User talk:Ckerr

Welcome

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 13:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australia resources

Hi, I see from your note on the New user log that you are ~~Australian~~ residing in Australia. Just thought I'd let you know about the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Always interesting stuff to read there, and I personally find that it helps you to feel more like part of a community. Also, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney that I am sure people would love assistance on. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line on my Talk page. cheers! pfctdayelise 06:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing Edits

Have a look over at the article you had edited previously and let me know what you think RE: putting a brief bit about origins in the beginning, and the campaign to summarily remove any perceived negative information even if it's backed up by multiple cited sources in blockquoted citation referenced format. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Smeelgova, I think the origin material in the opening paragraph is a bit out of place. The article actually says nothing about what Landmark is in the entire first paragraph, and what Landmark actually is is listed almost as an afterthought at the end of the second paragraph. As for removing negative material, I think it's hard to find reputable sources that give either pro- or anti-Landmark stances, so I think we should include all that are available. (As has been discussed to death already, Landmark is not a reputable source.) So without knowing specifically what you're referring to here, I'd have to agree on your second point. But I think the information on origin in the introduction should be limited to no more than ~10 words (e.g. "...based on the techniques used in est..."), and should not be in the first paragraph. Ckerr 16:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. Your ideas RE: the first paragraph sound interesting. Perhaps you would like to try editing it with your example above (e.g. "...based on the techniques used in est..."), so I can better see what you are thinking? Thanks for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, Smeelgova, award this barnstar to Ckerr for Ckerr's kind attitude and professional demeanor. Thank you. Smeelgova 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

(feel free to add to your user page if you like). yours, Smeelgova 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

USyd

Hi, thanks for your note. I'll respond to your queries tomorrow, since it's very late now. Cheers. Tony 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to discuss these matters via WP's anon and private email facility, but yours isn't enabled. Please let me know if you do enable it; if you don't wish to, I'll post my thoughts here.

You can find my doctoral dissertation at the Con Library, where it's kept downstairs in a darkened, locked archival room. It's on the computer index (scroll to the bottom of User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for the reference). Tony 04:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, my e-mail address is now enabled. Ckerr 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You may wish to take note and/or comment:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous Yours, Smeelgova 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Disillusioned

I like your new paragraph on your user page! I fear I am beginning to feel disillusioned as well, and am debating simply leaving Jimbo Wales' society and all of his Wikipedia Administrators behind... Interesting reading if you are interested at Wikitruth, The Wikipedia Review, and Wikipedia Watch. (Apparently Wikipedia will not let me give you a direct link to that last one, just another thing that goes to show that Wikipedia is open source about most things except...Wikipedia!) Nice to know others are disappointed with Wikipedia too though, isn't it? Yours, Smeelgova 09:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Thank you for your kind words. There is a chance yet that I will take a break and come back someday, with the hope that editors will have a more kind demeanor towards those of opposing POV. Hope you are doing well. Yours, Smeelgova 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cult Allegations and Retractions

I changed what you wrote again, a little bit. Very few entities have actually called LE a cult. Those that did are: 1) Margaret Singer, 2) Cynthia Kisser/Cult Awareness Network, 3) Self Magazine, 4) Panorama Magazine. All of those have retracted and their retractions are published or referenced in court documents. Elle Magazine and Rick Ross did not call LE a cult. Rick Ross says, specifically, that LE is not a cult. It is accurate to say that any entity that has said outright that LE is a cult has retracted. The French government report has also been repudiated by the French Prime Minister who noted that the list of sects could no longer be relied upon.

Sm1969 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Did you get my email? Course, I'd like to keep it and any communications confidential. Smeelgova 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Progress in Physics

Dear Ckerr, I have seen your comment on Progress in Physics and I believe you have included some text on the anti-establishment of the journal. Possibly you should read in full the whole Declaration of Scientific Human Rights in order to understand the main issue - it is not establish-not established science, it is fair science vs. commercial science. I don't know how is in Australia, and how is in your PhD research, but I am also medical doctor, and I also am enrolled in PhD research in neuroscience. Yes, everything is about money, and yes, you have only limited choice on the topic. Personally my topic was changed because my initial intentions required resources that are relatively expensive, so finally it was decided to work on similar topic, not one of my taste, but already instutionalized by the laboratory i.e. most of the members work on that. That is why I am one of the persons who traslated the above mentioned declaration in Bulgarian language, and I belive my initiative triggered two more trasnlations in Romanian and French. This is how the life is, and that science is commercialized and not free intelectual activity "just because of the beauty of the truth". Noone belives now in such "beauty", instead all is "money". Please take my comments as friendly, and as colleague to colleague. I have reverted the edits done by you, or at least edits that I think you did, as jundged on the base of your comment. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hornswoggler

Dear sir, you are a hornswoggler. If an award existed for Greatest Hornswoggler of All Time, you would be its first and only recipient. Perhaps you should write a book about Hornswoggling. It might sell well in Australia, land of the Hornswogglers. Swoggle you later!

Regards, Adam.steinbaugh 12:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comments

I moved comments to each user's space. Mediation isn't about interactive discussion. That is what the article talk page is for. Different people have different opinions on this, and in my opinion, the best way to start arguments and break down the mediation, is by sticking comments into other editor's space and poking them into a reaction. Each editor has their own section for a reason. Once everyone starts commenting in everyone else's section, chaos ensues and mediation breaks down.

I won't move comments again. And I won't participate in mediation where individual editors' thoughts are allowed to be broken up with counter arguments and spurious comments.

Some editors can inject reasonable comments, and others will inject disruptive ones. One editor in particular has an extensive history of actually splitting up what another editor has said and injecting responses right in the middle of a thought. Where do we draw the line for this? I draw it by saying each user can put their thoughts into their own area.

If you (anyone) have a relevant thought, it can be worded without reference to another editor's remarks. It does not need to be worded as a direct refutation or counter logic immediately after the other editor's remarks. If an editor feels that their counter-arguments must be included within another editor's section, I submit that they might want to rephrase the remarks so that the remarks stand on their own merit.

I'm trying to help keep the mediation on track, on point, and focused on the article. Look at what happened with one of the longer 'threads' (where an editor started by going to other editors's areas and injecting off-topic comments. It totally distracted the process and an entire unproductive chain of back and forth he-said she-said ensued.

Thats just my thoughts anyway. Nothing set in stone here. Thats my logic and reasons.

I'm glad you're participating in the mediation comments. I have to get back to work. I'm on a huge project and only get a minute or two to stop here and read-up.

Peace in God. Lsi john 14:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. While in principle I agree with you about the difference between standard discussion and mediation, the discussion on the mediation page has been significantly more civil than that on the discussion page, which in my opinion makes the interjection of comments more acceptable than it might otherwise be. My view is: if the interjection started causing problems, then the users who felt wronged could move the offending comments themselves, and indeed this happened. Wholesale moving of comments is not needed, in my opinion. Ckerr 14:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your views. And, in a perfect world, you would be correct. Then again, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need the mediation. I submit that its been civil up to this point, due directly to the formal manner of the separation. Once that is allowed to break down (even for good comments), the door is opened for disruptive ones. Once the horse gets out of the barn, its too late. Lsi john 14:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(remember also, that a mediator has to come in and read all that.. and isolate each editor's views... interspersed comments will make that job soooo much harder. Lsi john 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and opinions

Hi Ckerr

Thanks for your constructive comments -- I admire your brevity, but find it difficult to emulate with so much going down. I don't expect anyone to agree with me: just perhaps take up some of the points I raise. -- Discussions on user-pages I often find difficult to follow, and thus I generally prefer to use subject-specific talk-pages... -- Pedant17 01:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant17, rather than expecting people to not agree with you, perhaps it would help if you expected people to agree with you, and communicated accordingly. In my experience, by expecting them to 'not agree with you', you have given yourself permission to be seen as .. well.. obnoxious comes to mind, and thus they dismiss you. Personally, I'd much prefer to interact with you in discussions, but when you interweave your comments into mine (and others), after repeatedly being asked not to, or ramble on for 2 pages... well.. The choice is yours, my friend. My suggestion, the next time you're ready to post.. pick 1 important thing and address it and leave the rest for later. Lsi john 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]