User talk:Jefffire/Archive the second

Pseudoscience Maintenance

Hi Jefffire. I noticed your helpful addition of the pseudoscience cat to the TFT article, and your general efforts to clarify similar articles this way. Thanks.

I have an interest in pseudoscience in general, and have noticed that there is quite a lot of silliness about it on Wikipedia. Basically, if a reliable source views a subject as pseudoscience, then it can be stated. But I have noticed reams of deep and philosophical debates over why something shouldn't be called pseudoscience, regardless of independent and reliable views. Clearly there is resistence.

Anyway, I am considering a long term clarification for subjects considered pseudoscientific in general in order to clarify articles further and reduce unnecessary discussion and conflicts.

I believe it would help if these subjects were briefly explained more clearly using this kind of format:

• State a reliable source that considers the subject pseudoscientific.
• State why they consider it pseudoscientific
• State their motivation for calling it pseudoscientific (eg for clearing up misconceptions, and/or for helping the public at large avoid harmful or useless methods etc).

This would offer more opportunity for providing clarification for a subject and more opportunity for adding citations (thus reducing the chance of reframes or accusations that scientists are all cynical villains etc).

Anyway, I have access to a lot of research into this, and I believe it would benefit from your feedback.

Cheers KrishnaVindaloo 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

May I chime in here? I've posted some thoughts (resistance?) on this issue here. To summarize, if pseudoscience is concisely defined as "something misrepresented as being scientific", then there are going to be some grey areas since misrepresentation isn't always trivial. KV, I think you are probably on the right track with NPOV wording and sourcing. But that doesn't solve the problem of the category label being an on/off condition. Is it appropriate to categorize contested cases as pseudoscience just because someone, somewhere, has done so? It's fine in the body of an article to say who says what and why, but there's no such nuance in applying the category tag. It's either there or it's not. Best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I greatly appreaciate the input from both of you. I think KrishnaVindaloo has a good suggestion which I will bear in mind. This subject is quite emotive for many people so I will be working on things on a case by case basis for the time being. Please continue to give me your thoughts on this subject as I think it is very important that it gets solved. Jefffire 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jefffire. Sometimes the emotion is understandable frustration over having ones position misrepresented.

One "meta" solution to the category issue might be to create two kinds of categories, i.e. undisputed and disputed ones. The genus of the house cat would fall into the former. Pseudoscience, or state terrorism, would be in the latter, as might some categories in theoretical physics or any rapidly-changing discipline. Any category involving significant subjective judgement call, lacking agreed-upon, intersubjectively-verifiable criteria, or with significant "grey" area, could be called a "disputed" category. Or a "fuzzy" category. Such categories can continue be helpful for readers without the inherent POV of Wikipedia appearing to endorse the designation. Just a thought. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but I'm a little dubious about your suggestion. Let me consider it overnight and let me get back to you. I have been considering suggesting a review of this topic. Jefffire 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this: Template:CategorisationDisputedTopics. I decided to be bold, create the tag (following Template:CategorisationDisputedPeople), and put it on Category:Pseudoscience. I'll probably add Template:Cleancat later for particular issues (such as lingering confusion about the definition of pseudoscience). What do you think? best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It was kind of fun being part of category pseudoscience for a little while :)

Anyway this look like it may be useful. I feel that category pseudoscience is a very useful cagegory, since people like me are very interested in the topic and it is useful to be able to find the articles easily, although individual inclusions can be controversial. Lets see how this category gets accepted and move on from there. Jefffire 12:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree the category is useful despite (or maybe even because of) its contentiousness and fuzziness. I think the category does need work. If we agree to categorize something as PS because a reliable source says so, we need to say that right on the category page and note that other reliable sources may disagree. We also need to be clear on when to categorize; check out the criteria from WP:CG that I posted on Category_talk:Pseudoscience. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like most editors don't think the template is that useful (nominated for deletion here), but you may want to have a look at Category_talk:Pseudoscience. You're a thoughtful editor and I value your input. It's interesting how some other editors are making assumptions about my motives, but then, this is contentious stuff. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence of editors

Please don't make insults concerning the intelligence of other editors, even if they are being extremely annoying and apparently using processes and policies in bad faith. It isn't civil, and only hurts your reputation. --Philosophus ^T 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In the face of intense and repeated personal attacks even I occasionaly bend under the strain. I shall endevour to the better person in this situation. Jefffire 15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Come see

Jefffire, I added a line about cancer, etc on the chiro page. Take a look and see if that works for you. And BTW, your attitude is part of the reason we are able to get anywhere on this page! Thanks.--Dematt 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Quantum mind

I agree with your quest to get rid of pseudoscience. That said, the criticisms section of the quantum mind article does not provide any insight into the preferred basis problem. The decoherence argument (the operational interpretation of QM) says that there is a preferred basis that provides a template for evolution of the state vector. It has become popular for cosmologists to use the anthropic principle to determine the form of this preferred basis (ie: the anthropic "environment" is the basis). Many of the QM Mind approaches go a small step further and suggest it is the form of the physical entity that constitutes an observer's mind that is the preferred basis. This is extraordinarily weird, but not POV or pseudoscience. According to "many minds" an observer would have no magic powers nor any non-physical properties and could not "observe" events into existence etc. Contrary to Wikipedia's article on "many minds" the theory is not dualist - it just maintains that in the infinity of states in the multiverse those that constitute an observer's physical mind and its correlations are what an observer observes.

Agreement, if possible

Could we discuss and come to some agreement about the Multiple Sources statements of the WP:RS guideline please? The rest of the guideline doesn't use psychology double-speak such as "unconcious bias in one source will be cancelled out by the unconcious bias in several sources". and "Psychological experiments have shown that memory and perception are not as reliable as we would like them to be ..." followed by a paragraph of proof of that idea which is actually unproven, by the way. WP:RS is a guideline, it should be clearly written, written so it can not be mistakenly understood. Psychology experiments which are cited to prove points have no place in WP:RS, such experiments belong in articles, not in guidelines. And "unconcious bias" is cancelled by "checking several sources" doesn't belong there either. Check multiple sources... I mean it is intuitive, 3 paragraphs of psychology's 1/2 failed experiments about flashing hearts and spades and having people mis-perceive them has no place in a guideline. Could we discuss this? Terryeo 00:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

May be POV

On your user page, you ask about pages that may be POV. Would you check Green Fireballs and Philip J. Klass? The last time I looked at them (a few months ago), I thought they were very POV. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 14:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, these are exactly the sort of articles which I enjoy working on. I've made a few minor changes to Green Fireballs for now, and see how that goes down before proceding further. Jefffire 14:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the edit history. Several months ago I put in some reverenced, verifyable material that kept being taken out. Bubba73 (talk), 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And if you enjoy working on articles like those, there are others. I had been trying to improve Majestic 12 and Roswell incident, but about five months ago the opposition got too great. I haven't looked at them lately, but they should be checked. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please watch

Please watch amygdala. Thank you. Koalabyte 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Careful

Thanks for helping! I guess that today most other regular editors are not online (nice weather in Europe and National Holiday in the US). Ed Addis has continued to disregard your warning, so I guess it is time to report him. Count Iblis 13:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested...

In this post. It's in reference to a change I made and subsequent revert by Jossi on NPOV, here. As you can guess this springs from our lengthy discussions on a certain page. Marskell 08:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

more accurate

"In a way, everyone is right. But in another, more accurate way, you are wrong." OMG, I'm still laughing. Is that paraphrased from Terry Pratchett's "Pyramids"? Also, I noticed that you were chided for insulting another editor's intelligence; please don't tell me you called him "...a trained ape, without the training!" I just had to ask :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks J. Keep having fun :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 15:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

natural vs sexual selection

But Darwin himself made this distinction. Tony 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The definition changes depending on who you ask. Darwin's word isn't final after all, so I thought it would be best to adopt the definition used on other articles. Jefffire 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

help requested in a dispute on cold fusion

Jeff, I would appreciate your opinion on an on-going dispute with Ron Marshall in Talk:cold fusion. Thx in advance. Pcarbonn 19:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The dispute has cooled down a bit, but the issue remains: the transmutation secion is still way too long, and it has too much editorializing. If another person like you would edit it, Ron may finally get the message. Here is a version I prefer:

Nuclear transmutations are nuclear reactions that cause new chemical elements to appear. If these elements are unstable, they can decay into still other elements. Nuclear transmutations have been reported in many cold fusion experiments since 1992. They have been reviewed by Miley.

Miley reports that several dozen laboratories are studying these transmutations. Some experiments result in the creation of only a few elements, while others result in a wide variety of elements from the periodic table. Calcium, copper, zinc, and iron were the most commonly reported elements. Lanthanides were also found: this is significant since they are unlikely to enter as impurities. In addition, the isotopic ratio of the observed elements differ from their natural isotopic ratio or natural abundance. The presence of an unnatural isotope ratio makes contamination an implausible explanation. Besides nuclear reactions, other exotic process such gaseous diffusion, thermal diffusion, electromagnetic separation can change an element from its natural isotope ratio. Some experiments reported both transmutations and excess heat, but the correlation between the two effects has not been established. Radiations have also been reported. Miley also reviews possible theories to explain these observations.

So far the clearest evidence for transmutation has come from an experiment made by Iwamura and associates, and published in 2002 in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics (one of the top physics journals in Japan). Instead of using electrolysis, they forced deuterium gas to permeate through a thin layer of caesium (also known as cesium) deposited on calcium oxide and palladium, while periodically analyzing the nature of the surface through X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. As the deuterium gas permeated over a period of a week, the amount of caesium progressively decreased while the amount of praseodymium increased, so that caesium appeared to be transmuted into praseodymium. When caesium was replaced by strontium, it was transmuted into molybdenum. In both cases this represents an addition of four deuterium nuclei to the original element. They have produced these results six times, and reproducibility was good. The energy released by these transmutations was too low to be observed. When the calcium oxide was removed or when the deuterium gas was replaced by hydrogen, no transmutation was observed. The authors analyzed, and then rejected, the possibility to explain these various observations by contaminations. The experiment was replicated by researchers from Osaka University using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry to analyze the nature of the surface (the Palladium complex samples were provided by Iwamura).

A 2004 DOE panelists said that, from a nuclear physics perspective, such conclusions of transmutations cannot be believed. Fusing 2 deuterons is difficult enough; merging four deuterons with a heavy nucleus such as Palladium [sic] is not to be believed, especially when no evidence is presented for any nuclear products with intermediate atomic mass. A non-nuclear process, possibly unknown, cannot be excluded (eg. the migration of impurities towards the surface).

Tadahiko Mizuno is another prominent transmutation experimenter. Attempts to find at least partial theoretical explanations are being made by Takahashi and others. One proposal by Takahashi to explain the wide range of elements generated is that fission of palladium is initiated by photons.

Pcarbonn 06:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is generally good. I suggest that perhaps the wording in the fourth para might be better as "such conclusions of transmutation should be treated with skeptisism", unless there is a direct quote. Jefffire 13:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you have been busy on quite a few disputes recently... The quality of the "cold fusion" article is getting down, and I'm running out of ideas to resolve the dispute. Could you have a look and propose a possible way forward ? Thanks. Pcarbonn 20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you remove

...the stupid line about plate tectonics when you see it? I'm around three but it's all quite confused. Marskell 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Usual pseudoscience BS. I've seen the exact same claim on several over page. As the pattern goes, they alledge a conspiracy, compare themselves to Galileo, mumble something about quantum dynamics, bring up continental drift, then post-modernism. I've seen it repeated so many times on other pages. The predictability of such people is interesting, not to mention amusing. Jefffire 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

CTMU

I appreciate your work with the CTMU...it's interesting that some of your concerns are quite similar to ones I have raised, but have had all my edits reverted. Anyway, on my user page there is a link to my sandbox, where I am trying to make an entirely new article, according to the Project Pseudoscience ideas. Please feel free to contribute ideas, if you wish.

One of my major concerns is to strip this of the excessive jargon, so the man in the street can weight is up for himself. This current version is almost complete broken.--Byrgenwulf 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your opinions on the current version. It makes my eyes bleed trying to read it. Whoever wrote it has done a terrible job. Jefffire 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, you two seem to be interested in the CTMU as a metaphysical construct and in editing it to differentiate it from empirical science. I think that is a good approach as I do not want to see it labeled as "pseudoscience". I don't think the version in Byrgenwulf's sandbox is NPOV, but there are other edits that could improve the actual article. Do you think it's possible to work together to make edits that we all can live with rather than push to delete the page? DrL 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you would need to make major concessions which your past editing pattern (and current block) suggest are unlikely. Jefffire 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've added some "criticism" from the journal Langan used to edit...if it's a "valid source" for touting the CTMU, it's a valid source for denouncing it too. However, you seem to have more experience in dealing with this sort of cruft than I do, so if you think it may be inappropriate feel free to take it out. Byrgenwulf 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

POV in Thomas Midgley, Jr.?

I like clicking through User pages and saw your request for possible POV articles. The Thomas Midgley, Jr. article seems like it could be more NPOV to me. I am a chemist, so I may be POV the other way (which is one reason why I haven't tried cleaning this up myself). Please see the History sections of Haloalkane and tetra-ethyl lead for what seem to me to be more NPOV treatments. I added Midgley's Priestley Medal from the American Chemical Society which is how I found this article initially. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Jefffire 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, someone really had it in for that poor sod. I've made badly needed changes but I will need to do some reseach to verify some of the claims. Jefffire 13:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Ross interview

I think it's pretty notable...however the point needs to be made that the purpose of his appearance on the show, he was bringing the conservative party to a different audience to try to win votes, and failed, I think it should be included, obviously without a critical POV Plebmonk 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree but if you think it is notable then feel free to include it. Personaly I think that just a brief mention of the show would do. Jefffire 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, cba to write it though... Plebmonk 17:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

response to deletion

Hello,

I put the following entries in my user area. Here they are, including a response from someone else as well:

Do you know ANYTHING about what is going on in contemporary astrology? Do you recognize the names Ray Merriman, Nick Campion, Liz Greene, John Frawley, or Demtetra George, just to name a few? Are these people not notable? Who is notable and what makes a person notable? Sorry, but it appears that you have no knowledge of the field of astrology. I won't argue the point further. It's not important for me personally to be listed, but it is unfortunate that much of the control of the information on astrology is being done by people who are unfamilair with the field. It is OK to have skeptics and unbelievers editing the astrology section but not people who are uninformed. Sorry for being so blunt but I want to be honest. DavidCochrane 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Please also see Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Thanks. -Fsotrain09 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone, which has a flavor of personal attack. Thanks for pointing this out. The point, however, remains valid: an evaluation of who is notable in a field is best made by a person deeply involved in the field. Otherwise, Neils Bohr would be elminated as a physicist as non-physicists are not likely to recognize his name. On the other hand, the entry was about myself and this is generally a no-no. We can drop the topic at this point. It is not personally important to me to have the entry of myself and I will not attempt to add it again. DavidCochrane 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, we don't need to continue this discussion. I won't be attempting to put a page in about myself at Wikipedia again. DavidCochrane 19:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, nice to have another real Astrologer onboard. It's been frustrating swatting off these college drop-outs pretending that they're an intellectual by debunking Astrology - a topic which they're incapable of grasping. I've challenged Lundse 3 times, another one of these annoying flys, to explain the Jupiter/Pluto midpoint in his natal chart and describe the influences in his life as regarding Solar-arc direction and he has yet to respond. I doubt that Jeffire could either. Andrew Homer 07:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No hard feeling David. I don't hold the behaviour of other astrologers to be indicitive of the whole. Jefffire 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Astrology, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Marskell 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Understood and acknowledged. Jefffire 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

try getting to know something about a subject before you make edits or stand in judgement over others. Peter morrell 15:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You made rude and incivil comments to user:Geni. Behaviour of this kind will lead to a block if it continues. Jefffire 15:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

those comments were entirely justified. Peter morrell 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe they were is irrelevent. Making incivil comments and personal attacks is not allowable. This is not Usenet, and we expect civility here. Jefffire 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

in which case I will just check the civility of some of your own past comments. Peter morrell 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to waste your time. I've made sarcy remarks in the past, but that doesn't detract from your violation. ad hominem is a fallacy, remember. Jefffire 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

your mistake, no apology necessary

You seem to have mistaken an exchange contained in edit summaries for an edit war. That's all right, we all make mistakes. - Nunh-huh 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to your earlier actions. I note you still haven't discussed the issue on the relevent talk page. Please do so. Jefffire 10:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Tim Smith 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nota bene: User:Tim Smith placed identical warnings on User talk:Byrgenwulf (this edit) and User talk:ScienceApologist (this edit here). Anville 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite clearly a revenge attack. I'd warn him for it but it would probably be counter-productive. Jefffire 11:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I warned you for your recent reverts here (massive deletion of content DrL had just re-added), here (massive deletion of content I had just re-added), and here (removal of content added by DrL four hours earlier). The other users had similar records. Tim Smith 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Jefffie has a track record for 3RRs. I have also taken him to the WP police for 3RR on the Astrology page, and it was a clear violation, but the admin decided to interpret the rule as four reverts of the same text. The same portion was only reverted thrice, so he was not blocked. Aquirata 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Another user who enjoys making false accusations against me. Jefffire 12:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jefree,

I understand that Wikipedians like to keep away spam from their site and not genuine information!

My student was trying to add these systems that I have been teaching since last ten years, to the non-traditional methods of Reiki section.

But the addition was being deleted again and again.

Is it that your site is not open for new knoeledge?

If so, I will tell her not to try and enrich your site by our research information and not to recomend it too!

If you welcome genuine information, Please communicate with me on rekhakale_reiki@yahoo.com

Regards,

Dr. Rekhaa Kale

Here is the added matter for your information that is repeatedly being deleted. Check for spam or advertising matter in this. If you feel so, please let me know. (Also check the advertising links in the section about fees and internet training centres of Reiki by some who, according to the words of Late Dr. Mikao Usui, the founder of Reiki, are making a business of Reiki.)

Vishitao Reiki

A method practiced in some areas of India with 25 symbols that provides you an ability to do practically anything constructive in no time!

Kriya Reiki

A method practiced in some areas of India that teaches you to heal others while healing yourself.

Acu-Reiki

This method is practiced in some areas of India. It shows a wonderful combination of acu-pressure and Reiki with proven miracles.

Chiti Reiki

A method practiced in some areas of India with symbols that restore and reactivate various mind related functions in a very short time and that can work even by writing physically on the affected area of the patient.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekhaa Kale (talk • contribs)

Telectronics

Hello Jeffire and thank you for your comment on the discussion page. I apologise for busting the rules by posting "Defamation". It was a last resort. The matter has now, hopefully, reached conclusion. I shall not for the time being edit the page. If, after a couple of months the situation has remained 'cool', I shall tackle the matter of 'publication' and 'verifiability' of the sources and footnotes cited. The Wikipedia definition of those two words is ambiguous. My interpretation is that used in reference to prior art cited in Patent cases. The precise wording varies from country to country but the general notion remains the same; put concisely : Access to the literature can be gained by any party wishing to gain access. Your comments would be appreciated & respected. Geoffrey Wickham 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

about my source for a change in Pseudoscience

I apologize for using a ~ based url like that, but the URL that has the course name and links to various other sources uses frames, and couldn't be linked. I assure you if you browse the path a bit you'll see. Sorry for the trouble. i kan reed 13:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing is the least of the troubles with your addition. If you want to expand on this subject then take it to it's article rather than expanding it in this generalist article. Jefffire 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I made a new version of the anonymous version you deleted in the new outline on homeopathy, is this version oke with you? --Homy 16:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

I have just left a warning on MichaelCPrice's talk page. He, Linas, and others are violating quite a few rules here, including conspiring against other editors, incivility, failing to assume good faith, accusing others of bad faith edits, personal attacks, etc.. Their personal edit histories are very telling. They are also coordinating their efforts to attempt to trap others in 3rr violations, and are simply taking total control over the orthomolecular medicine and megavitamin therapy articles, with MichaelCPrice apparently functioning as the ringleader of the gang. He has been warned by others. I suggest that several administrators make a serious investigation, possibly leading to long blocks. I have never seen such organized aggressiveness before here at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 23:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Will you sign an RFC on the subject? -- Cri du canard 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This indeed appears to be much more worrying than I had originaly assumed. Personaly I don't think making threats of blocks is a healthy or helpful attitude to take, but if there is a concerted bad faith actions and attempts to elicit 3rr violations then this is a very serious matter. I suggest that if this behavious continue that a request for investigation be made. Jefffire 13:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now left a message on Linas's talk page. His continued belligerance and name calling is quite repugnant. -- Fyslee 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving an incivility warning on MCP's page, and filing an RFC if he makes one more false vandalism accusation. An RFC must show that two different people tried to resolve the issue. -- Cri du canard 13:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, I've only just realised the end of the CSICOP discussion was blanked. I'm sorry for this, there is a problem with my browser. Addhoc 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no trouble at all. That is rather what I assumed happened. Jefffire 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me on my talk page.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. . In particular, please stop attacking me. linas 20:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You are being warned for clear violations of Wikipedia's civility policy. No one will be fooled by petty attempts such as this one to divert blame. Jefffire 16:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

Regarding the edits to Orthomolecular medicine by Guardi (talk • contribs): He's a notorious sockpuppet of General Tojo. Please see Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/General_Tojo for more details. In future, revert, and block (or report) on sight. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  17:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion with incorrect OR claim

It can't, by definition, be WP:OR to quote from a citation. This[1] deletion of such text is therefore vandalism if repeated, and a violation of 3RR, of course. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

But it is OR to suggest that they are connected. Unless you proved a verified reliable source that that is OM, Wikipedia should not report it. Your repeated threats to others in the community, meat puppetry, and an extremely lax interpratation of many Wikipedia policies is being noticed. Jefffire 10:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The connection is that such statements come from the same website, as was explicitly specified in the text. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Do they declare that this is an OM claim, as you are trying to suggest, or not? If it is not an OM claim, then why include it? It would be specious and irrelevent. There are thousands of lines of text in many websites used to verify claims, why single out this line? Jefffire 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you continue to raise the question of relevance to OM which is being discussed elsewhere, whilst failing to address other issues, such as how a quotation be OR or how pointing out that two quotes are from the same website. I shall restore the deleted text. Please do not undo my edit. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The quotation isn't OR, it's the connection that is being drawn by it's inclusion, which is specious and OR. Jefffire 10:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire is quite correct. It is not the job of editors to make the connection. That connection must be done by third party sources. -- Fyslee 10:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How can noting that two quotes come from the same website be OR? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The connection you are trying to trick the reader into making is OR. This is quote mining. Call it POV if you like, or just plain bad editing, the point is it is not right. Jefffire 10:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thin pretext

I apologize that I allowed the colloqial use of "theories", instead of hypotheses or other word choice (treatments, recommendations, assertions, etc), that a radical skeptic previously wrote[2], to remain unaltered. Reverting the entire edit on the pretext of this word is a very thin pretext. Now I put some effort in to be descriptive and accurate with that edit to make a comprehensible intro, whether one agrees with the subject or lot. May I suggest that you choose a more suitable word and perhaps make an edit improvement after restoring the text?--TheNautilus 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

POV in Wheatland (Lancaster)?

Hi, thanks for your help on Thomas Midgley, Jr. (see above). I found a section on James Buchanan in the article on his house (Wheatland) that seems pretty POV to me. Plus it has what seem to be two errors: I find no evidence he served as a judge (not all 3 branches of government) and I think most candidates then campaigned from a base (instead of traveling). Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, but this one looks like it may take a little more researching. In fact I may go back to Thomas Midgley Jr. and see if I can find some references. Jefffire 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Jefffire, I would REALLY appreciate it if you would revert your deletion of a large block of informative material about Canadian troops in Vietnam. If you look at the video in question, as I have repeatedly done, you might be able to put Coulter's "Indochina?" question into context.

Summarizing the interview (paraphrased from memory, so please make allowances), Coulter said "sent troops to Vietnam." Interviewer said "didn't send 'em." Coulter said "Indochina?" Interviewer kept denying "troops in Vietnam."

To me, it's pretty obvious that the "Indochina?" question covers the "technical" matters of whether the troops were sent to Vietnam, or North Vietnam, or French Indochina, or wherever.

Much has been made in the Ann Coulter article and elsewhere that Coulter didn't know what she was talking about, or whatever other negative things people might attribute to her. There are very, very long discussions of this on the talk page. You seem to be new to the article, so possibly not familiar with all the background.

The removal of the highly factual detailed explanation of these matters is, in my opinion, doing a great disservice to our efforts to improve this article and Wikipedia. If you have issues with the explanation, I would ask you to bring them up on the talk page. Lou Sander 10:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the talk page would be best for this. It seems verifiable that Canada did not technically send troups into Vietnam, but there were Canadian troups which fought some of the Vietnamese. Jefffire 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, edit conflict! I was further explaining myself as you were responding. I've just become explicitly conscious of the obvious fact that Canadian involvement in Vietnam is a very touchy and contentious subject in that country. I've looked at the video again and again, and here's my current interpretation: They had been talking about the former close relationship of the U.S. and Canada. Coulter, thinking about the Control Commission, said "troops in Vietnam." The Canadian interviewer interpreted this as talking about the sensitive subject of warfare, and strongly denied it. Coulter attempted to clarify by saying "Indochina?" The interviewer didn't "get" the clarification, and they began to talk over one another's heads. Coulter got out of the discussion with an "I'll get back to you on that," in its typical sense as a way of ending a dispute without further escalating it. Folks, (including POV Wikipedia editors, IMHO), have used this video snippet as a way to demean/impeach/ridicule Coulter as a ditz who doesn't know what she's talking about, who tells untruths, etc. Lou Sander 11:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So the exact claim is "Troups in Vietnam"? That should be easier to verify then. I've created the topic on the talk page, please address it there as it relates to the article and not myself. Jefffire 11:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We're working together here, but our timing is out of synch. I just saw your post to the talk page. A few inches above it, just above "Book cover," is my explanation of the material I added and you removed (and that I think is best re-added, since it contains many factual references that combat a previous non-neutral POV). That explanation is at the end of an extremely long and not-always-rational discussion of the troops in Canada matter. If you've got time, I hope you'll read my explanation and at least some of the extremely long discussion. One really MUST look at the 3-minute video to understand what's being talked about here.

My motivation in all this is to try to establish a Neutral Point Of View in the Ann Coulter article, which IMHO lacks it to an almost surreal degree. My fond hope is that my version of the "troops to Vietnam" could stay in place for two weeks, then be removed along with all mention of the interview in question. (Two weeks is the length of time that the IMHO NPOV stuff about the interview has been in the article.) If my stuff is altered by thoughtful people, that's fine. The mention of the interview should ultimately be removed, IMHO, because it is malicious editing, in that this snippet is not relavent to Ann Coulter's notability. (Her notability for outspokenness is well established, and this snippet, along with dozens of others, are just examples. People keep loading the article with them, in order (IMHO) to advance anti-Coulter points of view.) Lou Sander 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I did request that this discussion be carried out on the article talk page. It involves the subject and not myself. Jefffire 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire: Sorry. You deleted some sensitive, painstakingly created material that I think is very important to those more deeply involved in the article. I wanted to talk with you about it, rather than just reverting your deletion. Thanks for your understanding and your thoughtful comments. Lou Sander 12:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss this matter on the article as it involves the article and more people other than yourself and I will be interested in it. Jefffire 12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cattle Mutilation

Do you think that the POV tag on cattle mutilation can be removed now? I've reworked the article quite a bit but I'm not certain if it's still too POV or not.

Oh, while I'm here. What was it about the geocities link that rubbed you up the wrong way? Was it superflious, or just a bad source?

I think that the laser bit was important, so I will/have (depending on how long it takes me compared to how long it takes you to read this) try and work it in somewhere else more appropriate.

perfectblue 11:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Geocities websites are all personal pages, and with an excessive amount of advertisement, so they should be avoided. I took out the "laser" quote as it was excessively silly. The investigaters believed they were looking as high temperture cutting and put forward "laser" as a solution. You can put it in (as their opinion) if you please, but not as fact. Jefffire 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Took a look. Short answer on NPOV tag, no, I don't think it's alright to remove it yet. Jefffire 12:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm back. I've added two short samples from lab finding where you wanted a citation, have included the names of the institutes/people writting the report too. Do you consider the NIDS to be a reliable source? In this field, it's difficult to find anybody considered to be reliable by everybody.

The same Geocities article is re-printed on the NIDS website. Is this link OK?

Could you be more specific about the POV, are there any trouble spots, or any sections that don't need work.

perfectblue 12:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of little things, and a general prevailance of weasel words. If you would be so good as to leave further comments relating to the subject on the article talk page it would be useful for other editors interested in the subject. I've done a fair bit of research in forensic entymology which will probably be of use here. Jefffire 12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		Barnstar of Patience
		Awarded to Jefffire for his patience and diligence in editing the Orthomolecular article. Awarded by Addhoc

Astrology

Which of the 9! archived discussions is it that you believe that some past consensus decided to place Astrology into the category superstition? Or is it your position that I should read all nine, before editing? The controversy tag, only asks me to read "this" talk page before making edits, and I did. I am willing to respect current consensus, but I am not yet convinced that old discussion represent a current consensus, since both times the issue came up on on the current talk page, no one presented reasons for thinking that Astrology is a superstition. Still I'll look at the arguments if you can direct me a little more. Bmorton3 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometime in the last two archives we had a highly disruptive editor who continously tried to remove superstition tag. There is a fair bit there is you are interested in bringing up the debate again, but personally I's sick to death of it. This subject is commonly cited as a superstition, so I don't see any reason to change it. Jefffire 16:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look at it. It doesn't seem to fit the definition of a superstition very well. The fact that it is commonly cited as a superstition is a good reason to mention that and cite it, as we do (in the lead even), but I've never been clear on what the standards for holding a topic to a category are. When you can find plenty of cites both ways you should mention the disagreement in the article, but what are you supposed to do about the cats? Anyway i'll look at the debate, if I get around to it. Bmorton3 13:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good?

I bet your parents are proud of you for how much good you're doing for people. Your edits really help people stay ignorant of their health- good job! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_Diet Jlangley3007 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad to know I'm appreciated. Jefffire 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you are :)Gleng 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rollo

You added your request for verification after the AfD discussion had been vandalised. I have tried to reintroduce the sense of it. Perhaps you could take another look. Regards, Mr Stephen 17:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Strike-throughs were a bit akward. I reverted the vandalism. Jefffire 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I spent twenty minutes trying to think of a decent way of doing it without altering the sense of it, but yours is probably best. Mr Stephen 20:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Jefffire

How could Charles Darwin on earth to prove his "Big Bang" evoliution if:

• oxygen
  • water,
    • fire,
      • earth,

. . .

• • • • Charles Darwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.252.187 (talk • contribs)

Because:

• Avacado
  • Fruitcake
    • Shirley Bassey
      • Purple monkey dishwasher

. . .

• • • • Glad we sorted this out. Jefffire 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But what about

• grass
  • cow
    • apple
      • peanut butter

???

That's awful arrogant of you, Mr. Jefffire. Please allow POV editing and WP:OR --Dematt 17:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out cosmic inflation and inflaton if you please

This editor has reinserted his errors at those pages as well. If you could check them out, that would be appreciated. I don't want to violate 3RR. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter 2

Jeffire, I ask you to revert your recent deletion about Coulter's emotional state. You said it's OR, and it WOULD be, if it was the work of a Wikipedian. In fact, it is quoted verbatim from the original, cited, source. It is also quite important in the context of this controversial and widely misreported episode. (The Time magazine source is no longer available free online, but it IS widely available. I found it on my library's subscription database and quoted it as exactly and fairly as I could.) Lou Sander 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then rewrite it to say that that is what was reported but the source, not what was. If it wasn't OR, then it was POV to call it fact. Please use the article talk page for this kind of thing. Jefffire 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I say again, the material you edited is part of a verbatim quote from Time magazine. It is not "POV" or "OR" from a Wikipedia editor. In fact, it was included in the article to counter both of those things. (Please excuse the bolding--this is sensitive stuff in the biography of a living person, and highly subject to miscommunication.)

Before the verbatim quote was added, it was extensively and specifically discussed on the Ann Coulter talk page, HERE. You are welcome to read or skim the discussion, or not, but I hope you will at least look at it.

I can see the flaw in the presentation of the Time magazine material--it isn't specifically highlighted as a verbatim passage. I propose to handle it as a blockquote, and identify it more specifically. Would that satisfy your concerns? Lou Sander 14:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how that is exactly what I said, yes. This discussion is of interest to other editors so PLEASE LEAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE, I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE THIS MORE CLEAR. Jefffire 14:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. "Please use the article talk page for this kind of thing" didn't quite say it in a specific, inambiguous way. Sorry to have bothered you. Please help us all by consulting the article talk page before making edits to the Ann Coulter article.

I apologize for arousing your ire, but I didn't want to embarrass anyone by a more public discussion of somebody editing source material from Time magazine. Lou Sander 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't presented as a quotation, it was presented as fact. I made that abundantly clear. This error was yours. I also made it abundantly clear to discuss these matter on the article talk page. It's clear that there is some kind of inability or unwillingness to understand this on your part, so to avoid further annoyance I will simply remove any further comments you place on my talk page. Jefffire 15:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

McCready to be banned for 10-days on Pseudoiscience articles

You might want to weigh in your thoughts here, if you haven't already. TheDoctorIsIn 18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Message from Tommysun originally on user page

I have added you to the list of parties in my request for arbitration for reasons of deleting verifiable scientific evidence. You said Sounds a load of BS, without anything even approaching an WP:RS. Jefffire 06:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Tommy Mandel 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the above comment here, since Jefffire explicitly asks that comments be posted to his talk page, not his user page. Just thought I should explain. Byrgenwulf 14:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Jefffire 10:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Headgear engineering

Given your interest in cattle mutilation and crop circles, you may wish to comment on the AfD for the Michael Menkin article...I thought it would be a "snowball" delete, but I have been disheartened to see that many editors believe that this tin-foil hat manufacturer (really, that's what he does: his "thought screen helmet" stops alien abductions, you see) needs an article, because New Scientist apparently published a short, sarcastic blab about him (unless the editor in question is lying, which I suppose is also possible). I cannot believe that people can in all seriousness demand that this loon be taken seriously, but they do! So it probably needs a couple more sane voices to get it removed... Byrgenwulf 11:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cattle mutilation

Hi there, Jefffire! I'm a member of Esperanza. User:Perfectblue97 left a message on our Reach Out noticeboard, saying that she felt "bruised". She did not mention your name, but after investigation, I've pieced the story together and figured out that s/he does feel bruised by you. You continuously removed her material from Cattle mutilation. Some of this information was unverified and your removal was justified. However, a better way to handle this next time may be to add {{citationneeded}} after the unverified sentence(s) and leave a message for the user in question. That way, no one's feelings get hurt and the text is not interpreted to be utterly reliable. It also gives the text's adder a chance to verify the facts - or, if you felt up to it, you could do a google search and verify the text. If, of course, something is obviously false, it can be considered vandalism and you absolutely should revert it. Have a great day, and let me know if you need anything! :) Srose (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC) PS: It'd be really good if I'd actually sign my name, eh? :P Srose (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do so. I've tried very hard to reach out to this user but been rebuked. I started out by adding citation tag like you suggested, but there was also material which was clearly wrong as well as unverified. Working slowly once I realised the user was becoming heated, I trimmed some sections which were indisputably OR. I tried to explain this to the user, and have left a lot of material that I very strongly disagreed with on policy grounds, but my concerns seem very much to have been ignored. It's been very distressing for myself that my attempts to work together have been viewed as adversarial and my edits being described as "vandalism". Again, I very much appreciate your time. Jefffire 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I hadn't gone quite that far back. Now I see. In that case, if you don't mind, I can help out so that you can take a break; I'll watchlist the Cattle mutilation article and see if there's anything I can do. I'm sure this ordeal has been quite upsetting for you. If it gets to be more so, you can always open up a request for a third opinion. I'll try to get involved in the article so it's not so distressing to you, although it's difficult for me to be around between 7AM - 3:30PM Eastern Standard time. :) Let me know if you require any intervention or an outside opinion! Srose (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think that this user simply needs a mentor to help with these teething troubles. They've begun to view me as an enemy I believe, which is unfortunate and the most depressing thing about the situation for me. This user has done a lot of work on the article which I have very much welcomed, so I hope they can be amended to Wiki policy. Jefffire 11:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Srose (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

For your patience in dealing with a new user, and to cheer you up per your above message! Srose (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ravnica

Hope you dont mind if I edit / expand your guild descriptions a little bit. I like what you did, but I'm just bored enough to tinker a bit. For example, the Conclave's task isn't to preserve nature, really, that's the Simic job. I will explain that a bit when I update the Conclave / Simic bits. (If you read the website, it's kinda that all the green guilds had the job, in different respects.) Scumbag 03:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic, go right ahead. I'm not a professional writer by any stretch of the imagination so I will make mistakes. Jefffire 08:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Homy

The same for your rv's --Homy 12:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Jefffire 12:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You too, I ADD, you RV --Homy 12:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC) What is WP:bollock I can't find it --Homy 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You add nonsense that isn't even writen properly, that isn't constructive. Removing said nonsense is constructive. The link you seek is WP:BOLLOCKS Jefffire 12:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your POV. Be constructive and write proper, you don't want to reach a consensus at all.

Your problem is you can't deal with the reality of the existence of homeopathy, you find a subjective reason for everything which does not fit your image of the world. Unfortunate homeopathy is there and accept its teachings how much you disagree with it. So prove you want consensus and this matter will be settled, instead of having a derogatory attitude towards homeopathy. --Homy 12:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLLOCKS writes about truth and verifiability. The truth is homeopathy exists and have certain opinions, as you said before: Wiki just reports. I just report what homeopaths think, whether those thoughts are true in your opinion is not important --Homy 12:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified Flying Object

Regarding the account of Alexander the Great: what would you consider a reliable source on UFO sightings? Mapetite526 15:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A reliable source on a siteing by Alexander would be an established website or textbook of history. If it is important, then it will be easy to find the reference. It is very much a bad idea to verify historical events from kook sources. Jefffire 15:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I would like to point out that the reason I reverted the edit is that the person who removed it did not include an edit summary explaining why it was removed. Second, as far as sources are concerned, then the sighting above it (whose source is burlingtonnews.net) should also be removed. In fact, you could call any of the cites for that section unreliable. Mapetite526 16:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You were quite right to be skeptical of a deletion with no edit summary, but the incident drew the paragraph to my attention and I descided to check the sources to try an deduce if the anonymous editor had had a legitimate concern. If the other citings are similarily badly sourced then this is very much a concern. I would err on the side of caution for now and replace the bad references with {{fact}} tags rather than removing them if you think that they can be verified. That would just be a temorary solution because if it does prove impossible to verify them reliably and authoritately then the encyclopedic thing to do would be to either reword them as claims that such sightings happened, or remove them altogether. Jefffire 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've raised the same question on the talk page. Since you wish to make the change it is on your shoulders to justify why each of the sources is unacceptable in context of the subject being studied. Committing potentially controversial edits on a very active and high profile article without first discussing on the talk page is often a bad idea. (I won't be watching this page and I'd appreciate any response to be taken to the UFO article's talk page) Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 23:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw a clear policy violation so I removed it. The sources being used were clearly not authoritative, reliable or respected. If it is a real historical event then it should be an easy matter to verify it from an authoritative source. If it isn't possible then it shouldn't be included. Jefffire 09:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact request

Maybe you could read the cite? [3] Gleng 16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that cite alone is verification enough that the actual cause of the decline in his reputation was his advocacy of vitalism, since it appears to be the authors opinion. It looks like he got a bit funny in his work in later life, which may have had a bigger effect. Perhaps a second cite from a biographer or historian would clinch it? Jefffire 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)