User talk:Aquirata/archive/2006-06

Your Excellent Work on the Astrology Page
Hey -- I just want to say "Thanks" for your stellar work on the Astrology page, as well as your amusing ability to punch holes in the arguments of the 'skeptics' on the Astrology Talk Page. Frankly, I am quite awed by your level of verbal fluency along with your thoroughness in quashing their obvious close-mindedness (and hatred) towards all things Astrology. It may all be sophistry as one person put it, but I don't think so -- you really know your stuff. So...thanks for staying an open-minded thinker and best of luck to you in the future! --205.188.116.13 04:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the wonderful words - it's nearly more than what I can take! :) As you can see below, some people are not that happy with my work. However, if you think my contribution is valuable to Wikipedia, you may wish to comment at Requests for comment/Aquirata. Thanks for your support! Aquirata 13:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RfC
I have initiated a User Conduct Request for Comment regarding your behaviour: Requests for comment/Aquirata. You may wait until it has been certified to comment or provide a response now. Marskell 08:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Aquirata, comments noted and endorsed. If more to do let me know, Doovinator
 * Great, thanks! I have to see how the skeptic attack pans out, and will notify you in case more is required. Thanks again for your support! Aquirata 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:V
Please take some time to familurise yourself with wikipedia's verification policy. Inserting outlandish claims based solely on papers from flimsy sources is not policy, and they will be removed. And no, psychology journals are not reliable sources of hard scientific information. This is a mistake you are making requently. Jefffire 11:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
There's nothing in your contributions that tells me you're into the GNAA or the BNP. I should've looked better and not have assumed bad faith. I do apologize. Marskell 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, apology accepted. I didn't take those as an insult as I had no idea what the abbreviations meant! Aquirata 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Placebo, etc.
I think that the major reason for there being no comments is that anyone familiar with the literature knows that the usage of the term "placebo" is in a terrible mess. I hope that my yet-to-be-finished piece Placebo (origins of technical term) and the companion piece Uses of the term placebo will give you some sort of "feel" for the magnitude of the problem.

Thanks for your feedback. I am about 60% through the task that I have set myself. Once it is completed, I think that you will better understand the way in which various sorts of terminological usage, driven by various theoretical positions have complicated things so much.

I am trying my hardest, based on a study of the lterature (a study which is helping me to identify a large number of terminology-induced problems) to identify where there is confusion, and to clarify how, when, where and why such confusion can be avoided.

I would be grateful for your further comments, once my work is eventually finished. (For example, in order to specifically clarify the issue of "placebo response" and "placebo reaction" I have been forced to set my project aside and write about E. Morton Jellinek just so that I can cite him in that section of the article.) Cheers, Lindsay658 02:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lindsay, I'll be happy to comment - let me know when you're finished. Aquirata 09:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the Objective validity of astrology article
I took a long to time read the AfD (and believe me, there were so many comments that it took me quite a while). No other AfD closer wanted to put the time and effort into weighing those comments. I was a neutral party who has no vested interested either way in this article. My closing comments may have been, in your mind, somewhat brief, but they were a lot longer than a lot of other AfD closing comments. In any case, I won't change my mind about this because whatever arguments need to be presented were already presented in the AfD, unless you have new information that wasn't already presented in the AfD. If you have any new information to present that will likely result in the overturning of the result of this AfD, I suggest you read Undeletion policy and the instructions in Deletion review before arguing your case in Deletion review. If you do so, please let me know so I can look at whatever new information you present so I can also suggest an action (which may be to overturn the results of my AfD closure, depending on the new evidence that you present). Thank you, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration
I am taking a break from this discussion, but I see you moved the criticism to the talk page, so I added an NPOV flag, which I trust you will agree is useful. I think you misunderstood the context for the criticism, incidently. In any case, please note that I have also asked to take a break since he seems too angry with me to discuss right now (see Talk:Bernard Haisch). ---CH 02:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Message from Bernard Haisch
Thanks for your edits of the Bernard Haisch article. I would argue that the sentence "Some observers have questioned whether the involvement of Joe Firmage and Haisch might compromise this goal.[citation needed]" also violates NPOV and should be deleted. I do appreciate your involvement. Haisch 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, Bernard. I do agree with your comment on the above sentence, too, and that's why I put the 'fact' tag on it in the first place. I'd like to see what kind of sourcing anybody can come up with to see how relevant this comment is within the context. Aquirata 17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversion and Null Edits
Err, it appears you are using null edits with edit comments as a method of communication. Please don't do this, it is very confusing, especially in recent cases where it has looked like you are reverting changes (especially due to popups' diff truncation). The appropriate place to put such comments is on the relevant talk page, or on my talk page if you need a faster response. --Philosophus T 13:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm always willing to talk. However, you are making reverts without coming to the Talk page first. This is in articles in which you had no recent involvement. So I would think the onus is on you to start talking first and edit later. Aquirata 13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:BB. In most cases, I've read the rationale, and just agree with the other side of the argument. There isn't very much to add, and I watch an ever increasing number of articles for issues like this, so I don't have time to enter into a lengthy debate first. If you want to revert something I do, revert it and talk about it on the talk page. Edit comments with null edits are not a good method of communication. --Philosophus T 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * From WP:BB: "If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references."


 * If you are overwhelmed and have no time to Talk, then you may be involved in too many pages. Perhaps even pages beyond your expertise. Aquirata 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Recent decision on 3RR
It appears you're right and I am at fault - however, since Jefffire self-reverted himself shortly before I made the decision, I consider the situation over with. I would urge you both to stop editing the article page itself and concentrate on the talk page in a constructive manner, aiming to reach a version which confroms to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. In the meantime, I'll keep away from making 3RR decisions until I understand how it works. See also Chris Brennan's comment. Sam Vimes 17:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * However, also note that another administrator, User:Deathphoenix, seems to support my interpretation of the rule. Sam Vimes 17:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)