User talk:SkepticalRaptor/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:SkepticalRaptor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Another tedious bunch of insults on the homeopathy talk page from sceprap/?????. If you've something to say to me, go for it but on my talk page and not messing up discussion after discussion on the talk pages. Really, your opinion is valued, but why not actually express it clearly? Cjwilky (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on the article with the usual arguments used by POV pushers. It is humorous that you wish to compare the dangers of medicine to the dangers of homeopathy, a typical POV pushing tactic. You want to compare medicine where efficacy has been demonstrated to homeopathy, a placebo. It's a silly argument. Clearly there are not going to be side effects from homeopathy because it's just water and it doesn't do anything, while medicine has demonstrated efficacy. Good luck treating a tumour with homeopathy. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The language you use above as well as the content clearly demonstrates your strong POV. Cjwilky (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

... and what POV is that? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Anti-homeopathy POV for one. "Good luck treating a tumour with homeopathy." takes the POV biscuit. Cjwilky (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not a POV. That's a demonstrable and evidence based fact. Learn the difference. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Another insult for the collection - in ed summary. Am sure will have its use one day, meanwhile its not conducive to co-operation. I hope you can reflect wisely. Cjwilky (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Evidence is an insult water boy? Interesting. Now please listen to your advice, reflect wisely. Also, one day you and your alt med ilk will learn of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Homeopathy has never exceeded the level of spelling evidence accurately. Now, unless you have something really profound to say, please keep your Dana Ullman channeling self off of this page. It really serves no purpose. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "MMR Controversy". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, like I care about what an anonymous troll thinks. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just fyi, I've reverted another edit by User:Jdsg1 on the article. He removed the section regarding its validity again. However, he does have a point...as the way that is phrased is, in my opinion, slightly biased. I've asked him to take it to the talk page, and would advise you to do the same if you have any interest in that article. Regards, --Slazenger (Contact Me) 00:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems everyone here uses different standards for there administrative functions. My changes where discussed on the talk page, I thought that was enough, clearly not vandalism. I do not know what kind of permanent repercussions your your warning represents, but would ask you to remove any if they exist. 12.168.6.143 (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Discuss your unexplained deletions on the article's talk page. Learn how to use edit summaries. I don't care the least bit about your excuses. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If your interested. I'd appreciate it if you could cast an eye on these articles. A lot of the sources are awful and are presented as valid scientific research. Quite a bit of POV-pushing and apologetics, too. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• If you are interested in fringe topics, you may want to keep an eye on WP:FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, no surprise to see you there, eh ;) But, you have just reverted an edit that was fully explained, neutral and 100% water tight. I trust you have an explanation for your revertion, or maybe you could bring it up on the talk pages there? I'll give you a day to work that one out.

<added> Worth mentioning your edit comment here "Per WP:RS reverting unexplained deletion of material.. " which is clearly inaccurate. Cjwilky (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Go whine to the two other editors who also reverted your POV edits. LMFAO. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You sent me a message saying that I deleted stuff from the Atlantic Coast Conference article, although I have no recollection of this.......Go Mizzou 00:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esb5415 (talk • contribs)

Re: [1]

While what Seipjere was doing was an example of deliberately disruptive editing and reverting him was justifiable on those grounds (indeed, I just had an edit conflict with you in making the identical revert), please keep in mind that the term vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. I assure you, I don't dispute that Seipjere is engaged in inappropriate original research and synthesis to push a point of view, that he really doesn't understand how to identify or use reliable sources, and that his persistent I-didn't-hear-that approach is irritating and likely to get him topic banned at some point.

Nevertheless, what he is doing is – by his own crusading lights – not deliberately aimed at damaging Wikipedia. I'm not saying that it isn't damaging, or that the project should indefinitely tolerate his well-meaning damage, only that it isn't his intent to damage. It's therefore not appropriate to call what he's doing vandalism. Feel free to describe it as disruptive or tendentious editing and revert on those grounds. Point out to him that archiving a discussion to an arhive (Talk:Thiomersal controversy/Archive 1) is both normal practice on Wikipedia and not any sort of deletion or 'suppression'.

But don't get sucked into using the same overblown hyperbole that Seipjere does. It doesn't help anything, it won't work on him, and it makes it harder for administrators who come in to this from the outside to see who's behaving reasonably. Sinking to Seipjere's level is only helping him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of a thin line between his "disruption" and outright "vandalism." Seipjere doesn't listen to rational discussion, given that his tendentious commentary on the same subject for months (or has it been years) means my patience with his activities are limited. I was going to just click the Twinkle vandal button just to be really harsh, so know that I backed down a tiny bit. :) SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You know that two wrongs don't make a right. (Note that I'm not drawing a false equivalence between the two wrongs.) Wanting to get that little dig in makes you look less classy when it comes to downstream administrative review, and you run the risk of someone at AN/I saying "well, they both have unclean hands, so we're not going to get involved", useful sanctions against Seipjere fall off the rails, and you – and, selfishly speaking, the rest of us – have to put up with him for another month or two.

As an aside, you should also know that misusing the Twinkle vandalism button is the sort of thing that gets your Twinkle privileges removed. If you're finding that you're tempted to use the buttons more and more often, and write your own summaries less and less, it might be healthy to try some Twinkle-free editing for a week or two. It's too easy to slide into the 'template groove' as one's sole means of communication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, but I kind of resent you're thinking you have some insight into how I might or might not use Twinkle. Obviously, you missed my little smiley that indicated it wasn't a serious thought. And I'll use Twinkle in whatever way makes sense to me. I have those skills on how to use them appropriately, thank you very much. As for the little vandal, no one has done anything about him. Why worry about a future that's not going to happen. Just saying the truth here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I just saw the discussion at Abiogenesis. If you're interested in the explanation I would give (and no weasel was intended, of course) - because of the common misunderstanding of the word "theory," it is easy for someone reading that to dismiss it as "just a theory" whereas if it is presented as a simple factual statement it is much harder to mentally dismiss. And of course it is a factual statement - abiogenesis occurred ~3.5 bya, probably involved several stages, is a process that could be replicated under the right circumstances, etc. I'm not trying to hide it - it just seems to me that reader is more likely to learn that way.

Related comment: if it had been kept I would also have fully written out "scientific theory" rather than just saying "theory." Again, the idea is to reduce ambiguity. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I usually delete comments about article edits that show up here, because it doesn't allow for a more open discussion. Not that many people, except for a couple of trolls, follow my page. And a couple of angry admins too. Anyways, I realize that the layperson misunderstands the word "theory", so it should be Wikilinked to scientific theory. But "theory" has a specific meaning in science, and Abiogenesis is a theory. Theory should describe a mechanism, and we have one generally, a chemical process with energy input. And scientific theories can evolve (yeah, a pun). But it seems like even amateur scientists have no clue what theory means. And there are no facts in science. That's why we have theories, which are about as close to a "fact" as you can find. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I thought this would be a better place since the discussion had moved on, but feel free to delete. Anyways, just as a quick response, I use the term "fact" loosely as a shorthand for "anything confirmed beyond all rational/scientific doubt given our current state of knowledge" - or on Wikipedia, as "anything that has sufficient sourcing to be stated in the editorial voice without qualification or attribution." So I would just say that theories are facts themselves, ones that link other facts together (while recognizing that I am using the term loosely, that there is some level of uncertainty, etc.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello SkepticalRaptor, I just read your message about you deleting an edit that I had done minutes before on the Reptile Wikipedia page. I often save pages at intermediate stages of revisions in case a technical problem occurs, to make sure that I don't lose all my work. I was going to put in references to back up the statement that you deleted. This is now done. Please note that I am a professional paleontologist and systematist (see my web page); I don't edit pages lightly. In the future, I would appreciate, if you object to something that I write, if you contacted me first. If more supporting references are needed, I can easily provide them. But I don't like doing the work twice. Best wishes, Michel Laurin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Laurin (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Reptile. I actually don't care about your beliefs, thoughts, background, or anything else. Either edit properly or don't. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

SkepticalRaptor, thanks for letting me know about the link deletion, but I'm not sure which link you deleted, maybe I'm not looking at the right place on the pg. for any note about it & might find it later. Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/14/12

Would it be safe to say it's a set of hypotheses or an idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.131.18 (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi SR! I need someone with a clear mind and some experience in dealing with controversial articles to give me some input. Never mind if you don't feel like it; I understand this wouldn't be your usual stomping grounds. But if you got the time, could you take a look at Talk:Contras#Estimate on contras' victims and tell me what you think? Thanks. Happy New Year. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:SkepticalRaptor/David G. McAfee, but if you think that my close was either a) based on my own standards, or b) against consensus, you're going to have a bad time. WP:N is the widely agreed upon standard, and every admin will close just about every article that fails it as delete. If you create a new article, but it still doesn't meet WP:N, it's going to end up deleted again. (And conversely, if it does meet it, it should be fine). WilyD 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Saw your revert on the Gardasil page -- was wondering if you've looked at the Diane Harper page, created since then. The content seems to be heavily in the same vein. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is appreciated. ComfyKem (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in commenting here: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/H._Hugh_Fudenberg. Context: [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm new at WP editing and don't really know what I'm doing. I added material to the YDIH page and noticed that you have been a regular editor who has stood up to the promoters so I wanted to draw your attention to it. I also added info in talk which may be of interest. I have no intention of continuing to edit. I just wanted to get the info out there so that regular editors could deal with it in whatever way is appropriate for WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.186.135 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple of small points. The civil case was dismissed by the court because the parties requested a dismissal. Both the criminal case & civil case are federal court cases, e.g., both are heard in a federal district court in San Jose. In these cases it is interesting that both are before the same judge (Edward Davila). For purposes of the article, these are technical points not worth mentioning. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is sad to see you make an analogy which compares Dunning with a brutal psychopath. Sad indeed Hmmmm. I think I misread what you meant. – S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)06:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I was reading your blog post that you linked to on Wakefield talk, and noticed that where you state "paragraph 35 states" and "paragraph 36 states" you have inserted the same quote twice - I don't think you meant to do that. Would you check for me, please? Thanks.

I'm sorry I've ignored the dire warnings at the top of this page, please delete this comment. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Doh. Ive read the blog post again, then the talk page, and eventually cottoned on that you didn't write the blog post. My point remains though. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SkepticalRaptor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove the term "chronic borreliosis" at chronic lyme disease. That it is not commonly used is not interesting in the slightest — that is not the purpose of including synonyms. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Current discussion regarding your talk-page banner at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_banner_a_violation_of_WP:CIVIL. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello SkepticalRaptor, please will you take a look at your green box with a view to toning it down and making it less inflammatory. Point 5 should probably be removed entirely. This is a collaborative (and hence social) environment and your talk page is a valid channel for editors to contact you. Thanks for your consideration. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

As you have chosen not to respond I have removed what most users believe to be the most problematic part of that message. I hope you will still consider rewriting the remainder. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SkepticalRaptor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cari Champion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SportsNation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David G. McAfee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. McAfee until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mramoeba (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

R2 (bleep) 21:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- petrarchan47คุก 16:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mount Melbourne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CE. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, saw you were wanting to restore this article. There's an interview with him on Publishers Weekly here that could possibly be useful for if you do that in the future.Frond Dishlock (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)