I used to be "Wikiscient". The talk pages associated with that username are still here. WikiDao (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Relative-depth2.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that I think you're doing a great job here. If you need my help any time in any administrative issue, feel free to leave a note... Best Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, I will -- though hopefully there will be no more administrative issues on this one! :) Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

thread moved here from User talk:Jon Ascton by Jon
Jon, did you really not know the answer to your "no kings" question at the RD? I saw something at the RD talk page about how it seems like to some people you may be misusing the WP's RD resource by posting spurious, unnecessary, and sometimes inappropriate questions lately. Did you really not know that the US came into existence as a sovereign-free constitutional republic? Given the information you provide on your user page and here on your talk page, you seem like you ought to have had at least a rudimentary understanding of the answer to the question you asked before you asked it. Why did you ask it? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a response it got, though! It certainly seems to be a popular topic for debate. And it was perhaps a bit ambiguously phrased, too, which opened it up to a rivalry of equally "valid" points. I hope you found what you were looking for somewhere in the responses, anyway. And what was that, again...? Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How can you assume that I may not be aware of such a simple fact ! What I am asking is that - of course there were Red Indians out there, but why the hell they not have a well defined history like other countries ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC) ^{I am shifting this discussion here because answering it there might not reach you rightaway...}

Oh. Well, see, I didn't assume that. That's why I asked you. It was not really clear what you were asking. Anyway, you could start with our article Native Americans in the United States for the history of Native Americans (no one calls them "Red Indians" here, Jon) in the United States. It is a sad one. But it's there. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not sad before 1492. It's a rather complex history, and it's important to remember that Native Americans did have complex societies, often as much so as their Eastern Hemisphere counterparts. Jon, if you are genuinely interested in educating yourself on this matter, rather than spouting inaccurate and anachronistic platitudes about subjects you obviously know little about, here's some books you should find at your local library and/or bookstore:

• 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
• Guns, Germs, and Steel
• The Columbian Exchange

The first is probably the best, because it refutes some of the conclusions and assumptions of the second two; but you should read the second two to know exactly what 1491 is refuting. --Jayron32 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. (Though I've only read the second on the list so far, myself). But it really is a sad story – because of the disruption to pre-European "American" cultures that Europeans caused, and the extremely harsh ways in which they went about causing that disruption at times. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt; certain aspects of it can only be described as genocide. See King Philip's War, where something like 80% of the native population of southern New England was killed or deported. Still, the view of the Native Americans as "Noble savages or as otherwise lacking civilization is basically wrong. I highly recommend the book 1491 because of the way it challenges the assumptions of GG&S that the Americas were less populated or technologically behind. The revelations it makes about, say, evidence of advanced civilizations in the deep Amazon is pretty stark, considering most common assumptions. The book makes a clear case that European contact actually drove the Americas backwards, civilization-wise; that the combination of disease, depopulation, and overt warfare and genocide were what drove the America's backward, and that pre-Columbian Americas was far more "civilized" than even most modern academics give it credit for. --Jayron32 02:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems plausible in a number of ways sure, but for one thing it raises the question of how "civilized" you can be without "urban" centers and the agricultural etc. infrastructure to sustain them (and not much archeology has found much of any in the North). I did read Conquest a while back. That seemed more like a "fair fight" in a way, as far as fairly-advanced-native-civilization vs. representatives-of-non-native-civilization. Guns, germs, and steel though... yup. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, those urban centers likely did exist, even in the north. The early assumptions by the European colonists that they didn't is largely because the diseases beat them there. Much of coastal New England had been wiped out by various epidemics, probably introduced by 16th century fisherman, so that by the early 17th century, when the Colonists showed up, they found a mostly vacated region. That's certainly what happened in Plymouth colony. The Mississippian culture certainly had an advanced culture, at least by the standards we usually think of when we think of Native Americans, it died out for unknown reasons in the 1400's, however the mound complexes like Cahokia it left behind indicates a monument-building society; and the type of society which can engineer and organize labor to build such monuments is an indication of some higher levels of organization not normally thought of as associated with Native Americans. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the Plains Indians abandoned a culture of landed agriculture with the introduction of the horse; they became nomads after having a largely static agriculture-based economy. The image of wandering bands of savages sleeping under simple tents and following buffalo herds around with sharpened sticks simply did not exist pre-contact. --Jayron32 03:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

All very interesting, yes. I'm not really too caught up in the "noble savage" thing, but I do think you can have a extremely rich culture without it necessarily being one that leaves behind a lot of archeological evidence of infrastructure and tools etc. Like massive carved stone pyramid temples. Or advanced metal-working tools and artifacts. Or compare pre-British subcontinental civilization with pre-Columbian "American" civilization. There's a difference, and I think it may be that difference that Jon was originally wondering about...? And I think Guns, Germs, and Steel is, again, worth reading on that score. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. While noting that later is not necessarily better, the newer 1491 does do a good job of refuting the basic assumptions that the Americas were backwards, technologically speaking, compared to Europe. Since GG&S basically starts with that assumption, and tries to explain it, they should be complemtary reading. Not saying one is necessarily better or more important than the other, just that they make good complementary reading, as does The Columbian Exchange. --Jayron32 03:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao, is there any possibility that the religious beliefs, philosophical norms of the defeated people made them especially vulnerable to invaders ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's just say there were much bigger factors involved. I really do recommend at least reading the article on the book recommended above, Guns, Germs, and Steel, for a better sense of what those factors may have been. The lead section from that article says:

The book attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations (including North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while attempting to refute the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops. When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example Chinese centralized government, or improved disease resistance among Eurasians), these advantages were only created due to the influence of geography and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes.

I guess "intellectual, moral" is similar to "philosophical, religious". It's really a cultural difference, though, and it seems not one that had too much of an impact either way on the outcome in the Americas. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: This comment. Being honest and shutting down the trial after two months as originally promised isn't a good reason?—Kww(talk) 01:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What, are you asking me to change my vote or something...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be the honorable thing to do, yes.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you for dropping by and giving me your opinion on that. But I voted "why not?" and gabdangit I'm a-gonna stand by it. Have a nice day. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mmm I will make it more "answerable" later, and alone, I don't need you to do so, lol. I'm an idiot and can do it alone, I don't need another one like me to help me. No offence. Have sense of humor like you say you have in your userbox. --190.178.154.101 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, then. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a GENUINE QUESTION. Like doesn't the assembly have rules about people who come solely to cause a disruption? Jesus, talk about assuming bad faith... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, man. I'm sure you have the best faith in the world. I'm just asking you to tighten it up a little, so it's not so open-ended, that's all. Good luck with that (and if you want to make a serious attempt at that you can run it by me if you want). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK then, how about this:

"Does the assembly not have rules on people who come solely to cause a disruption? Why do they keep inviting him back? I can understand freedom of speech and all, but that doesn't mean people can go literally anywhere and say inflammatory things without getting kicked out, so why does nothing happen to Ahmadinejad?"? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this:

"Why does the UN continue to invite Iranian President Ahmadinejad to address the General Assembly? What is the UN's policy about inviting controversial or "disruptive" people to address it? Could the US prevent Ahmadinejad from speaking by denying him a visa to NYC?"

How would that be? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, cool. Thanks. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that should work. I'm interested in hearing some responses to that question myself! :) Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in. I was pretty blunt with you, and while thats not going to change I realized it was the first time we've spoken so I should probably come here and be me so you realize im not solely a giant flaming jackass. Per the image thing, you were trying to explain to me in your followup what the conversation above this was doing, and just to make sure my main point came across, i was trying to say there shouldn't have been a conversation to begin with. The images aren't smart, and you know that because you dont use them often. Thats what it should have stayed at. I would have told the guy to shove off and then ignored it. If someone wants to come riding their Drama Llama to ANI, best to let them do it by themselves :) All in all, since we've had another interaction since it started i just want to say I enjoy working with you, and dont take my comment (boiled down) of 'you were a bit of a dumbass' to mean i dislike you. There's 5 or 6 times a day where I do some things that in retrospect are actually downright retarded :) Anyway, seeing as how I've introduced myself now, I'll let you be. Peace. -- ۩ Mask 00:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

lol, np man! (and well do I know some of that latter feeling, too!;) Warm regards, and see ya around. And, yes, btw, Stallman is a dick, lolz, though I have only known him socially, and that was quite awhile ago... :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanking you once again for turning my attention to GGAS etc - A parallel case, which may interest you, is the history of India itself, a nation which has been historical victim to an exceptionally fierce persecution by outsiders (mostly muslims). But the history they teach in schools and colleges even universities is not what actually happened but what authorities want people to believe - that is necessary to maintain peace in India. You can start by Koenraad Elst book. I mean to say sometimes it's necessary for governments to suppress real history so status quo can be maintained the italicized text above is already on a reply on RD talk page, but I am putting it here 'cause I wanted to make sure you don't miss it ! Regards  Jon Ascton  (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which parallel case you are referring to here, Jon. Re. Guns, Germs, and Steel...? I agree with you that "maintaining the status quo" is one of the reasons governments (some of them) sometimes suppress "real" information.

Have you been considering what next to ask the RD? As I've said before: your questions there are clearly very popular! :) I hope you come up with another question soon. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I didn't give you too many ECs. Just to let you know, I edited my response one final time after your response Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#academic citation although I don't believe it makes a material difference to your answer Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, no ECs, good comments. :) Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi WikiDao, I noticed your comment of 17:31 23 Sep at WT:RD mentioning helping editors to reword questions for the RDs a day or two ago but decided not to respond there so the thread could archive peacefully. I notice you tried to put that into practice today with 88.96. and found yourself in trollspace. Yeah, that happens. ;)

I know you have good intentions and even though we seem to disagree on aspects of how the desks should work, I appreciate the effort you put into the project. Just a word about helping people reword questions though: this has happened a lot in the past, but it was the OP trying a reworded question on their own. Invariably someone spots that and says "this is the same question in different garb, the answer is still that we won't answer". Sometimes all hell breaks loose on talk too, between the "now it's answerable" and "they already showed they want [medical, say] advice" groupings. My advice to you is just to stay really heads-up when you offer to help OPs. Genuine offers of help are laudable, but if you end up helping people word their questions just well enough that they get the medical advice they are seeking, well, that's still a request for medical advice and you are just doing an end-run around a consensus guideline that you don't agree with. So please be careful with your help.

Remember too that if you are going to make a comment at the OP's talk page, you can also answer their question there if you desire. You're free to take responsibility for all your edits here and if it's not on the RDs, it's really no concern of the RD denizens in particular, just the wider community. Regards! Franamax (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Franamax, thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure we're so at odds as all that over how the desks should work (especially seeing as I still fully consider myself a n00b over there!;). :)

But before considering that further, just in regard to taking "malformed" (as I have been calling them) questions to user talk pages and offering to help with re-wording them for the RD: could I ask you to comment briefly on the case of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the UN General Assembly? That went from this (which Looie properly removed) to this via the the user's talk page and then mine (section #Re: RD question above).

I remain skeptical of the user's stated intentions (note also the user's follow-up in that thread at the RD), but I was pretty happy with the way this one went, and that the question got asked (and responded to, without incident). That would be an example of what I'd like to see happen in general with "malformed" RD questions. I definitely want to avoid all hell breaking loose over that sort of thing, though! Is what I did in this case potentially problematic that way, given the history of things that remains largely unknown to me, in your view? If that one seemed okay, I'll continue trying to aim for that sort of outcome in the future. Otherwise, please advise. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would term your handling of that "masterful" - good work. You produced a focussed question which got some good answers and informed the OP. That is an example of a Q that can be "salvaged". I did actually skim over your talk page before posting here, but obviously missed the thread just above. Good to know you're on the right track! (And it's just barely possible I read too quickly, but since I'm perfect that seems scarcely credible :) Franamax (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

lol, cool, okay, thanks! :D WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Silly me. ;) 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As you did here, possible inadvertantly: [1] All best. Qworty (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, software glitch it looks like. It happens. I got an (edit conflict) when I posted; your text didn't appear there at all when I saved-page. Sorry for any confusion, though! :) Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. I had no idea such a thing was possible. Take care. Qworty (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)