User:Will Beback/TimidGuy appeal

POV-advancing edits by user:TimidGuy between 2010-06-04 and 2011-09-06.


 * 1) 2010-06-04T10:51:10 makes an unsourced assertion based on personal knowledge
 * 2) 2010-06-07T11:07:06 uses OJ's website as a source for promotional material
 * 3) 2010-06-07T10:53:12 argues against including criticism of TM research
 * 4) 2010-06-12T11:27:14 argues against including criticism of TM research
 * 5) 2010-06-07T11:23:16 Again adds assertion about number of studies
 * 6) 2010-06-09T11:06:39 favorable description of studies
 * 7) 2010-07-06T11:26:03 waters down criticism of TM research
 * 8) 2010-07-09T11:20:50 Again adds the number of studies
 * 9) 2010-07-13T11:08:06 Again cites OJ's views
 * 10) 2010-07-13T11:33:12 Argues agaisnt criticism of TM research
 * 11) 2010-07-15T10:40:27 argues for promotional material
 * 12) 2010-07-15T11:05:02 removes negative research findings
 * 13) 2010-07-15T11:09:42 Again cites OJ's views
 * 14) 2010-07-17T11:15:41 Argues over removing negative material based on personal experience
 * 15) 2010-07-17T11:35:46 suggests using Google news metric for deciding how to weight scientific issues
 * 16) 2010-07-18T11:16:51 argues against using a critical source
 * 17) 2010-07-18T10:57:40 argues agasint a critical secondary source based on primary sources and personal knowledge
 * 18) 2010-07-25T11:20:30 Once again adds OJ as a rebuttal
 * 19) 2010-07-28T11:11:40 Again adding rebuttals from OJ
 * 20) Defends use of the MUM website for information which isn't there. When questioned he says it should be there soon. He later indicates that he was in discussion with the webmaster about adding it.
 * 21) 2010-08-07T11:21:03 argues for watering down critical material on TM research
 * 22) 2010-08-08T10:42:35 argues against including independent research which isn't positive towards TM
 * 23) 2010-08-08T10:53:03 attacks Jmh649
 * 24) 2010-08-07T11:25:29 accuses Jmh649 for having a "tendency to misrepresent" sources
 * 25) 2010-08-19T11:10:54 opposes Jmh649's RFA on account of alleged misrepresentation of sources
 * 26) 2010-09-25T16:54:22 calls AE a "sham"
 * 27) 2010-10-10T10:35:23 waters down nonpositive research findings
 * 28) 2010-10-14T11:32:19 Seeks to remove informaiton connecting a researcher to th TM movement
 * 29) 2010-10-24T11:06:38 participates in bloc voting with other editors regarding content of main TM article
 * 30) 2010-10-30T11:30:23 deletes sourced negative comment
 * 31) 2010-10-31T11:20:05 notes existence of criticism, but quotes praise
 * 32) 2010-11-05T11:19:03 cherry picks praise from source that was mostly critical
 * 33) 2010-11-08T12:05:00 more bloc voting on content of main TM article
 * 34) 2010-11-09T18:34:33 suggests removing negative material
 * 35) 2010-11-12T12:12:07 argues against using critical sources
 * 36) 2010-11-13T11:49:43 argues against using critical sources
 * 37) 2010-11-27T11:43:09 denigrates a well-respected source
 * 38) 2010-12-02T11:57:23 denigrates a critical scholarly source
 * 39) 2010-12-10T11:43:11 adds rebuttal in the middle of a section summarizing a source
 * 40) 2010-12-20T11:51:09 defends the use of sources written by non-independent sources for medical claims
 * 41) 2010-12-20T16:38:11 edit warring over medical claims
 * 42) 2010-12-20T12:25:39 adding more medical claims
 * 43) 2010-12-22T12:45:16 arguing over medical claims
 * 44) 2010-12-22T12:46:58 edit warring over medical claims
 * 45) 2010-12-24T12:42:17 adding medical claims
 * 46) 2010-12-28T11:58:42 waters down criotical material
 * 47) 2010-12-29T12:37:04 adding medical claim
 * 48) 2010-12-31T11:45:48 remove information about medical research
 * 49) 2011-01-06T11:15:22 adding medical claims
 * 50) 2011-01-09T12:12:49 Adding redundant mdical claims
 * 51) 2011-01-13T12:08:15 Negative information is attributed
 * 52) 2011-01-14T11:48:51 Positive information is presented without attribution
 * 53) 2011-01-14T11:59:05 Positive information is presented without attribution
 * 54) 2011-01-15T11:46:43 Positive information is presented without attribution
 * 55) 2011-01-19T12:10:28 Positive information is presented without attribution
 * 56) 2011-01-19T16:50:24 Proposes using a reposted blog entry as a source about a BLP
 * 57) 2011-02-02T12:03:39 Argues for deleting critical material
 * 58) 2011-02-05T11:52:19 Adds material which he does not think is appropriate, perhaps to prove a point.
 * 59) 2011-02-05T12:16:55 Argues for deleting critical material
 * 60) 2011-02-05T12:48:53 Argues for deleting critical material
 * 61) 2011-02-05T12:30:35 Claims a consensus to disqualify entire class of source, many of which were critical
 * 62) 2011-02-10T12:03:37 Argues for deleting critical material
 * 63) 2011-02-16T11:34:32 Adds positive info
 * 64) 2011-02-17T12:34:11 argues against a critical source
 * 65) 2011-02-22T18:26:27 fights over positive material
 * 66) 2011-02-22T18:29:38 seeks allies
 * 67) 2011-02-26T11:50:32 Argues over RSN consensus, says that it is invalid because respondents didn't realize something about a source.
 * 68) 2011-03-02T12:37:45 Argues about source which finds no benefit for TM
 * 69) 2011-03-03T11:49:10 Argues about source which finds no benefit for TM
 * 70) 2011-03-07T11:46:55 Burnishes attribution of positive source
 * 71) 2011-03-07T12:02:38 adds letter to the editor as source, mis-labels it.
 * 72) 2011-03-09T11:54:29 suggests using MUM yearbooks as sources for active professors
 * 73) 2011-03-11T11:45:27 argues against a critical source
 * 74) 2011-03-11T12:00:19 adds attribution to negative statement, incorrectly claims there was no text change
 * 75) 2011-03-13T19:11:10 complains about the COI of another editor
 * 76) 2011-03-14T10:43:11 deletes material, indirectly citing COI directly citing NOR
 * 77) 2011-03-14T10:49:31 adds NOR about "dismissed without prejudice"
 * 78) 2011-03-15T11:30:20 complains about deletion of unsourced NOR definition of "dismissed without prejudice"
 * 79) 2011-03-16T10:31:20 argues for removing critical material, keeping positive rebuttals
 * 80) 2011-03-24T11:21:45 Argues in favor of using a court order as a source regarding a case involving living people
 * 81) 2011-03-25T10:44:44 Argues in favor of using a court order as a source regarding a case involving living people
 * 82) 2011-03-26T11:00:40 Adds positive detail
 * 83) 2011-03-26T11:28:50 Adds positive detail
 * 84) 2011-03-27T10:38:37 Changes text to water down attribution of positive statement
 * 85) 2011-03-31T11:32:28 Argues for greater emphasis on sources that assert TM leads to higher consciousness
 * 86) 2011-04-03T11:10:59 Argues for using vague terms concerning many issues for the article.
 * 87) 2011-04-03T11:28:41 Adds positive detail
 * 88) 2011-04-10T11:04:05 impeaches critical source over typo
 * 89) 2011-04-12T11:34:36 argues for adding extensive discussion of small study
 * 90) 2011-04-22T11:36:12 adds material asserting that TM leads to higher consciousness
 * 91) 2011-04-27T11:28:14 add positive material
 * 92) 2011-04-30T10:36:10 adds positive material
 * 93) 2011-05-09T11:10:25 attributes negative material
 * 94) 2011-05-10T11:16:50 adds positive material
 * 95) 2011-05-11T10:36:14 hides identity of frequent TM researcher
 * 96) 2011-05-12T11:08:45 solicits input from someone who has already expressed agreeable position
 * 97) 2011-05-14T10:52:46 uses judge's order as source
 * 98) 2011-05-14T11:37:40 adds positive material
 * 99) 2011-05-15T09:52:57 restores material from judge's order
 * 100) 2011-05-15T10:17:00 solicits input from uninvolved editor to support him
 * 101) 2011-05-15T11:07:29 argues to include judge's order
 * 102) 2011-05-17T11:01:01 argues over judge's order
 * 103) 2011-05-18T10:57:26 argues over judge's order, and suggests getting opinion of editor who already agrees with him
 * 104) 2011-05-19T11:25:45 argues over judge's order
 * 105) 2011-05-21T10:58:18 moves negative graph lower in article
 * 106) 2011-05-23T11:38:20 argues over judge's order
 * 107) 2011-05-25T11:02:45 waters down critical material
 * 108) 2011-05-25T11:08:14 waters down crticial material
 * 109) 2011-05-25T11:18:37 complains about reference to an SPS by an MUM prof as a "blog"
 * 110) 2011-05-27T10:49:13 argues against using judge's order
 * 111) 2011-05-27T11:07:21 removes critical material
 * 112) 2011-05-27T11:10:40 minimizes critical material
 * 113) 2011-05-27T11:18:13 removes critical material
 * 114) 2011-05-27T11:20:56 removes critical material
 * 115) 2011-05-27T19:11:46 argues for using an SPS by an MUM prof
 * 116) 2011-05-28T10:42:37 argues for using an SPS by an MUM prof
 * 117) 2011-05-28T10:51:57 restores material from SPS
 * 118) 2011-05-28T10:53:54 argues for using an SPS by an MUM prof
 * 119) 2011-05-28T11:17:06 argues for using an SPS by an MUM prof
 * 120) 2011-05-28T17:06:22 argues for using an SPS by an MUM prof
 * 121) 2011-05-28T17:28:03 argues for using an SPS by an MUM prof, using a faulty NPOV claim
 * 122) 2011-05-30T11:22:23 removes critical material
 * 123) 2011-05-31T10:45:43 argues for removing critical material
 * 124) 2011-06-01T10:29:48 argues for removing critical material
 * 125) 2011-06-02T10:06:16 argues for removing criticial material
 * 126) 2011-06-02T10:14:44 adds unsourced rebuttal to sourced statement
 * 127) 2011-06-04T11:56:24 waters down criticial material with incorrect summary of source
 * 128) 2011-06-06T10:37:35 argues for removing critical material
 * 129) 2011-06-09T09:44:29 argues about judge's order
 * 130) 2011-06-09T11:16:27 adds positive material
 * 131) 2011-06-09T11:31:24 adds positive material
 * 132) 2011-06-09T11:37:47 adds positive material
 * 133) 2011-06-11T14:59:31 argues for deleting critical material
 * 134) 2011-06-20T10:24:35 waters down criticial material
 * 135) 2011-06-20T10:46:41 insists on including misspelling to indict source
 * 136) 2011-06-20T10:49:02 insists on including misspelling to indict source
 * 137) 2011-06-20T10:51:26 insists on including misspelling to indict source
 * 138) 2011-06-20T10:54:38 argues against critical sources and in favor of positive source
 * 139) 2011-06-20T14:46:10 argues against critical material
 * 140) 2011-06-21T20:12:17 argues agasint critical material
 * 141) 2011-06-28T11:28:51 removes negative material and credentials of critical source
 * 142) 2011-06-29T11:24:51 removes critical material
 * 143) 2011-07-01T10:45:29 adds positive material
 * 144) 2011-07-02T11:38:35 removes critical material adds positive material
 * 145) 2011-07-09T11:00:46 adds positive material
 * 146) 2011-07-12T10:36:32 adds positive material
 * 147) 2011-07-12T10:45:06 argues agasint critical material
 * 148) 2011-07-13T10:02:28 adds positive material
 * 149) 2011-07-16T10:31:36 makes unsourced assertion about BLP
 * 150) 2011-07-17T10:42:21 argues over attribution of TM researcher with whom he may have a professional connection.
 * 151) 2011-07-21T10:48:24 adds attribution to negative source
 * 152) 2011-07-21T11:00:46 remove negative material
 * 153) 2011-07-21T11:21:27 adds attribution to negative material
 * 154) 2011-07-22T11:34:24 adds positive material
 * 155) 2011-07-25T10:48:41 complains about legal issue concerning MUM
 * 156) 2011-07-25T11:13:01 adds positive material
 * 157) 2011-07-26T10:14:04 argues agasint negative material
 * 158) 2011-07-28T10:25:46 argues against critical material
 * 159) 2011-07-29T09:58:22 deletes relevant detail with no reason
 * 160) 2011-08-01T10:35:34 relevant detail with no reason
 * 161) 2011-08-02T11:34:26 adds positive material
 * 162) 2011-08-05T10:27:45 removes attribution info about source
 * 163) 2011-08-06T10:28:56 waters down criticism
 * 164) 2011-08-06T10:48:01 adds positive material
 * 165) 2011-08-09T10:41:05 adds positive material
 * 166) 2011-08-11T09:45:18 argues against critical material
 * 167) 2011-08-12T10:03:54 argues against critical material
 * 168) 2011-08-13T10:44:15 argues against critical material
 * 169) 2011-08-15T11:07:15 argues for overhaul of articles
 * 170) 2011-08-22T10:20:22 adds positive material
 * 171) 2011-08-22T10:20:22 adds positive material
 * 172) 2011-08-25T09:14:45 adds positive material
 * 173) 2011-08-26T11:14:09 fights over placement of negative material
 * 174) 2011-08-26T15:28:32 argues for deleting crticial material
 * 175) 2011-08-28T09:41:58 argues against negative material
 * 176) 2011-08-29T09:21:52 argues against negative material
 * 177) 2011-08-29T10:06:41 argues for greater prominence for positive material
 * 178) 2011-08-29T10:23:08 argues for positive spin on sources
 * 179) 2011-08-30T09:50:04 argues for minimizing criticism
 * 180) 2011-08-30T10:38:08 waters down criticism
 * 181) 2011-08-30T10:44:18 waters down critical material
 * 182) 2011-08-31T10:37:41 argues agasint negative material
 * 183) 2011-09-01T10:22:32 argues from original research
 * 184) 2011-09-02T09:50:34 argues over postive/negative sources and material
 * 185) 2011-09-06T09:41:02 argues from original researh
 * 186) 2011-09-06T11:17:21 argues agasint criticial material