Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by I'clast (talk | contribs) at 10:16, 21 May 2007 (re 99+% vs 100%; remove personal attack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thanks for the humor!

Thanks for your humor on Talk:NCAHF. Poor Ilena, hoist by her own petard . --Ronz 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NOT!

It's not just WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV should be on that list too. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF too, but I already mentioned those. Thanks for interjecting more levity and reality yet again! --Ronz 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett and all

Thank you! I can;t believe I again got sucked into WIkipedia and spent most of a day on it.

Barrett got me to the case, which got me to the federal statute, etc etc.

However, I am not sure what is original research? A discussion of the cases?  ?? Jance 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Basically once you (well, not specifically you, but "you" in the figurative sense) start having to explain things in wiki, that basically is OR. Rather than just parotting the sources and/or modifying/rewording that data. Barrett's work is a real minefield as all the sources really are opinion pieces and we (as in the group of wikieditors) need to be careful that we don't start forming opinions and using the sources to support that opinion. At least, that's my take on the subject :-) Shot info 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

However, it is noted that the difference between necessary summarizing and OR can be pretty fine sometimes.--I'clast 08:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, last time I looked you where either WP:OR or not. Shot info 12:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

...In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment.-Jimbo--I'clast 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position anybody? Are you possibly suggesting we should ignore a wiki pillar? Especially one that sort of post dates the quote that you have posted? Prehaps we should ignore a couple of others (say WP:N as an example)  :-) Shot info 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute, Shot. yes, it appears WP:OR is definitely a judgment call unless it is so obvious it hits you upside the head. Even rewording and summarizing takes some thought, unless I suppose one has AI software that spits out paraphrasing. This whole thing has become simply tortured.Jance 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And you know what, we have this other thing called WP:N which tells us that certain "facts" are really unencyclopedic and not worthy of wikipedia. As I and others have pointed out, the corporate status of NCAHF is not notable. But others what it there to suggest a hint of illegality. But it seems he/she who writes the most will win in this regard... regardless of the pillars Shot info 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL - Thanks again for the humor. --Ronz 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

General on Barrett NCAHF etc

You wrote, "Ilena does seem to only have one policy, attack until she finds support, then attack with support. " My comment on this related to my distate in disparaging other editors. It is very common at Misplaced Pages, and I do not like it. That was my point. I do not agree with ILena, or l'cast on most of their complaints re the article.

I do agree with Arthur that the WP:N of incorporation is a borderline call. If there is no evidence that NCAHF is, for example, improperly soliciting donations in either CA or MA (or anywhere else), the only possible reason for inclusion is to imply wrongdoing. That is not acceptable. If, on the other hand, there was wrongdoing, yes, it would be notable, especially given t h nature of the organization's activities.

I am not "anti-" or "pro-" Barrett. I have already stated my concerns re the use of the legal system. I surely do not have the interest in alternative med that some seem to have there. I don't even know what "Glyconutrients" are, for example. Nor do I care. And I am glad I did not face the polio risk that my parents faced, and am therefore thankful there are vaccines. I do not, however, think medical doctors are Gods and have co-equal powers with government regulatory agencies or prosecuting authorities. I do believe that any decent article, whether in Misplaced Pages or anywhere else, should contain reliable resources.Jance 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a lot of points in the above paragraph. So I will answer them individually (although I must admit I am wondering out load why you see the need to make these points).

1. I was making a commment to I'clast's defence of her. Sarcastic yes, but true.
2. I also agree with Arthur that the NCAHF is a borderline call. Typically if it is borderline, one errs on the side of caution and deletes it. However here in NCAHF/Barrett/QW-land, it seems everything is kept in and must be debated to death for deletion.
3. I am with you. But a am pro-wiki-pillars. The example of Glyconutrients was directed at I'clast, for if you exclude his/her edits to Barrett-land, his/her edits are rather small, and still similar to that at Barrett-land (IMHO), hence making his/her appeal to his/her's authority on wiki rather cynical in nature. The remainder of your para is OR and largely irrelevant to the debate (again IMHO). However on an aside, let's hope than you and I don't become "notable" enough for all our little irrelevant "facts" to get on wikipedia one day or if they do, there are enough supporters of the wiki-pillars left to ensure BLP, N, and OR all get a look in...unlike what is appears to be happening in Barrett-land at the moment (again IMHO). Shot info 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a good thing that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, ya?  ;=) Jance 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:-) Hmmm, maybe I can use it as a excuse to clean it up hey??? :-) Shot info 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep!

Would you still add smething re Curtis? I am not quite sure what to do. I don't have a hotlink, but a hotlink is not necessary. I don't want to provide a hotlink from a dubious anti-Barrett website. However, the scanned opinion is the same.  ?Jance 06:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. This is the only issue re Barrett/NCAHF that I find particularly alarming. And so did at least two courts, evidently. Now I am headed off to get sleep. This weekend (New Years) I am going to be working. I need a break from Misplaced Pages, anyway. If you can, you might peruse the material that Curtis added. I don't think it is a bad idea to have the positions of NCAHF, but the style, wording, and length need attention. I have corrected some spelling, and wording. Oh, and references, even if it is their website, and formating. Jance 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Need your help

I need your, Arthur, Ronce et al help on NCAHF. Curtis recreated the NCAHF website here. There is an edit war. It is absurd. I have worked on it, to summarize, and asked him what else he thinks is important that is not covered on the summary. He seems to want to recreate the entire webpage.Jance 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the transition of the picture size and the placement you did on Dr. Scheibner's page. I was wondering if you could look at C._ Alan_ B._ Clemetson and assist in the enlargement of the picture. Thank you.70.171.229.32 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)And narrowing the sides of the frame. Again, thank you. 70.171.229.32 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF

Which did you think was ok? The article that is there now, and locked? Or the long 'version' that Curtis wanted to include? I wrote the version that is now locked - the section on "Positions". Curtis lifted large sections of the website(s), and it made that section pages long. The main issue now is the section on "Positions". And I can only speak for myself, but I do not object to "Curtis' taking it upon himself" to change the article. Everyone except Curtis objects to a series of excessively long sections that reproduces a website(s) and is a copyright violation.Jance

Hi

Your input would be appreciated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_articles_related_to_quackery BTW, it would be nice if you activated your email. -- Fyslee 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

You voted to keep the "list of articles related to quackery" but we do not have enough votes. So your vote won't count towards anything. Now, our only option is to vote for move to project namespace as a development project. Pass on the message. Thanks. --QuackGuru 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. How about change your vote to Keep or move to project namespace! You can have it both ways. Thanks and best wishes. --QuackGuru 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Response on QuackWatch

I made a response on JSE at the article as you requested. My opinion is that Kauffman really should demoted to the bulleted list as opposed to being featured. The grain of salt that we should give the reader with respect to Kaufmann should be pointing out the large chip on his shoulder, which is about the size of his gut. (He doesn't believe that obesity is as dangerous as most health professionals believe. I would hate to be his doctor.)

--ScienceApologist 13:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thiomersal controversy

I have again removed the site from the page thiomersal controversy. It contains too many external links already (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, also mentioned on WP:EL), furthermore, the page is not a reliable source, and those points are named in WP:EL as well. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark

Thanks for the humor. It's a really interesting case. Too bad Ilena has to jump in and prove once again she why she should be banned. --Ronz 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IEEE

I think you once said that you did some work with the IEEE. I have a friend who is a software developer who is interested in going to work with them. How did you with them and was it a good experience? Recommendable? -- Levine2112 21:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Levine, I didn't work with IEEE, I was a member for several years and received lots of their journals (their many, many, many journals). I really couldn't say what it would be like to actually work for them, but they treat their members very professionally. Hope this helps Shot info 12:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I thought I'd remember you saying you did some peer reviewing for them or contributed to their journal in some fashion. Did I mention that I have an overactive imagination? ;-) Thanks. -- Levine2112 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in the production and reviews of papers for their journals yes. You don't have to work for the IEEE to submit and/or review a paper :-) Shot info 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great. I didn't know you've been published. Are you a developer? Which languages? -- Levine2112 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your still misinterpreting what the IEEE do, they are an electrical and electronics professional organisation. I have not been published per se but have been involved in various committees and companies that have been published (although I am normally listed as a co-author and/or reviewer). I am actually a control and communications engineer however I am now working in what we call in Europe "LV" (ie/ power electrical engineering). Most of the papers I were involved in, were the practical side of process control systems and implementation thereof. But to answer your question, yes I have being involved in programming but using IEC61131 programming languages which I think most programmers are unfamilar with (although SCADA systems often use barstardised versions of VB and C which I have also used). But I am beyond programming now, I just write the Functional Descriptions and let my minions do the actual code cutting :-) Shot info 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Sounds intense. I certainly know VB and C, but yes... never heard of IEC61131 (not a very catchy acronym). So you design SCADA systems to control the distribution of electrical power in Europe. Cool. My inner-geek bows to you. (My outer-geek is tired and must go to sleep.) -- Levine2112 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, IEC 61131-3 has an article on Misplaced Pages. It's a bit of a stub, so you might want to contribute there. I asked my buddy about it and he's only heard of it and that's about all. He's a Linux/Unix guy and a strong proponent of open source. (Have you heard of the documentary "Revolution OS"?) -- Levine2112 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mostly you use it to program distributed control system' and Programmable Logic Controllers which are machine and plant controllers (sometimes embedded controllers ... although the few I have touched of them used C...not C++ but C). No I haven't heard of Revolution OS. Are you into PCs and the like? Shot info 12:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I dig 'em, but I am not much of a programmer/developer. A friend of mine directed Revolution OS and it was pretty big within the Linux community in the U.S. (which is to say it was a very small film). I don't know that it was ever released internationally, so you might not have seen it. Oh, and my email should be activated here. I get emails from other editiors from time-to-time. -- Levine2112 17:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting development

You may want to read here. Apparently there is evidence that you are related to Stephen Barrett somehow (and I think he/she means a blood relative). Is this true? -- Levine2112 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a party to the arbitration and I have nothing to really add, nor do I have to defend myself against I'clast's quite badly worded diatribe. If there is "evidence" then he can present it (but I can't really see where he says that however). Otherwise, it is just more of I'clast's atypical MO which is him appealing to his own authority... Shot info 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. I guess I am just asking you for a "yes" or "no" answer. Are you a blood relative of Stephen Barrett? -- Levine2112 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why is I'clast is performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through. I note that I'clast hasn't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend somebody who agrees with his POV and he has defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No rebuttal required. Are you a blood relative of Stephen Barrett? Yes or no? Thank you. Ilena (chat) 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why is I'clast is performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through. I note that I'clast hasn't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend you (somebody who agrees with his POV) and who he has defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(editing conflict) I honestly just want to know for curiosity sake. I'm not going to badger you to give me an answer though. I agree with you. This doesn't pertain the ArbCom. I just figured you'd want an opportunity to set the record straight. (**The editing conflict shows why I think you should set the record straight now before more people start arriving and asking questions.**)-- Levine2112 23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What "record"? I'clast makes a baseless assumption (incorrect mind you) and the loyal hounds all go yapping? People can ask all the questions they want. While they are distracted asking such questions, the smokescreen achieves it's purpose. For one, I thought you were a smarter editor than that :-) Shot info 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want you to be clear. The record is the record of Misplaced Pages. I'm not being a loyal hound to anyone so no need to evade the question. Are you a blood relative of Stephen Barrett? Yes or no? -- Levine2112 23:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are acting as a loyal hound unfortunately. By swallowing the little lie, you allow the big lie to go by. I have just read Ilena's user page and now I see why all of a sudden why her supporters are after me. And you still haven't asked yourself why it is important. Shot info 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to step in here, but this appears to me to be close to harassment. You have asked the questions a number of times already. Shot info as far as I am aware is not obliged to answer this personal question. Cheers Lethaniol 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The import and demonstration of this COI allegation is potentially both embarrassing and far reaching across the affected Quackwatch related articles, instantly recognizable to both sides. One side of course will await lurid details with bated breath, the other side may try to deny & ignore it, hoping it disipates like a small odor in the wind. I have been patient and tried to engage in repartee' with an obviously capable, intelligent, educated editor of a different, perhaps filial, point of view, rather than just use the COI bludgeon.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'klast, you need to ask, if I say "no", what then? Obviously you, Ilena and Levine have all (unfortunately for yourselves) painted yourselves into a position where you have to assume that I am incorrect in saying so. So I am waiting for the evidence that Ilena is so breathlessly waiting for (why I have no idea) only as I do enjoy watching all of you fail, only as this is a classic MO of you, and Ilena for that matter. Obscure the matter and see what happens. I don't need to defend myself, you need to substantiate your allegations. Of course Ilena is already saying "We (whoever we are) have strong evidence" ]. Is it really evidence or more examples of your use of hearsay and relying on your own authority? Shot info 08:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't let their harrassment get to you. Ilena accussed me once of being Barrett, and just the past two days first Levine2112 then I'clast accused me of being an ip address based upon no evidence whatsoever which they submitted to the Evidence page for the Ilena/Fyslee ArbCom. --Ronz 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I never accused you of being an IP address. Did I? Where is this accusation coming from? -- Levine2112 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said that you made accusations against me without evidence which I'clast interpreted as accusations of me being an ip address. I hope that clarifies exactly where this is coming from. Of course, if either of you assumed good faith, none of this would have happened. --Ronz 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all could do with a read up at WP:AGF, including me btw - throwing accusations around can lead to unnecessary conflict and further escalation of a current conflict. If people have concerns about sock/meatpuppetry then there are specific places to discuss these, and knowing a users identity is generally only issue when major COI issues need to be addressed. In such cases requests to disclose personal information should be done in a highly sensitive manner and by a neutral editor. Any questions please ask me at my talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This qualifies precisely. Ilena (chat) 00:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I confronted each of them with the situation. Levine2112 admitted it, withdrew the information, and apologised. I'clast withdrew the information and refused to clarify what he was attempting. Ilena never responded, but eventually switched to the accusation that I'm part of a pro-Barrett "smear campaign". I don't think there's any assumption of bad faith on my part here noting what they've done. --Ronz 00:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologized for bringing your name into the evidence. You aren't a direct party and I removed your name because I felt bad for dragging you into it... and I apologized for that at least twice. However, what I did write was pretty much accurate. -- Levine2112 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I must have misinterpreted your writing "You are absolutely right. My bad." when I stated that your accusations against me "are not factual." I'm sorry that you have either changed your mind or were not up front with me. When I wrote "You both began making accusations that I was involved as an editor with the articles in question when Ilena began editing them," you responded with, "Totally. Again, this was my bad. I apologize once again." Sounds like you're withdrawing your apologies and admissions. --Ronz 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You are using my apology to you against me! Yes, you didn't start in on Ilena right when Ilena began editing. You started in on her a couple months afterward. My point in excising that info from the evidence was less about taking away misinformation and more about respecting you. I didn't want to supply evidence against you or anyone else as you are not the subject of this ArbCom. Again, I apologize for bringing you into this and that is why I gladly (and with sincere apologiees) erased your name when you pointed that out to me. -- Levine2112 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. FYI: Ilena began editing last year, editing in March, July, September, and December. My first interactions with her in any way were in September where I removed her vanity links and gave her a Spam1 warning. --Ronz 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, quick, compound draft errors in a lengthy submission can be complex to explain, simple deletion was appropriate. Up too late, and my annoyance with some of your previous tactics that I consider low level heckling, was showing. This was a superfluous "slip of the pen", after reading Levine's point, that should have been deleted before submission.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So your excuse is annoyance with me and assumptions of bad faith? Thanks for clarifying exactly what it takes for you to put something into evidence in ArbCom. --Ronz 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ronz I should have been clear - my statement above was not directed at you, or anyone else for that matter. More that we all sometimes need to step back, chill, and assume as much good faith as is possible, whatever the circumstances. Cheers Lethaniol 00:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree Shot info 00:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry - am going to bed now so can not follow this up - Ilena if you feel that Shot Info has a potential major COI (so much so that they should not be editing on the COI article) and they are actively and regularly editing these articles, then it may need further investigation. This should be done so at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Note this should only be done if Shot's editing is seen as biased or disruptive on the COI articles. If this is not obvious for all to see then I would assume good faith and leave the issue. Also note Ilena, with the current ArbCom case, you presenting a case to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard may be seen as inappropriate and uncivil considering your COI also. Good night. Cheers Lethaniol 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also before taking the issue to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but if you still major concerns of COI (obvious for all to see) - I am happy to try and resolve this issue as a neutral editor. This will require giving me a detail of the potential COI, the articles involved and the differences where Shot has displayed the COI. Assuming Shot is willing to talk to me as a neutral editor about this, we can try and get this resolved, but it may take a day or two. To pre-empt this Shot you are welcome to send me a quick email on the issue (by going to the link in my toolbox on my userpage) Cheers Lethaniol 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'clast harassment

Given that others have made the accusations, I'm going to stay out of I'clast's attempt at a cover for Ilena's ArbCom until such time they (whoever "they" are) go through the appropriate channels (which I have pointed out to Levine and Ilena above). I don't see that there are any issues on my part per se however I am happy to deal with you as a neutral editor should Ilena and/or the others decide to actually substantiate their claims. Until they do that, as I have pointed out previously, "I for one will not bother with a rebuttal." Shot info 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles.

Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me, after I earlier dropped another hint,...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), do you have a special interest here?--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007.

I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.)

I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'klast, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why you are performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through (as noted above). I note that you still haven't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend your POV warriors who you have defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The primary value is to help clear the air here and in the future.

The other value of forthright is for you, it should be less painful and less crippling. I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. Many people would like my "cooperation". Well, I want theirs. I am sick of suffering in partial silence as a minority when I am being messed with, either COI or trolls, because of a slanted field and I have some capabilities. Now if that means trampling every kind of COI, troll or less literate, that probably means I will be one of the survivors. Even at the brink of a pitched confrontation, I am quite capable of achieving collaboration, I recognize merit. Some very pro-QW editors who know me well, could attest to that. I prefer to miss the confrontation part. In many ways I have tried to recognize your merits. If I thought you had little merit, I would have skipped some dialogue, grace period & hints and just let you have exactly what you are asking for.

I am not blowing smoke, I've been forebearing. There is far more organizational astroturfing and "skeptical" trolling going on all over altmed related topics than is generally recognized (I sometimes know who is who), some that genuinely scare me. I simply am not in a position to trust so many counterparts enough to deal promptly with these problems when I would like (I sometimes have to wait 6+ months to clear up other problems first). Your COI issue is one that I expect to have acknowledgement of, now, even if others' issues have to be redressed later. Ultimately this is all part of clearing the air, one serialized step at a time. In fairness for the current RfArb, it needs to be done now. You-all want *more* help dealing with POV warring? Sure, when the field is a little more level and demining is not needed first.

"Baseless"? Do you feel lucky?--I'clast 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, I have replied. I still think early, voluntary disclosure is in your best interests.--I'clast 13:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Shot, sorry that I brought all of this to your talk page. I guess this was what I was warning about when I thought you should just set the record straight clearly with a simple "yes" or "no". Again, I don't want to badger you on this point so I will stop this for now. -- Levine2112 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The pack of dogs act together and travel together. Sorry if this is harsh (AGF) but if you act like them, and agree with them...well, there is only one way to determine your intent. Shot info 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry you feel that way. My intent is the truth. Nothing more. You seem reluctant to provide us with that. You are under no obligations. Again, I apologize for bringing this to your talk page. -- Levine2112 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, time to see what evidence Ilena and I'clast have. If anything it betrays their own curiously close association rather than that of any other editors. But it is their call to engage in such unWP behavior. I'm just calling their harassment for what it is. It is however discouraging that you continue to follow in their footsteps, as you well know my "yes" or "no" has zero bearing on the matters in the ArbCom. Besides, it's fun to watch people go all in with only a low pair :-) Shot info 02:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate the courtesy of, presumably, a flat denial. I have seen various negative soundbytes from you and your wingman now for more than 2 nights, but so far I still have not heard a solid answer, just weasel-worded half statements topped with mockery, invective and bluster. I actually have tried to be polite and careful about your, and other Wikipedians', interests, but your responses have not been compatible with reconcilation of our positions. So the ripples spread.--I'clast 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'clast, you have no authority, here or otherwise, and no basis to ask me anything. As has been pointed out to you by several users now, I don't need to reply to you and your lackeys accusations. If you have evidence, then present it. Your continued fluffing and attacks by your team only suggest that you don't have any evidence. So yes, just "weasel-worded half statements topped with mockery, invective and bluster", I could not have worded your statement any better. I have taken the first steps to have this situation seen to by Admins and I suggest that your continued "polite" harassment should cease at this point in time only as it will be used as evidence when the COI arbitration comes up. I think you will be very surprised to find out how "Barrett's son" requires a visa to enter the US :-) Shot info 07:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No fluff, no bluff, there are obviously some *very* interesting things driving my concerns that are for discussion at some admin level, or I wouldn't waste time on it. You can chalk up my limited experience for any poor handling technique, floundering around, when I would love nothing more than to just dump it all out there for everyone to admire. Considering how many weeks you can argue over a simple, cold fact - this may be even more "fun". I've never kidded myself how messy this might be. The last obvious troll that I ran to ground, it was over three months later on the other identity and pretty unpleasant; more sophisticated, less pronounced problems may be harder to resolve, I am still cherry at this one.--I'clast 15:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

More fluff, more bluff, more bluster. Still waiting for the evidence. Without it, your words are rather meaningless. You and Ilena have been advised to take it to COI and yet neither of you have. Please do so or cease harrassing me. Shot info 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and patient understanding. I suggest, let's try to stay out each other's way, avoid the hot buttons for the next few days, and use humor if we cross paths on anything. I would appreciate your help with Ronz on this suggestion too. I am a painful writer, so let me get what I am concerned about into some kind of structured presentation, then let's see what the admins make of it.--I'clast 06:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change my talk page. Your actions above and complete failure to substantiate your's and Ilena's allegations are rather damning. You have claimed to have the evidence. You have claimed to have had it for some time. You have provided it to Ilena. You have set up Levine to bait me with questions about Linux (you know I never knew what RTFM was until you kept using it...it's a good acronym). So far you and your team have met (and exceeded) WP:HARASS. Also here's a newsflash for you ... a "software" engineer isn't the same as an "electrical" engineer. And for the record, I know very little about Linux except that it is an OS that technonuts just adore. Shot info 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Shot, I don't appreciate the accusation that I'clast and Ilena put me up tp asking you questions. I was legitimately interested in your work with IEEE for my friend (who has decided to pursue a membership, by the by). Your lack of good faith is disheartening. -- Levine2112 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did reserve my judgement, but somebody noisy on one side of the fence (so to speak) has bleed some information (it's sometimes hard not to discuss things via email...). It unfortunately reflects certain editors in a very bad light. However, it is only a small amount of information and it is necessary to compare it with I’clast’s package to crosscheck. If it proves to run counter, I will withdrawal my comment and you will receive a public apology. Regretfully this whole COI thing has started because a clique of editors have failed to AGF themselves. BTW, your friend, the Linux interested software developer, does he think by joining the IEEE it will improve his chances of “going to work with them"? Shot info 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've explicitly told you time is still a factor, the timeline, and given you a time example of a less challenging situation. I sent 2 separate emails out before the weekend, that pin the basic nature of my position and facts that I will be submitting. This *is* a complex case and process. Complicated by the very nature and capabilities of the professed professions and other resources of the involved accounts with regard to basic verification and information techniques once the issue reared its head. I have committed myself, you have done precious little to help clarify any possible misunderstandings when it could still matter proactively. The COI process is starting, your AN and ongoing complaints have simply preignited it in a way less favorable to me. This "whole COI thing" started because of multiple anomalies, some striking, followed by some of your cumulative edits that have not sat too well in such a light, while the BBQ was on. In this light, I think I have been patient, too much so - when I should have spent the weeks grinding fresh points for COI, if trying to broach it with some care, you're going to just hurl epithets.--I'clast 07:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS a small selection: "I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you.", "I am not blowing smoke", "Do you feel lucky?", "The last obvious troll that I ran to ground". Shot info 07:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not bannered my concerns with your USER:id, either. The situation does not fill the specific enumerated types' conditions as explained with your (mis)understanding or (mis)usage of my words.

1. "I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you." first part is a statement about my basic pieces of evidence, pretty much constant with very slight improvement. The second part is an honest opinion, presuming admins or whomever agree on presentation of evidence as correctly connected to a single identity, IMHO that would be unpleasant to have everything in one place.
2. "I am not blowing smoke" - I submitted preliminary evidence to an admin, so *I am not* blowing smoke
3. "Do you feel lucky?" Incomplete quote, "Baseless"? is pertinent. A little rhetorical, for "I have it" (so I think)
4. "The last obvious troll that I ran to ground". way out of context quote, I specifically separated the problem identification part from your part, which is that it is about the priority and obviousness of the situation, to show how much time and labor is involved in even such "simple" cases, when you are pounding the table for instant gratification and you are not helping things at all, creating a time & attention distraction for me. And since *you* know you are right , then you also know that you may have a good laugh at my expense. So relax, smile, and enjoy, like you alluded earlier. I am asking User:Arthur Rubin for his opinion how to handle this Talk page.--I'clast 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change my talk page. Shot info 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC) ], ]

The harassment continues as the "evidence" changes ]

I have just replied to I'clast email (I believe) mentioned above (note I am not an Admin). As the whole Shot info COI issue has been taken to the ArbCom, I have said that I will leave the issue up to them until the ArbCom concludes. I suggest any evidence is presented to the ArbCom in email form (via Fred) as per Durova's suggestion. Furthermore I suggest that further discussion on this issue on this talk page is inappropriate. Shot has not answered the question on their identity and we have no right to force them to answer it. The next step now is to present evidence at the appropriate forum where this can be resolved. Discussion here is now never going to resolve this issue but just cause more conflict. Any questions either ask on my talk page or email me. Cheers Lethaniol 18:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It has only been 7 8 9 10 weeks 3 months since I'clast/TheNautilus claimed "I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks", without substantiating his assertion(s). Shot info 04:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re your concerns about my "forgetting" about you or a “pov push”, rest assured I submitted evidence based filings to an admin, noted directly to the Arb clerk, discussing "true names" and potential COI, as well as editorial strengths and qualifications - months ago. Whether they felt the good balanced the COI, that the whole issue was a simply a tar pit, that some of the objects of our contention have been rendered substantially moot by other events, still looking, or other reasons and combinations, I have not yet been informed. Discussing such a COI openly is difficult without using real names, an increasingly fatal form of WP speleology. Rest assured, what I submitted had manifold and laborious points of evidence – your accusations about lack of good faith, harrassment, or simply "pov push" won't fly - I would already be dead meat. Also I could later show the clear inconsistencies in some of your various self assertions, where I over relied on some of your early self assertions at WP as true in my original comments at RFAR despite making some allowances that you might have shaded your assertions.

As for being in a rush because of the BvR RFAR and your ANI, that is exactly what I originally complained about, as discussed earlier and above, being put at the disadvantage having to start COI discussions prematurely during an evidence gathering, analysis and verification phase in order to defend myself from your ANI charges.--I'clast 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, it is still only 3 months since you claimed "I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks", without substantiating your assertion(s). The fact that ArbCom and other admins have ignored your evidence should provide some clue to the clueless about the value of the said "evidence". You could always say "Sorry I was wrong" you know, but then again others have this problem as well :-). Until then though, the proof is that you have no proof and continue to provaricate. Shot info 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have substantially documented my position, there may be a question as to degree of ironclad proof and verification or degree of COI with the admins, I don't know. Without concrete answers or guidance, administrative reasoning is speculative. Verification etc with respect to an intelligent and uncooperative editor became infinitely harder after Talk (here), RFAR and ANI started, as I noted from the start. As for "provaricate" (sic), I am not the one with the inconsistent self statements, again long documented and turned in. I told the admins who I incidentally owed an apology to on the (too) early start. I am not aware of any (offer of) resolution since.--I'clast 06:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

], Meh, minor spelling error. You seem to keep thinking that your allegation of COI is somehow my fault ("uncooperative" et.al)? Remember, I'm the one who keeps challenging you to put up or shut up. I'm the one asking you for the info. I'm the one asking you for this little thing called proof. So far all I have seen is you claim that I was Barrett's son, only to morph that to somebody else. So I gather you were wrong to start with, and the natural assumption is that you are still wrong. Not my fault you make diffs say what you want them to say to whoever you sent them to. Remember, you are making the claims here. Not me. The fact that other editors don't believe your package of information is telling as well, obviously not to you though. Nevertheless, until you substantiate your claims, there is only one word to actually describe others who may not be you but act a lot like you. Shot info 06:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am done wasting time and patience on this subject, I am pretty busy right now and need to control my cumulative aggravation and time. I think that this may be a case where WP admins want certainty, "I did it, I did it..." Perry Mason style, not 99.9%. The discussions here since seem more of a continuing ad hominem on me or frazzle factor, if not outright provocation, on QW critics somewhat knowledgeable on any "altmed" topic.

If you want to take my COI filing up with the admins, maybe Arthur can help you. I would not dream of doing the public version now until I knew what the real ground rules were and that it was open and safe enough. I still think most people wouldn't like being flayed in a completely open forum and I think the uaual suspects would still carry on even more, ever after. At least that has been the usual result in real life when someone carries on with the "prove it" campaign despite reasonable answers (they buried the evidence they knew about or thought it otherwise "impossible") and whom I have obliged anyway.--I'clast 10:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Garlic

Until I can get mediation with Alan2012's behavior, I probably won't contribute further to Garlic. Meanwhile, I think you've pointed out important problems with his contribution that need to be focused on. It's the typical problem with alt-med and fringe/pseudo-science claims: editors trying to play the "balanced coverage" game, with all the NPOV, OR, N, and NOT problems that go with it, rather than deferring to the proper sources. I don't know if Alan2012 has been made aware of these problems in the past, but he has now. And there's always Mooney's great article in the External links of WP:NPOV to make the point crystal clear. --Ronz 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, you might like to cast your eye over the latest changes that Alan, myself and Mastcell have had a stab at. I think it's starting to come together. Shot info 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better. The naturopath stuff should be separated out from real medicine, since the standards are completely different and shouldn't be confused. --Ronz 04:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone wants to know

Now MaxPont wants to know too .

Who is the masked stranger, known only as Shot info? Ironically, none of the ones asking (demanding, threatening, etc.) seem to understand WP:COI. For some reason, they think that being caught with a conflict of interest, unless your name is Ilena, is some horrendous sin against all of Misplaced Pages (maybe even the world?)

Hang in there! --Ronz 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Whose that guy :-) Shot info 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your interventions on the John Edward and Parapsychology pages (= Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Science Cat

It is not made clear in the article that he is a pseudoscientist. Nor is there a scientific consensus that parapsychology is pseudoscience (as there is with Creationism). Thus, the case for putting his bio in pseudoscience is very dim. Especially so as it is a bio, and we err on the side of being nice.

"Pseudoscience" is intrinsically a put-down. It should seldom be used, especially for people. "Disputed science," would be fine. I could go for that. But "Pseudoscience" is a pure put-down label- and the general reader, not familiar with the concept of a category as being "related to the claim by some" would see it that way. Further, it makes an absolute claim (as noted in the BLP page). Thus, it must be sourced- probably better than anything could be sourced. There are obvious cases like Time Cube, but this is not one of them.

Want to help create the category "Disputed science"? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The label "Pseudoscience" is like all taboo replacement terms, which eventually becomes taboo. Likewise with "disputed science". "Pseudoscience" has a well entrenched meaning and usage within the scientific community and here in WP. I am starting to think that this has a wiff of "crusade" attached to it :-(. Pseudoscience = Protoscience = Disputed Science. Until it becomes a "science", a field of research is really a psuedoscience. The other terms are just taboo replacement terms since psuedoscience don't like people calling their terms "psuedoscience". Proto and Disputed will eventually prove to be the same (and then what "Neo-science"????) Shot info 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RPing-???

What is RPing? Are you talking to Nealparr or me? I'm guessing this is one of the many, many manymanymany Misplaced Pages abbreviations. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Nealparr. See ] for RPing def. Shot info 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for advice

Thanks for the advice. You're probably right but I think I've created an opportunity for him to show he's not a troll so I'm hedging my bets right now. AvB ÷ talk 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Clairvoyance

Maybe one of us should just go through and put citation requests on the article, then we can simply get rid of a lot of that stuff. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did try to start, but almost each sentence needs one, so I just put the tag at the top of the article as it was the simplest of the current options. Shot info 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Good idea, maybe I should whack it. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it just quackery?

I was tempted to make the same edit you did to Stephen Barrett, but stopped after reading a few of the Quackwatch articles on the subjects mentioned. I think it's an inappropriate point of view to state that he thinks all these things are quackery (unless, of course, we've good sources demonstrating it). I probably should have brought it up on the article talk page. Considering what a morass the talk page is, I'd like to hear your opinion first. --Ronz 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was mainly interested in cleaning up the (bad) grammar and phraseology first. I agree with your points above but that sentance was....poor (with brackets), and a break of sentance, with verbs highlighted in an odd fashion. Shot info 22:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just read Levine's changes, and while I don't necessarily agree with his summation of "more accurate" the sentance reads well enough so I have no comment on it at the moment. Shot info 22:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I did put a question mark (?) after more accurate, as I wasn't sure. I don't think that everything Barrett speaks about on his site is deemed to be entirely quackery by himself. Take "juicing" for instance, I'm sure Barrett doesn't think that drinking juice is an entirely unhealthy enterprise. However, there are certianly claims that some proponents of juicing make which Barrett deems to be untrue or deceptive (see the Gerson Clinic which claims a juicing treatment which can eradicate/control cancer) and thus he labels it quackery. So,I think that what I wrote is more accurate. However, as always, I am of course open to any suggestions. -- Levine2112 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldnt figure out what the original text even meant, and Levine2112's change moves us away from the assertion that he thinks everything is quackery. It's an improvement, but we're skirting around NPOV and NOR. Eventually, we'll either need a source directly from Barrett or a secondary source. --Ronz 23:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the original sentence was poor, very poor. However it's not necessarily wrong to make this particular comment (per se) in the context of a summation of the long list of info that Barrett has written about. I agree with Levine's sentance below though, Barrett has written about numerous modalities, for example. It's clear and to the point. Completely unlike the original sentence (which probably makes sense in a foreign language :-). Shot info 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to leave out the quackery part of the sentence since that is the NPOV and NOR skirting issues. So instead of reading: Barrett has written about numerous modalities which he considers to be quackery or contain elements of quackery, for example it would read Barrett has written about numerous modalities, for example. Simple fix. Can we take this back over to Talk:Stephen Barrett? I don't think it is the morrass you make it out to be. -- Levine2112 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim Butler found a nice solution, "Barrett has criticized numerous topics." --Ronz 01:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice :-) Shot info 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. -- Levine2112 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to your comments to me about S.B.

First, thanks for the laugh, boy did you bring back memories with RTFM! :) Could you expand a bit more on your thoughts you had at Ronz's talk page? I didn't know if it was appropriate to respond to you there so I brought it to your talk page. But I would really like to hear more if you don't mind. Also, the compromising sentence that I suggested, do you think it still allows for a back door opening for the rest of the stuff, like failing the test, to get in? Was my suggestion inappropriate in your opinion? Have a good night, --Crohnie 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot take credit for it, I'clast who has a liking for Linux used to use it a lot, and I didn't know what it meant until wikipedia came to the rescue when I typed into the search. But forging on, I personally have expressed the view that this particular point is just not notable. The easy test for notability is, how does it fit in to the article and have many weasel words and/or phrases and/or tricks of syntax are needed to "make it fit". With this example....lots, hence all the arguments about original research etc. The OR is needed to make it relevant, and to make it understandable, but without it, it makes no sense, it just doesn't "fit". Hence it is just not notable. But moving on from that, the point of the policies are to have some procedures in place to help us write an encyclopaedia, not just to be "right" or "factual". Hence if you look at other similar Biographies as Barrett's (James Randi was an example I used, but look at any others really) and you will see a glaring difference between Barrett and almost every other BLP in WP. Namely, Barrett's BLP is overly criticism heavy. Certain editors claim "well he attracts critics" but the question needs to be asked, does he attract more criticism that James Randi? And the answer is no. So why does Barrett's article concentrate on such unencyclopaedic content (the answer is WP:WEIGHT)? Simply put, Barrett's article, though full of "facts", it poorly written because it is just unencyclopaedic. Joseph Mercola is another BLP to review to see how Barret's article can be improved. Shot info 00:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, what you say here is something I didn't think about at all. The guidelines here are complicated and of course I need to still understand them better. I copied this conversation to my talk page so I can research these other articles you mention to read them and see for myself the diffences. Now what you say here makes sense to me, though I am still not understanding notable to well. But I will look up all these things, some for the first time, others rereads with a different read to it. Wow, sorry for that sentence, early! :) Thanks for explaining this, you said it with clarity and that I appreciate. --Crohnie 09:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

Thanks for the invite, but I think I better attend to mental hygene and not edit on the Barrett page... sorry, and good luck there (: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in awe of your wisdom ;) --Ronz 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Told you it was "better" than anything seen over in paranormal land :-) Thanks for the attempt though. I'm personally waiting for the english language translation on some of the "issues" :-) Shot info 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. --Ronz 04:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Don't know. Do you have a link to the archived version? - LuckyLouie 04:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see the history, but I cannot find where it went... Shot info 04:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Need some good OR advice...

Shot,

Thanks for your work in observing the Fringe science article, which was being railroaded with original research. If you have any time, would you please take a look at the Christian Views About Women article to give some pointers about how to maintain the basic Misplaced Pages standards in there? The article's been off the tracks for a few years, and I pop in now and then and try to restore it to a basic level of neutrality, but the article never seems to strike a respectful, neutral tone. Any advice you can offer would be great. Pschelden 11:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Will try to find some time to pop over, review what is being done (rather than just jump in) and see if I can add anything. Shot info 01:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Shot, I appreciate the feedback. I don't know how to put tags up. Can you refer me to a tutorial page? I'd appreciate it. Thanks again. 09:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, anthony 04:35, Friday December 27 2024 (UTC)

Arbcom

I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. --Minderbinder 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK

Sorry about that. It appeared to be atypical IPvandalism at the time :-) Shot info 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was too since that page is prone to vandalism and self-promotion, especially since it was just an IP. Then I looked up the show and saw it was on Misplaced Pages, so I just cleaned it up : )

--Nealparr 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk James Randi article

I know you have the patience to explain to me what is going on with the sock puppet thread. The one person says that another person has over 200 sock puppets. I saw two links that I followed to two names that are indeed blocked. Does information get immediately deleted from the article and talk page if a person is blocked even if the information is backed up with research? How do you tell if a person is blocked or using an alternate identity? --Crohnie 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what is going on there. I think there is a user using multiple logins ("socks") to perform activities and there is a rather vigilant editor monitoring those accounts. In my opinion info on talk pages is largely irrelevant but other editors seem to think that it must be removed at all costs. I oppose the constant assumptions of bad faith in advance of the actual checkuser requests though. O well, each to there own. Shot info 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Shot, it sure makes it confusing for me to try to learn things and to find that things are being removed like this. Like you said, to each their own. --Crohnie 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask but would you do me a favor?

I thought I found a safe article to work on call Misplaced Pages community. Well as it turns out there is an editor deleting the trivia I put in calling it crap and telling me "not to put it back in". I feel the trivia is appropriate for this kind of article and I also feel the anger I am getting from Ted Scott is vulgar and uncivil. Would you please read the trivia section and what is said at the talk page, if necessary, and let me know if what I added is inappropriate? My understanding is that this editor will undo the edit again as he has to other editors. There seems to be a few editors who believe the trivia is a good idea and well written, of course others wiki linked and so forth for me. I am not asking you to get involve, though you can if you wish, I just want your opinion of the situation which I trust. Thanks, --Crohnie 12:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, will wander over to have a look. Don't hold your breath though, as jumping in sometimes causes more angst than WP is worth (IMHO) so if you don't hear anything, that's why :-) Shot info 12:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and to think I thought this was a safe article to work on. I guess there is no such thing. --Crohnie 13:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Barrett, biography, huh?

I'm not sure what you mean. --Ronz 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)