User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 06

Rape

"Victims and survivors of rape, and their allies, may find this type of usage pejorative and deeply offensive". So, ... I'm an enemy of the raped because I don't find the use offensive? :) I really think that text needs improvment, as it stands it sounds like someone on a soapbox... There is a fine line between reporting on a view that exists, and taking up the flag ourselves... as a casual reader of the article I felt we crossed that line in the text where we gave the arguments as to why the non sexual uses were okay. I thought my alterations were an improvment, but I can see why you disagreed. Can you suggest some text that sounds a little less soapboxy? Gmaxwell 7 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

The word in the sentence was "may", which makes it correct. If it had been "should", I would have challenged it as a value judgement; if there had been no qualifier such as "may", I would have challenged it as unfairly categorizing all those who do not share that POV as not survivors or allies. If it had even said "most" survivors and allies, I probably would have challenged it as making an unproven statement as to how "most" feel. But since it was phrased as a non-endorsing statement of how a significant number of people do in fact view that use of the language, I didn't think it was appropriate to remove it. You'll notice that I also restored the reasons why others see nothing wrong with such metaphorical usage.

As for making it "less soapboxy", well, I'll have to admit that I look at it and see more a plain statement of what people believe, than a line-crossing advocacy of either side. If you have an alternate phrasing to suggest, however, please bring it up for consideration. -- Antaeus Feldspar 7 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

By the way... marking an edit as "minor" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia that you should be careful about. a "minor edit", in the Wikipedia sense, is one that is so minor in its effect on the meaning and content that no one could reasonably object to it. Note that the key criteria is the effect on the meaning and content, not the amount of editing: if all you are doing is fixing misspelled words, you could fix 500 of them and it would still be a minor edit. An edit that changes the meaning and content, however, is not a minor edit. If you only change one word, but it alters a phrase so that someone who agreed with it in its previous form now disagrees, it's not a minor edit. When it doubt, don't mark it as minor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

I marked it as a minor edit by mistake, as I also made several other edits in the article after the text I removed... I'd forgotten that I hadn't submitted the earlier change. If you look at my contribution history you can see that it is quite infrequent that I mark anything as minor, and I must admit that I am a little put off by your lecture.

The word 'may' doesn't really matter in this case as the sentence implies that such people might but others will not. Can you provide a citation that shows that other people do not think that? Can you even tell me what "allies" of the raped are? I'm sorry but the whole sentence is rubbish.

As for suggesting alternative phrasing, I already did that and you reverted my changes without discussion. The text after my modification stated both sides without including a 70 word repetitive discussion, for example "It is argued by some that this usage is demeaning or disempowering of victims and survivors of real sexual rape" and "Victims and survivors of rape, and their allies, may find this type of usage pejorative and deeply offensive, since it normalizes the term "rape" to cover". Does it really need to say the same thing twice? Do we have to include several examples of metaphor when we already wikilink Dysphemism and metaphorical. Looking at the history of the article I see that you routinely revert changes made by other casual editors, perhaps we should find a third party who is less protective of the article to help? Gmaxwell 8 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Sorry that you think you're being harshly treated when your removal of text is reverted. Perhaps you should raise the issue on the talk page of why you think that passage of text is superfluous. If there's a consensus, I'll go along with it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 8 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)

ann coulter

poll you might want to check out

Keith Henson

Lets take a closer scrutiny of your actions. You revert my changes[1] which basically removed my mention of Keith's bomb expertise and restored the link to Arnie Lerma's POV. Why didn't you explain those changes as you claim in the history comment: for reasons explained on talk page. You are not acting in good faith. --AI 02:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That really is your answer to everything, isn't it? "Let's take a closer scrutiny of your actions. Let's divert the attention away from my repeated harassment of you. Let's divert the attention away from my citing a policy in order to justify my removing category tags from articles that I don't want noticed and then completely ignoring the policy when it's pointed out that the policy actually calls for those tags to be there. Let's divert the attention away from my attempting for a third time to speedy-delete an article that I ought to know by now is not a correct candidate for speedy deletion. Let's ignore all those things I am doing wrong and focus on anything you did wrong, like forgetting to sign a single post on a talk page." Kind of puts the lie to all the blathering about Scientology teaching the importance of taking responsibility, doesn't it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You're a spin doctor. --AI 17:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you finally decided to take some form of responsibility and not resort to tedious tu quoque yet again -- oh, wait... -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a response about this instance in your history.[2] You still havent explained those changes as you claim in the history comment: for reasons explained on talk page. Instead you changed the subject. The source of the disputed content is the Henson's legal divorce proceedings, not the Church of Scientology. --AI 20:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, please explain your revert[3] of my explained edits. --AI 22:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Trolling?

I can see that you are following my edits... I do not mind you fix my grammar, but I please note that sometimes I almost feel like turning back to see who is following me. Eery feeling indeed. Why don't you start new articles and leave me alone for a while? Thanks. --Zappaz 03:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the famous "You're editing the same articles that I edit, therefore you must be stalking me" accusation. You do realize, though, that others watching you throw such allegations can see the egotism in it? "He could not possibly be someone who shares the same interests as I do and therefore edits the same articles! He must be stalking me! Because, you see, I am so important that he could not be acting independently!" Too bad it's a figment of your imagination. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, right. ---Zappaz 03:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Zappaz? Look at the history of this talk page. Now look at how many messages I've left on your talk page, or on AI's. You're gonna have a fun time trying to convince anyone that it's me obsessed with you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Obsessed ... with you... God forbid! what an awful thought! Pulezze, Antaeus. You need to take a walk in the park, breath some fresh air, and take it e-a-s-i-e-r. A bit of humor will also go long ways. :) --Zappaz 03:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, because, like, it's me that's actually trying to have this boring conversation about your paranoid fantasies? Shwhatever, don't feel you need to reply, I'll be just as happy if you don't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

So, now you are acussing me of paranoia? Oh well... Let the facts speak for themselves... --Zappaz 04:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Traumatic Incident Reduction

My mistake; I didn't look at the talk page. tregoweth 01:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

No problem; I saw this marked as a copyvio a couple of days ago but didn't think to look on the talk page until today. In fact, the only reason I did was scrolling down in the history to see when original work had begun from the copyvio, and seeing "copyvio" in the edit summaries from near the creation of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Talk:David_S._Touretzky

A Request for Mediation has been made to resolve the ongoing dispute on this page. The actual request can be seen directly at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Talk:David_S._Touretzky. --Modemac 20:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"This page" is not Talk:David S. Touretzky. --AI 20:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thought Police

Omsbudsman has not replied yet, but you are welcome to share whatever you wish. I do hope you feel better soon. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

RfA - User:AI

I'm not sure what the best means to comment on this is, but I discovered this on the RfA page today, and thought it should be commented on:

In summary about a possible campaign against me:

Repeated personal attacks directed towards me by Modemac, Antaeus Feldspar and a few others in Talk:David S. Touretzky.

As a look at the history of the page shows, I've never edited it even once. I think this says a great deal about AI's claim of a "campaign" against him. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I will add a note outlining the fallacy of AI's claim against you on the Request for Arbitration page; if I were you, I wouldn't get mixed up with this dispute, as it is likely to drag on a bit judging by AI's reticence to cooperate with the procedure. On the other hand, if you feel strongly enough about this accusation, you could join Party 2 of the arbitration against him; it is entirely up to you. I am sorry that you have had to be on the receiving end of his continued accusations of personal attacks, and it does indeed say a lot about his complaint. I am hoping that we might be able to negotiate with AI to try to bring this thing to rest before the arbitrators have to make a judgement on the subject; however, I offered him an amnesty to have the request for arbitration withdrawn, which he refused, so the arbitrators shall probably make him change his approach. --NicholasTurnbull 00:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Squelch

You are not welcome to leave unsolicited feedback on my user page. I find your behaviour, rethoric verbosity, and overall lack of respect in your addressing people of opposing POV, totally and utterly unacceptable. I will delete and ignore each and every one of your comments on my user page, and will not engage you on any discussions about any articles until further notice. Squelch. --ZappaZ 17:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, and when did you decide this, Zappaz? Was it before or after you thought I would welcome hefty loads of "unsolicited feedback" from you? I've made no secret before of the fact that I find your behavior reprehensibly hypocritical, and the "lack of respect" you think is directed at people of opposing POV is in fact directed at people determined to push POV at the expense of any sort of integrity. You simply don't notice the difference because you fall so squarely into both categories. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

List of Good Times episodes

Good catch. I was moving it into a new article because it was cluttering up the main one. I didn't even know it was a copyright violation. Mike H (Talking is hot) 01:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was pretty huge -- any time I see a newly-created article of really huge size, I try to check it out, as a lot of them are copyvios. Ironically, if I'd known it was being moved from the main article, I might've thought "oh, no need to check this one -- if it was a copyvio, surely it'd have been caught already!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Getting Psychotherapy into This Week's Improvement Drive

Hi there! I noticed that you contribute a lot to Mental health, and I thought you might care to help out the Psychotherapy article. As it stands this article could use a lot of help, and thus I've taken the liberty of trying to get it to be the focus of a week's improvement drive. All we need to get it for a week's worth of focus and improvement is enough votes, so go to Psychotherapy's vote page and help out this very needing article! JoeSmack (talk) 21:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I just want people to be able to learn about me if they wish. I am quite famous

Thanks for the Tip

Thanks for the great tip on checking "What links here" to figure out the context of an otherwise mysterious (even suspicious) new article. It's very helpful. I'm a bit ashamed I didn't think of it. --DavidConrad 03:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Muffed punt at Dianetics

Antaeus- I am positively embarrassed that I missed the POV edits by those anon editors when I was working the new Clear (Scientology) article into Dianetics. Thanks for picking up my slack, I promise you won't have to again. :) --Fernando Rizo T/C 03:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

re: Careful with your categorization!

Thanks for your clear explanation. I will try to avoid it on the future. I seem to have some kind of problem with categories (look for instance at this and this), so if you see me doing something dumb related to categories, do not hesitate to tell me. --cesarb 00:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Depression section

You removed some information I put there that objectively describes how doctors choose a candidate medication to treat depression. The reason you state for removing this contribution is that it contains the ad hominem "the drug industry has a vested interest in". Drug companies' pirmary incentive is to provide returns to their shareholders within the rule of law. Their board of directors acts on behalf of shareholders to appoint a CEO who will maintain this objective. This is simple economics.

Part of this incentive is to mitigate risk against the demonstration that a drug they manufacture is inferior to an already existing one.

You call this ad hominem. I'm glad you're power is limited to the bowels of Wikipedia.

Yes, I do. It is "ad hominem circumstantial", suggesting that a particular entity's arguments or claims are discredited by that entity's position. It is a recognized fallacy. It is, indeed, simple fact that pharmaceutical companies are organized, as almost every company is, with the goal of making money. It is not simple fact, nor deducible from simple fact, that the drug industry is deliberately skewing and actually surpressing research, as you imply.

You may be unfamiliar with ad hominem circumstantial and may incorrectly believe that I am abusing ad hominem abusive, the only meaning of ad hominem that many people are familiar with. However, just as merely pointing out character flaws in a person or entity does not weaken their arguments, neither does pointing out that they are in a position to benefit if their arguments are true or believed true (particularly because it makes unwarranted assumption about cause and effect -- instead of "John argues that X is an effective product because he's in the business of selling X", why is it not equally plausible that "John went into the business of selling X because X is an effective product"?) To use an analogy, if a murder occurs, you're smart to start your search at those with the strongest motive. But if you try to go from "strongest motive" to "murder" you're going to wind up falsely accusing "suspects" of murdering people who aren't even dead. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It is widely known within the psychiatric research community that drug companies will only sponsor trials that compare their drugs with placebo. The NIH has recently started a clinical trial that attempts to compare many drugs, even those within the same class. To my knowledge, drug companies are not actively supressing or skewing research, and my original comments didn't imply this. I was just pointing out that drug companies have no incentive to conduct research that compares their drug with an existing treatment, and until recently the NIH refused to consider drugs within the same class as being different. This leads to rather imcomplete information about these drugs, which seems like an important piece of knowledge. I'm not sure what motivates you to be so pedantic. In this case you come off as disruptive. My assertion wasn't formulated personally, but is a reflection provided by a very well known research psychiatrist. However, you seem to know better.

"Information on long term effects of continuous use of 5-HTP is limited, and large drug companies have a vested interest in keeping things this way." If you claim that this does not imply that large drug companies are doing things to "keep things this way", I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you and more productive ways to spend my time. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, those comments might do well with editing to convey the point that pharmaceutical companies do not have any incentive to conduct trials of 5-HTP. But, instead you've decided to censor comments of mine that are unrelated to the 5-HTP issue. As long as you continue in this vein, Wikipedia will remain a marginal oddity. Additionally, it is important for people to understand the lack of attention research into mental illness receives, leading to a huge drain on the economy. In their arrogance, scientists are likely to dismiss any reference to 5-HTP because of the fact it is sold in health food stores, not because of its profile of clinical indicators. So, I make an error in judgement about characterizing the current state of research with 5-HTP. You eliminate any appearance of 5-HTP from the Depression page. This doesn't sound very scientific to me.

Commenting out the excerpt that says that SSRI's were orignally intended for limited use (6-12 months) is also annoying. The information came from here:http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19990301-000032.html. Donald Klein is a widely recognized expert in psychopharm, and is regularly quoted in psychology today. This would appear to indicate that the information is correct. I'm not going add the material back to wikipedia. I'd prefer to wait for a general information service that isn't edited by computer science types.

Your choice, but you're being strangely passive-aggressive on this. If you'd been willing to tell us before this "Here is the source for this information I'm adding; you don't have to depend entirely on the presumption that I, a total stranger who hasn't even identified himself, would not lie and could not be mistaken" then you would have gotten a much different reaction. Here, look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clinical_depression&diff=20307315&oldid=20307164 Did I remove it and say "Never bring this back!" No, I commented it out and said "Please cite references." If you had this reference back when you added the claim based on it, and instead of providing the reference then or now, instead just waving it and saying "Here! Don't you see, you were wrong! Because you didn't take my unsupported word for it! But now it's too late; you've driven me off with your evil ways!" it really leaves the impression that you're less interested in getting good results and actively seeking to do things in a counterproductive manner so you can complain about it. Your choice, really, but that's the impression it gives. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

In a manner of saying, yes, I'm being passive agressive about it. The source wasn't entirely up to the standards I consider appropriate for quick approval, but was believable within its context. What bothers me is the dominant mindset umong established Wikipedians. They appear to see things in black and white, are predisposed toward arrogance, have limited breadth of education, and are obviously very emotional. Medical articles within Wikipedia provide a valuable opportunity to probe the orthodoxy of medical practice unavailable elsewhere on the web. Unfortunately, most doctors fall on the side of preservation of the status quo, and are unlikely to muster the courage to educate others here about their job. Being subject to harsh editorializing by however well intentioned anti-Scientoligist zealots has left a bad taste in my mouth.

Stolen Honor et al

It seems you have the matter well in hand and I think we have a pretty firm consensus in place. I'm keeping it on my watchlist but I'd prefer to lurk for now because I'm worried my presence may spur TDC on to more obnoxious behavior.

As long as we are on the subject of political articles, if you have some free wiki time, perhaps you could add your thoughts to the controversy at Talk:Joe Scarborough? Gamaliel 20:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD List of purported cults

Please note that I do not check my account too often. If you want to alert me of VfD's in the future, email me. --Senegal 02:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry for not realizing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Original research in clinical depression

Sorry, my mistake. That really was not original research, I should read rules more carefully. Anyway I decided that possible method of threatment published in one of the medical articles is not notable (and proven) enough to be listed as a separate method of threatment. Anyway, this problem seem to be resolved now (the topic is covered in transcranial magnetic stimulation part). Varnav 05:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The CoS page went unwatched for the last 5 days, 'mucha problema'

Check out the Scientology page, especially the last few discussion comments. Big headache. Fernando Rizo and I have fixed some of it.

Scott P. 03:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Fernando Rizo's RfA

Hey Antaeus, sorry to see that you're sick. I hope you feel better in short order. I came here to thank you for supporting my RfA; I was promoted last night. I'm glad that I met your standards, and I'll do my best with the job. Thank you again. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to give my support. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fiction can be Mentioned in an Encyclopedia

Antaeus, may I entreat you to read Hypnosis. It should only take you about 5 hours, and you can read it all online. It isn't a novel that just exploits hypnotism as a plot device. I think there is a good chance that it is unique in the depth to which it makes hypnotism its theme.

My hope is that after reading it, you will deem it worthy of the 3 words in the Hypnosis article it would take to alert readers of fiction, with an interest in hypnotism and philosophy, to the novel's existence.

The fact of a work of fiction's existence is a fact that might be useful to know. Whether it is a fact worthy of mention rather depends on your opinion of the work. Until you read it, that opinion can only be based upon prejudice − though I am sure unintentional.

Another possibility (if 5 hours is too much to ask of your time, which I admit is rather a lot) is that, although my motives for placing a link to the novel cannot be assumed to be impartial, you could extend me the benefit of the doubt by waiting until someone who has read it judges that a link to it is inappropriate. That would seem to me a reasonable course of action. --Vibritannia 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've submitted the dispute to Wikipedia:Third opinion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, with regard to your position as stated on the 'Third Opinion' page, why shouldn't each article contain just one single link entitled 'Related Fiction'? Such articles could have a standardized format, categorizing the fiction according to the media (film, novel, play etc.) and briefly describing how (and the extent to which) the work relates to the subject of the article in hand. I think that would be a valuable resource for an encyclopedia to contain. I never know how to root out fiction I would be interested in, but people have seen films and read novels and they know which fiction treats subjects interestingly. They could contribute that knowledge for the benefit of all.

Whether Hypnosis would qualify for a mention on such a page is another matter. I believe that it would, but obviously a disinterested opinion would be preferable − if it was available. --Vibritannia 08:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Rick Ross

"rv to last by Irmgard, based not upon the identity of the editor but upon the fact that it is a better quality version (you did realize that was the goal, yes?" - Antaeus Feldspar [4]

No, you are misrepresenting yourself :) What you claim to be a better quality version is not. What you are simply doing is censoring a specific POV which has been attributed. Your action is a violation of NPOV. Now stop reverting! --AI 02:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so my POV about people whose first and last name begins with the same letter belongs at Rick Ross? Because he happens to fit in that category? Fewmets to that. The quote which Irmgard quite correctly removed was not about Ross; it was a general broad assertion about a group to which he is perceived to belong. If you're arguing that a general POV accusation against a general category of people is relevant to a specific person's article just because he happens to fit in that category, then I guess it's time to start gathering up all the POVs that can be found about Scientologists in general and adding them to every article in Category:Scientologists... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Suit yourself... :) --AI 02:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

CHV

Since you posted on this stub, you might be interested in this. Str1977 22:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Merging Frey effect / Microwave auditory effect

I agree these two articles should be merged, but I think the best way to do it would be to leave the Frey effect article as-is and leave a redirect from Microwave auditory effect. It seems that neither term is more widely used, according to Google results (it's about 600 hits vs. 700 hits). This doesn't solve the issue of large portions of the Frey effect article potentially being hogwash, but as I said on its talk page, I plan on going through and cleaning it up. Once I'm done, hopefully only verifiable facts from reputable sources will be presented as truth. Colin M. 00:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I can agree that in certain respects, it would be easier to do it that way. However, in the context of how we got a Frey effect article in the first place, I feel pretty strongly that we should merge to Microwave auditory effect, not vice-versa. When someone creates a POV fork as a deliberate way to get material in in contempt of consensus, they should bear the burden of proving that any of that material is actually worth merging. If we set a precedent of keeping the larger article regardless of whether it's a deliberate POV fork, then it provides a way to game the system: just make your POV fork larger than the existing article and chances are that some of your violating material will be retained just because no one caught it while other material was being merged in. Even if it's more difficult to move only the good material from Frey effect to microwave auditory effect, I strongly feel it's the way we should go. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I honestly wasn't aware of the history behind the Frey effect article. Fine by me to make the "real" article be Microwave auditory effect then, I'll try to keep that in mind as I make my edits. Colin M. 00:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand...

May I direct your attention to Barbara Schwarz and the accompanying talk page. User:Tilman has been maintaining this page, with User:Vivaldi's help, in the face of multiple reverts and - on the talk page - repeated attacks by opposed parties. I say attacks because I can't call them anything else: violations of WP:CIVIL, WP: No personal attacks, and on and on. Really, we need help at this point.... 206.114.20.121 17:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)