User talk:ChicagoDilettante
March 2011
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Linux, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit] Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
November 2012
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Political activities of the Koch brothers. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You just made the same reversion twice in 12 minutes. Your claim that I am edit-warring is laughable. Belchfire-TALK 23:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, Belchfire is engaged in the edit war. Someone made an unfounded change in the midst of an RfC, and I deleted this change. BelchFire then started the edit war with me. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Follow the link, learn the policy: WP:EW Then look at what you did. I hope this helps.
Belchfire-TALK 23:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)- Per the policy set forth at the given link WP:EW, I believe that I am correct that BelchFire (not I) was engaging in an edit war. To quote the policy: "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle." In this case, Jojalozzo made the "potentially controversial change" and I reverted it. The proper thing for BelchFire to do if he or she disagreed with my revert was to "discuss" the change on the talk page per the "bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle." It was improper to to another revert, which is what happened. In any event, we are now in the discussion phase after I (correctly) reverted BelchFire's improper revert. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Follow the link, learn the policy: WP:EW Then look at what you did. I hope this helps.
November 2012
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Political activities of the Koch brothers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
The diffs clearly show that you are currently at 3RR ([1][2][3]) and you will be reported at AN3 if you hit 4. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 08:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Potty dance.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Danger High voltage! 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Potty dance.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Andrew327 16:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia code of conduct
[edit]Hi. Accusing someone of acting in bad faith is not "nice" in wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Looking at this page, this is not the first time you encounter problem editing this site. As I stated in talk page, there are enough media report about bile farm. Let avoid this degenerating into edit war. Cheers. Vapour (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Vapour, I did not accuse you of acting in bad faith. (If you disagree, please show me where I did so.) I said simply that your edit was non-POV neutral and presented a pro-bear-farming perspective. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, You said "Removing edit with obvious pro-farm POV". I have deleted citation not because I necessarily think it is untrue but because it come from unverifiable sources. That is why I left the content itself alone so someone can find alternative to verify it. Also, I'm guessing that you did not read all of my edit. I specifically added that Ursodiol can now be obained from animals slaughterhouse, who are already destined for meat. I did highlight the difficult policy issue of bile farm reducing demand for wild bear. And this is already mentioned in other area of this page. It seems logical that, unless superstition is overcome first, banning the bile firm outright might push wild bear to extinction, which is the result no one want. Vapour (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please, don't assume that the extinction of wild bears is the "result no one wants." I suspect that many, if not most, people who care about this issue would prefer the total extinction of wild bears to the continuing existence of bile farms. In any event, this is beside the point to the issue of your edits, which disrupted a long-standing article written by several interested editors and, through your phrasing, recast it to portray bile farming in a more positive light, contrary to Wikipedia's neutral POV directive. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- The idea that those advocacy groups are covertly working to push wild bear to extinction is new to me. Also, the fact that certain citations are being around for long time is beside the point if these citations are not verifiable according to wikipedia policy. Also, whether the issue of bile farm reducing demand for wild bear portray bile farm in positive point is beside the point. The point is if this is mentioned in media and can be sourced, which I did not do. I will bring back this issue when I find verifiable citation. Cheeers. :) Vapour (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please, don't assume that the extinction of wild bears is the "result no one wants." I suspect that many, if not most, people who care about this issue would prefer the total extinction of wild bears to the continuing existence of bile farms. In any event, this is beside the point to the issue of your edits, which disrupted a long-standing article written by several interested editors and, through your phrasing, recast it to portray bile farming in a more positive light, contrary to Wikipedia's neutral POV directive. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, You said "Removing edit with obvious pro-farm POV". I have deleted citation not because I necessarily think it is untrue but because it come from unverifiable sources. That is why I left the content itself alone so someone can find alternative to verify it. Also, I'm guessing that you did not read all of my edit. I specifically added that Ursodiol can now be obained from animals slaughterhouse, who are already destined for meat. I did highlight the difficult policy issue of bile farm reducing demand for wild bear. And this is already mentioned in other area of this page. It seems logical that, unless superstition is overcome first, banning the bile firm outright might push wild bear to extinction, which is the result no one want. Vapour (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Vapour, I did not accuse you of acting in bad faith. (If you disagree, please show me where I did so.) I said simply that your edit was non-POV neutral and presented a pro-bear-farming perspective. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The contents in the History section turned out to be copy/paste from Daily Telegraph newspaper. I have updated the citation. Cheers. Vapour (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is a shame this discussion is not being held on the Talk Bile Bear page which is where I feel it belongs. I actually looked at the User page for ChicagoDilettante to say 'well done' on his/her latest edits to the Bile bear page - I had intended to make similar edits but was being cautious. Perhaps I need to learn to be bolder in my editing.__31.97.69.19 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Potty dance, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Your article submission Potty dance
[edit]
Hello ChicagoDilettante. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Potty dance.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Potty dance}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Faith
[edit]
Hi CD. I've been thining about this further. A statement like "Jesus is the saviour of humankind" is problematic indeed, if you take it literally. Yet, what's behind it is the question how to deal with ourselves, with our evil shortcomings and the horror we commit towards each other. what faith is about, at least according to people like Kierkegaard and Ton Lathouwers, is the leap of faith to belief in the good, despite all the evidence of the contrary. It's not just belief, it's also an ethical imperative. I know a lot of Christians who dare to doubt the existence of God, but who refue to loose their faith in the worthiness of humankind. Same for Buddhists. NB: I don't believe in the existence of a personal God either; there's too much evil in this world. But we can't afford to lose faith in humankind... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Discuss with me?
[edit]Hi there,
I wanted to see if you were still an active Wikipedia editor and to invite you to discuss the renaming of the article Evidence of common descent. See: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Article_Title and Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Requested_move_5_March_2016.
Cheers! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)