picasso or FL Wright. --20-dude (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You mis-read me. I pretty much gave up on your civility issues. The only thing that concerns me now is the mess you make in article space when you work on an article. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nice try, but a) the same can be said about me gaving on your your unpoliteness and b) I did read you right: You second a guy complaining about civility and then used a very rude adjetive (sad). Say what you want, but using such adjetive is still insulting. So, for the sake of moving on, let's just asume that's your way to rectify your original comment and forget about it. I' imagine both of your comment only ment: I'm rather concern about the errors you made in the lowwgr article while fixing my quoting mistakes and adding new material.--20-dude (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adolf Zeising

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Adolf Zeising, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Oo7565 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fashin

Hello, how do you do?

What is the meaning of fashin in your user page?

Nice to know you!

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 07:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a typo. My page will be online either tomorrow, Monday or Tuesday. You can become an editor or an administor there if you want. I appreciate any help.--20-dude (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything about 20-dude

Would you like to give anything about you?

I am Relly Komaruzaman. I live in Kepahiang. I do really love to know somebody from the others worlds. Keep in touch and make friendship to another human race.

Thanks for the replay message and see you in Wikipedia!

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 04:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The meaning

I mean I wanna be your friend and we will be friendly contributors in this website. You got it, Mr. White?

Respect and thank you!

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just thought it was werd to call me "another race". Wikipedia is not a site I'd go to to make friendships, it is not really friendly (check some talk pages to see what I'm talking about), it's just a page where people can get rough information. I come here mostly to look for sources for my investigation on golden ratio. --20-dude (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dizzy Devil, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You removed a redirect . Laaa200 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nuidis Vulko

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Nuidis Vulko requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Morenooso (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Hi 20-dude,

Please provide sources for the content you added here. If I can't verify what you've written, the content probably should not remain in the article. Also, can you please explain why this content, covering cartoons, pertains to the Broadcast syndication article? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio

Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio

Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 04:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yo Soy 132 Egyptian revolution claim

Hi, please excuse my netiquette if this is in the wrong place. I see you added the statement "[Yo Soy 132]'s influences can be traced back to the Egyptian revolution" to the article. I find the statement unusual, as the Egyptian revolution can trace its influences back to the Tunisian revolution etc. and as there have been many new protest movements around the world which can be said to have influenced the Mexican one. I have tagged the statement as requiring a source. Please provide one if possible, if not it would probably be better to change it to "its influences can be traced back to the Arab Spring," and that statement might benefit from a source as well. junglejill (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that was not mine. I found the initial body of information precisely within the Egyptian Revolution article. Surprisingly, that was the only WP article to talk about yosoy132. If you have better information, go nuts, I just wanted to get the ball rolling. Not that it matters, but, personally, I've always found it similar to the Egyptian and other arab revolutions as well as to the Spanish and Wall Street protest movement. The article might be trascendental, specially if the movement changes the preferences against Peña Nieto, who just took major blows from The Guardian, Anonymous and Proceso.

Alright then. Just wanted to check with you. The statement has been removed by another editor... the article already draws connections to the occupy movement and the Arab Spring anyway. ʝunglejill 02:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bill/William T. Still

Hallo, I came across William T. Still while stub-sorting, and noticed that it ought to be at Bill Still, which seems to have been salted after 3 AfDs. I've mentioned it to a helpful admin (User_talk:DGG#Bill.2FWilliam_Still). I'm neutral about the article, but I believe in correct article titles and helpful redirects! PamD 09:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William T. Still

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on William T. Still, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, 20-dude. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of AllSides

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on AllSides 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 web content that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kaisertalk (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The usual criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is explained here. Very basically, we only summarise information that's already published in reliable sources that're independent of the subject. We do this to ensure both that our information is verifiable, and that it can be written neutrally. There's a draft at Draft:AllSides where you can see more discussion and try to bring it up to the usual inclusion standard. If you have any questions, please ask. Cheers, WilyD 08:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)