| Revision as of 14:15, 23 March 2006 editJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,659 edits Calm Down← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:03, 13 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (214 intermediate revisions by 50 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Very sorry to see you gone, ask. :-( I hope you change your mind, you're a valuable contributor. ] | ] 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC). | |||
| I just wanted to welcome you to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your excellent work on the ] article. I'm the guy who created the original two-sentence stub in February, and seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Misplaced Pages at its best. I also want to commend you for presenting alternative perspectives in your article, and including links that present those other points of view. If you've got any questions about how things work here, just let me know. --] 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree. He had the Balles (award). ] ], 13:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :I hope to see you back, too. You had an admirable fortitude. --] 14:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In reply to your comments: ''"So I'm confused: a Wiki administrator said that 'seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Misplaced Pages at its best.' Now I'm being told that this is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies. Who's right about this? And by the way, shouldn't the validity and accuracy of the information added to Misplaced Pages be more important than the authorship of that information?"'' | |||
| :: the bad editors are driving good editors away. ] ], 17:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| First of all, writing about subjects in which you are closely involved is not currently a violation of Misplaced Pages ''policy'', but ] is a ''guideline'' that discourages it. My own opinion, which probably differs from that of ], is that if someone stumbles across a Misplaced Pages article for which he or she is a primary source of information, it is usually appropriate that he or she should post suggestions for additions, removals, or changes in the Talk page and draw them to the attention of others. | |||
| Am surprised by your departure -- and feeling a bit guilty, afraid that I may have been one of the SPAs who caused you frustration. As a new user I tried hard to follow the guidelines and be cordial, and I really appreciate all that you did to help orient me to Misplaced Pages culture. You were gracious in answering my questions, and I do appreciate your kind comments on my Talk page. In your absence, however short or long, I will do my best to respect your contributions to the article on Transcendental Meditation. My only hope is that the criticisms be fair and accurate. I have no interest in removing all of them, especially since they are only a quick Google away. The Misplaced Pages article on Transcendental Meditation represents our best hope for a valuable middle ground between the exclusively positive TM sites and the exclusively critical anti-TM sites. It is here that people will be able to see both sides presented in a neutral and even-handed way and then come to whatever conclusion they wish. ] 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Secondly, of course the validity and accuracy of information is more important that the authorship of that information, but you seem to suggest that it is self-evident that the information you have contributed to the article is valid and accurate. I reject this premise, and it is apparent that JS does, too. Clearly there is a degree of subjectivity involved when someone edits an article in which they are closely involved or are a primary source of information. ] 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Adding garbage to articles== | |||
| ::My comment was actually aimed at the problem of letting someone who repeatedly posts falsehoods -- to advance his stated "activist" agenda aimed at discrediting skeptics -- as appears to be happening. Julio Sequeira will not quit. If you give him a forum he will post one falsehood after another and when someone tries to correct them, he comes up with twelve more. His latest game with the number of test cards and his accusation that I lied when I told you that the appendix and esophagus can be viewed with the right x-ray procedures are perfect examples. I've played his game too much and too long and I'm sick of it. It's like debating with Creationists. They lie and cheat and, when doing it in front of people who don't know better, they often win the debate. | |||
| Adding garbage to the middle of an article as you did is not appropriate. We've never crossed paths before, and I haven't looked up your contributions, but if this is typical of your editing style than I understand why you'd find things to be painful. If you happen to come back to read this, and this was a single event brought on by wikistress rather than your typical editing style, then please accept my appology for bringing it up this way on your talk page. Best wishes, whatever decision you make in regards to Misplaced Pages. --] 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What is really inappropriate is your attacking a departed editor in this way, three days after the edit in question. Perhaps you ''should'' have bothered to look at his contribs first. And you sound rather as if you think Askolnick put an argument visibly in the article itself—you do realize it was a commented-out query, I hope? ] | ] 15:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ::Whether someone has temporarily left, permenantly left, or hasn't left at all, I still stand by my statement that adding this block of text into the middle of the article is not appropriate. Note that this wasn't the first time this was done -- if you look through the history of the article, Askolnick had done this before. Should all wrong behaviour be excused simply because someone threatens to leave Misplaced Pages? No. This wasn't ''an attack'', as you attempted to label it. I was simply calling attention on Askolnick's talk page to something s/he did that was not appropriate. In addition, I don't know of a regulation that prevents me from bringing up on a talk page something that happened 3 days ago. If you look at my own contributions, you'll note that I was away on vacation for just under 2 weeks which is why I didn't see this on the day it happened. --] 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::A "regulation"? Oh, please. It's quite all right to apply your ordinary human judgement, you know. And, yeah, I will "attempt to label" the word "garbage" (in the heading, yet—the only heading on this blanked page) as "an attack". Please just think about it. ] | ] 18:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC). | |||
| :::: Leave off, Bishonen, this Askolnick was not right in the head. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Spiricom fact tags== | |||
| ::Tell you what, Edwardian, if you can find a single falsehood I ever added to the Misplaced Pages entry as Siqueria has repeatedly, I will shut up and go away. | |||
| Looks like you left Misplaced Pages, but incase you didn't, I just wanted to let you know that I deleted the fact tags you placed after every paragraph about Spiricom on the EVP page. I think thats going a little overboard. I instead added a faculaity dispute tag at the top of the article section which I feel is more appropriate. ] 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::On a more positive note, I think the changes you've already made are excellent -- with the exception of one. I think it is inappropriate for the entry to be singling out one side to be labeled as "highly respected." Brian Josephson may be highly respected by people who like him believe Uri Geller is a real psychic, not a charlatan, but he is widely lambasted by many scientists and others who know what he does. What's more, I would argue that I am highly respected. I may not have a Nobel prize but I have numerous other tokens of honor including a Pulitzer prize nomination from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a Rosalyn Carter Fellowship in Mental Health Journalism, an Amnesty International "Spotlight on Media" Award, and other honors. However, I prefer that you just leave out such unnecessary and biased irrelevancies. Having won a Nobel prize 33 years ago for his discoveries in quantum tunneling phenomenon. When it comes to understanding and communicating medical science, I have many more awards then Josephson. So, I really think you should remove such references or else add a whole bunch for me and Prof. Hyman. | |||
| ==TM== | |||
| ::Likewise, I think you should remove the "Nobel Prize winner" from the reference section. That really is inappropriate. So too is that little biography added after Siqueria's name in the external links. | |||
| Thanks for your comments at the TM arbcom. I hope we at Misplaced Pages can provide a more balanced and even heading review of this topic than often found in the mainstream press. Cheers --] (] · ] · ]) 23:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mr Skolnick your reputation of course proceeds you and I too would like to thank you for your comment on the TM article. Unfortunately, because you have added it to the talk section of (and not the evidence section) of the evidence section, your comments will be excluded from the final arbitration process I think (and will be read by very few). Would you be kind enough to copy them to this section ] please? This may then allow them to be read by all and perhaps influence the decision process? If you require and help please let me know. I too have a professional interest in the state of research and would be happy to assist. ] (]) 00:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your obviously high tolerance of pain and suffering... | |||
| :::Thank you both for your comments. | |||
| Andrew | |||
| :::Afraid my Misplaced Pages navigation and posting skills have gotten quite rusty. I'll try to copy my evidence statement to the correct section.--] (]) 04:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dispute resolution survey== | |||
| :::There are a few premises in your introductory sentence that need to be checked. The first is that it is self-evident to others that someone is repeatedly posting falsehoods. The second is that Wikipedians, of which you are now one, are "letting" that happen. I really don’t think it is reasonable for you to insist upon your own objectivity, call someone else a liar, then expect an administrator or another editor to simply take your word for it and revert his edits. If you dispute the accuracy of a particular statement or section, you do have a few other options at your disposal: | |||
| {| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | |||
| :::# Do nothing. | |||
| | ] | |||
| :::# Briefly explain on the Talk page why you think it is inaccurate and bring it, and suggested changes, to the attention of impartial editors. | |||
| <big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big> | |||
| :::# As you did before, change it to what you think is accurate. | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. | |||
| '''Please click to participate.'''<br> | |||
| Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 02:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Hey! You're back!== | |||
| :::Regarding your request to “find a single falsehood”, it is not your honesty I dispute but your objectivity in contributing to this particular encyclopedia article. For example, you inserted “Demkina also made some diagnoses of one of the researchers, Andrew Skolnick, which were both incorrect and likely based on normal, non-supernatural observations” without explicitly mentioning the citation for this information... ''you''. | |||
| I didn't realize you'd come back until your edit to ] showed up on my watchlist. It's great to see you again! ] | ] 01:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC). | |||
| :Hey, so nice to get such a warm welcome. Truth is that I have poked my head back in here once in a while to change something that I noticed . Can't chat right now. Want to add one more thing to Randi's articlee (about his exposure of Popoff's con game on Johnny Carson's show. Would love to catch up. send me your email and I'll try to continue this tomorrow. | |||
| :::Regarding your concern over my changes, please note that it was not I who added the credentials for Josephson or anyone else for that matter. Frankly, this article is supposed to be about Natasha Demkina and not the credentials of the researchers or the researchers’ skeptics. Whatever inaccuracies remain in the article are not my doing nor or they my responsibility to fix. We all have to pick and choose our battles and this is one from which I am withdrawing. | |||
| :More later. | |||
| ::::I know, and I did not mean to imply that you did. I meant my comment only as a protest that you did not take that nonsense out when you made the editing changes. We certainly agree. The article should not be about the bios and credentials of anyone but the subject of the entry. | |||
| :Andrew ] (]) 01:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: :-) I thought I was seeing things at first — it really saddened me when you left. I've got the e-mail, I'll use it when I've got a moment — please remove it from public view. You'll be getting malicious crawlbots finding it and then you'll get a lot of spam. Do you know about the "e-mail this user" feature which you can enable through your preferences? I know it seems like fuss and red tape, but it's actually helpful. I've written — nothing too urgent — about a reference. (After fully enjoying the discussion on the page about the inappropriateness of calling an an .) ] | ] 14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC). | |||
| ::::When I found myself in an editing war with Siqueira, I ceased deleting his changes and appealed to Wiki administrators to intervene, because I saw no good that could come from an unmoderated battle and I'd prefer the decisions to remove material be made by independant parties. But, seeing that that's not going to happen in a more timely fashion, I'm going to take your advice and make the changes myself, adding a brief explanation to explain each. I just hope it's not going to bring an even bigger flame war here. Thanks very much for your help and for your advice. Wish me luck. ] 16:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Oh, you're making me verklempt. So nice to feel missed. Usually I just feel good when people miss me with stones and broken bottles ;-o Still have to put off that chat. I spent so much time working on adding much more to Peter Popoff section of the article on James Randi. I've forgotten how to "Wiki" and I'm especially rusty writing "reference Klingon." Would you kindly look over my edit and fix any problems and give me some feedback? I'm considering doing more in the future than popping back into Misplaced Pages every few months or so to add or correctjust a few words here and there. | |||
| :::I understand your frustration, but protesting about the resolution process wasting ''your'' time was the straw that broke my back. <U> I </U> don’t have the time to wade through paragraph after paragraph of two people attempting to convince me that the other is a liar while they avoid discussing the article. If you are convinced of your own objectivity, I would suggest that you stand by your guns and keep changing the article to what you think is accurate. ] 06:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Just remember: Be careful what you wish for ;-0 | |||
| I agree with Edwardian's theoretical principles (except perhaps his steadfastness to the ] ''guideline''), but not how he puts them into practice. I'd been hoping that WP:RFC would attract someone knowledgeable in the subject area. Frankly, even someone who'd seen the TGWXRE program would have been more qualified than myself. | |||
| ::: Looking forward to catching up more soon. Best, ] (]) 19:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think that poring over the frustrated and sometimes caustic arguing between you and JS is fruitful. I don't know why anyone would think that. Certainly the unbridled discussion between you two was going to be heated. That should go without saying. I made it a point to avoid milling over all that, and focus on the article and the ways to resolve the dispute within WP. I've had enough experience with open communities to have learned that most people not familiar with such communities tend to be dissatisfied with the speed and/or efficacy of their methods. (This is why in the US there is such a conflict between those who want a fair, flexible process and those who want a fast, terminal process in government.) | |||
| ::::I've become quite reasonable at wikiing over the years — ] even started creating simple templates recently, which astonished me rather. (Check her page if you want to admire them.) The currently fashionable reference Klingon is unfortunately an exception. I can handle the old <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>, if that'll serve. Let me take a look. ] | ] 21:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC). | |||
| In the end, though, I found it a lot more effective to go over both of your contributions to date and compile them with ] as the goal (as well as maximization of noteworthy information) and generate the consensus myself. This is not what I wanted to do, as I'd only intended to be involved to aid the dispute resolution process, not become part of it. | |||
| :::::Oh… heck. There's something wrong with one of the footnotes to your refurbished paragraph. Note number 6. It's supposed to be a new note, referencing the Peter Popoff stuff, isn't it? And you added it? I so wish I understood the "ref name" stuff better, or indeed at all. I hate it so much. But what I ''think'' happened there is that you re-used a ref name (namely, "Randi") which was already in use, as the oddly low number of it suggests. There's a ref name="Randi" already in the intro. You have used it for a different reference. Or that's what I think. The software seems to have reacted by ignoring your new reference, and instead pointing to the already existing note 6, which is about Uri Geller and the term woo-woo. (And which is a dead link, at that; I just tagged it.) That makes sense, if you think about it. | |||
| Anyway, please review the current version of ] and my comments on the ]. Note that the article is currently protected, forcing any amendments to be proposed elsewhere. - ] ] 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If I was more sure of my ground here I'd just fix it, but as it is, you'd better do it. Just give the note a new "name". I'm sure the rest of the reference is fine (just not currently showing up). | |||
| == About an IP 64.65.247.81 == | |||
| :::::Otherwise, everything seems good. You may well get complaints about bunching up all the footnotes at the end of the paragraph, though I think it's the best place for them, myself. Either there, or all at the ''first'' sentence (that's preferred in my own field, but not comprehended on Misplaced Pages). They all refer to the whole of it, after all. But people often think, or pretend to think, that a particular ''sentence'' "needs a citation". There's no pleasing them; I'd leave it as it is. | |||
| IP ] made a large number of stylistic edits to your comment on the village pump None of these changed the meaning of what you said, but they did fix some grammatical errors. Is that you when you weren't signed in? I have not reverted the edit. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 22:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Peter Popoff story is just delightful. :-) ] | ] 23:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC). | |||
| ::Yes, Ambush, that's the IP from my office computer. I forgot to log back in. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. (Nice to have someone watching your back :-) | |||
| ] 23:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Your comments from 19 August == | |||
| == Mediation == | |||
| Hi Askolnick. I'm sorry to land this on you when (as I understand it) you have just returned to active editing. However, the comment you posted on this page on 19 August was potentially libellous, so I have removed and ] the content. Please do not re-add comments of that nature to any page on the English Misplaced Pages. Whether you discuss the matter off-site, by e-mail or similar, is of course not my concern. Thank you for your understanding. ] ]] 17:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Are you still willing to take mediation? ] (]) 10:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::AGK, sorry. It finally sunk in that you were referring to my comments to Bishonen -- not to any of the editing I did on Aug.19. I don't know the comments you objected to, but it doesn't matter, I didn't intend them to be public, just for Bishonen. I forgot how things work here. I'll keep in mind that everything posted on one's talk page is the same as being published in Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry for misunderstanding and sounding off. I thought you were referring to my editing -- which of course is utterly infallible ;-) ] (]) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Dan, | |||
| ::: I was somewhat taken aback by your response, so I'm glad to see it arose from a misunderstanding. No apology is necessary, and I'll let you return to the proper work of editing. <small>Question your editing? Goodness, no :-).</small> ] ]] 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Let me think about this and give you an answer later this day. I'm not optimistic about the effectiveness of the Wiki way of settling disputes between those who say 2+2=4 and those that insist the sum must equal 5 because they say so. Splitting the difference and calling it 4.5 is not my idea of good scholarship. | |||
| ::::Not necessary, but clearly warranted. Sorry I didn't read you message more carefully. I get that way sometimes when I find myself "suppressed." :-( You guys need to find a gentler word than "suppressed. How about, "You've been oversighted..." Much nicer ;-) ] (]) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I'm still shaking my head in disbelief over the persistance of one Wiki "statistician" who is still insisting that scientists cannot use a lower P value than 0.05 for the level of statistical significance -- despite my pointing out to him that the Wiki entry for ] -- which he cited in support of his opinion -- says that researchers can. | |||
| ::::: Yes, the process has an awful name. ] is probably the only worse title on Misplaced Pages, and like Suppression/Oversight it was named when we didn't seem to think these things through very well... Regards, ] ]] 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What? I'm disillusioned. I always assumed "Bureaucrat" was deliberately humorous. The only problem with the word is that the spelling defeats most wikipedians. ] | ] 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC). | |||
| == ] == | |||
| My experience here has certainly been enlightening. Not pleasant, but enlightening. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Let me consider. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691991546 --> | |||
| Andrew | |||
| ] 12:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Demkina == | |||
| Our edits clashed: I was editing the article while you placed your new notice. Perhaps you would like to review the article now. Best regards, --] 22:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==TM edits== | |||
| Thank for your edits on the ] page. Please feel free to hang around and participate more. ] 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Sethie. However, I'm afraid if I do, a very unpleasant flame war may erupt. I fear "Lumiere" and I have a rather bitter history. She's an apologist and I'm a science journalist. Oil and water, you know -- or more like oil and an open flame... | |||
| :But I will make a few little improvements re my own contributions to knowledge base of TM. Also, I may like to add something about how the TM movement claimed credit for steering Hurricane Gilbert away from Texas (sending it smashing into those poor Mexicans) by having a bunch of Yogic Flyers hop on their bums. (No kidding, the movement put out a press release making that claim.) Too bad they didn't "rise off their bums" and save New Orleans from Katrina... :-) | |||
| :: Me and you, I think it is more like water and open flame :-) -Lumiere. | |||
| == Troll == | |||
| If you think that a party isn't arguing in good faith, or is basically making up things to support their argument, there is a point at which it no longer is valuable to respond to them. ] - ] 18:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ------- | |||
| ] Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy: <span style="font-size: 120%"> '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.'''</span> Comment on ''content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, <!-- --> | |||
| ] | |||
| I see you mentioned that Lumiere, etc. has used many usernames. How many, and which ones? ]] 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Check over at the Transcendental Meditation article. She went by another name and suddenly changed it to Lumiere (confused the hell out of me). It is hardly a coincidence that she came to Misplaced Pages relatively recently to spend what appears to be a nearly full-time effort trying to rewrite the TM article and the Natasha Demkina article, with major attacks on my article on TM published in JAMA and my Demkina article in SI. She claims it's just a coincidence! But I think not. It is possible that she's an old TM apologist who I battled fiercely a decade ago on alt.meditation.transdendental and she's trying to pay me back (especially for the Judy Stein "Junkyard Dog" web site I set up on my web site to document the many viscious and crazy things she said :-) I'm not certain, but I think it may be her. | |||
| I don't think she's using multiple aliases here in Wiki. She just changes them every month or two. It is possible that she does this after she suffers a lot of abusive criticism. By changing her alias, a new or casual reader won't realize how badly she has been torn apart by others. I know it took me a while to figure that out when I first visited the TM article talk page. Earlier today/yesterday, she had the audacity to play censor and delete all of my criticisms from the talk page. You were kind enough to restore them (thank you again). Perhaps having failed that, she thought she the next best thing was a new alias. It is amazing that she started off by reposting the same crap under the new alias as if it had never been answered. Whether or not she is Judy Stein, Lumiere aka etc. is a dishonest scoundrel. | |||
| P.S. She originally went by the alias Amrit. It appears she has now used three aliases. | |||
| == Demkina mediation == | |||
| Please be aware that no one can be "assigned" to mediate without your acceptance. This is the very essence of mediation. Also, the mediator has no any extra power. So don't panic, just read a bit more wikipedia rules: ]. | |||
| Also, don't get mad when you have to repeat the same arguments to new people jumping into discussion, since rarely ythey browse thru huge talk pages (which are becoming useless indeed after some time). I would suggest you to summarize major objections on a separate page in a terse wording and refer new people to them. This would save you agood deal of typing. ] ] 07:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : More correctly: The ] does indeed assign mediators without agreement by both parties. Nobody does have to listen to them, however, as they do not have authority. --] 10:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Concerning unreadable talk pages: You can ]. --] 10:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation by Rohirok == | |||
| If you complain to me you are missing the point. The Mediation Cabal does not have policies and it does not have any authority. If you don't like what a Cabal mediator says tell ] to send another mediator or ignore ] if ] is unreasonable. You can also submit a complain at ]. Since Rohirok is not a regular mediator for the Mediation Cabal that seems pointless in this case. You could complain to the ] directly if you think that's necessary. If Rohirok violates official Misplaced Pages policies please consider the usual steps concerning user conduct. | |||
| I ] Rohirok and asked ] to read ] but that's something you could do as well, I don't have any more authority in this matter than you. --] 10:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Askolnick. I will not step down as mediator. Even if I did, it would not matter. Mediators of the Cabal are just regular editors asked by others to help resolve disputes. I would still watch the page, and would make suggestions or edits that I thought would improve the article. If you are looking for a more neutral, moderate treatment of the article, perhaps you could recuse yourself as an editor. You are clearly not a disinterested party, having a vested interest in portraying your research in the best possible light. ] 16:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rohirok, you watch the page as long as you want. This is what all wikipedians do. You may call yourself mediator, but you are '''not'''. You probably even don't know how mediators must act, judging from your aggressive tone. ] ] 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, Rohirok, I am not a partisan like you. I have a vested interest in portraying my research in the most truthful light; that's all. That's why I don't agree with your view that it is "fine" to quote "disreputable" sources. You clearly have an agenda that is inconsistent with making the Natasha Demkina article as credible and as accurate as possible. You can't do that by using "disreputable" sources for information to provide "balance." | |||
| ::And you clearly have an agenda that makes you ineligible to be a mediator. You put on the mantel of mediator and immediately joined sides, communicating with one party while keeping the other completely in the dark. Well, at least your consistent: You utterly disregard Wiki's guidelines about serving as a mediator the way you disregard the encyclopedia's guidelines about not using disreputable sources. ] | |||
| :::Askolnick: Users have final control over their user talk pages. They may delete any comments on their own talk pages that they like. If readers wish to muse over the debacle, they may examine the Demkina talk page, the mediation page, or if their really ambitious, look up my talk page history. ] 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I checked and I see that I was wrong. I appologize for my mistake, which was based on Fourohfour's objection to Lumiere's deleting criticism from Lumiere's talk page, which was followed further down by a message from BillC, a Wiki administrator, directing him not to delete material from talk pages. It turns out, he wasn't talking about User-Talk pages. Sorry.] 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for your apology. I must confess that most of your criticisms of my "mediation" were on the mark. I went into it with an editors attitude, which is exactly wrong for mediation. I foolishly dove right in without understanding the guidelines given to mediators. ] 23:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: In light of your sincere confession, I believe I may have assumed the worst about your motives. If so, I apologize for being overly abrasive towards you. You stumbled into a dog fight that has been going on for some time. One of these curs has been attacking me all over the Internet. With help from a TMer, he turned the Museum of Hoaxes Natasha Demkina thread into a cesspool forcing it to shut down. He then came after me on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum, where he alienated the forum administrators so much, he was permanently banned. And he came here and immediately vandalized the Natasha Demkina article, libeled me, and touted himself as a great scientist and slayer of skeptic dragons. But he's not a scientist. He's a grade school English teacher. And his "research" is nothing but self-published rants on his own web site. Unfortunately, he's supported by a TMer and a few other friends of Woo-Woo. And you stepped right into the thick of it. That will teach you to leap before you look. | |||
| :: I've endured 15 years of abuse from TMers. It started when some of them sued me for $194 million. The harassment suit was quickly dismissed. Even so, TMers have been claiming that I settled the suit for an "undislosed amount of money." Their campaign of disinformation and libel continues. A little over a year ago, I threatened to sue a TM group in Germany that published libeous material on their web site. They had the audacity to include a crudely forged letter from Ohio State University that supposedly discredited my JAMA article. I had to get a statement from a high ranking official of OSU denouncing the letter as a forgery before they would take it down. And now one or more TMers are using Misplaced Pages to attack and discredit my work. I hope you can understand why I'm ready to take a swing at anyone who appears to be doing their bidding.] 03:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cool down== | |||
| Let me suggest you not to waste time on general-purpose discussions with miracle lovers and deal only with article content on case-by-case basis. At times you may start beleiving in "]s" :-) ] ] 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Mikkalai. Actually, I get very energized trying to drive wooden stakes through the hearts of these vampires. :-) | |||
| :I guess that I'm just following my lifelong policy of not turning a cheek a second time to attackers. I grew up on the streets of New York City and I guess it shows. I'm determined to make attackers pay at least something for their attacks. I found that taking it silently often makes them think you're an easy mark. | |||
| :For example, Ettinsilly aka all those other names, did not come here to contribute to Misplaced Pages. He came here to defend his TM cult and try to discredit its critics, mainly CSICOP, Skeptical Inquirer, and me. It's no coincidence that he started off trying to rewrite two Wiki articles by attacking two pubications of which I authored! I don't know Dreadlocke's situation, but it's clear that he too has an anti-skeptic agenda for which he is willing to offer the most transparent deceptions (like his current claim that "professional researchers" don't have to do and publish any research). | |||
| :I don't have much confidence in the way Wiki works. Hatchetmen are allowed to work with apparent impunity. And mediation seems to be a joke -- sending in a mediator who immediately starts communicating with one side, hides the fact that he's the mediator from the other side, and begins editing the article! Hardly reassuring. | |||
| :Any way, your advice is very sound. Although, I'm not likely to adhere to it closely. You know that joke about the scorpion and the frog? It's just my nature to sting back. :-o ] 14:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is another issue: I guess you and "Ettinsilly aka all those other names" have a long history of fencing and stinging each other, so you don't notice each other's abrasive style. Please keep in mind that in wikipedia it is not customary to attack messengers; messages are fair game. Please take a look around ]and the sidebar "Working with others" on this policy page. ] ] 22:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Confidence in the way Wiki works": (please don't cofuse "wiki" and "wikipedia") Misplaced Pages is an amazing social experiment. Despite all scepticism expressed, in my 2.5 year of experience I happen to notice that people of good will and decent intelligence tend to prevail here eventually, although sometimes it takes some time. ] ] 22:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "unusual" == | |||
| Actually, I saw the "unusual phenomena" term usage in one of Wiseman's pages and agreed it is a good, neutral word. The words like "paranormal", etc. is the language of kooks, so I put the "para" term in the secondary position in the sentence. In addition, Wiseman studies not only "para" His study of "luck " is exactly "unusual". ] ] 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Only in my life. ] 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Calm Down == | |||
| I'm mainly inclined to agree with you on the Demkina page, but please calm down. Insulting people(especially potential mediators) is generally unproductive and makes one lose credibility with bystanders. ] 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:03, 13 February 2023
Very sorry to see you gone, ask. :-( I hope you change your mind, you're a valuable contributor. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC).
- I agree. He had the Balles (award). Bubba73 (talk), 13:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I hope to see you back, too. You had an admirable fortitude. --BillC 14:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- the bad editors are driving good editors away. Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Am surprised by your departure -- and feeling a bit guilty, afraid that I may have been one of the SPAs who caused you frustration. As a new user I tried hard to follow the guidelines and be cordial, and I really appreciate all that you did to help orient me to Misplaced Pages culture. You were gracious in answering my questions, and I do appreciate your kind comments on my Talk page. In your absence, however short or long, I will do my best to respect your contributions to the article on Transcendental Meditation. My only hope is that the criticisms be fair and accurate. I have no interest in removing all of them, especially since they are only a quick Google away. The Misplaced Pages article on Transcendental Meditation represents our best hope for a valuable middle ground between the exclusively positive TM sites and the exclusively critical anti-TM sites. It is here that people will be able to see both sides presented in a neutral and even-handed way and then come to whatever conclusion they wish. TimidGuy 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Adding garbage to articles
Adding garbage to the middle of an article as you did here is not appropriate. We've never crossed paths before, and I haven't looked up your contributions, but if this is typical of your editing style than I understand why you'd find things to be painful. If you happen to come back to read this, and this was a single event brought on by wikistress rather than your typical editing style, then please accept my appology for bringing it up this way on your talk page. Best wishes, whatever decision you make in regards to Misplaced Pages. --Stéphane Charette 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- What is really inappropriate is your attacking a departed editor in this way, three days after the edit in question. Perhaps you should have bothered to look at his contribs first. And you sound rather as if you think Askolnick put an argument visibly in the article itself—you do realize it was a commented-out query, I hope? Bishonen | talk 15:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC).
- Whether someone has temporarily left, permenantly left, or hasn't left at all, I still stand by my statement that adding this block of text into the middle of the article is not appropriate. Note that this wasn't the first time this was done -- if you look through the history of the article, Askolnick had done this before. Should all wrong behaviour be excused simply because someone threatens to leave Misplaced Pages? No. This wasn't an attack, as you attempted to label it. I was simply calling attention on Askolnick's talk page to something s/he did that was not appropriate. In addition, I don't know of a regulation that prevents me from bringing up on a talk page something that happened 3 days ago. If you look at my own contributions, you'll note that I was away on vacation for just under 2 weeks which is why I didn't see this on the day it happened. --Stéphane Charette 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- A "regulation"? Oh, please. It's quite all right to apply your ordinary human judgement, you know. And, yeah, I will "attempt to label" the word "garbage" (in the heading, yet—the only heading on this blanked page) as "an attack". Please just think about it. Bishonen | talk 18:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC).
- Leave off, Bishonen, this Askolnick was not right in the head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- A "regulation"? Oh, please. It's quite all right to apply your ordinary human judgement, you know. And, yeah, I will "attempt to label" the word "garbage" (in the heading, yet—the only heading on this blanked page) as "an attack". Please just think about it. Bishonen | talk 18:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC).
- Whether someone has temporarily left, permenantly left, or hasn't left at all, I still stand by my statement that adding this block of text into the middle of the article is not appropriate. Note that this wasn't the first time this was done -- if you look through the history of the article, Askolnick had done this before. Should all wrong behaviour be excused simply because someone threatens to leave Misplaced Pages? No. This wasn't an attack, as you attempted to label it. I was simply calling attention on Askolnick's talk page to something s/he did that was not appropriate. In addition, I don't know of a regulation that prevents me from bringing up on a talk page something that happened 3 days ago. If you look at my own contributions, you'll note that I was away on vacation for just under 2 weeks which is why I didn't see this on the day it happened. --Stéphane Charette 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Spiricom fact tags
Looks like you left Misplaced Pages, but incase you didn't, I just wanted to let you know that I deleted the fact tags you placed after every paragraph about Spiricom on the EVP page. I think thats going a little overboard. I instead added a faculaity dispute tag at the top of the article section which I feel is more appropriate. Cyberia23 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
TM
Thanks for your comments at the TM arbcom. I hope we at Misplaced Pages can provide a more balanced and even heading review of this topic than often found in the mainstream press. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Mr Skolnick your reputation of course proceeds you and I too would like to thank you for your comment on the TM article. Unfortunately, because you have added it to the talk section of (and not the evidence section) of the evidence section, your comments will be excluded from the final arbitration process I think (and will be read by very few). Would you be kind enough to copy them to this section ] please? This may then allow them to be read by all and perhaps influence the decision process? If you require and help please let me know. I too have a professional interest in the state of research and would be happy to assist. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your comments.
- Afraid my Misplaced Pages navigation and posting skills have gotten quite rusty. I'll try to copy my evidence statement to the correct section.--Askolnick (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Askolnick. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 02:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hey! You're back!
I didn't realize you'd come back until your edit to James Randi showed up on my watchlist. It's great to see you again! Bishonen | talk 01:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC).
- Hey, so nice to get such a warm welcome. Truth is that I have poked my head back in here once in a while to change something that I noticed . Can't chat right now. Want to add one more thing to Randi's articlee (about his exposure of Popoff's con game on Johnny Carson's show. Would love to catch up. send me your email and I'll try to continue this tomorrow.
- More later.
- Andrew Askolnick (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- :-) I thought I was seeing things at first — it really saddened me when you left. I've got the e-mail, I'll use it when I've got a moment — please remove it from public view. You'll be getting malicious crawlbots finding it and then you'll get a lot of spam. Do you know about the "e-mail this user" feature which you can enable through your preferences? I know it seems like fuss and red tape, but it's actually helpful. I've written a note for you on your bio talkpage — nothing too urgent — about a reference. (After fully enjoying the discussion on the page about the inappropriateness of calling an an .) Bishonen | talk 14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC).
- Oh, you're making me verklempt. So nice to feel missed. Usually I just feel good when people miss me with stones and broken bottles ;-o Still have to put off that chat. I spent so much time working on adding much more to Peter Popoff section of the article on James Randi. I've forgotten how to "Wiki" and I'm especially rusty writing "reference Klingon." Would you kindly look over my edit and fix any problems and give me some feedback? I'm considering doing more in the future than popping back into Misplaced Pages every few months or so to add or correctjust a few words here and there.
- Just remember: Be careful what you wish for ;-0
- Looking forward to catching up more soon. Best, Askolnick (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've become quite reasonable at wikiing over the years — one of my socks even started creating simple templates recently, which astonished me rather. (Check her page if you want to admire them.) The currently fashionable reference Klingon is unfortunately an exception. I can handle the old <ref></ref>, if that'll serve. Let me take a look. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC).
- Oh… heck. There's something wrong with one of the footnotes to your refurbished paragraph. Note number 6. It's supposed to be a new note, referencing the Peter Popoff stuff, isn't it? And you added it? I so wish I understood the "ref name" stuff better, or indeed at all. I hate it so much. But what I think happened there is that you re-used a ref name (namely, "Randi") which was already in use, as the oddly low number of it suggests. There's a ref name="Randi" already in the intro. You have used it for a different reference. Or that's what I think. The software seems to have reacted by ignoring your new reference, and instead pointing to the already existing note 6, which is about Uri Geller and the term woo-woo. (And which is a dead link, at that; I just tagged it.) That makes sense, if you think about it.
- If I was more sure of my ground here I'd just fix it, but as it is, you'd better do it. Just give the note a new "name". I'm sure the rest of the reference is fine (just not currently showing up).
- Otherwise, everything seems good. You may well get complaints about bunching up all the footnotes at the end of the paragraph, though I think it's the best place for them, myself. Either there, or all at the first sentence (that's preferred in my own field, but not comprehended on Misplaced Pages). They all refer to the whole of it, after all. But people often think, or pretend to think, that a particular sentence "needs a citation". There's no pleasing them; I'd leave it as it is.
- The Peter Popoff story is just delightful. :-) Bishonen | talk 23:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC).
Your comments from 19 August
Hi Askolnick. I'm sorry to land this on you when (as I understand it) you have just returned to active editing. However, the comment you posted on this page on 19 August was potentially libellous, so I have removed and suppressed the content. Please do not re-add comments of that nature to any page on the English Misplaced Pages. Whether you discuss the matter off-site, by e-mail or similar, is of course not my concern. Thank you for your understanding. AGK 17:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- AGK, sorry. It finally sunk in that you were referring to my comments to Bishonen -- not to any of the editing I did on Aug.19. I don't know the comments you objected to, but it doesn't matter, I didn't intend them to be public, just for Bishonen. I forgot how things work here. I'll keep in mind that everything posted on one's talk page is the same as being published in Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry for misunderstanding and sounding off. I thought you were referring to my editing -- which of course is utterly infallible ;-) Askolnick (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was somewhat taken aback by your response, so I'm glad to see it arose from a misunderstanding. No apology is necessary, and I'll let you return to the proper work of editing. Question your editing? Goodness, no :-). AGK 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not necessary, but clearly warranted. Sorry I didn't read you message more carefully. I get that way sometimes when I find myself "suppressed." :-( You guys need to find a gentler word than "suppressed. How about, "You've been oversighted..." Much nicer ;-) Askolnick (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the process has an awful name. Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrat is probably the only worse title on Misplaced Pages, and like Suppression/Oversight it was named when we didn't seem to think these things through very well... Regards, AGK 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- What? I'm disillusioned. I always assumed "Bureaucrat" was deliberately humorous. The only problem with the word is that the spelling defeats most wikipedians. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC).
- Yes, the process has an awful name. Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrat is probably the only worse title on Misplaced Pages, and like Suppression/Oversight it was named when we didn't seem to think these things through very well... Regards, AGK 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not necessary, but clearly warranted. Sorry I didn't read you message more carefully. I get that way sometimes when I find myself "suppressed." :-( You guys need to find a gentler word than "suppressed. How about, "You've been oversighted..." Much nicer ;-) Askolnick (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
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 Misplaced Pages 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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)