Hello, Jefffire/Archive the first, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia as well. Don't worry about making mistakes, they will quickly be picked up by another user and will be fixed. Plus Wikipedia has a policy of not biting newcomers. Hopefully, you've noticed that Wikipedia provides a lot of help for newbies so don't hesitate to ask someone (including me). To get the tilde, press (shift + the key next to the 1 button), well that's where it is on my keyboard, above the tab. Have fun editing! Akamad06:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edit you did on that article was spot on. The paragraph certainly wasn't from a neutral point of view and deleting it was in my opinion the correct choice of action. And it's good that you used the talk page too, which is something I try to do when making an edit that I'm not too sure of. The paragraph in question was added here, and as you can see, the user also changed "American Badass of Talk Radio" to "American dumbass of Talk Radio", and "King Dude" to "King Dork", so I am going to change those two back.
I just popped in because I saw your question about the tilde. You probably already know this by now, but it's on the key to the top left of your keyboard; just under "escape" and just over the "tab" key if you have a standard KB. capitalist03:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)my talk page[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I make some modifications in the What the Bleep Do We Know!, but you have reverted all of it.
Do you disagree with my suggestions, you make it clear. But can we talk about?
This would depend on where you got the image. For example, if you took it (or made them) yourself, then you can use it. Most images downloaded from the web cannot be used, since they are most likely copyrighted. If an image is copyrighted it can be used under the fair use clause. As a rule of thumb, the following classify as fair use (I got the list from Wikipedia:Fair use):
Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).
Team and corporate logos. For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.
Stamps and currency. For identification.
Other promotional material. Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
Screen shots from software products. For critical commentary.
Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
So, if you obtained the image from the web, it seems unlikely that it would classify as fair use, since the subject matter doesn't appear to fall into any of these categories.
Regarding a recent Dianetics talk page posting you made, "Whether or not the claim is true, without verification from medical science it must remain out of wikipedia. Jefffire 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)" I wish to inform you of a wikipedia policy, WP:V which states, "the threshold for ... (for including informations) ... is verifiability not truth" To phrase it otherwise, if it is published then it may be included in Wikipedia. I am trying to present to you the policy, the foundation of Wikipedia. I am not attempting to persuade you, correct you or otherwise change your attitude. I am simply informing you. The reason I am informing you is because of the statement you made which implies that editors have some duty about sorting truth from fiction and presenting truth in articles. That is not the foundation of Wikipedia, instead the foundation of Wikipedia is "verifiability". If it is published, it may be included in Wikipedia. Again, please don't take this as any kind of evaluation or insult, I mean nothing more than to inform you of Wikipedia policy.
In the case of the Dianetics article, anything published about Dianetics can be included, if you follow. Any statement which Dianetics has published, any statement which any medical doctor has published which comments on Dianetics, etc. etc. It is not up to us editors to sort the "truth" from the "fiction" but up to us editors to present good, clean, easily read information which a reader can make sense of and then, do further reading on their own. Have fun :) Terryeo15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot seriously argue that your edit was anything other than blatent POV pushing. I'm perfectly aware of the rules of wikipedia, that is why I reverted the change. Jefffire15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jefffire! Trying to be helpful: spelling mistake on your talk page: "fundementals". Nit-picking of course, but those little details can be so important to some people. MayoPaul520:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you choose to enlighten other editors with your edit summarys, this is in keeping with Wikipedia policy and insures a politeness of conduct so that we may all work together, smoothly, toward presenting readers with good information. I encourage you to continue to do so. I too attempt to specify the edits I make, as well as possible, in an edit summary. Wikipedia spells out that we all should, it is the first communication another editor reads and it tells of our motivations, our reasoning and provides a springboard for disccussion page discussions. And those of course lead to collaberation, which is the basis of Wikipedia editing. :) Terryeo17:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, I added this to Talk:Cold fusion controversy[1]. JoshuaZ had contacted me about POV in the article. My initial thought was, how can there be POV re cold fusion? Then I read the article. Oy. Jed's a bit out of control. I already contacted Josh, and let him know I'd be happy to help out on this (you seem to be the lone voice for NPOV there at the moment), but we need to do it as a team. Please get back to me with your thoughts. Take care. •Jim62sch•09:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Jed has already essentially threatened an edit war. On the other hand, if he reverts all (or most) of the changes, then I guess that can be dealt with. One key that Jed is missing is that he's asserting, but failing to prove. (For example, he insists that only a handful of papers have been written "against" cold fusion, a statement belied by his vehement defense of cold fusion). If memory serves, most physicists have indicated that cold fusion is unlikely to be of any value (assuming one can even start the reaction) because it would require far more energy than it produces).
Jefffire, it is hard for me to discern exactly what this disagreement is about. Could you provide a very concise description of what it is you are removing, and why it detracts from the overall article? I recommend that you guys file an RfC, since the discussion seems to be deadlocked. A NPOV is important here. ~MDD469621:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The factor which Jed appears to have become fixated on is the removal of a paragraph comparing cold fusion to various scientific discoveries which did not have adequate explainations in their time. I've explained why the comparison is specious, namely because these were observations which were definately happening whilst cold fusion is highly dubious, and removed it. Jed is making the appeal to authority fallacy here in claiming that a Nobel lauriates views must be relevent. Jefffire22:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not exactly an "appeal to authority" fallacy. It would only be a fallacy if Schwinger had not been a real authority on HTSC, seismology and the experimental method, which he most definitely was. Here is the definition:
"An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious." [2]
See the rest of the discussion on this page. It is rather involved. Now if I were to assert that Schwinger's views alone are sufficient evidence to resolve the entire cold fusion debate, that would be an "Appeal" fallacy. Quoting the discussion, "If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts."
Actually you are thinking of the appeal to false authority fallacy. This is a fairly textbook case of appeal to authority fallacy. Jefffire09:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please ask Kirk to send me his latest papers for LENR-CANR.org. I have not heard from him in some time and I do not have his e-mail address.
We have his other two papers, so let us get them all. We also have Storms' rebuttal, so it is only fair to include Kirk's paper.
Also tell him that I did too include his debate in the "Controversy" article but it got smooshed together with the next item so he may have missed it. Attached is the note I wrote about it.
My e-mail address is JedRothwell@mindspring.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Please note that I did include the Shanahan - Storms debate here. I put a link to the Storms paper. I do not have an on-line link to Shanahan's paper, but of course it is listed by Storms. If Shanahan gives LENR-CANR his latest paper, of course I will include it. (We have one of his earlier papers, so he may have simply forgotten to send this one.)
The 'Shanahan - Storms debate' item was accidentally smooshed together with the next item down, the Scientific American debate. Perhaps that is why Kirk did not notice it was listed here.
If I or someone gets a chance, all of these links should be converted to the paper titles, in which case we will add Shanahan's titles.
I did not discuss the debate because it is rather complicated and technically involved. (More so than the other critiques listed here.) I could expand it, but since it is rather technical it would be better to ask Shanahan and Storms themselves to write a paragraph or two."
Reviewing the history file, I found that you were the one who accidentally squooshed the Shanahan article together with the Sci. Am. You deleted line feeds without noticing. Shanahan wrote:
"His article lists the 'Shanahan-Storms' debate, then immediately jumps to a SciAm problem he has."
He just reverted again despite your warning, which brings him up to 5 reverts I believe. I need to go actually work now, but I recommend you file a 3rr report. JoshuaZ14:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete my talk page anytime I feel like it, as I have done several times in the past. I do not wish to hear your views on this matter, or any other. I will probably delete any message you post on my talk page, so don't bother posting one. --JedRothwell15:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically because all it does is state that the author thinks that Cold Fusion is being repressed and an example of this is the rejection by journals, but beyond the opinion it doesn't give any information for that. Feel free to put it back if you disagree, but the other reference is top notch and is really all that is needed. Jefffire14:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May i ask u that why did you revert back to previous on 'muslim'. Even your page quotes God as He. Moreover, just deleting a reference without reason is not understood. Can you please put me wise on this.
On my user page that comment is meant as a subtle joke at an old train of thought of why one should believe in God. However outwidth a userpage it is neccasery to adhere to stricter standards for writing and to bear in mind that we are writing for an audience who might not believe the same things we do. As a result the capitolisation of "he" when refering to a monothesistic god isn't correct encycopedic writing (with certain exceptions of course). Jefffire19:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any reason to revert the harmless little edit I did on homoeopathy? I added some clarifying information that would help a reader unfamiliar with the subject and time H was working in. You said that you reverted based on POV, but I don't see that any POV was implicit in what I had added. Please note that Wiki is a group project. elizmr14:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to change it into something more NPOV, but wikipedia was playing up a little so all I was able to do at the time was revert. I've made some appropriate changes now. Jefffire14:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm honestly curious to know what you thought was POV about what I wrote since I can't see it as being POV at all. elizmr16:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not POV, just less NPOV. I was concerned about the wording regaring molecuels since it could be interprated as implying that there is some non-molecular substance in there. There could well be of course, but the scientific consensus is largely against that possibility for now. Jefffire16:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand, but I think you were overreading my intent. I was just trying to make it more explicit and understandable. elizmr16:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you intended for any POV so I tried to keep as much as your change as possible. Jefffire
Thanks for the clarification. I now see the discussion on infinitesmals below in the article. See you on the pseudoscience page..Kenosis18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jefffire: the anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, and Waldorf education articles have been through massive cleanups of POV material; the articles are now factual and descriptive. You recently said on a talk page that you had never heard of anthroposophy. Please investigate further or pose questions on talk pages or requests for citations (on talk pages or in the article themselves) before deleting material. Hgilbert10:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These article are a joke. Please read WP:NPOV. The critism section was clearly written by a supporter making straw man attacks on the opposition and half the time Steiner's beliefs were presented as fact. As for the mention of quantum dynmanics as a justification in the main article, ridiculous. Jefffire10:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what material you feel is problematic; I am happy to provide citations from standard sources. Hgilbert10:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of unsourced claims but the fact remains that there are outright POV violations as well, especial in the original intro and those sections relating to science. I refer you again to WP:NPOV. Jefffire10:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffire -- My earth shattering change to the Waldorf site was to simply use the term that Webster's Dictionary uses to describe Anthroposophy: "religous system," instead of "spirtitual science" that Hgilbert insists on. There is nothing scientific about Steiner's teaching on fictional places like Atlantis and Lemuria, reincarnation, gnomes, ect. Further, much of anthroposophy is called by leading anthroposophists "mystic christianity" or "christionology" or "christian cosmology" because they believe that lucifer was the god of light, Ahriman was the god of darkness, and Christ was sent to earth to balance these to polar opposite forces-- geee, those sound alot like relgions figures. On the Rudolph site I simply added a few WELL KNOWN summaries of Rudolph Steiner's views on other races. Hgibert is trying to re-write history. Steiner was an ugly racist -- even for his day, and his writings and teachings were a rationale for many in the Nazi movement. All the pages have a ridiculous POV that doesn't even put a pro-anthroposophist / pro-steiner spin, it doesn't even cover any of the crux of what anthroposophy or Steiner was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)
I understand your concerns but all these changes must be NPOV and verified. Try to keep a clear head. Many of your changes are acceptable but there are a few that cross the line. My advice is to keep informed with WP:NPOV and register a Wikipedia account. Jefffire12:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffire -- I agree that my add-on about Rudolph Steiner and his radical racism wasn't properly sourced (the source, btw, is steiner's writings). I am unbelievably frustrated, however, because every time I try to make the slightest factual tweak -- such as replacing "spiritual science" with Webster's dictionary's "religious system" it gets changed. I have even had my comments edited out of the discussion section by all the anthroposts out there. All three of these articles need to have a POV tag on them until they are significantly reworked / rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)
Keep a cool head and I'll take care of the anthroposts. Make sure you sign your posts with four tildes (~). It might help to register an account. Jefffire14:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello -- I just wanted to give you heads-up that I just added "Waldorf Schools Connection to Christianity." It is well sourced and even-handed. Any reasonable person can see that there is a clear connection. I think most of this nonsense is from them trying to position themselves as "non-religious" so that they can be eligible for public school funding... but instead of actualy making themselves non-religious, they are resorting to Orwellian wordsmithing of the definition of anthroposophy or, as a fall-back, making the ridiculous claim that Waldorf schools are not affiliated in any way with anthroposophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RudolfSteiner (talk • contribs)
I might be missing something here, I confess, but: who really cares how Boris did in some stupid university election? Especially since he lost? In the grander scheme of things, it's hardly going to rate a big mention is it? There is barely any mention of any single parliamentary election he has ever stood in, so what makes this one so special? You seem to share my view. Any idea what is bugging our anonymous friend? ElectricRay23:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the president of the Edinburgh University student union, or at least an active member. If my experience with student union types is anything to go by they'll have a huge ego and used to getting their own way. Jefffire08:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Just revert the bugger and it should be fine, but if they get out of hand I'll ask an admin for a semiprotect. Jefffire11:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anthroposophy and anonymous edits (moved from Jeff's user page)
I appreciate your desire to make these articles NPOV. However, the anonymous user who is currently editing them is putting in simple hogwash, in poor English to boot. I don't know what to do about this; it is turning into a revert war. Any ideas? Hgilbert01:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hgilbert -- For whatever reason you are unable to comport with reality. Anthroposophy is Christian based and Waldorf schools are Anthroposopy based. That is immediately apparent to any reasonable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RudolfSteiner (talk • contribs)
Jefffire - I apologize for the mislocation of discussion contributions onto your user page; it was a mistake, not a conscious decision. Hgilbert09:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, you were right to revert the anon's addition after the name of Muhammad. It wasn't vandalism as the words the anon added mean "Peace be upon him" in Arabic. In normal conversation, Muslims say that after the name of any Prophet but I believe the current consensus is that we shouldn't add PBUH, SAW or any other such honorific. Cheers :) Green Giant13:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it non-notable? Sorry, but I think intellectual questions raised about these topic are suitable for articles. --Osbus14:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Homeopathy was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot214:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its hard to get those to work properly sometimes, I've whitelisted you so it shouldn't touch your edits again -- Tawker16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need the input of an expert critic. I can help with NPOV issues but ultimately there are a lot of things which I don't have the expertise to comment on. I'll have a look round and see if there are any wikipedians who could help. Jefffire08:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffire, I appreciate your work on cleaning up these articles, but
when are you going to "deliver"? I think the antroposophy and Steiner
articles are terribly POV and in need of serious attention.
This is a common problem of Wikipedia. Controversial subjects are often "owned" by "believers". In those cases where the subject has too little mass, serious skeptics are not attracted nor motivated to contest the material.
Compare the pages on scientology with the article on antroposophy for instance. Scientology is widely known and has lots of public critics, while antroposophy, which is easily equally looney by any standard, has but a few. The result is that the Wikipedia article on antropopsophy is badly POV while the scientology article is really great.
I'm going to try and put some more work in soon. I'm quite involved with a few other controversial subjects which have experienced POV pushing and I have to tell you it is very emotionaly draining. I have some spare time coming up soon which I hope will give me some time to properly research Anthroposophy. Until then I'm going to make sure that the more obvious POV is tackeled and ensure the tags and categories remain in place. Jefffire17:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jefffire -- I look forward to your overhaul. It is badly needed on all of the "steiner sites" of anthroposophy, waldorf schools, and rudolf steiner. I have tried to add a few things, but what I've run into time and again is "deny and mislead until you can't anymore and then dilute the unsavory facts with propaganda." Plus there is constant circular logic to define everything anthroposophically: An intrinsic part of Anthroposophy is that they believe that Rudolf Steiner achieved a high level of spirituality, that enabled him to have a high state consciousness, that enabled him to ascertain knowledge through clairvoyance and other supernatural powers, and put it all together to create anthroposophy. Steiner is always right. If Steiner said he wasn't a racist, he wasn't a racist. If Steiner said that Anthroposophy is a science, it's a science. It really should be called "Steinerism" because it is a belief that Steiner had supernatural powers that gave him knowledge to pontificate on a whole range of issues that he had no education or experience. -paka33
All I'm going to do is try and keep the article NPOV according to standard Wikipedia guidelines. I rely on critics as well as advocates for factual information. Jefffire19:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffire -- I'm honestly not a critic or an advocate, I just think an article about zebras should mention something about the stripes. There is a big problem on these pages of parsing words so that everything may be factually correct, but intentionally misleading. For example: when the reader read that the "Dutch Commission on Racism" found that anthroposophy was not racist, the reader is left with the impression that a progressive government entity looked into and gave it a clean bill of health. The truth was that the Dutch Anthroposophical Society put together a group of Dutch Anthroposophs and that was their "commission." —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Jeffire: I have some concerns about an evenness of approach. We happen to both be contributing to both the pseudoscience article and the anthroposophy-related articles. In the former, people have put forward reasons and solid arguments (which you may not like, but are based on concrete and substantial criticisms) to suspect the NPOV stance of parts or the whole of the article...yet you consistently resist and even revert edits that include this label. In the anthroposophy-related articles, you assert the right to add the NPOV label because you suspect something might be POV. I might add that you stated a few weeks ago that you had never even heard of the subjects.
Let's have a clear policy. Either we agree that an individual's suspicions of an article not including all POVs are sufficient, in which case the pseudoscience qualifies multiple times over (there are a number of contributors who have voiced these suspicions)...or there have to be concrete issues, i.e. actual and demonstrated POV-violations, if I may phrase it this way, in which case you should either voice these clearly on the talk pages or drop the labeling.
I might note that those users who complain about POV problems in this section of your talk page have been free to add material to all these articles, and one of them has done so vigorously. All issues that have been brought up on the talk pages of the articles are included in the article itself. The discussion in the article text of the anthroposophy pages is much more open and frank than is the case in the pseudoscience article, where many talk page discussion topics are immediately removed from the article by you and others.
These are two seperate discussions entirely. On pseudoscience there is no rational arguement for the tag, only consternation from true believers that one of their personal beliefs is included. In the anthroposophy article there is very real reason to believe that the entire article is not being presented in a NPOV manner. Jefffire09:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may have such additional reasons internally, but they have not been articulated on the talk page; the themes discussed there are amply represented in the article. I challenge you to actually identify one-sided presentations in the articles. Hgilbert18:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have identified plenty on the talk page. You are also still to address those made by other editors properly. Please do so. Jefffire00:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jeffire. I am also going to try to clean up the article. We had a ref format change a while back and we're not too used to it. We got so many different requests to do it one way or another and with all the deletes/restores you get with these kind of articles, well, it didn't help. Putting stuff in quotes seems to help a bit though, and with any luck any "believers" will come round to accepting the fact that facts are here to stay. Anyway the cleanup is going to move forward, but to be realistic, its going to be a bit slow what with all the extra repeat questions and pressure to delete from the believers. I'm sure we'll get in better shape before too long though and still manage to shine more light on the subject. Friday evening - time for a restorative or two! Cheers Bookmain10:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we had overlapping edits a few minutes ago in the intro. I'm not completely happy with user:Mccready's last revision of 4am PDT, although I tend to agree with it, so I reverted it to the more-or-less agreed text. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)14:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've kind of smooshed all the edits together to try for some weird kind of compromise now. Someone will probable object though. Jefffire14:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jefffire, I like your last sentence in the introduction.
There is no scientific consensus for the validity of chiropractic medicine. Some studies suggest short term benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain[1], but there is currently no scientific evidence for other medical claims.
It does handle the issue of science in a balanced way, but voices both sides. Cool. If it doesn't fly, you might try no reliable scientific evidence for other medical claims. Though that may be too strong a word. Keep going.--Dematt16:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different matter. Obviously there isn't any major problem with saying that research is still ongoing as that is what is happening. Since research is currently ongoing in most is not every valid field it is a little redundant. However I think that mentioning ongoing research might be useful if it helps reach a consensus on the page. Perhaps a reword that means the same thing would be better? Jefffire08:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-sensical edits and comments on the Validity of astrology page
You are going around and butchering the article several times an hour, frequently reverting edits within a few minutes of changes made by other editors. Reverts are made without warning or explanation. Important sections and paragraphs are being removed without discussion. You question every reference other user cites but provide no reference of your own. Could you please provide an explanation of your behaviour? Aquirata11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in a mess. I am removing some of the obvious POv and questioning the notability of some of the arguements. And useless I have suffered a stroke and lost my grasp of English without noticing, my comments have all been sensical. I ask for you to show a greater degree of WP:Civility. Jefffire11:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are effecting major changes without discussion; reverting important additions within mninutes; doing the same changes over and over again despite obvious signs of discontent on the Talk page. Discuss first: [3]."Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution." Aquirata12:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing in nothing but good faith. I have also discussed this extensively on the talk pages. Please consider my changes before simply reverting them. Jefffire13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's your reason for saying that "you have stated that you cannont (sic) get references from reliable sources"? [4] Nobody said that to my knowledge. Also, when others are not coming forward with references from what you deem reliable sources, your duty is not the removal of allegedly unsupported information but finding that 'reliable' source. I repeat my question above [5], which you have not yet answered: Given your heavy bias against astrology, do you think you can do a good job in editing the Validity of astrology article? Other editors strive to present a balanced picture; on the other hand, you seem to be intent on destroying the case for astrology using any means whatsoever. The problem I see in your present involvement in editing this article is not that you have a point of view but that you seem to have a personal agenda to distort the article's presentation to the extreme. We need your perspective so we can present the article in a neutral manner, but please do not use your persuasion for political ends. Aquirata10:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policies must be followed. We are writing an encyclopedia and must be very wary for incorrect information. Sections based on unreliable sources have no place in it. If you cannot source information you are presenting as factualy accurate from a reliable source then I will remove it. Jefffire10:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What part of my responce is confusing you? Wikipedia has policies, the article is violating those policies, and so I am trying to change the article so it does not. Monosyllabic version available on request. Jefffire14:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is confusing me. You avoid giving straight answers to straight questions. The sentences ending with question marks are my questions. Where are your answers? Aquirata01:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I often recieve irate messages from POV editors when I question the neutrality of their pet pages and bring up uncomfortable topics like Wikipedia guidelines. Some have since been blocked from Wikipedia. Their opinions should not be considered as reliable. Jefffire15:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffire, please stop trying to challenge everything I do. What was wrong with the image I put in Deinonychus? You'd probably rather have some bird there instead. Scorpionman16:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picture inserted simply isn't up to the standards of an encyclopedia entry. Deinonychus certainly isn't a bird, don't put words in my mouth. Jefffire16:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I've nothing against you creating a picture for use as the lead (and I do think the puffin picture is a little silly) but this isn't the one as it isn't artisticaly up to the standard I feel. If you wish to include it later in the article I have no objections and I would fully support any pictures you produce that I do feel are up to the standard. I hope you understand this is an artistic objection on my part and not any thing personal. Jefffire00:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It actually looks quite good without the shadow and I am leaning towards keeping it. If you have the time you could draw a more detailed one with colour which I think would be a big asset to the arctile. All in all well done though. Jefffire18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we have a difference of opinion. You described my legitimate, point-by-point reply to Lundse as "mutilation", which it most certainly was not. Not surprising, as you have a history of falsely accusing and insulting Wikipedians who have legitimate and different points of view from your own. Now read your own words:
"It is highly incivil to describe actual edits as "mutilations" without good cause."
Don't ever describe my actual edits and comments as "mutilations" unless you wish to find your own description of another Wikipedian as a "troll" used as your own. You need to follow the rules of Wikipedia if you wish to remain here. Doovinator17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You disrupted the talk page and badly broke up a fellow contributors comments to suit your own ends. You edits were destructive and in bad faith, not to mention being soapboxing. You have ignored all my attempts to discuss this with you in a civilised fashion and have vandalised my userpage. Please see WP:Civility. Jefffire14:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have an opinion on how to discuss an article keep it on the article, jerk. If you want to talk about it we will put it on YOUR talk page. Doovinator14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be unduly conspiratorial, but we need to defend this edit and others like it. I check into the Astrology pages once a month, and every bloody time they've been hijacked by people removing criticism and presenting the subject as equal to science fact. They shouldn't be presented as such. It's not encyclopedic and it's not true to hold gravity and fucking astrology equivalent. Sorry—I get worked up. Anyhow, don't lose heart if you feel the need to revert something as you did on astrology tonight. Marskell21:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not fret, my specialty is dealing with hardcore POV articles. It is a weakness of wikipedia that some articles have become controled by people who are true believers. I've faced a considerable amount of abuse sometimes for challenging their "truth". However maintaining NPOV in Wikipedia is not something I will give up on. It's a constant challenge sometimes but one I feel is worthwhile. Thank you for the encouragement. Jefffire23:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop making unwarranted changes on this page. For the umpteenth time, you have gone against the consensus on the page's Talk page. This is against policy and must be put an end to. Aquirata19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I contest that my changes are essential to a NPOV article. Two editors with a vested interest in the article do not form a consensus. Jefffire19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have discussed them. I ahve shown clearly and concisely why they are essential. You have reverted most of them based on very poor reasoning in order to try and make the article more appealing to your faith. Please stop reverting on a fallacious understanding of policies and accept that most of my points are valid. Jefffire20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. I endevour to be the embodyment of NPOV. As I see it you are trying to force the article to create a picture of astrology as being empirically demonstrated and scientifically valid, which is simply not the case. Jefffire20:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to have an opinion about yourself that contradicts the edit history. Repeatedly removing a key subsection without discussing it on the Talk page first or against the wishes of other editors is not exactly NPOV. But that is just my POV. You are mistaken about my motivations, too, but that's your prerogative. Aquirata09:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I noticed that you have interacted with User:Osbus who is currently undergoing an RfA and thought that you might be interested in participating at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Osbus. You have received this message without the endorsement of the candidate involved, and this is not a solicitation of support, it is only an effort to make RfA discussions better (for more information see user:ShortJason/Publicity). Thank you in advance for your participation. ShortJason22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you made some edits at behavioral ecology. I just added some sub-sections, if you'd like to check it out. Also, I have a page on human behavioral ecology. I'll admit, it could be better. I'm not sure if you're knowledgeable about it, but check it out, if you'd like. There's also a page on evolutionary psychology which I've contributed to, which could probably stand to have some improvement.
Other pages I've made, which you may find interesting:
I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. As someone who has recently edited the chiropractic article and discussion pages, I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn02:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been attacked one time too many by User:Andrew Homer - see his response to my last request he stop personal attacks [6]
I am going to start an RfC and I was hoping you would certify it as a user who tried to resolve the problem. If you will leave a message about this on my talk page I set up for this purpose, you can also see more about it as I am drafting the RfC there.
You may not agree with Kuhn and Feyerabend, but to say they are just "biased", and to prefer someone like Randi over them as being supposedly "unbiased", is just silly. If you look at our NPOV policy you'll see it means that notable POVs should be included (however "biased") and properly attributed, and Kuhn and Feyerabend are both major enough figures to be considered "notable" on subjects like the philosophy of science (they are far more notable than Randi in this realm). Just my two cents. I'm not sure why you'd think a practicing scientist would be more reliable about the philosophy of science than practicing scientists who had since become respected philosophers (as was the case with both Kuhn and Feyerabend -- out of the standard big three, only Karl Popper was never an active scientist), but in any case I think it is indisputable that people like Kuhn and Feyerabend are major enough to warrant inclusion, however much you might disagree with their conclusions. --Fastfission19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample from the list-
Ignoring the historical fact that theories dominant at any particular time tend subsequently to be viewed as either incorrect (e.g. Ptolemy) or only partially correct (e.g. Newton).
Failing to acknowledge that many modern scientific discoveries have been made by persons working outside of the scientific mainstream.
A couple of messages were inappropriately left on your userpage. I reverted them, but you can still view them if you wish through the page history. Petros47111:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was not your first violation, and previous violations also concerned the Astrology page. Please abide by the policy quoted above to make sure you avoid being reported. Aquirata17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the policy yourself: "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."Aquirata17:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. You are not just in violation of the spirit of 3RR but also the wording of it and other policies as well. You asssume that your interpretation of policy supercedes everything else. This is a wrong assumption. Stop reverting and start talking. Aquirata17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did we just find a another self-contradictory policy? Did our interpretations differ? Perhaps there is a lesson in there for you. First clue: interpretation. Aquirata23:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what interpratations you are using but I am reading them plainly as they were intended to be taken. Jefffire11:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jefffire, thanks for the help on the chiropractic history. I do like the addition to the Andrew Still part, that was much better!
The legendary addition was an effort to show that the story is probably not true - sort of like a fable. I think you may have thought it was more of a legendary as "great' or "wonderful". It really is a good use of the word, but maybe you can word it better so that it comes out more of the "fable" definition without offending any POV.--Dematt15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed the meaning was different, although it is still not proper language. If you can find reliable sources that the claim may be fantastic then perhaps the proper wording would be "possible apocyphal". Jefffire16:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Apocryphal is probably more than I was bargaining for:), and you're right, it probably is POV to assume either. Thanks!--Dematt17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are textbook creationist fallacies. For a start, "Evolutionist" is inherintly POV. Please take this to the talk page in question, or to talk.orgins if you wish to debate the factual accuracy of evolution. Jefffire20:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to everyone in contact with me, I shall be archiving soon. Everything above this line, with the exception of the discussion on Pseudoscience will be put into an archive in a day or two. If you wish to continue a conversation, please mention below. Jefffire21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is part of an ongoing campaign of personal attacks, and false acussations, made against me by this editor. Jefffire13:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
