User talk:DKqwerty

Welcome

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've been editing here since 2005. I don't understand why, after an admittedly long time without edits, I'm suddenly being welcomed to Wikipedia in 2009 like a child. DKqwerty (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

DK, from [here] I can show you that you make one edit in 2006, 6 in 2007, and 11 in 2008. If you want to go around fucking, blowing and calling people idiots you will be blocked out forever. You seem quite articulate. I guarantee you that 50% of wiki-editing is to do with keeping casual editors from fucking, blowing, calling idiots, writing rubbish for fun, etc...

Here is a list of links for you by User:Squeakbox:-

~ R.T.G 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I know, I spend most of my time here reverting vandalism and very little time contributing.

To clarify, I also made several edits under an IP account in 2005 which don't show up in my user manifest.

I apologize for saying your post in the Voyager Talk page made you sound like an idiot, but it really was a very unintelligent post that was written in the style (or lack thereof) of blog posts or AIM conversations. I did not mean to offend but to only point out my interpretation. I will try to refrain from such inflammatory language in the future. Since you're clearly an experienced Wikipedian, I hope to also seek your guidance on a few things in the near future. DKqwerty (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Paroxetine has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did and why. Thank you. Regarding this reversion, please do not characterize good-faith editing as WP:Vandalism. Remember that one of Wikipedia's core guidelines is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Dynaflow babble 11:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey DK. I appreciate your good faith discussion. I actually did add a source if you look at the history. There are of course lots more. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Your single reference made no mention of interrogation polices, Guantanamo Bay, or his spending plans and only pertains to his associations. Therefore, it does not support most of your addition. It does not matter how many more there are, and if there are "lots more", please find them and cite them before making such additions. DKqwerty (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC) In that case wouldn't it make more sense to remove mention of interrogation polices and Guantanamo Bay? I think it does include mention of his fiscal approach. Are you disputing that Republicans and Conservatives don't agree with his policies on Guantanamo Bay and interrogation? Cheney just made a lot of news with a speech about the issue and it was a point of difference throughout the 2008 campaign. Can we work together to include some balance and content that isn't laudatory? What do you think are the most notable criticisms or controversies? Let's include them so we abide by NPOV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC) It doesn't matter if we agree (which of course I do in thei regard) per WP:NOR. Find some references and you're free to add it. Remember that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources unless "the contributing editor states the fact in a manner that does not present an interpretation of the fact (original research) which is not itself explicitly contained in the primary source" (i.e. Dick Cheney's interviews do not constitute reliable consensus criticism in-and-of themselves) per WP:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources. Keep in mind, I do not make very many additions to articles, especially one's as heated and debated as the one we are disscussing. I simply revert vandalism and additions which go against established Wikipedia policies. I will continue to do so with any edit you make that does not adhere to said policies. DKqwerty (talk) You were right about the spending bit, I had misread it because the word spending was included but in a different context. This story includes many of the same criticisms including a statement that "they also pounded Mr Obama over his tax and economic plans". I'm happy to compromise and work out appropriate wording and citations and whatever. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical errors

This is all relative.

see Atherosclerosis: 21:17, May 24, 2009 DKqwerty (talk | contribs) m (81,558 bytes) (Undid good faith edit by MAlvis: if it contains technical errors, of what value is it?; no need for such overt placement) (undo)

The reference is much better than most (because it is multimedia), and more accurate (actual natual history of the disease) than most, including the image on the wikipedia page about atherosclerosis.

Wikipedia itself has many technical errors, though it is fairly good on the whole (and widely accessible), else I would not be involved or waste my time on it.

As a practicing interventional cardiologist, very well informed on the issues from multiple aspects, including state-of-the-art basic science research findings, and long working to eliminate the use of/need for physical interventions to treat the symptoms of atherosclerosis and most cardiovascular diseases (well before people have any symptoms) with increasing success, I am fairly well informed and find very few references which are all that accurate and thus mislead.

While I know the multiple technical errors and correct them (in writing) with people I see a patients, the issues are well beyond what most physician editors on wikipedia are willing to accept and I am tired of fighting with some of these people, particularly one individual in England, who decline to accept research and clinical evidence as proof until several years to decades old, widely publicized and commonly accepted. Thus I have not bothered to offer the more advanced, integrated and more correct presentation of issues I provide patients via the wikipedia site. Such issues and human conflicts are not new; they are age old.

If you look me up under physician ratings, by patients (anonymous, I don’t know who they are), on the net, you may get an idea of where I am coming from.

Respectfully, M Alvis

So you are the Big Brother of atherosclerosis and macular degeneration (with an apology now included)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Care to explain those removals? You even claimed the MD link didn't mention MD - very ironic. I didn't see much wrong with those sections, not at least meriting a total removal. If you don't integrate some of the texts back into the article, I'll figure a way to make them legitimate, but like I said, total removal of those sections is very much uncalled for. Otvaltak (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC) You need a third party source. Simply propping up fringe theories with the theorists' website as source is not reliable sourcing. In addition, much of what you added to the atherosclerosis page is a direct, word-for-word copy-and-paste from the webpage; this is of course plagerism and a copyright violation. Your additions also gave undo weight to a first-party source without any reputable, third-party verification and sounded mostly like an advertisement for SENS. Without third-party verification, such information is at best speculation and adds nothing to the articles; in fact, it detracts from them. Your comments to me here are also very contentious; "I'll figure [out] a way to make them legitimate" exemplifies this. As long as the SENS page is your only source for such information, it will be reverted (if not by me, someone else). Calling me "big brother" will not deter me from reverting any changes made to articles which are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest looking at your talk page and familiarizing yourself information contained at the top. Your constructive participation in Wikipedia is always welcome. But if you continue to make edits which seem more like advertisements for SENS, I will submit you as having a conflict of interest. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry. I just feel frustrated that the whole sections were removed, but I'll wait until there's a third party source (ie. an article or scientific publication) so that the sections can be added without an apparent conflict of interest. I apologize. Otvaltak (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

French fries editing

Excuse us here at the UWEC, but in actual truths, we actually were not really testing-we were partly redesigning certain portions of French fries, and we'd never purposely vandalize any articles. Sorry of the mistake-please give us any insights or view you have on the article portion we edited. We represent University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire-in the reality, testings aren't what we are here doing. Please help us out so that the testing notes will not pop onto our college usertalk pages again. We're sorry for inconvenience caused by that editing we did with "French fries." What was the problem?

The UWEC at 173.19.119.172 (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By Jonasan

Yes, I am a very awkward, I am very straight forward and random. And no, I do not see it as conflict of Interests. I love my neighbor and my enemy, but I do not follow their steps nor their beliefs. I DO NOT DISCRIMINATE, I am not a hypocrite. I am a Republican, and believe in Republican and Christian values. The band t.A.T.u. is my favorite band, i love their music not their actions. I have proof that Barack Obama is a Muslim, but I can not express myself. I believe my Freedom of Speech and Right are violated. I edited United States of America showing that it was formed under Christian founders, but they deleted my sentences and say I just committed vandalism. I believe Wikipedia is not being fair to me, i can not edit or show my point of view, only the others. JonasanRat7 (talk)JonasanRat7 —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Your freedom of speech is protected from censorship by the government, no one else. Wikipedia is not the government and reserves the right to maintain the quality of its content. Regarding the YouTube video you tried to add, if you had even bothered to read the video's description, you'd have realized, "It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around 'my Muslim faith' since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith." You are trying to give undo weight to your interpretation of Obama's words, nothing more. I guarantee that if you continue to post this video in the article, you will be blocked from editing by an admin. Please try to be reasonable in the future and think before you edit. DKqwerty (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, you are free to stop at any time. You're not making any sense. Do YOU know Obama's religion? If not, it's fair game to anyone who wants to try and guess...or prove...

Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Christianity. Source: Barack Obama. DKqwerty (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Does everyone tell the truth all the time? NO. and Muslims are allowed to lie to advance the cause of their religion. Of course he wouldn't want anyone to know if he was Muslim because he'd be in t-r-o-u-b-l-e. Hmm...Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It must be scary living in a paranoid, delusional world. (And please try to keep these discussions linear.) DKqwerty (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

offending me, "DKqwerty" JonasanRat7 (talk)JonasanRat7

In what way have I offended you? DKqwerty (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)