User talk:Danielpi/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Courtkittie (talk) July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Veselin Topalov

It is probably a good idea to seek mediation on Veselin Topalov at this juncture. Please follow the three step process at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal to request mediation. I will pick up the case immediately as soon as you are done filing it and we will continue from there. Thank you very much. --Cyde Weys 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other guy in the cabal mediation case regarding Topalov has not edited Wikipedia since the incident, so there's nothing I can do for now. You might as well finish up editing on the article (in the best NPOV possible) while we wait for his return. If he doesn't return within another week I'm going to close out the case. --Cyde Weys 03:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case: Francis Schuckardt

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.

--Fasten 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Radecki

Thank you for taking this arbitration case. I have responded to your entry on the arbitration page. I hope that this will be a positive experience for you. Bernie Radecki 22:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mediation case. An arbitration case is something different. --Fasten 14:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding the Francis Schuckardt mediation case

Hello Danielpi. As I look at the article on Francis Schuckardt, I see other areas that appear to me to have information that is not supported in any way. For instance, a couple paragraphs suggest that the real reason Chicoine exposed Schuckardt was not due to the alleged sexual and drug abuse, but rather because Chicoine was greedy for the assests of the church. Having been a member of the church at the time all this transpired, I doubt he was motivated by greed or any reason other than that which he stated publicly and was reported in the press. Anyway, the allegation Athanasius303 makes that Chicoine was after the money and power is not supported by any cited source. I don't think it proper to attack Chicoine with this allegation that can not be substantiated. I am wondering if I should add this topic to the request for mediation or if I should just hold off until the currently listed issues have been addressed. Do you have a recommendation one way or the other? Bernie Radecki 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up

I've responded to you here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Activity on the Francis Schuckardt mediation page

Hello DanielPi. Athanasius303 and I have made some additions to the commentary on the mediation page regarding the issue of the excommunication and resting place of Chicoine's soul. Take a look when you get a chance. I am hoping that progress can be made now. I think both of us value your perspective. Bernie Radecki 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DanielPi. A bumnp has been hit on the mediation page. I realized I was frustrated and spent some time trying to figure out why. At first I thought it was due to the delay between reponses from others, but then I realized it was due to a larger issue that requires some clarification from an unbiased source. Bernie Radecki 21:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where I think we are of 4/26

I am posting this here and on Athanasius303's talk page. We are working on three areas and it get al little hard at times to keep it straight

A few proposals have been made on the excummunication topic and DanielPi has weighed in a few times with proposals. I have listed 2 sentences that I agree to that correspond with the mediator's suggestions. So all that is needed is Athanasius303's input.
Regarding the phrase 'Catholic Church', I fear we got out of sync. I did what DanilePi suggested a while ago, but I guess Athanasius303 missed that. So it does turn out he is correct that I did edit the term in the sentence that I attributed to him which I apologize for. There is still an obvious difference of opinion on the term 'Catholic Church'. The good news is that we have a actual instance from the article that highlights the topic. Perhaps DanilPi could take a look at that on the mediation page and re-iterate his opinion. I have added a suggestion there that might be acceptable to all.
DanielPi has added a call for using cited sources. I pushed for this since it seems the only way to prevent controversy. It of course cuts both ways affected both Athanasius303 and me. This topic is awaiting Athanasius303's input. Bernie Radecki 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4/27

I am glad that point 1 of the mediation request has been finalized and point 2 has been agreed upon in principle. In looking at the other 4 points, the general theme may be addressed by the Wikipedia requirement to use cited, published material. Neither myself or Athanasius303 can object to the inclusion of published material (not sure about self-published material) that is relevant to Francis Schuckardt or the key events of his life. I have added a section to the article (as I stated I would in the mediation page) that I beleive demonstrates the use of cited material very well. Athanasius303 may object on some condition or other, but I grow impatient waiting for him and I believe he cannot complain of the addition of relevant, cited material. He and I need to accept this condition or we will never be able to agree on article content. I hope you do not consider my addition of this material to the article devious or unfair. I believe it will serve as a test of the agreement to avoid hearsay material and maintain the standard of using verifiable sources to corraborate information. Thank you again for aiding the two of us in this matter.

4/28

Athansius303 and I have both responded regarding the additions I made to the article. I think this is the only area in which your assistance is needed at this time. Bernie Radecki 16:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5/4

We are still waiting for your critique of the additional section I have made to the Francis Schuckardt article. Do you have time for this?

5/9

Help! Your input has served us well thus far. If we can get your impartial opinion on the lastest additions I made to the Schuckardt article, it may hopefully serve to set a standard that both Athanasius303 and myself can agree to comply with. Really at that point, perhaps the mediation process can be closed and we can thank you for a job well done. Bernie Radecki 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5/13

Glad to hear you are back. As I stated on the mediation page, I figured we lost you and I did edit the article considerably since 5/9. However, as the 5/9 material that I added was based on third party, sourced material, so are my other additions. From the last guidelines you left us, you asked Athanasius303 to obtain independent sources that provided authenticity to the things that he claimed Shuckardt believed. I believe strongly this is the only way to maintain NPOV in this contentious article. My new material is well sourced, but it has angered Athanasius303. I remain reasonable and open to dialog. My intent was not to subvert the process. I too am nearing the end of my studies. When I am not studying pathophysiology, I dabble with this Schuckardt thing. No doubt bizarre to you, but it provides an outlet for me. I apologize for my eagerness to push on. I guess I was hopeful that Athanasius303 and I had agreed to utilized thrid party sources and we could abide by that. Bernie Radecki 06:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veselin Topalov case

Hi. I'm going to attempt to pick up the pieces of the Veselin Topalov mediation case. I'm reviewing it now. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a response in an attempt to mediate the Veselin Topalov case. I hope we can arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Unless you can produce reliable sources that discuss the cheating allegations with relation to Topalov in 2005, I'm probably going to recommend that you drop this issue entirely. There doesn't seem to be any major reliable publication that talks about this case, and a few others (other than the one I found) would be necessary to meet the verifiability bar on Wikipedia. -- Joebeone (Talk) 01:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When appropriate, please indicate whether or not you consider the compromise offer I've made to be acceptable. -- Joebeone (Talk) 15:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a proposal to close this case in 24 hours unless you object. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mediation case

I went ahead and closed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-13 Ronald Reagan Archive for you since anybody would be overwhelmed by the mass of talk going on in the case. I suggested that the disputants involved should file a new request for mediation should they still require it. Cowman109 ^Talk 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kasparov

I don't recall it being that unpleasant. As I recall there was some dispute about the succession box which ultimately got resolved. I'll go check back and maybe comment. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, rereading the talk page, I do recall being kind of pissed off. I'll see what I can do. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my statement (which was under construction). It turns out I was mistaken and it was another user who was changing the template. Dionyseus was just commenting on the talk page (and maybe reverted once toward the beginning of the dispute). I hope that this won't affect the resolution of the dispute at hand. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem for me. I'm just worried that my further involvment won't be productive to you two finding a mutually acceptable solution. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dionyseus Arbcom

Hi Fred- I read your proposals regarding the [[1]], one of which was to block me for a week. I'm willing to accept the punishment if that's what you think is appropriate, but I am curious why Dionyseus got off with a warning, since he's the one reverting without discussion/consensus? I'm not trying to influence your decision. However, it seems to me that Dionyseus has commited the greater infraction, and I am obviously curious about the reasons behind your decision. Again, I'm not trying to question your decision, but I am trying to understand it.

I know it is hard to be courteous to someone who runs sentences together and thinks NPOV means Negative Point of View, but it is required. If you cannot be courteous to other users it will result in bans. Under the guidelines for biographies of living persons removal of poorly sourced negative material from the biography of a living person is exempt from the three revert rule. Fred Bauder 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, while you have cited links, what is your proposal vis-a-vis including cheating allegations on the page? I hasten to remind you that I have a large majority of support from the talk page, in addition to multiple sources (admittedly some are more difficult to access than others).Danny Pi 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the guidelines for biographies of living persons poorly sourced negative material may be removed from the biography of a living person. Removal is exempt from the three revert rule. Fred Bauder 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way the Guardian handled the information was excellent. It raises the issue without making accusations, anonymous accusations for which there is no proof. Fred Bauder 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait and see what the rest of the arbitration committee says. They often disagree when I propose one sided solutions. Fred Bauder 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from posting off-topic requests in The Inquirer talk page

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but I am not liked by The Inquirer editors and its fans for participating in the deletion of one of their obsessions, the Everywhere Girl. The Inquirer has openly attacked me and Wikipedia: [2] I would appreciate if you not post requests at The Inquirer talk page. Dionyseus 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Luck

Hi there. I earned a specialist degree in philosophy (one step up from a major) and I couldn't follow your moral luck example. Neither the moral luck article nor the problems in philosophy page had a clear statement of the problem of moral luck. The problems of philosophy page needed a particularly concise statement of the problem... so then, maybe I would ask you, if you had to sum it up in two or three sentences, what do you think is the problem of moral luck (without using examples)? That is what I tried to reflect in the edit. e.g. if I were to sum up the problem of induction, I would say: There is no reason to lead us to conclude that the future will resemble the past. -Abscissa 13:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read what I wrote. I agree that it needs some major changing and a better example, but not a revert because I think your original example was unclear and did not illustrate the problem concisely. If you had to state very briefly without using an example the problem of moral luck, what would you say? We seem to be talking about two different problems. I am not fermilliar with the problem the way you introduced it. E.g. suppose you and I are at a party, and, as usual, I get egregiously drunk but decide to drive home anyway, and (as usual) I get home safely. You are my neighbour, and stay completely sober, but leave five minutes after I do and, travelling in the same direction on the same route, manage to hit and kill several children who had just setup a late-night street hockey game. Who here is morally blameworthy? Intuitively it seems you are even though I did the wrong thing, and your unfortunate accident was a matter of "luck" (or "unluck"...) .... or how about this. We are two assassins who set out to murder the president. We both have a rifle each and we both take perfect aim at his small-minded narrow little Texas faith-based head and fire at the same time, but at that exact moment a raindrop intercepts your bullet and knocks it out of the way. Am I more morally responsible than you for his death? (Or a better question, am I more deserving of the praise that will be heaped upon me for ending the reign of a fascist dictator?) - Abscissa 14:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk tsk, a quick breeze over your user page suggests that you are bent toward the analytic school of thought... I am going to have to be clear lest my responses don't meet the standards of clairty and rigor. I would say that moral luck is about situations concerning morality which arise out of luck. I hope this definition isn't too circular. :-) If you set out to steal something, most people say you are bad, that is morally wrong, etc. etc. But what if the moral situation arises because of luck? (For whatever reason.) So any "unintended consequences" are a mere branch of the idea of luck. Suppose you were born in to a room where everything was provided for you and you never had to do anything, therefore never make any moral choices. This would be lucky in some sense... even though you don't do any actions with unintended consequences... - Abscissa 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]