User talk:El duderino

Hey whats up.
"Look, let me explain something to you. I'm not Mr. Lebowski. You're Mr. Lebowski. I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. That, or His Dudeness … Duder … or El Duderino, if, you know, you're not into the whole brevity thing. " classic (clip)

( old stuff: /Archive 1 /Archive 2 )

El duderino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Your username

Classic. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. El duderino ^(abides) 09:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC) [1][reply]

Hmm.. I just came across your name in this SPI on User:Belchfire. Care to respond? El duderino ^(abides) 17:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, El duderino. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sandstein

might interest you. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. if you mean this thread [2] then yes i've perused the church page but didnt look into it much. will check it out again later. El duderino ^(abides) 02:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

regarding RingCinema et al

@Winkelvi -- Hi. I've noticed you running into the same problems trying to collaborate with him as I did. I've replied at the current/recent 3RR notice [3], it's too bad he only got a warning this time. Who knows how many others he has chased off. I think the wp project would be better without him as he shows no interest in changing his behavior. And he has been encouraged for far too long. Fwiw, I think my 3RR report went 'stale' because of the (weekend) timing as well as two comments by involved editors who seemed to excuse his disruptive behavior because he works on so many film articles... I've never filed a RFC/U but it may be time to consider one.
@Betty Logan seems to me like you (and others like User:Bzuk) defend/excuse RC's actions, if not his prickly demeanor -- at the current Godfather discussion thread and in the 3RR report I filed last year about a different article [4]. Does the 'Film Project' still regard him as a net positive? What about the untold number of new users who could be regular contributors by now but have been discouraged by his self-appointed, heavy-handed policing? El duderino ^(abides) 07:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors have each once reverted Winkelvi at The Godfather article so Winkelvi needs to find some common ground with them, and I just made a few suggestions, and even if you take Ring out of the equation you are still left with two other editors who opposed the edits. As for Ring in general, I am not entirely happy with being painted as a Ring "apologist": I will support him where I think his actions are reasonable and I won't when I disagree with him. In that particular ANI case it seems he was enforcing a guideline about NPOV language and I had defended his actions to that effect, and would most likely would have made the same edit myself which is why I didn't think the block was warranted; I am sure there are instances where he has ended up at ANI/3RR and I haven't spoken out on his behalf. The last time Ring and I were involved in discussions on an article was regarding Caché (film), and as you can see from the talk page we were on opposite sides of the fence, but we eventually found a solution and he accepted most of my 'compromise' edits. We are also on opposite sides of the fence at Template talk:Infobox film#"Preceded by" and "Followed by" where unfortunately our stances have not been reconcilable as of yet, so he clearly doesn't get unconditional support from me. In the case of The Godfather I think for the time being it would be better if the four editors who have engaged in adding content/reverting try to address the edits in good faith on the talk page. There is no way Ring will accept blanket changes, but he has indicated he will accept "improvements", and looking through the edit history of the article this seems to be an honest claim: he reverts an awful lot but he's let quite a lot through too. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He reverts too much and from his history, it seems he does so out of ownership. The other two editors (Gareth and the other whose name I can't remember right now) are obviously in collusion with Ring Cinema. Just look at their talk page exchange history with each other. Ownership, ownership, ownership is the diagnosis for all three. Gareth even used a phrase in an edit summary that was taken from my talk page discussion with Ring Cinema at "Chinatown". Their tag-team reverting and mutual adminration is clear as crystal, Betty Logan. Winkelvi (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Input at film talk pages

Please take a look at the newest discussion at Talk:Chinatown (1974 film). Give your opinion if you'd like. Winkelvi (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how are you. haven't spoken to you in a while...we should make some moves towards doing something about the article ownership issues regarding Ring, Gareth and Jacobite. --JTBX (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, I've been following some of those discussions from a distance and right now, as I've said before, I have no interest in engaging them on talk pages, as it doesn't seem to do any good. If either of you pursue admin action e.g. RFCU, please let me know and I will contribute there. El duderino ^(abides) 19:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TPM ani -> arbcom

(rough draft of pointers to various threads)

supporting topic bans to wp:ANI

comment/followup to admin on utalk1

clarifying q to contributor on utalk2

+ considering response to oft-repeated (and now seemingly trite characterization) 'mob violence'

RFC/U on user:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, i thought the RFC was a good idea but premature because the Arbcom cased hadnt finished. And from what I could tell of the early discussion at the RfC as well as the related ANI, you gave in too easily to him and his supporters. They cried foul about the canvassing, which may have been questionable but not actionable. My advice going forward: don't let non-admins pressure you like that. And even some admins are not playing by the book. El duderino ^(abides) 07:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may retry in the future. He is certainly disruptive. Casprings (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you! And maybe a nice little shot of whiskey too...

You are not the only one that finds that editor irritating--I can hardly stand to be around him. Good Luck! Gandydancer (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

message from Viriditas

copying his post and one reply from his talk page [5] + ... which has since been blanked)

User:El duderino, please see the above threads. The mainstream scientific view does support the protesters, and the claims by User:Aircorn, User:a13ean, and User:IRWolfie- are completely bogus. Again, to quote biologist David Schubert, "'There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat and no significant safety testing is required by FDA".[6] That's a mainstream scientific view published by a mainstream science magazine. Don't be misled by pro-GMO POV pushers. As science writer Gillian Conahan made clear in this Disover article piece, "basic questions of safety and effectiveness" are "under contention". There is no scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe nor is any adequate safety testing required by regulatory agencies. This is the mainstream POV, and the views expressed in the March Against Monsanto article are mainstream, not fringe views. As Corinne Lepage accurately summarized, "the absence of effects of GMOs on human health has been repeated like a dogma, even though no long term study has allowed this to be confirmed." This is the mainstream POV repeated by mainstream, independent secondary sources who have no relation to pro-GMO companies or PR firms. Historically, Monsanto's record on claiming that their products are safe is abysmal, and there is no rational reason to take them at their word. Further, they are releasing untested products into the food supply with the help of government regulators (who either work with or previously worked with Monsanto) against the will of the people they claim to represent. As always, the burden of proof rests solely on those who argue that GMO's are safe, particularly manufacturers who produce GMOs. Because this safety has not been demonstrated, it is reasonable to doubt it based on numerous health, ecology, food, and crop safety issues. This is the mainstream POV, but more importantly, this is how science works. Anyone who tells you this is a fringe POV is being dishonest and needs to be called out on it. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are cherry picking a guy who agrees with you. You are avoiding the scientific literature like the plague. What does Nature call his coment? "A different perspective on GM food", [7], because it's not the mainstream perspective, it's a minority opinion. Just ask at WP:FTN and see how mainstream Anti-GMO protesting, or in fact at any science wikiproject. Try wikiproject medicine, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cheers @V-
I appreciate the encouragement and the Schubert ref, that's very helpful. I think it's funny how desperate wolfi seems as he tries to interpret a title without reading the article, apparently. At least here he uses the term 'minority' instead of 'fringe' -- and given me a second useful source for Schubert. :> By the way, have you noticed how jytdog and irwolfie seem to be running a wiki-variation on the old good cop/bad cop routine? I think jytdog is trying extra hard to appear neutral, but it's wearing thin. Also, sorry to hear about your block. Feel free to send email anytime. El duderino ^(abides) 07:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI - Monsanto

As required.... Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I want to respond to the last thing you said. Here is my perspective: I work on contentious articles a LOT and work through disagreements all the time. It only becomes terrible when the other party starts to focus on the contributor as opposed to the content. Really! You can comb through my edits and see plenty of civil disagreements. The only things I criticized you, personally, for were were making attacks and not focusing on the discussion so we could move forward. But you ripped on me five ways from Sunday. Now, I looked through your edit history today (obviously) and you make lots of great edits and comments - you just really blew your cool on the GMO pages and got the idea that the other editors (including me) were all shills. It is when disagreements are greatest that AGF and civility (the 4th pillar) becomes all the more important. That is my take. So please tell me, you wrote in the ANI that you think I am failing to see my own faults - what do you think those are? ) Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC

Not really interested in your spin anymore. Keep it off my userpage. You're clearly biased by your work in the GE field with loose ties through your school. Others may think you're free of COI but we both know the truth, dont we. El duderino ^(abides) 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and since you've listed the COI/N thread as proof that you have no COI, perhaps it is time to revisit that. You work at a university which profits from GMO research. Your user page states you are interested in promoting biotech. ("I work at a university. I'm interested in biotechnology, intellectual property, and the public perception of both.") And at the COI/N your information was checked by 'only one admin who also has ties to GMO work, and who admitted that his interpretation of COI could be questionable on this matter. El duderino ^(abides) 06:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, you ask me to stay off your userpage so I will going forward. I just want to note that your recent spate of WP:CANVASSING is WP:DISPRUPTIVE. Please desist. Difs: initial personal attack] followed by this and this and this and this. The appropriate venue for raising your concerns is COIN. Am copying this to the thread at Jimbo's page. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El duderino, thanks for the heads up but I've been watching Jimbo's page for the last few weeks due to my interest in paid editing. However, as I've said on that page and several others, I am just as concerned about the possibility of COI editing by undeclared paid-to-edit editors or editors who have other hidden agendas related to their editing. I can very clearly state my problem with the Monsanto articles: Monsanto, of all corporations, is considered the most "evil" of all.[8] I wouldn't know how to check, but I would guess that of all the corporations that are covered by Wikipedia, we have much more coverage on Monsanto than any other corporation. I'm pretty sure we have at least ten articles, though it would not surprise me if it was more like around 20. So then consider that when one looks at the article contributors since Jtydog started editing and finds that he is not only the #1, editor, he outnumbers all the others often by 2, 3, and even 4 times. Plus, the interest is spread out to any legal battles they have had, even including some sort of disagreement with a TV station, the recent marches against Monsanto, and etc. Clearly there is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that says there is anything wrong with this. In fact, his user page has even drawn high praise from one of the members of the Wikipedia Foundation (if I got that connection correctly--it's something I know very little about...). But, it does trouble me: Most hated corporation. So much information that we have more Monsanto-related articles than any other corp in WP. And with all that, basically only one editor consistently shown to make the highest number of edits. I'd say that WP is skating on pretty thin ice here because it is not hard to imagine what a well-read blog on news outlet might do with this information. Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

link to current talk:Jimbo section

Yes it's unfortunate that he and the other obvious spindoctors(quacks) have not been sanctioned about it. I see now that Jimbo himself has hatted my response there to call out Jytdog on his COI, which initially seems odd especially as Jimbo uses Jytdog's exaggerated "ugly" descriptor -- I suppose the truth is indeed ugly to some folks. Funnily enough, I think that hatting actually serves to bring more eyes to the issue. El duderino ^(abides) 20:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much like seeing a magician wearing a top hat. When you see him you think, "There's a rabbit in there somewhere!!!" ```Buster Seven Talk 13:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think people are inadvertently outing themselves. That's what happens when you talk too much on noticeboards. petrarchan47 t c 21:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know

Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

swartz

refs

Rolling Stone, Jan '13
NY Magazine, Feb '13
New Yorker, Mar '13
A.S. blog
followup: Wired, Nov '13

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, El duderino. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]