User talk:Robert2957/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Again, I really like the points your are making on the Stephen Barrett article. I encourage to check out the helpful links provided in the Welcome message above and then continue editing with us on Barrett and the related articles. It is always nice to have a fresh set of eyes on the articles. Levine2112 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Levine, just try assume good faith. Of course that is easier said and done, but it is one of the things that most people try and do. Along with be bold with respect to editing articles. Bold edits always run the risk of being reverted but then such issues can be discussed on the talk pages. It can be a slow process. David D. (Talk) 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please use edit summaries
When making edits you will see a space at the bottom designed for writing a short summary of why or what you are doing. -- Fyslee 15:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quackwatch edits
Robert, I noticed your edits on quackwatch and wanted to let you know that I think you are on the right track. Keep up the good work. You'll be a pro in no time. If you need any help with the mechanics, feel free to ask me and I'll see if I can help! --Dematt 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Go take care of yourself so you can come on back and join us. It's raining here, so grab a nice warm blanket and get some rest;) --Dematt 13:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I made some slight changes to your edit on Quackwatch mostly so the link would look better on my machine (I'm not sure how it looks on others), but if I changed the meaning too much, you can change it back. --Dematt 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Oops, it didn't make it:) Let's work with it on the talk page. --Dematt 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Precisely. Even good information for the article isn't always suitable for the lead. -- Fyslee 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Geller's alleged charity work
Greetings, I left a note regarding your recent reverts to the article on Uri Geller. If you have a moment: [1] --Oscar Bravo 08:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Randi's Letters To Geller ?
Dear Jeff Q,
Thank you for your message. If you type in the phrase "leave you to your kismet" in the search engine on the Geller website you will find the passage I mean. Yours sincerely, Robert2957 07:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. I tried this out and found what you were talking about. I was puzzled to see that, for some reason not obvious to me, the URL "http://www.uri-geller.com/books/magician-or-mystic/chapter13.htm/" appears in the address box of several different pages, including both the irrelevant page displayed when clicking on the cited link and the relevant page the search reveals. Since I'm rather preoccupied with other matters at the moment, I'm afraid I didn't take the time to investigate whether there is some reasonable way to provide a more useful link to this information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CA Supreme Court
I saw your post to Arthur (I was posting to his talk page, as well). The CA decision was "proper", based on the plain meaning of the statute. That said, it would not be the first time that Congress poorly drafted a bill. The ruling is also consistent with precedent. However, logically, it makes no sense that a "reposter" of libel would be immune, but a primary publication would not be immune. The effect is the same. Regardless, until or unless the US Supreme Court hears the case, the ruling is both "right" and "proper."Jance 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- My last post was for Arthur. I should have separated it. My apologies.Jance 14:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] your comment
Thanks. I will look at it. I dont have much time today..Jance 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re Patrick Holford
Yep he looks like a piece of work. When it comes to "health treatments" I am very much a skeptic. I am a skeptic about most things, I suppose. I am trained in engineering and math, and come from a family of scientists. Probably as a result, I have generally equated "new age" and "alternative" with "bullshit". However, as I have grown older, I am less inclined to think of "science" as "pure" and "unbiased" as I once did. Peer review stops some but not all of the "Murphy's corollary" (draw the graph, then plot the points).
My reading and editing of WIkipedia articles has been entertaining, at the least. I think Hulda Clark takes the 'cake' - zappers to cure everything including cancer? yikes. I suppose there have been snake oil salesmen since the beginning of time. And some MDs fit into that category too, sadly (I have run into some *licensed* quacks, too). But at least with licensed professionals, there is some showing of knowledge and skill. It would be interesting to see how many people have died from "alternative" quackery v. "licensed" or "traditional" quackery (I use that word loosely here, to include preventable error and just lousy practioners, and lousy mediicne). I wonder if any such study has ever been done.Jance 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re:Talk:Stephen Barrett
"I personally find it very frustrating that no notable critics have so far made my notable criticisms of Barrett." That's the best summary of the situation I've heard yet! --Ronz 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Did I clarify enough? There's nothing we've discussed that even relates to you acting in good faith, so I'm concerned that there's something I'm missing altogether. Let me know if it's not clear now. --Ronz 04:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfM Stephen Barrett
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/Stephen Barrett, 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. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 Archives |
| /Archive 1 |
[edit] Request for Mediation
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett.
|
