User talk:Dimawik/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, Dimawik, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Fr a ncs2000 21:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:NIST_AES_key_wrap.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NIST_AES_key_wrap.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Licensing clearly states "public domain" (work of the US government). The summary quotes the source (NIST specification). I wonder what else is necessary. NIST created the content and it is clearly stated in the text. Please, please, please - next time before tagging the image spend a minute reading the description, actually. Dimawik (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APS position on global warming[edit]

I'm not sure what you mean by that... The wording of the article itself made it more than appropriate for it to be merged. Seeing as APS took the position of mainstream scientists, those who are opposed to APS are opposed to mainstream scientists as well. Start a topic on the articles talk page linking to the deletion discussion and offering your reliable source (For which they seem to think yours is not reliable enough). -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My delete vote of the APS position page was pretty clear as well. See my response to your message on my Talk page. Lantrix (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested that the article should be merged despite my statement that a particular editor (WMC) will not let it happen. Either you were aware of the WMC style (hint: he reverted my change without any discussion and openly challenged me to open an RFC - a very nice way to start cooperation on an article), or you were not. If you were not aware of his style, it would have made sense to listen to my comment. If you were aware of his style, your suggestions to merge the information from the article were not quite cricket. Dimawik (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not previously aware of his style, but I am currently aware of the discussion between him and others (including you). My suggestions to merge were clearly valid based upon WP:NPOV, and your discussions were not a major factor in my Delete vote. This is what I based it upon, not your attempt to sway nor WMC's attempt to revert. I'm involved in Wikipedia:NODRAMA so I look forward to getting articles updated :-) . Lantrix (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are absolutely no ill feelings on my side - this is WP after all, not real life :-). The reason I have broadcasted the situation after the deletion decision is not out of frustration, but simply because an admin with the "go ahead, make my day" attitude is, should I say, unusual? - and the other editors should be aware of this happening. Dimawik (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postmortem for random readers: Looks like someone with more time and skill on his/her hands finally took WMC to the AC and he got desysopped (sounds somewhat like rap :-). Aaaah the sweet taste of having been vindicated ... Dimawik (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. WP:BLP is not negotiable. You need a verifiable quote that states a *direct* disagreement with either of the 3 criteria. That you "feel" that statements are to that effect is not enough. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to find a more non-controversial quote than the one I used. It was confirmed by an audio recording, Wall Street Journal and two other reputable sources. It seems impossible to get something more reliable about a living person short of requesting a notarized statement from him/her. By now it became too hard for me to keep assuming good faith on the other side and I have neither time nor will to fight over such a petty problem. I therefore consider the issue closed. Team WMC can keep playing its "ball" (WMC's own words). Dimawik (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the quote that is controversial, but the topic into which you are putting that quote.... To include people on the list, you have to document a specific sentence/quote that directly contradicts one of the 3 consensus statements. The quote has to be unambiguous, and verifiable. None of the statements that you've put in does so - and that means that you are breaking with BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kursk[edit]

responded —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please respond on the bottom not between the posts, its hard to find them -- HROThomas (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CRU data-dump[edit]

Since we seem to be in agreement on how to treat the CRU statements re this, have a look at this very rough draft: User:Tillman/CRU climate data problems

The first part is actually pretty close to ready-to-go (out for comments, anyway). After that, it gets really rough. Feel free to edit the draft, add to it, or comment separately.

I'd also be interested in your opinion about use of these (professional) blogs as RS's. I'm off to dinner ;-) Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Appétit! I think your text is quite good and balanced; in particular, I like the reverse-chronological order that puts more emphasis on the recent statement (that are less damaging to CRU). On the blogs, my opinion (dream?) is simple: if not for Climateaudit/Pielke, the quotes on the state of data would have never surfaced. So, under the circumstances, I would advocate for equal time for Realclimate and (Climateaudit + Pielke) combo. I would prefer to quote next to nothing from the rest of the blogs. Smaller territory is easier to hold. Dimawik (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. A Trader Joe mini-qiche (which are actually pretty good), and a well-earned beer.

Thanks for the kind words, and your comments. I agree re smaller territory.

I think I have a decent-enough draft to post -- take another look, if you like. I may sleep on it. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to comment on the revised 2nd draft over at Talk:Climatic Research Unit‎? I could use some support, if you're willing... TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CANVASS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kim, I have already worked on the article in question and expressed my position regarding the subject of the discussion, so this exchange cannot qualify as "canvassing" under the rules of either Wikipedia (which requires the intent to inform ... about a community discussion) or English language. Note also that this exchange was done through open channels, not via email or off-wiki - so it was 100% above the water (Team WMC cannot state the same about their communications). The guideline (not a rule) you quoted lists the following types of potentially inappropriate canvassing:

Would you be so kind to tell me which of the five categories above you were trying to warn me (or Pete) about? If you cannot, please avoid warning me about canvassing in the future and instead refresh your understanding of WP:HARASS. Dimawik (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you specifically to come in and give a good critique - is canvassing. If you are interested in the article, then you would have noticed automatically and have come to give critique without being nudged... (quote: "but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is on my watch list (my settings automatically add the pages I have edited to the watch list), so I of course knew about the discussion. For God's sake, it is my suggestion in this discussion - to post just the quotes without OR - that Pete appears to have used for his draft (OK, I do not know this for sure and can be overestimating the importance of my work :-). Note also my comments on the substance above. As a participant of this discussion, you certainly know all this, so your post appears strange to me. Please WP:AGF and refrain from unsubstantiated allegations. Dimawik (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing[edit]

Your editing on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is becoming increasingly disruptive and tendentious, particularly your refusal to listen to what other editors are saying (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Please read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and take note of what it says. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your page. In short, I think you are the one being both tendentious and disruptive. Dimawik (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

panther pictures[edit]

i dont see panther losses on this paper?! Blablaaa (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I though I have deleted my comment :-) A set of my mistakes: wrong 3rd division (not SS), wrong paper link. The correct paper is [1], see letter P (Pz.Abt. 503). But this battalion was attached to the wrong 3rd division :-) Furthermore, experts think this is a typo; it should have been VI, not V - Tiger, not Panther. No sensation there. Dimawik (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kursk[edit]

hi, responded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(crossed in tthe mail) I have provided comments on the talk page of the article; let's keep the discussion there. I think that the changes you have done are extremely controversial, so it might be wise for you next time to discuss drastic changes before actually making them. Dimawik (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

responded Blablaaa (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists[edit]

neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Galois-Counter Mode.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Galois-Counter Mode.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hash chain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonce. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]