![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Just want to register my great appreciation of the gorilla cage metaphor. Hear, hear! A nice touch of humor, aptness, and perspicuity drawing on experience. May it remain a lively presence in Fringe discussions. Bn ( talk) 16:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted your closing of the questions regarding Texas law on the Humanities Reference Desk, which I thought was unjustified. I discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Reversed unjustified closing of question. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 01:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Olive branch. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you know that you can watchlist pages that don't exist?
So you could go to a redlink like this one or this one, hit the 'watch' button, and if the page is ever created, it'll turn up in your watchlist. Isn't that cool? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Presented to Ludwigs2, for your efforts to defend by Wikipedia by putting a certain editor in his place. [1] -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC) |
Captain Occam is appealing the decision made by EdJohnston at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#Captain_Occam. This is a courtesy note to make you aware of the request. Vassyana ( talk) 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig,
There’s a discussion between me and Roger Davies here where I’d appreciate your input. You and I have talked before about Mathsci’s friendship with several members of ArbCom, and you clearly knew more about this than anyone else in that discussion, but if you gave any details about which arbitrators he was friends with or where this was stated, I don’t remember it anymore. Based on his recent phone conversation with Mathsci, I assumed that Roger Davies was an example, but it looks like I may have been wrong to assume that. Would you mind telling me/reminding me for which arbitrators this is the case, and where they or Mathsci have pointed it out?
If you don’t want to comment in the discussion between me and Roger, just telling me the answer to this here in your user talk would be helpful also. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 23:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
For your edification and singing practice:
Title sequence of Oakie Doke. Mathsci ( talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
at POV/N: "...the headache-inducing aspect. you may be from whatever wing you perceive yourself as being from, if any; it's not a pain in the wing your style of interaction is giving me." I got a laugh from that, and not only because I recognized it as the truth for that particular editor in my limited interactions with him. I may have to quote you in the future. - PrBeacon (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
i've enjoyed reading your comments regarding Fringetheories and the Cryus Cylinder/Human issue.
I have a couple of concerns which I would like to bring up to you and on which would like to receive your feedback.
There are a lot of accusations of "nationalists, anti-nationalists", etc on the talk pages of these articles. I've also noticed that opposing sides will tend to accuse the other of sockpuppetting, meatpuppetting etc. Moreover, editors seem to be interested in making blanket statements abou propositions without any sort of rationale. I find these accusations and judgments derail the issue and disrupt any semblance of resolving issues. Any suggestions how we can be more active in enforcing civility and promoting a concentrated discussion. I realize that what I bring up is a fairly common issue, but i believe that it has taken a whole different level at the articles in question.
Next, I'm hopeful that we can address the Cyrus Cylinder/Human Rights issue in the manner that you so clearly had done (ie, affirmative statements: "is a charter of HR," "isn't a charter"). I'm not quite sure how to promote this but would like your feedback so as to find a way to actually reach consensus on these issues.
Hope I'm not taking away from you time. I appreciate your help. GoetheFromm ( talk) 00:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thinking more about the Burden issues, particularly in relation to attribution. It comes up in different contexts, which would be another reason to have a nice essay about it. In addition to V, it seems central to the ASF debate going on at Pseudoscience, where QG feels the burden is on others to show his claim is disputed and therefore requires attribution, as opposed to you, who think the statements needs to be shown to have broader support in order to not attribute it. It's an interesting difference of approaches. QG's methods errs because it allows weak statements that happen to have sourcing to be presented overbroad; its strength is that it requires contesting editors to 'prove it' with their own source. Then again, this is not always easy; for example, where will you find a source that says 'pseudoscience is not a public safety threat'. So, in that case, the burden does seem to be on QG to bolster the generality of his claim with more sources. A fair question he might ask is, how many? How many cites would show that this was generally accepted and could be stated directly. Just thinking... Oh, also, ScienceApologist/JPS invoked Wikipedia:ITA#In-text_attribution as an alternative to ASF. Clever, less strong than NPOV policy, but along the same lines. Also, more reason i'd like to do some work on WP:ATTRIBUTION. Ocaasi ( talk) 06:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have cleaned up here, so maybe these updates are better put elsewhere. But anyway, more in the annals of WP:BURDEN. Ocaasi ( talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The response grow up is not an appropriate response to WP:OR problems you started. You agreed to me more civil in the future. Do you have a reliable source for your rewrite. You claimed on the talk page that editors should use a reliable source but you replaced a journal without a source. Can you give a reason for deleting a reliable source and replacing it without any sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So, that's it? a half a day of bluster, and then you go *poof* when I point out the flaws in your argument? QG, if you're not going to have the grace to admit you were wrong, at least have the wisdom to think things through before you go off half-cocked. -- Ludwigs2 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The
Arbitration Committee has permitted
administrators to impose, at their own discretion,
sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to
pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the
purpose of Wikipedia, any expected
standards of behavior, or any
normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision.
This warning concerns your comment here about a pseudoscience-related arbitration enforcement request. Accusing others of "presenting a prime example of the kind of myopic, self-entitled chauvinism ..." is a personal attack and is not acceptable. Sandstein 19:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P) 06:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! There I was praising you and DV to the skies over at Talk:Intelligent design, and here I find you embroiled in all kinds of wiki-drama. Oh, well, again, I think you're right. And brave.
This has nothing to do with improving WP. (Unless you want to count being pleasant to and appreciative of an admirable editor so he'll hang around.) I'm a history buff and love to discuss politics. If you don't care to, that's fine. This is a tangent from two of your comments at ID.
Just as an aside, one of the more interesting things about the formation of the US political system is that it is pretty much the first time in history that a political system was conceived that didn't rely on people being good, honorable, noble, far-thinking, or idealistic. It's a dirty, crappy, rotten, misbegotten little system that works as well as it does because it is flagrantly and self-admittedly dirty, crappy, and rotten.
I assume that means you admire the check and balance system? I can't help but see Madison and Jefferson and Franklin and Washington as honorable and far-thinking. (Jefferson honorable not in every particular but wrt a sincere desire to create a decent, fair, working government.) There was some idealism, some noble thoughts and deeds, and overall it was a "good" bunch of men, again wrt to creating a stable government. You're talking about their having no illusions about Americans being a noble bunch, but knew they and we, like all humans, will do as much as we think we can get away with. Yes?
"Misbegotten." Does that refer to the failed Articles of Confederation and the unauthorized writing of the Constitution?
Plus, western scientific logic began explicitly as a means of wrenching our understanding of the world out of the hands of Christian dogma;
My take on the Enlightenment was that after scientific (empirical) thought and the scientific method were developed, Christian dogma appeared illogical. Would it be more accurate to say it's quick growth, not its beginning, was due to a means...etc.? I'd agree the French Revolution was about overthrowing Christendom.
This is just for fun, probably shouldn't even be on your talk page. You could email me....or ignore me. :) Regards, Yopienso ( talk) 01:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ wasr psh}} and {{ wasr ssh}} are nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_24#Template:Wasr_psh. If you still want them, could you please document them?? No-one has a clue what they are for if there is no documentation. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I used the modified version of your definition of pseudoscience as the ONLY proposed definition for the pseudoscience section in the bad faith article. I seem to be the only one making positive edits to that article. If you still like the definition, please WP:bold it in to the bad faith article from the talk page here [4]. Your additional positive contributions to that article would be appreciated. Be WP:Bold! HkFnsNGA ( talk) 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you made a substantial comment to my section at pseudoscience. I will not get to it until tomorrow, since your lengthy articles are usually full of substantive content, and require me to make a POV shift to finally get it, so they take me time to absorb and process and respond to. In the meantime, could you do a quick read of edits I made on bad faith, which are intended for typical lay people, and tell me if they are clear and easy to read and understand, so I can shift writing styles if I am being too technical? HkFnsNGA ( talk) 02:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist. [5] -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have access to this [6], but I thought you might be interested in it. PPdd ( talk) 06:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to wade through the TM talk page discussion and to then to post your informed opinions on my AE appeal.( olive ( talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC))
Everything you requested [7] in terms of links and diffs concerning the TM ArbCom and prior related AE sanctions is readily available at the TM ArbCom Archive including at the Evidence and Workshop pages and their associated talk pages. Fladrif ( talk) 18:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with you, I should not have put the analysis in the statement. I have changed it two simple sentences. If you are not satisfied, pls edit my RFC statement. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- Captain Occam ( talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, {{
content fork}}
is up for deletion by TfD. -
DePiep (
talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Lovely idea. BE——Critical__ Talk 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
[8] BE——Critical__ Talk 02:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I withdrew from following the Olive AE appeal because I was confused about whether she ought to be banned. I think the ban needs more exhaustively revisited, but I now see that the thread has been closed. I wonder if you would be interested in reopening it, perhaps in a few weeks or alternatively very soon? I was disappointed that your cogent arguments received little attention. AGK [ • 15:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fascinated by your commentary on evidence based medicine and on the POV of the Cochrane Collab. I was wondering. They seem rather harshly exclusionary in their approach to rating scientific research. Canter and Ernst, high-profile champions of evidence-based med, similarly seem to have a hard-edged POV regarding meditation and other complementary therapies, which may be partially explained by their apparent ties to Big Pharma. David Orme-Johnson, in his reply to their negative assessment of the research on Transcendental Meditation and hypertension (much of which, as you may know, has been conducted cooperatively with researchers at centres of research at arm’s length from the TM organization, and published in peer-reviewed journals), notes the ties of Canter and Ernst to the pharmaceutical industry—they sit on the editorial board of the journal FACT, which is published by Pharmaceutical Press, associated with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and, “supported by the multi-billion dollar hypertensive medication industry.” BTW, I much appreciated your refreshingly fair analysis of the very thin case against Olive, and the harshness of the judgement in her case. Early morning person ( talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
closing a silly discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What does the term "ahem" mean in this context? Will Beback talk 08:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
|
You're above this, since you use much bigger words than almost anyone (including myself, which I take offense to as an SAT tutor). Nonetheless, it's a really frickin' good article, even though I find the gender topic to be a bit hackneyed at times : http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/wikipedia-this-is-a-mans-world-2206207.html . Ocaasi ( talk) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Has a mention of you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ludwigs2 Collect ( talk) 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ludwigs2,
I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to review an RfC we've had on Elizabeth II. I'm mulling over bringing this topic to informal mediation, and wanted to get a third opinion before doing so. If you have a moment to look over, comment, and close the RfC, I'd be most grateful.
I'm running this request by you SlimVirgin, and Sandstein.
Thanks, NickCT ( talk) 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the history of harassment and incivility by and against this editor, I felt your comments were inappropriate and removed them. My apologies if you feel I overstepped in my refactoring. Go ahead and use your best judgement in how to respond. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok here are a couple of examples where I think you are over the top in your behavior. Here you could have made the same points without the personal commentary you make., again too personal, no need for that, remember talk about the text not the editor plus you forget to assume good faith, & this one is really uncivil in my opinion. Basically what I see is you talking about the need for a town sheriff to control misbehavior but when someone, anyone disagrees or asks you questions it seems to get personal with you. I believe it was Franamax that questioned this too. Now as far as I am aware, you and I haven't had any kind of fallouts or disagreements, correct me if I'm wrong. I just think you need to evaluate your way of talking to other editors. You can be direct all you like, I think I'm being direct now, but I'm not being rude or personal about things. Well got to go, RL calling. I hope this helps. Take care, -- CrohnieGal Talk 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Just want to register my great appreciation of the gorilla cage metaphor. Hear, hear! A nice touch of humor, aptness, and perspicuity drawing on experience. May it remain a lively presence in Fringe discussions. Bn ( talk) 16:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted your closing of the questions regarding Texas law on the Humanities Reference Desk, which I thought was unjustified. I discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Reversed unjustified closing of question. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 01:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Olive branch. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you know that you can watchlist pages that don't exist?
So you could go to a redlink like this one or this one, hit the 'watch' button, and if the page is ever created, it'll turn up in your watchlist. Isn't that cool? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Presented to Ludwigs2, for your efforts to defend by Wikipedia by putting a certain editor in his place. [1] -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC) |
Captain Occam is appealing the decision made by EdJohnston at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#Captain_Occam. This is a courtesy note to make you aware of the request. Vassyana ( talk) 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig,
There’s a discussion between me and Roger Davies here where I’d appreciate your input. You and I have talked before about Mathsci’s friendship with several members of ArbCom, and you clearly knew more about this than anyone else in that discussion, but if you gave any details about which arbitrators he was friends with or where this was stated, I don’t remember it anymore. Based on his recent phone conversation with Mathsci, I assumed that Roger Davies was an example, but it looks like I may have been wrong to assume that. Would you mind telling me/reminding me for which arbitrators this is the case, and where they or Mathsci have pointed it out?
If you don’t want to comment in the discussion between me and Roger, just telling me the answer to this here in your user talk would be helpful also. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 23:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
For your edification and singing practice:
Title sequence of Oakie Doke. Mathsci ( talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
at POV/N: "...the headache-inducing aspect. you may be from whatever wing you perceive yourself as being from, if any; it's not a pain in the wing your style of interaction is giving me." I got a laugh from that, and not only because I recognized it as the truth for that particular editor in my limited interactions with him. I may have to quote you in the future. - PrBeacon (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
i've enjoyed reading your comments regarding Fringetheories and the Cryus Cylinder/Human issue.
I have a couple of concerns which I would like to bring up to you and on which would like to receive your feedback.
There are a lot of accusations of "nationalists, anti-nationalists", etc on the talk pages of these articles. I've also noticed that opposing sides will tend to accuse the other of sockpuppetting, meatpuppetting etc. Moreover, editors seem to be interested in making blanket statements abou propositions without any sort of rationale. I find these accusations and judgments derail the issue and disrupt any semblance of resolving issues. Any suggestions how we can be more active in enforcing civility and promoting a concentrated discussion. I realize that what I bring up is a fairly common issue, but i believe that it has taken a whole different level at the articles in question.
Next, I'm hopeful that we can address the Cyrus Cylinder/Human Rights issue in the manner that you so clearly had done (ie, affirmative statements: "is a charter of HR," "isn't a charter"). I'm not quite sure how to promote this but would like your feedback so as to find a way to actually reach consensus on these issues.
Hope I'm not taking away from you time. I appreciate your help. GoetheFromm ( talk) 00:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thinking more about the Burden issues, particularly in relation to attribution. It comes up in different contexts, which would be another reason to have a nice essay about it. In addition to V, it seems central to the ASF debate going on at Pseudoscience, where QG feels the burden is on others to show his claim is disputed and therefore requires attribution, as opposed to you, who think the statements needs to be shown to have broader support in order to not attribute it. It's an interesting difference of approaches. QG's methods errs because it allows weak statements that happen to have sourcing to be presented overbroad; its strength is that it requires contesting editors to 'prove it' with their own source. Then again, this is not always easy; for example, where will you find a source that says 'pseudoscience is not a public safety threat'. So, in that case, the burden does seem to be on QG to bolster the generality of his claim with more sources. A fair question he might ask is, how many? How many cites would show that this was generally accepted and could be stated directly. Just thinking... Oh, also, ScienceApologist/JPS invoked Wikipedia:ITA#In-text_attribution as an alternative to ASF. Clever, less strong than NPOV policy, but along the same lines. Also, more reason i'd like to do some work on WP:ATTRIBUTION. Ocaasi ( talk) 06:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have cleaned up here, so maybe these updates are better put elsewhere. But anyway, more in the annals of WP:BURDEN. Ocaasi ( talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The response grow up is not an appropriate response to WP:OR problems you started. You agreed to me more civil in the future. Do you have a reliable source for your rewrite. You claimed on the talk page that editors should use a reliable source but you replaced a journal without a source. Can you give a reason for deleting a reliable source and replacing it without any sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So, that's it? a half a day of bluster, and then you go *poof* when I point out the flaws in your argument? QG, if you're not going to have the grace to admit you were wrong, at least have the wisdom to think things through before you go off half-cocked. -- Ludwigs2 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The
Arbitration Committee has permitted
administrators to impose, at their own discretion,
sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to
pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the
purpose of Wikipedia, any expected
standards of behavior, or any
normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision.
This warning concerns your comment here about a pseudoscience-related arbitration enforcement request. Accusing others of "presenting a prime example of the kind of myopic, self-entitled chauvinism ..." is a personal attack and is not acceptable. Sandstein 19:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P) 06:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! There I was praising you and DV to the skies over at Talk:Intelligent design, and here I find you embroiled in all kinds of wiki-drama. Oh, well, again, I think you're right. And brave.
This has nothing to do with improving WP. (Unless you want to count being pleasant to and appreciative of an admirable editor so he'll hang around.) I'm a history buff and love to discuss politics. If you don't care to, that's fine. This is a tangent from two of your comments at ID.
Just as an aside, one of the more interesting things about the formation of the US political system is that it is pretty much the first time in history that a political system was conceived that didn't rely on people being good, honorable, noble, far-thinking, or idealistic. It's a dirty, crappy, rotten, misbegotten little system that works as well as it does because it is flagrantly and self-admittedly dirty, crappy, and rotten.
I assume that means you admire the check and balance system? I can't help but see Madison and Jefferson and Franklin and Washington as honorable and far-thinking. (Jefferson honorable not in every particular but wrt a sincere desire to create a decent, fair, working government.) There was some idealism, some noble thoughts and deeds, and overall it was a "good" bunch of men, again wrt to creating a stable government. You're talking about their having no illusions about Americans being a noble bunch, but knew they and we, like all humans, will do as much as we think we can get away with. Yes?
"Misbegotten." Does that refer to the failed Articles of Confederation and the unauthorized writing of the Constitution?
Plus, western scientific logic began explicitly as a means of wrenching our understanding of the world out of the hands of Christian dogma;
My take on the Enlightenment was that after scientific (empirical) thought and the scientific method were developed, Christian dogma appeared illogical. Would it be more accurate to say it's quick growth, not its beginning, was due to a means...etc.? I'd agree the French Revolution was about overthrowing Christendom.
This is just for fun, probably shouldn't even be on your talk page. You could email me....or ignore me. :) Regards, Yopienso ( talk) 01:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ wasr psh}} and {{ wasr ssh}} are nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_24#Template:Wasr_psh. If you still want them, could you please document them?? No-one has a clue what they are for if there is no documentation. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I used the modified version of your definition of pseudoscience as the ONLY proposed definition for the pseudoscience section in the bad faith article. I seem to be the only one making positive edits to that article. If you still like the definition, please WP:bold it in to the bad faith article from the talk page here [4]. Your additional positive contributions to that article would be appreciated. Be WP:Bold! HkFnsNGA ( talk) 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you made a substantial comment to my section at pseudoscience. I will not get to it until tomorrow, since your lengthy articles are usually full of substantive content, and require me to make a POV shift to finally get it, so they take me time to absorb and process and respond to. In the meantime, could you do a quick read of edits I made on bad faith, which are intended for typical lay people, and tell me if they are clear and easy to read and understand, so I can shift writing styles if I am being too technical? HkFnsNGA ( talk) 02:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist. [5] -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have access to this [6], but I thought you might be interested in it. PPdd ( talk) 06:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to wade through the TM talk page discussion and to then to post your informed opinions on my AE appeal.( olive ( talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC))
Everything you requested [7] in terms of links and diffs concerning the TM ArbCom and prior related AE sanctions is readily available at the TM ArbCom Archive including at the Evidence and Workshop pages and their associated talk pages. Fladrif ( talk) 18:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with you, I should not have put the analysis in the statement. I have changed it two simple sentences. If you are not satisfied, pls edit my RFC statement. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- Captain Occam ( talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, {{
content fork}}
is up for deletion by TfD. -
DePiep (
talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Lovely idea. BE——Critical__ Talk 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
[8] BE——Critical__ Talk 02:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I withdrew from following the Olive AE appeal because I was confused about whether she ought to be banned. I think the ban needs more exhaustively revisited, but I now see that the thread has been closed. I wonder if you would be interested in reopening it, perhaps in a few weeks or alternatively very soon? I was disappointed that your cogent arguments received little attention. AGK [ • 15:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fascinated by your commentary on evidence based medicine and on the POV of the Cochrane Collab. I was wondering. They seem rather harshly exclusionary in their approach to rating scientific research. Canter and Ernst, high-profile champions of evidence-based med, similarly seem to have a hard-edged POV regarding meditation and other complementary therapies, which may be partially explained by their apparent ties to Big Pharma. David Orme-Johnson, in his reply to their negative assessment of the research on Transcendental Meditation and hypertension (much of which, as you may know, has been conducted cooperatively with researchers at centres of research at arm’s length from the TM organization, and published in peer-reviewed journals), notes the ties of Canter and Ernst to the pharmaceutical industry—they sit on the editorial board of the journal FACT, which is published by Pharmaceutical Press, associated with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and, “supported by the multi-billion dollar hypertensive medication industry.” BTW, I much appreciated your refreshingly fair analysis of the very thin case against Olive, and the harshness of the judgement in her case. Early morning person ( talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
closing a silly discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What does the term "ahem" mean in this context? Will Beback talk 08:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
|
You're above this, since you use much bigger words than almost anyone (including myself, which I take offense to as an SAT tutor). Nonetheless, it's a really frickin' good article, even though I find the gender topic to be a bit hackneyed at times : http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/wikipedia-this-is-a-mans-world-2206207.html . Ocaasi ( talk) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Has a mention of you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ludwigs2 Collect ( talk) 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ludwigs2,
I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to review an RfC we've had on Elizabeth II. I'm mulling over bringing this topic to informal mediation, and wanted to get a third opinion before doing so. If you have a moment to look over, comment, and close the RfC, I'd be most grateful.
I'm running this request by you SlimVirgin, and Sandstein.
Thanks, NickCT ( talk) 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the history of harassment and incivility by and against this editor, I felt your comments were inappropriate and removed them. My apologies if you feel I overstepped in my refactoring. Go ahead and use your best judgement in how to respond. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok here are a couple of examples where I think you are over the top in your behavior. Here you could have made the same points without the personal commentary you make., again too personal, no need for that, remember talk about the text not the editor plus you forget to assume good faith, & this one is really uncivil in my opinion. Basically what I see is you talking about the need for a town sheriff to control misbehavior but when someone, anyone disagrees or asks you questions it seems to get personal with you. I believe it was Franamax that questioned this too. Now as far as I am aware, you and I haven't had any kind of fallouts or disagreements, correct me if I'm wrong. I just think you need to evaluate your way of talking to other editors. You can be direct all you like, I think I'm being direct now, but I'm not being rude or personal about things. Well got to go, RL calling. I hope this helps. Take care, -- CrohnieGal Talk 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)