Misplaced Pages

User talk:NuclearWarfare: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:45, 2 September 2011 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 3d) to User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 34.← Previous edit Revision as of 20:13, 2 September 2011 edit undoCaptain Occam (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,011 edits Me & MathsciNext edit →
Line 49: Line 49:
I’m sorry if I seem to be badgering you, but could you please get back to me about whether a mutual interaction ban between me and Mathsci is something you’d be willing to provide in the AE thread? If not, I might decide to request this from ArbCom before the AE thread is closed. I’m getting a stronger and stronger impression that allowing the conflict between him and me to continue festering is a detriment both to the community and to me, and something needs to be done to end it. But I don’t want to start an amendment thread about this issue if it’s going to be resolved at AE. --] (]) 22:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I’m sorry if I seem to be badgering you, but could you please get back to me about whether a mutual interaction ban between me and Mathsci is something you’d be willing to provide in the AE thread? If not, I might decide to request this from ArbCom before the AE thread is closed. I’m getting a stronger and stronger impression that allowing the conflict between him and me to continue festering is a detriment both to the community and to me, and something needs to be done to end it. But I don’t want to start an amendment thread about this issue if it’s going to be resolved at AE. --] (]) 22:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
:Sorry, I haven't had time to look at the case. But no, I don't think so. One of the other commenting admins might though? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC) :Sorry, I haven't had time to look at the case. But no, I don't think so. One of the other commenting admins might though? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

::I think I’ll probably just request it from ArbCom. Thanks anyway, though. --] (]) 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


== Clerk review of proposed amendment needed == == Clerk review of proposed amendment needed ==

Revision as of 20:13, 2 September 2011

I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
    Home page     Talk page     Email me     Contributions     monobook.js     Content     Awards     Userspace
Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace
This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Notice Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41


This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41


This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Bayes

I seem to remember that you were interested in Bayesian probability. There's a new book on the subject, reviewed here, which looks like it might be interesting. I haven't read it myself, but thought I'd pass it on in case you're looking for summer reading. Cheers. MastCell  18:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing that in Nature last month. It certainly sounds very interesting. I'll check it out once I finish Dr. Mukherjee's excellent book. NW (Talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read that one yet, but several of my colleagues enjoyed it. There's so much bad writing about medicine out there, so it's worth looking for good stuff. Atul Gawande is my favorite - or rather, I hate him because I'm jealous of how well he writes. :) MastCell  00:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Both Gawande and Mukherjee are quite excellent. I only managed to get through about 70% of the book before I had to give it back to the library, but I think I should get another copy and finish it. It was very interesting to read for me, as all I know about cancer is the little I learned when friends and relatives were diagnosed, but I think even you who must know so much about the subject will enjoy (re)learning the history of cancer treatment.

I've read Better and Complications by Gawande, both of which were excellent, but I haven't picked up The Checklist Manifesto yet. Have you read it? NW (Talk) 01:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Mostly, I've read his pieces in the New Yorker. The ones about national health care and overutilization were particularly good. MastCell  02:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Those are pretty good, but I remember reading about some issues with his overutilization piece in particular. I'm going back and rereading it now. The Mayo Clinic definitely has extremely good health care and low costs, but they stopped accepting Medicare and Medicaid in 2009. I imagine they didn't just go from a large number of Medicare patients to none in just three years; perhaps they had previous been accepting Medicare patients in a partially pro bono fashion? The rest of that article does seem very convincing though. I'll have to read that paper by Elliott Fisher that Dr. Gawande mentions. NW (Talk) 15:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Remarkably prescient. I wonder if he is right about this. I hope so, but growing up in a post-Reagan era has undoubtedly made me cynical of government, even for the Crazy Liberal that I mostly am. I'll have to go back to these pieces if and when I'm disappointed in 2012 and 2013 by all three branches of the federal government. NW (Talk) 16:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the overutilization piece. His presentation of the Mayo folks as the shining example of altruistic medicine actually kind of pissed me off, because he didn't acknowledge the realities you allude to. The Mayo Clinic has more money than God. They can sit back and pontificate about the way things should be done, because they aren't subject to the same financial pressures as everyone else. It's like listening to one of the Rockefellers lecture you about how you shouldn't stress out over money. MastCell  20:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Cerejota mentions you slightly

Hello NW. In the fine print of this AE complaint, it links to an edit you made as an admin at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Do you want to add a comment in this AE? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure one is really necessary at this time; I think the reasoning for my edit is self-evident. I also don't think that it involved me in the article or the topic area, but I'll defer to the rest of the AE corps on that. Thanks for the heads up though. NW (Talk) 15:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Me & Mathsci

I can tell that the ongoing dispute between me and Mathsci is getting on people’s nerves, so I’m making an effort to resolve it in his user talk here. If you’re thinking of commenting on this issue at AE, you might want pay attention to the discussion on Mathsci’s talk page, even if you don’t actually get involved in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. He removed my offer of reconciliation from his page three minutes after I'd posted it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a request. If you decide in the AE thread that you need to do something about my conflict with Mathsci, could you please give me and him a mutual interaction ban? My “side” of the ban should also cover Ferahgo, so that she can interact with me but not with Mathsci, and Mathsci can’t interact with her. Now that Mathsci has rejected my offer of an amicable resolution to this conflict, I’m probably going to need to request an interaction ban from ArbCom at some point, but it would save everyone a lot of time and drama if this could be done at AE.

My conflict with Mathsci over the past year has happened in far more places than just AE, so banning me from AE is not going to solve this problem. What I really care about is Mathsci not being able to pursue me anymore, but a mutual ban is probably what most people would see as fairest, and I don’t mind giving up my ability to interact with him as long as I can know he’ll be leaving me alone. (For us to both leave each other alone is also what I tried to suggest in his user talk.) --Captain Occam (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry if I seem to be badgering you, but could you please get back to me about whether a mutual interaction ban between me and Mathsci is something you’d be willing to provide in the AE thread? If not, I might decide to request this from ArbCom before the AE thread is closed. I’m getting a stronger and stronger impression that allowing the conflict between him and me to continue festering is a detriment both to the community and to me, and something needs to be done to end it. But I don’t want to start an amendment thread about this issue if it’s going to be resolved at AE. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had time to look at the case. But no, I don't think so. One of the other commenting admins might though? NW (Talk) 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I’ll probably just request it from ArbCom. Thanks anyway, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk review of proposed amendment needed

Please look at User talk:EdJohnston#Final draft prior to submission and see if it has all the needed information. Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your review. In Template:ArbComOpenTasks the date of the amendment is now shown as 16 August. I think it should be 1 Sept. Thanx, EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, thank you. I replaced the parameters of a previous template but neglected to fix that. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 20:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the DYK for Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard. -- James26 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal questions

We're done here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

NW, do you understand why it isn't appropriate to ask editors personal questions like this about their religious, philosophical, or lifestyle beliefs? For one reason among several, because we address the edits, not the editor. Also, it's the kind of atmosphere this creates in what is supposed to be a collaborative project. If you edit the Catholic Church article in a way that someone disagrees with, do you think it's appropriate for them or an admin to come to your talk page and ask you if you are a follower of the Catholic religion? Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That analogy is a bit off, Cla68. Olive has explicitly stated before that he or she is on the faculty of the primary TM university in America; I would just like olive to clarify what exactly that entails. NW (Talk) 00:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If she has said that, then why are you asking her questions for which you claim to already know the answer? More importantly, what does it matter as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned? How about the Intelligent Design article? Should I be asking the participants there if they belong to atheist or agnostic organizations, if they believe in God, if they are Christian Sunday School teachers, if they have ever been "card-carrying" members of the Discovery Institute, etc? It's inappropriate. Address the edits. Does Olive revert war? Does she misrepresent sources? Does she insult or belittle other editors on the article talk pages? Does she abuse BLP articles? Does she remove sourced information without discussion? Those are the issues to address if they exist. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Cla68, that editor does engage in many of those behaviors. Those are bad enough, but they're worse when compounded with conflicts of interest. See Misplaced Pages:Activist.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If an editor is not engaging in any of those behaviors, i.e. not violating any polices, then would it matter if they have a COI, which is a behavioral guideline by the way, not a policy? If not, then why would it matter either way? Either an editor is following the rules (policies) or they aren't. The ACTIVIST essay's entire premise is that activist editors don't follow the rules. Will, didn't you help edit that essay? Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because all (I think) I know right now is that Olive is or was a faculty member of Maharishi University of Management. I have no idea if that means Olive did real analysis research, taught Advanced Transcendental Meditation theory courses, or worked in the PR department. Of those, only the last one would concern me, but only as a compounding factor. Your position that only the edits matter is interesting, but not something that I think is widely accepted. If an editor ran a website attacking a subject of a BLP, for example, and then edited inappropriately on that article but not to an extent that would normally get them sanctioned, do you not think we should take that into account?

And yes, I would ask similar questions if someone who was editing Discovery Institute in a similar fashion that stated that they were affiliated with the National Center for Science Education but didn't say anything further. NW (Talk) 01:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I guess I shouldn't be surprised that an experienced admin who supported an arbitration warning against me for making one strongly worded (not uncivil) statement, who uses every chance he can get to muddy my reputation, who as I see on Kbob's page will even stoop to off-line and online intimidation and bullying creating as much noise as he can on the sidelines of his RfC, should once again create more myth and narrative in his ongoing efforts to remove me.
  • Nuclear Warfare. Any information you have about my past personal life was removed with an admin action. For you to know that information was there is to know that it was removed, and to then repeat it is deliberately outing me. For you not to know it is there means someone gave you the information. I was harassed off Misplaced Pages and the information was removed. The arbitrators were made privately aware of the information. Now it is left to me to decide what to do about being outed.(olive (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
Whether or not disclosures are made, WP:COI should be followed. WP:NOTADVOCATE is a policy. Some editors have consistently added positive material on TM-related topics and removed negative material, which in some cases amounts to promotion of expensive therapies and techniques. That's a problem.   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
We are here because you, Will Beback have a propensity for creating narratives that reinforce your position. If you want to discuss my editing please take it to arbitration. (olive (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
To you Nuclear Warfare ... I have no idea what to say to an admin and clerk who trots out personal hidden information in this kind of situation and defends that action. (olive (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
You personally have made non-deleted statements on other users' talk pages that you have a terminal degree and I understand from posts that have been made to WP:COIN that you are affiliated with MUM. From that I thought it was reasonable to conclude that you were employed by the university, perhaps as a faculty member and perhaps in another position. No non-deleted information was used at all. If you don't wish to answer the questions I posed, fine. You could have just gone and said that. NW (Talk) 03:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
NW, from what I've observed, editors involved in the TM topic area have been oft-subjected to this kind of inquiry, and they're understandably sensitive about it. They perhaps reasonably perceive it as attempted intimidation, because the source of much of it is an editor and admin who often disagrees with them in content debates. Then, when another admin suddenly comes along and starts asking them personal questions about it on their user talk pages, how are they supposed to feel? Again, address the edits, not the editor, and these kind of situations can be avoided. Cla68 (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Outing: NW you have attempted to out me: You took a comment about a degree, and a statement someone made on the COIN then guessed at personal information, and posted it here? In the meantime you employed Inquisition type questions on my user page in further attempts to get information? Its hard to know what to say.(olive (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC))