User talk:Tmciver

Thanks, Tom. In the course of this discussion both you and Al have provided many sources for me to check and I will read them carefully to make sure they say what they are claimed to say. Thatcher131 17:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the talk pages, all edits are kept in the database unless an administrator deletes it. If something is erased from the page, it can still be accessed using the history tab on the page. Clicking on a particular entry's date and time brings up that version of the page, and if you use the radio buttons to pick two versions and use the Compare feature, you will get not only a displayed version comparison, but the url in your browser window is a permanent link to that particular page history (it's called a "diff" in wikipedia terms). The diff should be good indefinitely and anywhere (e-mail, another web page, etc). Certain legal threats however may fall into the category of edits that should be deleted by an admin, so please don't threaten any legal action within wikipedia's pages. I gave Al the same info. There is a policy, No legal threats. However as far as I know, no edits have yet been deleted.

Also there is another policy Biographies of living people that I wasn't previously fully aware of, as this is the first time I have been this deeply involved in contested biography. Please read it carefully. It does appear that negative information is held up to a particularly close inspection. For example, the Blumka case really doesn't belong on wikipedia at all. Seckel's antique business, or whatever, is not part of his notariety (his reason for being on wikipedia). His entry should not discuss it. (If his claim to fame rested on being an antique dealer it would be a different story.) Regarding one other item you mentioned today, his Cal Tech affiliation, I have found articles in Science and Nature that include this claim, so I will be restoring it, in a modified form. True he has not published in peer-reviewed journals, but he doesn't claim so, and it's really not up to wikipedia to figure out why not. I can think of half a dozen maybes but I won't even bother to write them down. I found sufficient info on the Cornell web site alone to show that Seckel was invited to give a talk by a faculty member there and his book is used in at least one of their courses. That (plus Science and Nature) is good enough to call him an "expert" as far as I am concerned. Certainly more of an expert in how illusions are perceived than in the biology of visual cortex neurons, but that's just a matter of making sure the article is accurate.

I've been deep in another project tonight so I won't be able to work on the article very much until late tomorrow. I will consider everything carefully. Thatcher131 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't spend any more time on wikipedia until after work. However, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Many things, like CalTech, the contest, and "world's leading expert" just need to be carefully rewritten. I will continue to make adjustments as time permits, starting tonight. Yes, unfortunately (from your point of view) certain claims that you would like to be included can not be at this time. (Short of my flying out to California, interviewing you, and writing a book about the SCS) Thatcher131 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

If you are reasonably content with the content of the article then let it be for the moment. I will try and deal with his remarks. I have about 50 pages of material now and although I didn't make copies, I did read the amicus article in SI last night and noticed the same thing. All in all I think the article is better now and I'm glad you agree. Thatcher131 15:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make one final comment. Seckel has removed your inclusion of his academic credentials. I strongly urge you to let it lie, because you can not prove your contention under the reliable source policy. If you continue to insist that this issue is a problem, I can't see any outcome other than you adding it and him deleting it over and over again, which would lead to both of you being banned from editing the article and blocked from editing in wikipedia if you violated the article ban. I'm sorry I have to say this as I know you have sincere and strongly held beliefs. But wikipedia is not a battleground, and the policy on Verifiability is not one of the Five Pillars for nothing. The allegation is so serious I know of no way to deal with it within the normal wikipedia system. The No legal threats policy requires that users with legal issues stop editing wikipedia and deal with the issues with the Foundation's attorney rather than within the pages of the encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. Thatcher131 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that most (if not all) of the legal threats have been removed from the various pages and are no longer viewable by ordinary users of the encyclopedia (the sysops and developers still have access but that is a very small number of people). To contact the Foundation, try the Contact Wikipedia link on the left-hand side of every page. Thatcher131 14:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can also try http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home and click on contact us on the left-hand side. Thatcher131 14:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Thanks. Feel free to send more, as and when, but probably best to alert me via Wikipedia (I don't edit much these days and check email even less often) Testbed (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email about Al Seckel

I got your email about the article on Al Seckel. I agree with what others have said, that you should not edit the bio of someone with whom you have a personal connection that gives you a strong opinion, pro or con. If you have suggestions for improvements to the article, you can of course propose them on the article talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got your second email about Al Seckel. Please do not send me any more email about this or anything else. Your attempts to influence other editors regarding an article should be made publicly, on the talk page of the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

I added your name to an ANI that had been filed concerning Ronz, and requested that you be blocked from editing the talk page of Al Seckel. Please respond there if you feel your presence there helps the encyclopedia. Fortunately, you long ago created and still maintain undeceive.weebly.com, a website entirely devoted to "exposing" Al Seckel, so anybody who wants to hear your opinions on him can go there. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My presence does help with the Seckel entry, which began as a self-promotional self-written puff piece, and though now greatly improved, still contains errors, misrepresentations and such that I can point out. I was banned from editing the entry itself because Seckel sued me, supposedly making me "biased" regardless of the merits or outcome of the case (the comments he alleged were "libel" have been more than vindicated, and I even proved perjury regarding his credential claims). Recently, I began adding some comments to the talk page only, as new editors were working on the entry in light of new published information about Seckel. I had e-mailed you directly to explain why my input could be helpful even though I was banned from editing the entry itself, and you told me--twice--to send any comments to the talk page. Then you told me, in the talk page itself, not to contribute anything to the talk page (due to my "bias"), directly contradicting yourself. However, I am not interested in trying to continue any involvement with Wikipedia. The truth is coming out about Seckel, despite his decades of dishonesty and legal intimidation of anyone critical of him or his claims. I am proud that I had a large part in that, despite his huge efforts and expense to silence me.Tmciver (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The truth about Seckel is that he was a very talented person as well as a very flawed one. Good to hear you are now happy about the decades you devoted to trying to make public the second half of that equation. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "happy," I said "proud." Nor did I "devote decades"--my involvement was quite intermittent, as the record shows. You know "the truth" about Seckel? His talent was promotion, primarily self-promotion, and getting people to believe him. Many brilliant people did find him believable, and talented. Many others realized he was a fraud and imposter, who simply parroted other people's ideas passed off as his own, spouting buzzwords such as "transformative" and "mind shift."Tmciver (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a COI

Hi Tmciver. I'm assuming that you have some awareness of the changes to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies and enforcement made over the time you've had this account. Please work from edit requests or simple statements where you identify sources. Interjecting your personal opinions into discussions can be extremely detrimental to attempts at addressing POV concerns. Your help with finding references is welcome. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Tmciver! You created a thread called New article advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]