User talk:Moondial

Nesting in responses[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to ask if you would consider watching your talk page nesting? That is, responses should be nested one after the other. For instance:

I say something.

You respond.

I respond.

Someone else responds.

The colon here creates a small indent, or two colons a slightly larger one, etc. You have a habit of responding all the way over to the left with no indention, and it really makes discussions on the talk page very hard to follow rather quickly. If you wouldn't mind, it would be much easier to discuss things among one another if you could nest your responses more rigorously. Thank you in advance. — e. ripley\^talk 02:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed your nesting again. — e. ripley\^talk 12:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. Thank you, I appreciate it. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, just learning the ropes. Appreciate the help, and sorry for making a mess of it ;-) Moondial (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no apologies needed and I was happy to do it. I am even happier that we were able to find a way to work together and look forward to more good collaborations. — e. ripley\^talk 17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - and sorry if I got a bit hot under the collar during that. I've had a real battle on my hands just trying to get small things like this changed, it really does seem that there are those editing that particular article who have a real motive to keep one point of view at the forefront. It's been really fustrating.

If you look through the history, you'll see that there have been completely nonfactual poorly sourced, POV stuff allowed in without a problem, and then edits to try to remove them are fiercely blocked. For example the stuff about his birth name, (which came from a comment on the James Randi blog in which he said that a friend told him) this was eventually removed but it took me a heck of a lot of arguing. It previously stated that the YouTube compass clip was in the early 90's, and that Geller shrunk away from public view after this - which was clearly wrong, YouTube wasn't invented in the early 90's - then all the stuff about the You Tube Video, in which I dug up court papers online to prove that the Explorologist Ltd vs. sapient case was in fact about the Dr Hughes clip, not about the compass clip. Again, eventually allowed, but just really frustrating to have such resistance about stuff that I really don't think I should be facing such resistance on. It's even more frustrating when the editors in question don't reply to the discussion, and then revert my edits - this was how I got myself a 3r block recently, I got fed up of people reverting my edits & not replying to my comments in the discussion, and got a bit trigger happy with the old "undo" link ;)

One thing that I really do feel needs changing about this article is the massive amount of content about James Randi, and all the references that come from him. I thought consensus had been previously reached on the discussion page that James Randi shouldn't be used as RS because he is to close to the article & his stuff is self published. I've recently added a new discussion thread in section 11 of the discussion page "NPOV Issue" about this - maybe we could collaborate on this one too? I promise, I will not get wound up this time! ;-)Moondial (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]