User talk:Antelan/Archives/2007/October

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 01:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment
Your input would be appreciated: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration ScienceApologist 21:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate evidence
Nealparr (aka JeremyParnell) works in off-wiki projects in his capacity as a professional web designer. Your evidence is either mistaken, or mistakingly includes me. Show me one diff where I promote anything at all, much less a paranormal point of view or I kindly ask you to update your evidence with an explanation that you were mistaken about me.

You'll also notice in my design portfolio that I created a site for a few churches, and I'm not Christian. I've designed a site for a Republican Congressman. I'm not Republican. I've designed a site for a baker and I'm not a baker. I help people set up websites for money. Pure and simple. Sometimes I help people code for free as a favor without sharing their viewpoint, but even that's in the hopes that later down the road I can charge them on another project. I helped Wikidudeman fix the home page of the WP:SKEPTIC and that doesn't make me a rational skeptic either.

I'll ask you to please stop lumping me in with others. I don't draw connections between you guys and say there's some wild conspiracy going on. I expect the same respect from you. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your jobs for hire are not related to the evidence I have to present. In addition to having a demonstrable association with Martinphi et al off-wiki, you have also consistently defended Martinphi's behavior on-wiki, which is implicit approval of his behavior. You believe that you are taking the middle path; I cannot agree. Ante  lan  talk  00:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but what association are you speaking of? If you mean that I am associated with Martinphi because Annalisa asked me to help her on a website that Martinphi happens to be a member of then you're going to need something more than that. If you're going to accuse me for no reason, accuse me of something I've actually done instead of just making things up. And what approval of Martinphi's behavior are you talking about? I said in the arbitration that he should be sanctioned for his uncivil comments. I even proposed two remedies recommending it. If you don't like me, fine, but you don't have to make things up. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, you can leave it. I addressed it on the evidence page . -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that. It's not evidence, nor is it a response to the evidence I've presented. If that's how you choose to use your 1000 words, by all means, keep it there. Ante  lan  talk  00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. I'll put it on the talk page, but what you're doing is extremely transparent and uncalled for. It's not appropriate to post things that are wild unsupported accusations and then make me bury the rational response to it. You know clearly by my contributions at that site that I never said anything supporting the paranormal nor interacted with Martinphi. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is your choice to defend Martinphi's tendentious editing and associate with his projects. This arbitration is about him, not you. Ante  lan  talk  04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I'm done talking to you. I can only recall a few times where talking to you was productive anyway. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this will jog your memory: Ante  lan  talk  04:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, your belief that Parapsychology could achieve GA status was greatly appreciated. Kudos. VanTucky was at least funny when he was being rude during that era. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You and I both lack VanTucky's knack for humor, it would appear. Unfortunately, I lack the time to construct such saccharine sentences as I did in the past. More concise statements will have to suffice. Ante  lan  talk  05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the resume of web design jobs is a bit overkill, but I don't see the problem with NealParr adding a short, unemotional statement of clarification to his own Evidence section regarding his association with Martinphi on OpenSourceScience. - LuckyLouie 06:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I felt that it was probably not the best use of his 1000 words, but he's more than welcome to keep it there if he thinks it's evidence. Ante  lan  talk  20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The mess
I understand where SA is coming from per the image and his concerns therein. But, AAEVP material is not banned from usage here. The image is harmless enough - and does illustrate the material it is suppose to represent. What harm is there in that? To much ado about nothing here and why? --Northmeister 03:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't made up my mind regarding how I feel about that image, but I was adding that link to the AAEVP website to support the more general statement that they are advocating for followers to edit Wikipedia in line with their template. Ante  lan  talk  03:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy diff
Not directly about you, but involves you: -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, that is directly, although not exclusively, about me. I don't agree that, in demonstrating Martinphi's affiliations, I was personally attacking you or him. In claiming that it was an attack, you cited, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." from WP:NPA. I do not believe that my evidence section fulfills the "means of dismissing or discrediting their views" part of NPA, so I do not agree that my evidence section constitutes a personal attack on either of you. This is not a physics article where I'm blocking RandomUser from adding material and justifying it by calling him a flat-earth believer (which would be behavior more relevant to the section of NPA that you cited). This is a list, confirmed by you and Tom Butler on-wiki, that I think clarifies editing patterns in a way that is useful for the Arbitration. You might want to ask a clerk what he/she thinks about the issue, because I'm open to neutral input. Ante  lan  talk  06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By not directly about you I mean that I'm not seeking remedy for it. The arb guys can decide if it's relevant to SA who I am seeking a remedy on. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: NPA
I would say that that diff certainly does not appear to me to be a personal attack: I think the intent of that provision of WP:NPA is to prohibit people from saying "you can't contribute to the wiki because of your affiliation". Merely pointing it out to put someone's edits into context (especially in an arbitration case) is eminently reasonable. David Mestel(Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: fyi
Completely fair and thank you for the notice. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)