User talk:Antelan/Archives/2007/June

Moratorium
OMG! This is wearing me down. Great find on the GlycoScience.org ownership. I did a similar check on fisherinstitute.org and found its registrant (McCuiston) mentioned here http://www.rickross.com/reference/mannatech/mannatech34.html. By the way, how about we not respond to anymore of the sales pitch on the discussion page until a valid source is provided? The discussion is fruitless at this point. Jim Dunning | talk  19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree on all fronts. I'll reply when possible to Cosmochao's content/source related points, but, like you're saying, I don't think it helps any of us to explain our every action; even Cosmochao doesn't have to do that, and his POV is a driving force for him. I don't know how many different ways I can say that I have no vested interest in the topic except for the fact that accuracy is important to me, so thank you for your explanation of that on the Mannatech talk page. I replied re: glycoscience.org because it seemed like a legitimate attempt on Cosmochao's part to bring in a potentially valid source, and I wanted to show why it probably doesn't pass muster. Hopefully this, and your good detective work regarding fisherinstitute.org, will help Cosmochao discern among competing sources of varying quality. Ante  lan  talk  20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Basophil
Hi there, Most of the articles that link to the dab page are referring to the immune cell Basophil, and this is clearly the most common usage of the term (here at least). I counted maybe four articles that were referring to the Anterior pituitary type out of the ~thirty five that are linking to the dab page. I was planning to correctly point these four articles, and had already noted on Basophil granulocyte that "basophil" redirects there and where to find the other type. The other information on the redirect page can be incorporated into basophilic. Does this sound reasonable?--DO11.10 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds great. Thanks for your response. Ante  lan  talk  23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Spammer blocked
Thanks for reverting User:194.44.134.242 - I've imposed block as per previous warning. David Ruben Talk 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously
For god's sake Antelan, if you'd just given it a few minutes and discussed things on the talk page, we could have worked this out. For one thing, the lead has to cover a few things, and you left one of them out- physical mediumship. Don't buy into the portrayal of me you've heard from others at the ArbCom. That isn't accurate. This whole thing comes out of the fact that I've been a thorn in their sides by being effective, not my editing behavior. If it's editing behavior, they'd be more worried about ScienceApologist and Minderbinder. You and I don't have to do this.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Read my comments about patience. Ante  lan  talk  02:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you want to revert it back to your version, go ahead. I won't war with you.  The message above is a peace offering.  Are you going to take it or not?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you didn't entirly leave out physical phenomena, but it needed more.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is generous of you, but I'm not going to revert to my version. I don't WP:OWN the article, and I think that community input is warranted. If "for gods' sake Antelan" is how you want to introduce a peace offering, I'm "not inclined to acquiesce to your request." Martinphi, I think you are nice. I actually do. But I have concerns about the way you edit. So yes, I want to have peace with you, but it never should have come to this over my good-faith edit. Ante  lan  talk  02:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there were "for god's sake" elements as well (: And your edits had real reasons behind them.  I wish you'd have talked about your version before reverting.  See my latest edits- I think they address all concerns.  I don't know about the dictionary.com source, but if the skeptic's dictionary and the parapsychological association sources agree, I really think we have good enough sourcing for what's said there.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf education
Thanks for your comprehensive list of points to be dealt with in the Waldorf education article. These were well-taken and informed.

We have attempted to address all of your points - whether adequately or not, you may judge for yourself. Once again, thanks for helping with the process (and you are welcome to continue)! Hgilbert 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism in Parapsychology: merge debate
FYI:. I seem to recall you having some ideas for the Crit section. - LuckyLouie 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ante  lan  talk  23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

the articles in question
Just so you know, I got the Controversy article fully protected bc it was turning into an edit war. Hopefully we can get some discussion going, but I feel like Martin is just going to wait out the protection (some of his deletions stand) and continue chopping away without discussion. I feel like this whole mess will go away once Martinphi gets the block he deserves for POV-pushing and sock/meatpuppetry. I may not agree with users such as Nealparr or others, but at least they are interested in discussion. VanTucky 23:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may or may not even know the half of it. Martinphi has been a big part of what got admin User:ScienceApologist to resign from Wikipedia, and his edits have been a driving force pushing editors to request arbitration on the subject of the paranormal, as evidenced by his RfC. Ante  lan  talk  23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * VanTucky was edit warring, so I sandboxed it here. See what you think.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, you recently said the same thing about me. I find it hard to believe that you're always in the right and everybody else is just edit-warring. Saying that someone is warring purely by themselves, without an opponent who is likewise warring with them, I might add, sounds pretty preposterous. Sorry bud. Ante  lan  talk  23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Really?
You said...
 * Ryan is right. Your logic is clear, and it will only help your argumentation to refrain from invective. Diffs are preserved forever, and magnanimity in the face of absurdity will give your actions more weight. Ante  lan  talk  19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is saying less is more absurdity? Because despite all the bogus accusations, that is all I am saying. All animosity to the side, do you really disagree that the article should present relevant information without the bulkiness? I'm not asking to exclude any criticisms though I am commonly accused of that for some reason I can't figure out. I don't understand how streamlined equals deletion. All the other sections are streamlined too. If you check the history of those articles, the consensus (just a few months ago) was against Martinphi's everything under the sun treatment of the topic. Where's the absurdity? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think his argument makes sense, which is why I complimented VanTucky's logic. I'm not going to sit here and respond to your dissection of my every comment, especially when the absurdity is so obvious as it is in this case. However, for whatever it's worth, that is in no way a reference to your editing. Ante  lan  talk  20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)