User talk:Minderbinder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Minderbinder/Archive/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 3, Issue 13 — 26 March 2007

Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Contents

[edit] re. 3RR on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Sorry, but I put up the U.S. cover, then it was gone, so i put it back up..then i kept doing that. The U.S. cover is so much better, though


[edit] re: copyvio tagging

Good morning. I agree that it would be nice to have been able to tag the copyvio content instead of merely blanking it. Unfortunately, the primary copyvio tag I usually use is {{copyvio}} which is specificially worded for the scenario where the copyvio is a direct copy of some other site. It doesn't apply to this situation (excessive use such that the content no longer qualifies under fair use) and I'm afraid that adding the tag would have created more confusion than clarity.

I do know of several templates that work for non-fair use for images but none for text. If you can point me to such a tag, I will gladly start using it.

And if you can't find an appropriate template either, maybe we should draft one. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm not a copyright expert, which is why I'd try and get others involved. If long plot summaries are truly a copyright risk, it would make sense to have a new template to flag that. Otherwise, you could always solicit additional opinions at the copyright talk page, the WAF page or elsewhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr response edits

Hiya, I was wondering why my minor editing for language didn't take, until I had the bright idea of checking the history of the 3rr page. Might I ask why you removed my edits to correct my own grammar, speling and emphasis?Arcayne 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. I didn't do it on purpose, looks like an edit conflict but I'm not sure why it overwrote your version instead of telling me about the edit conflict. Sorry about that. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ed g2s

Here ya go. That post and the one right below it.--WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just protected the page. When I see people talking through edit summaries and not on the talk page, it's time to protect. Otherwise, what'll happen is that even if Ed gets blocked, the war will probably continue when he returns. Need to try to get everyone to agree. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. FYI, those warnings were from those filing the 3RR report, not a result of it. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't removed any images. ed g2s • talk 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example: [1]. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a redlink - the image has been deleted, check the history before making assumptions of bad faith. ed g2s • talk 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
At the time you removed it from the article (12:21, 28 January 2007), there was an image there, not a redlink. The image was deleted later: 22:03, 7 February 2007. Could you quit making accusations of bad faith, not checking the history (which you're guilty of yourself) and such, and please answer the question? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

You are welcome to remove all of the references to the AA-EVP, me and the book my wife and I wrote. I have every intention to do all I can to keep the facts correct for EVP. Wikipedia is a public forum, and as such, there is a clear obligation that its contents be as correct as possible. So far, there has not been much evidence that you all are able to do that without oversight from someone who know what EVP is. Tom Butler 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try to start an Arbcom case--the POV pushing and edit warring at that article are insane, as well as the continued insistence of the COI editor. Have you prepared one before, or been involved in one?-MsHyde 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It might come to that, but I'd recommend giving it a little time. There have been admin reports for COI and 3RR so someone may step in. Looking at the sources, there may be a case made to just delete the article as not notable since there only seems to be one mention other than fringe sources. Let it play out for a couple days, step back and see if other editors step in. --Milo H Minderbinder 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You Asked For An Example

Milo, in an earlier exchange we had on the COI Disscusion page you asked for an example of the COI circumstances I was talking about. The entire exchange is quoted below but immediately here was your question.

I'd be more concerned about the hypothetical "COI party puts crucial info on the talk page but nobody at AfD notices" situation with an example showing it exists.

I have an article in the AfD category. It is entitled Prometheus Process. It was created and worked on for about a month in good faith before the COI was raised. The COI is clear, acknowledged and I have not participated in the article since. During the initial COI/AfD round, I attempted to provide external references to show NPOV, verifiabilty, and notability. They essentially went ignored and un-acknowledged. In the second AfD round, I added information the the article talk page Talk:Prometheus Process to provide additional references about the article and its subject matter. It contains almost 60 independent links relative to the subject and also provides free access to other reference material.

Yet, this morning when I check out the status of the articles AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process, the only new entries are recommended deletes, where the rationale is Its all about the Contributor, not the contribution. with no acknowledgement or explanation that the information on the article's talk page doesn't support NPOV, Verifiability and notability. Since I cannot participate in the AfD discussion, I have no way to draw attention to the material on the articles talk page. I could engage the other participants directly, but once they've made their vote, they can easily just ignore any of my comments.

COI and AfD Guidelines Do Not Provide Level Playing Field For NPOV Just looking at one pair of statements in the current WP:COI and WP:AFD guidelines show how COI can be used very effectively to suppress NPOV discussions of any article. In WP:COI it says: avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors In WP:AFD it contains the statement: A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment. Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases. One only needs to raise a COI issue, force the article into the deletion category and the current guidelines eliminates any contribution by interested parties. In fact, the phrase "articles related" is so vague that COI can be raised easily with little merit. Once raised however, getting the article into the deletion process is easier because the the contributor and other interested parties with real or percieved COIs have been eliminated from any debate. The phrase "public debate and discussion" and "seriously contested" in the AFD guidelines may sound collaborative, but are not given the COI guidelines because the COI guidelines eliminate some of those in the public who might want to discuss, debate and contest the merits and deletion with facts, references and clarifications. This effectively suppresses any real debate of the NPOV of the article.--Mike Cline 12:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC) If an article goes to AfD, involved parties shouldn't participate in the AfD discussion, it doesn't mean they can't still make comments on the article talk page. If people are biased against a company, they're probably more likely to keep an article and leave in negative information about the company. Are you aware of any cases where articles were deleted purely based on POV? Whether an article exists certainly shouldn't be decided by editors with COI, as far as I'm concerned, that's potentially worse than editing an article. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, my concern may actually be one of tactics, it is not that an involved party decides on the deletion, but merely contributes to the body of information used to evaluate the deletion decision. If indeed an involved party can freely, and without being labeled COI, identify all the relevant information neccessary to evaluate an article's notability, NPOV, etc. on article's discussion page before making recomendations to keep or delete the article AND those commenting on the AfD page have in good faith reviewed and continue to review all that relevant information on the discussion page, then "public debate and discussion on the merits of the article" has been allowed. However, should COI guidelines discourage even the hint of discussion by involved parties on the disscussion page or anywhere else for COI or any other reason and that deletion decision makers don't refer or review the articles discussion page during the deletion process, then the real public debate is stifled. It is really just too easy for someone involved in an AfD discussion to say "I can't find anything" relevant to this article, when they don't know where or how to look for it. They take one shot at it and that's it. The presence of a negative does not prove the positive. I hope you see my point.--Mike Cline 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I find it unlikely that in the case of an AfD, none of the editors participating, and no editor supporting keeping would either point to the talk page, or copy relevant information either into the article itself or the AfD discussion. This seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist - can you provide an example of this hypothetical problem actually happening? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, I must admit that I do not, in the least, understand what you just said. 1) DO or DO NOT editors, mediators and senior contributors participating in an AfD discussion review and refer to information on the disscusion pages of the articles under consideration? 2) If they do, is it evaluated from an NPOV perspective regardless of who contributed it?--Mike Cline 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Editors should do both. And if relevant info is posted on the article talk page, I think it's likely that an "uninvolved" editor will either point it out on the AfD or copy it there (or put it in the article if it's appropriate). I'd be more concerned about the hypothetical "COI party puts crucial info on the talk page but nobody at AfD notices" situation with an example showing it exists. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, thanks I appreaciate your thoughts on this.--Mike Cline 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreaciate your thoughts on this. In good faith, all I desire is that the article's subject be included in Wikipedia because it can be written from an NPOV, it is notable and verifiable according to WP guidelines. If it is not, then I would like someone to point out why?

Thanks --Mike Cline 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was very surprised by your deletion vote on the Prometheus AfD page, especially the comment that most of the references were written by people who invented the term. Did you look at the references under the links section grouped under "Prometheus Process Related Case Studies". All that material is independent 3rd Party stuff, that I nor my company had any direct involvement in creating. Why are these types of references not suitable to show the notability of a widely used business process? I would think that independent articles partially crediting the award of the Baldridge National Quality Award to a specific Business Process would provide notability, but I may be wrong! Please address this for me.--Mike Cline 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverting Barrington Hall

Thanks for the reminder. I have not touched that article since yesterday and have no intention of getting into another pointless edit war with User:Hipocrite. Once consensus is established (if ever) we will work from there. Thanks again. Cheers. L0b0t 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

It appears you're getting perilously close to RFA cliche #1 :) as such, perhaps you'd be interested in a nomination? >Radiant< 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cliché 1? What's that? And are you talking about RfA RFA? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm very flattered, I wouldn't think there'd be any risk of mistaking a newbie like me for an admin. The idea of trying to become an admin interests me, but I feel like I don't have enough time and experience under my belt yet, particularly with writing articles. If in a few months you still see me plugging away and feel the same way, feel free to ask me again at that point. Thanks for the offer, it means a lot to me. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elonka

Comment from Elonka: Have you tried an actual RFC yet? If not, I highly recommend it as a way to bring in some fresh eyes. It would also be helpful to try and boil down the dispute into a single sentence/question, so that it's easier for outside people to comment. I have to admit that I spent about an hour reading the discussion, and I couldn't entirely tell where to weigh in, because the core issue was difficult to identify. For example, pick a specific change to the article that keeps getting reverted back and forth, cite both versions on the talkpage, and ask for community input on which version to use, or for help in coming up with a compromise version.
Thoughts? --- LuckyLouie 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Creating a workshop version is a consideration. IMO, the article as it stands is a vestige of the Tom Butler-designed rewrite that occurred a few months ago when WikiProject Paranormal took on the article as a "collaboration of the month" project. At that time, a decision was made to write the article from a scientifically credible POV, using AA-EVP sources as citations. IMO, it went downhill from there. You are correct in assuming that the article may stand for some time as it is, due to a consensus of pro-EVP editors. However at some point, fresh eyes will arrive, note the POV problems, and the battle will begin anew.
Are there other articles about controversial fringe-science-paranormal topics that we can look to as a guide? Specifically I was thinking of Dowsing. There may be others. --- LuckyLouie 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at Bigfoot, Loch ness monster seems pretty good as well. Looking at the featured article list, the only one that comes close is Nostradamus. It uses phrases like "...his enthusiasts...credit him with predicting..." and prominiently mentions academic sources not supporting the idea that he had true predictions. I'm thinking the easiest way to start would maybe try and edit the intro so that it gives a better perspective - I tried moving the Status section into the intro but was reverted. A rewrite that includes that info would probably be better anyway. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been following progress on this article for a while. That said, I don't expect to resolve its problems in a week. Or a month. It's sort of a long-term proposition. Taking frequent breaks helps. :-) OK, let's look at your proposed intro:

  • Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is the phenomenon of anomalous voices said to be of paranormal origin heard on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.
  • While EVP has been studied, the publication of this research has been in journals specializing in the paranormal and other topics outside the mainstream. The concept has not been accepted by mainstream science. Critics say that what is percieved as EVP is radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech). Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as psychokinesis or messages from spirits, extraterrestrials, or other dimensions.
  • EVP has appeared in popular culture such as television reality shows, books, and fictional works.

Here I must represent the concerns of User:ScienceApologist who had very specific issues with the acceptance of EVP as a valid phenomenon. (He's on a Wikibreak, but he'll be back). If you look over the discussion from a few weeks ago, you'll see he has some very compelling arguments based on WP:FRINGE. Basically, what he was saying is that EVP is an "alleged" phenomenon. It is a "phenomenon" that is only recognized by its proponents. The vast majority of the scientific community do not recognize EVP as anything other than a belief. I tend to agree with that assessment. Therefore we must make it clear that it's an "alleged phenomenon that proponents say is X". So, a better opening might be:

*Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is said by proponents to be anomalous voices of paranormal origin heard on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.

--- LuckyLouie 22:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that (although I'll bet that wording will have more opposition). Any other suggestions? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page features

You asked me earlier for the email of another user and I couldn't answer your question. I have since discovered the "Email this user" feature on the left hand sidebar beneath the "search box". Basically you go to a users page and, if they have email enabled, click "email this user" and Voila. Hope this helps. --- LuckyLouie 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP message

Thanks for your note. I hadn't seen that and have now reverted my edited and chimed in a little bit on the page in question. (Proposal 4, I think, offers the best way forward.) semper fictilis 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes; and the edits were pretty minor with no change in meaning. But they ended up with a different current text than the one being discussed in the sandbox, which could become counter-productive. Anyway, all the best, semper fictilis 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shannon

excuse me, could you just explain me why the hell don't you let people know that "hearts and minds" tells not only boone's but shannon's story? the truth is obviously stronger than a stupid consensus of three persons against one!! so stop ommiting information please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vozas (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Catch 22

Am I the first one to notice that your username is the same as a character in Catch 22? One of my top 10 books, by the way. Cla68 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're about the third...it's nice when people catch the reference instead of thinking it's "mindbender" or something like that. And yeah, great book. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I strongly considered using User:Hungry Joe before settling on my current username. MastCell 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think some of us choose the character from that book that we feel we identify with the most or that we find the most intresting or compelling. I identify most with Orr. I've had some interesting conversations on this topic with others in unexpected places. Once when I was walking down the street late one weekend night in Hachinohe, Japan about 11 years ago I started talking to a vendor from Israel selling jewelry on the street. Somehow the conversation drifted to Catch-22 and we discussed which character we most identified with. He said his was Milo. It was one of those random conversations with a stranger that stays in your memory. Cla68 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly note!

Just a friendly note about this entry, to say that if you really believe there is a COI there, then I would follow the WP:COI guideline on how to handle conflicts of interest. Anything else (such as the comments on Davkal's page, are borderline personal attacks, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." It's much better to WP:AGF and avoid even the appearance of such an attack. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made no disparaging remarks or personal attacks, just pointed out the affilitation and potential COI that Tom has freely admitted to. I have also made no suggestions of dismissing or discrediting their views, simply pointed out that Tom's COI exists. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR at John Edward

You have reverted the article John Edward three times in the last twenty four hours, please don't revert it again (and please don't revert war in general), you may be blocked per WP:3RR. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly have not! My first edit of the tag was not a reversion, it was an edit. I have have reverted your edits twice. I suggest you take your own advice about 3RR. Don't leave any furhter bogus warnings on my talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're attempting to add in the book cover edit, forget it - that's a single stand-alone reversion. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Take it to an administrator then. In the meantime keep your false warnings off my talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I award you The Barnstar of Diligence

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I award you the Barns tar of Diligence for tireless pursuit of violations of Wikipedia policy. Including reporting those who violated the for theWP:3RR in the John Edward article. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


The Original Barnstar
You deserve a Barnstar for your tireless attention and contributions to the Electronic voice phenomenon article. - LuckyLouie 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you help?

I'm having a bit of trouble getting the Parapsychology article NPOV. Right now it's nothing more than a bias rant. Do you think you can spend some time helping me improve it? Wikidudeman (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have a minute. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're trying to do, but it's pretty pointless to delete almost the entire article to try to make it NPOV. Try something else. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I got it now. Okay, go ahead. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
All clear. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 17:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

This project seeks to help add neutrality and factual accuracy to all articles related to paranormal whatnot. Please join. Just add your name to the Project team.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOST

Give me some time to read through the discussions.--Isotope23 01:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually think that Russell29 (talk • contribs) has a pretty good middle ground with this edit. Thoughts?--Isotope23 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I like that edit as well. The sticky bit seems to be the infoboxes and tables where there isn't room/format to do a "sort of featured/flasbacked" compromise. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not exactly sure how to address it there. IMO at least, it is a judgment call whether or not these were "Boone" or "Boone/Shannon" episodes, sans any sort of "official" word from ABC, etc. It's not clear cut. The only clear cut dual flashback was Rose/Bernard.--Isotope23 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If it is a judgement call, isn't the solution just to go with consensus of editors? Looking at the discussion, do you feel there's consensus? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:36, 27 February 2007
I'd say go with WP:CONSENSUS. I reverted the episode change already as well as asked the editor to stop calling edits "minor" when they are not.--Isotope23 19:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Assuming he keeps reverting this (he has been since November), is there anything that can be done to try to get him to stop, or is this just something that will get reverted indefinitely? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think marking them as "Boone" flashbacks featuring "Shannon" is the best solution. If the reverts continue without comment or an attempt to discuss on the talkpage, let me know. When you have one editor ignoring consensus it can start to wander into WP:TE territory. If I could offer any advice, I'd try an RfC or RfM to see if a WP:CONSENSUS can go on record. Like I said on the talkpage, what I don't want to see is a slow moving edit war where depending on what time of day someone looks at the article will determine which version they see. I've already been involved in that sort of thing elsewhere.--Isotope23 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've protected the articles for the time being, pending a discussion.--Isotope23 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I will handle it Isotope23 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

you don't have a word in this. you have as much consensus as me so leave me alone and find a solution

[edit] 3RR

Apparently you were correct about my having violated 3RR, according to some of the admins the first edit I made to remove the NPOV tag would have been a revert. Something I completely disagree with, but will abide by. So, I apologize to you for the comments I made and the attitude I displayed. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. Maybe you missed it, but your removal of the tag wasn't taking it off after the mediation, but was reverting the re-addition of it (after someone else had already removed it per the mediation). Splitting hairs, I know, but still a revert of a fresh edit. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's splitting hairs a little too close for my comfort - and not something I would have done to another editor - but I must bow to the truth of the matter. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You and Dreadlocke

Lighten up dude. I'm trying to get him to work with you. In no way is that a personal attack. – Lantoka (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think you misread my comment. I didn't say that you're unilaterally disrupting consensus, I said you think Dreadlock is. – Lantoka (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't get angry with me

  • I know you don't like me, but please don't post unnecessary comments like this on my talk page. It does nothing to contribute to the discussion. --SilvaStorm

[edit] Blog Link

The WP policy is that blogs may be linked if they are written by a recognized authority. The 'official' status of my blog happened about a week ago, and there are plans for news of this to appear on the web but it may be another week or two before it happens. I won't be linking to my blog again, but if someone else were to be so inspired, they could certainly make the case that it should remain. Keep in mind that Public Parapsychology is not a personal blog, it was created to relay news in the field and be a resource to the general public.--Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zealous Overuse of NPA Template and Continued Accusations of Personal Attacks

Dude, what the hell is your problem? This and this are not personal attacks, yet at the first sign of trouble you rush to the NPA template. Do you know how rude it is to keep accusing your fellow editors of personal attacks like this? I really suggest you re-read WP:NPA, since these two latest examples clearly don't qualify.

As you say, "comment on content, not contributors". Well, behavior is content... unless you'd like to argue it's a contributor. Behavior can and is discussed: by admins, by mediators, by ArbCom, by fellow users, even by posting that NPA template you keep leaving on people's talk pages. – Lantoka (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. I'd suggest reading WP:CIVIL as well. My "zealous" action was simply to ask the two editors to cease their negative comments about other editors. We'll see if that happens - hopefully further action won't be required. And for the record "Dude, what the hell is your problem?" probably isn't the most civil comment either. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt posting that template on established user's talk pages will do anything but exacerbate the situation. It's considered highly rude. I've seen admins remove the template when it's posted to their talk pages, for example. And it's just insulting when you use the template and what they've posted isn't even a personal attack. Seriously, read WP:NPA. And furthermore, I described your action as zealous because you have a history of (in my interpretation of the policy) incorrectly accusing people of personal attacks.
Trust me, I'm not the only one that's gonna be pissed over this. I'm just a spectator and it's making my blood boil. How do you think MartinPhi and Dreadlocke are gonna react when they see that? You would have been better off either ignoring the comments, or if that's not acceptable then responding directly on the talk page as you did to MartinPhi. – Lantoka (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to ignore the an uncivil comment, but they continue to do so, even after the situation has moved on and there's no reason to discuss earlier edits. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Linus

The page didn't even have a discussion to decide whether it should be moved to the shorter title in the first place, so there is nothing wrong with moving it back. --SilvaStorm

[edit] Answers to Comment on Talk:John Edward

The current version of the lead came from discussion on the talk page, not mediation (and I never did see the second mediation, where is it?). And it certainly can be modified further. Editors just need to know that there have been long discussions about it, and that edits to the intro will be heavily scrutinized and probably edited or reverted if people don't agree - a change just needs editors to agree on it. In other words, it's like many other articles here on wikipedia. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I said. I included references to mediation to emphasize what a hotly debated topic that is. Hopefully it'll make somebody overly rash think twice before totally rewording our lead into something completely POV. And also, I didn't say that it can't be modified further, I just said it should be discussed on the talk page first. As for what mediation, well, Stevertigo kind of got pushed out in the middle and opted to stay out of things, but that doesn't mean that it didn't go through mediation. In fact the case is technically still open... I just posted about that though. – Lantoka (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I know about the one mediation, where's the other one? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, you'd probably have to dig through the talk page archives. I know there's two because people kept bringing it up during this one though. – Lantoka (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOST Articles

I'd strongly suggest that when Vozas (talk • contribs) returns from his latest block you initiate an article WP:RFC and try to get some outside input from editors who are not normally contributors here to form a consensus. Out of courtesy I'd wait until he returns to editing so he has a chance to argue his side if he chooses to do so.--Isotope23 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITC

Please read the last paragraph on page 5 of "Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon" by Imants Baruss.

"For example, during the time of his burial service, at 1:22 p.m. on October 21, 1987, Friedrich Jürgenson’s image purportedly appeared on the blank screen of the television set deliberately tuned to a vacant channel in the home of Claude Thorlin, with whom Jürgenson had previously worked on EVP"

This directly supports the statement made.

perfectblue 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost template

I can tell you basically follow every edit I do on Wikipedia, so please answer me this: If you spent ages recreating a template from scratch to fit Wikipedia, do you think you'd like other users to come along and nom it for deletion for useless reasons, such as claiming its broken (when it's not) or saying it is copied from Lostpedia. Sure I used the Lostpedia template as a guide, but I had to change things to make it fit in here. And what makes it worse is that the guy who nominated it - who doesn't even have an account - made it temporarily mucked up in the first place. It is a perfectly working and handy template that should be allowed to stay, and is made easier by the fact that it is "ep" and not "Lostep" which takes longer to write. I would've thought you'd agree with me, but I see I cannot win, so it is most likely going to be deleted. Thanks a lot. --SilvaStorm

I didn't nominate it, and I didn't claim it's broken. If you're going to introduce a major change that could potentially affect dozens of pages, I'd suggest discussing it first instead of "EPISODE TITLE TEMPLATES MUST STAY!" --Milo H Minderbinder 12:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep an eye on an article for me?

You've been pretty helpful in the past, so could you help me out? Just a simple thing...

An article that I'm trying to improve is constantly being vandalized. Specifically people keep removing a picture from it for baseless personal reasons. The article is Bodybuilding and the image is the 1st one listed in "Areas of Bodybuilding" with the caption "Natural bodybuilder posing." The image isn't the best image in the world but it's the best FREE image I have that fits the description listed. So can you keep an eye on it for me? I have a feeling it will be removed from new users pretty frequently and I can't watch it 24/7. So if you see that it's been removed can you add it back as it was? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP edits

Some of the edits and comments are mine, but some are not. I don't have the time to pick through them right now. A general glance through the edits and comments do not seem to indicate anything particularly problematic about the IP comments even when they are not mine. So I will take ownership for all the edits even though they aren't mine just to make things easier. --ScienceApologist 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martinphi

Michael, I just wanted to let you know I've filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi. Sorry I didn't get it in quick enough to help your 3RR situation. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. You might want to file a CheckUser request too. But I am still confused as to why User:Stifle thought I had violated 3RR. Michaelbusch 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in; I've been following the EVP talk page from time to time, ever since I noticed a certain MsHyde there. The likelihood that Myriam Tobias is a sockpuppet of Martinphi is very high, based on, among other things, the timing of their edits (often edit in the same general time frame but don't overlap at all). If you have the diffs to indicate that the account was used to violate WP:3RR, which it appears you do, I'd second the suggestion that you go right to a checkuser request. MastCell 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I've filed the request. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You might want to double-check the diffs you've cited at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi; a few don't match the date/time stamp you've listed. Might be worth just cut-and-pasting the relevant 4 diffs to WP:RFCU to make it easier on the checkuser. OK, I'll stop bugging you now. MastCell 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Not bugging at all, thanks for catching those. I've added diffs to RFCU and fixed those in the sockpuppet case. I'll double check them again, but if you find any more mistakes on either page please let me know. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uninvolved

The same verbiage appears on Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Header, and WP:BAN. >Radiant< 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Pseudoskepticism

I have taken it to CfD. — BillC talk 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. --Minderbinder 20:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Purported" Psychics

Are you the one responsible for the change to "Purported psychics" and "Purported spiritual mediums"? If so, would you please tell me the steps to request that it be changed back? The word "Purported" is not neutral, in my opinion. I should have been allowed to participate in the original discussion, but no one told me about it.--Caleb Murdock 12:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of having a discussion about changing a category name if almost no one knows about the discussion?--Caleb Murdock 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP Arb

My initial impression is that a mediator who will have to bring in 3rd parties to help him interpret physical science concepts is not desirable in this particular case. --- LuckyLouie 23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...

Um, get out of my talk page and mind your own business. I can do that if I like because it is way too long, so leave it alone. --SilvaStorm

[edit] Checkuser

Wow, you're becoming a regular at WP:RFCU! 2 for 2, not bad. It's a sad statement on the state of affairs at EVP, though - I thought maybe after MsHyde/Cindery's unceremonious exit, things might improve. MastCell Talk 03:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

Can I help at EVP? (So you know ahead of time, I think the whole notion's thoroughly debunked codswallop) Cheers. Gwen Gale 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TAPS

I don't see how you can take that stuff out: while you can read about the reactions of all those people in the forums it should be quite clear that all of the complaints of the fans were based on information from specific TAPS para-radio shows. How can you say that a show is not a valid or encyclopedic source? --Ira-welkin 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crop circle

We were both attempting the same thing on this article and our edits clashed, with the result that I probably rolled back an edit you intended to make. You might want to check the article again. — BillC talk 16:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Thanks for letting me know. --Minderbinder 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eavesdropping at the Village Pump

One real example is Electronic voice phenomenon, where they have insisted that the "scientific consensus" should only include EVP experts, and thus should be presented as the mainstream view (including listing fringe theories first and in more detail). They have insisted on including details of some experiments that were self published or released via press conference because they are "historical". They have insisted on presenting details of an experiment as fact even when it hasn't been reproduced or had third party verification of methods or equipment. They have insisted on listing credentials that are either unsourced or sourced to questionable fringe publications. They have insisted on removing terms like "alleged", "purported", "said to be" etc in favor of phrasing that flat out says that unproven concepts actually exist. It has been argued that an article on a given topic should have all info that we can find, regardless of reliability because "that's what the reader wants" or "it's interesting".

Wow. I couldn't have described it better. --- LuckyLouie 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Wire episodes

Noting that you edited List of The Wire episodes within the last few months I wonder if you have an opinion about the use of screenshots in this article and would welcome your opinion here if you have time.--Opark 77 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Edward

Hi

This topic is getting really fucking boring, and the cabal of Dreadlocke and Martinphi are over there revert warring just now, I have spent 3 reverts over there but they are still at it....sad eh? Belbo Casaubon 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

While the topic is getting boring, that's no reason to make personal attacks. What's up with that comment you left? --Minderbinder 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolm McNab

I noticed your comment on the Trumpet article questioning whether Malcolm McNab is "truly among the great modern trumpet players" and I thought I'd comment. It's a fair question since McNab has labored for most of his professional career in relative obscurity, showing flashes of brilliance only through the haze of studio orchestral soundtracks. If this was as far as he went I would not have added his name to the article. However, all that changed last November upon the release of his Exquisite album. I have studied trumpet for many years and I have never (repeat) never heard better classical trumpet playing. Most of the artists mentioned in the article are of the jazz genre. Although I have listened to my share of Bill Chase, Maynard Ferguson and many others, comparing the range and technique of these artists to a classical master like McNab is a bit like trying to compare a Picasso to a Rembrandt. Both are brilliant, but each in its own way. Whether you are yourself a trumpet player, or even just interested in uncovering a true gem for your own edification, I highly recommend that you acquire a copy of McNab's Exquisite. If you do, I believe that you will agree with me that McNab is one of the great trumpet players of our time, and perhaps one of the greatest of all time.

This is the first comment I have ever posted. Please excuse any unintended breaches in protocol.

Rwl10267 01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. And you've got the commenting thing down, header, signed your post, no problems. --Minderbinder 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again

We're up for another round of "I like polls so we may not recommend against them" on WP:PNSD. Please comment. >Radiant< 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Materialization

As I understand it, materialization was studied by the SPR and such folks during the spirit medium days (mediums manifesting ectoplasm, etc.). Also I believe Uri Geller claimed to manifest stuff, and he was/is studied by Parapsy. If you think this subject should rightly belong in the parody section, let me know. I see WP has an article called Materialization which someone has plastered the term Parapsychology all over. LuckyLouie 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No progress in EVP mediation

I'm puzzled by our mediator's lack of involvement. Could it be he's waiting for you to complete your "statement"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13_Electronic_Voice_Phenomenon#State_your_position) --- LuckyLouie 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Thnks for your welcome..I notice you are sceptical of the other side, why is that?? Crystal Healer 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/n/User_talk%7EMinderbinder_dab5.html"