User talk:Avb/Archive4

Good Luck
Somehow I think there is going to be a distinct lack of "cooperation".  Shot info  10:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Repetition
Hiya. I am satisfied with L'clast's answer to your question. That you repeat your question again and again and then finally chase me to my talk page with it is hardly civil. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  05:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you had missed the question. It now appears that you had not missed it but that someone else has answered it for you. It would have been nice and collaborative if you had told me that. Instead you ignored the question and its repeat on the article talk page. Since this had become an issue between you and me, and not relevant to the discussion on the talk page, and since it is hard to miss posts to one's own talk page, I posted the question to your talk page, worded most civilly. I find both your handling of the question itself and especially the above post to my talk page not quite matching the collaborative stance expected from Wikipedians. Avb 08:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jumping to favored conclusions, AvB? I said that I am having trouble tracking down some of QW's and its authors' *direct statements* for more complete answers. Also it seems very curious that QW doesn't have a good bibliography for its articles since notable individuals with a high batting average frequently have them on the web, even posthumously from admirers.


 * There are a *lot* of examples on QW related authors and entities that involve SB either directly or subsequently, but I have to admit is (unnecessarily) time consuming to *link* and reference the obvious for instant gratification that has been ignored anyway by some in the past.--I&#39;clast 09:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved the following comment from the next section to the discussion here. -- Avb 12:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * see my answer above. Part of the answer is that the QW juggernaut, based largely on popular press, could steam roller individuals with the instigation or aid of local and state health boards, as well as defamation threats, for the last quarter of the 20th century with then unknown frequency (it was slightly known in passing from QW statements to popular media, but is pretty much unindexed). Going through old, unindexed microfiche (or film) is extremely slow to recover the sources when much of the alternative press is actually much better (and some of it is not and has been settled). This is where we need to establish good faith on thin sources, because what is perceived as biased, activist stonewalling gets really, really old and the factual content of the article is anemic, perverse or bleeds.--I&#39;clast 10:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although what you're writing is both unnecessary and uninformative regarding my request for sources, I'll discuss it anyway: "Jumping to favored conclusions, AvB?" -- Please don't call me that; I'm now Avb. Favored conclusion? No, just one of my favorite policies, WP:V. I remain interested in seeing these sources provided. Please do. I don't have access to anything that comes near, otherwise I'd dig this stuff up myself (I've tried). You'll be surprised how proactive I am when reliable sources document something you think I don't like. I think it would be fair to say that I like all information once it's sourced. Reliable sources are our sine qua non. We're moving towards an encyclopedia entirely constructed from reliable sources. BLPs are our first concern in this respect. Jumping -- I would be if I said that these sources do not exist. Also, it's policy to differentiate between editor opinion and verified material. "Editor opinion" is not derogative in any way; editor opinion may well be correct, but it only becomes verified material when reliable sources are provided. Regarding your criticism of QW, I wouldn't know; I asked for sources in order to learn more. All I'm getting here is more editor opinion. I would view what you and user:Metta Bubble are saying here as vastly more useful in building an encyclopedia if verified in reliable sources. Your demand for good faith on thin sources is consistent with one of the more prevalent WP philosophies (eventualism) but it is 100% against policy in BLP information. As to telling me your opinion on the current article, that is getting pretty old; I certainly won't bore you iterating mine. Avb 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary of answer by user:I'clast and user:Metta Bubble. Please don't edit, this is my view.
Question to Metta (diff):


 * You wrote on Talk:Stephen_Barrett: "being criticised and then litigating because of it is Barrett's most notable claim to fame" --> Which sources gave you that idea?

I'clast's answer (diff):


 * That could be a decent partial summary of QW's (etc.) self described activities since a number of published writings in the 70's and 80's involving "attacking fraud" that involved individuals of different opinions & professions. (does anybody have a decent *full* bibliography link of QW and Stephen Barrett writings, especially a chronological index? It does seem hard to actually track down the old QW related historical writings, usually not indexed in normal guides & indexes, almost like they are hidden in plain sight. The lack of indexing and biblio seem especially odd for such notable "mainstream scientific" and medical scrwritings.)--I'clast 12:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say I find I'clast's edit summary (which I had missed) informative. Anyway, this answer asks for such sources: I'clast specifically tells us he has no sources. Since Metta says to be "satisfied with L'clast's answer," the answer now also means that Metta has no sources. It would have been better if Metta had admitted that straight away, apparently having seen my question and Iconoclast's answer days ago. I was truly interested in what looked like inside information or ancient history I was not aware of and could not locate myself when I tried. I will continue to keep in mind the possibility that there may be such information somewhere and that it might be provided one day. For now, however, for all practical editing purposes, we cannot use it and have to treat it as the collective opinion of a number of editors who often operate as a team and answer questions for others.

Summary of the answer provided by user:Metta Bubble and user:I'clast: Barrett has written this and there are reliable sources; they don't have these sources now but say they will be able to provide them later. This answer confirms what I suspected and is fully satisfactory to me. Avb 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Metta Bubble
It appears Metta Bubble considers even mention of her(?) name a personal attack when written by someone else. Of course, Metta Bubble considers it a quid-quo-pro that she can make whatever uncivil remarks or personal attacks against others she wants. She likes accusing others of being hypocrites as well. Best just treat Metta Bubble per WP:NAM and WP:NOFEEDING. --Ronz 20:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Before reading this I just reverted one of her(?) numerous misuses of RPA. She should read the enlightening RPA guideline and stop being so sensitive. She needs to learn to discuss civilly and respond to requests, especially requests for evidence of claims she has made. Skeptics know that they can't make such claims without being held responsible for them, so I guess she may not be familiar with skeptic/scientific culture where such things are taken for granted. This is her chance to learn. -- Fyslee/talk 20:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rife Page (update)
Hey AvB. We worked together on the Royal Rife page. I think you need to take a look at the Rife page. It is a COMPLETE mess. Looks like some pro-Rife nuts have gotten into it, inserting tens of nonsensical links and turning it into one long, poorly-supported anecdote.

I've requested a revert and full protect, but thought you should have a look and maybe weigh in; The current state of the article is a complete disgrace. --Angio 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Margolis scheme
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Margolis scheme, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Margolis scheme is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Margolis scheme, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Gore and Bush AFD
Your joint nom of the spawn of the Gore and Bush dynasties was clearly a good faith attempt to take the political affiliations of editors out of the issue of coatrack articles about people who are notable only by the famous relatives. I see these articles as having the danger of just being attempts to embarass politicians. Richard Nixon had a brother, Donald, who was in the news for some financial matters, and Jimmy Carter had a brother Billy who got some bad press. Maybe you can do the Nixon-Carter joint AFD next! One problem I have with such a joint AFD is that it implicitly equates the newsworthyness of the two, and there is no reason that one spawn's shenanigans should not be more encyclopedic and notable than the other's. Dwight Eisenhower's son John became a Brigadier General, but Stalin's daughter Svetlana just had a Soviet perfume named after her ("Svetlana's Breath got married a number of times, and defected to the U.S. Should there be a Stalin-Eisenhower joint nomination? I don't think I need to belabor the point further. Regards Edison 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to and/or  status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed
I thought you would be interested since you have been involved lately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#real-life_identity_outed

I am off to work, but thought you should know with the questions you are asking and the deletions of BLP material that was reinserted again. I will talk to you later. Good luck! :) -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The anti-Barrett brigade
Sorry you've got so upset by their gaming the system. If you don't mind advise, try WP:DENY. --Ronz 15:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re: adding link
Thanks for your comment. The link in question (earsunblocked.com) was not added by me in the first place. Rather, I found it here earlier when consulting the entries in question. When I came back to access the site again, I noticed the site had been removed. Since I found the site helpful, and found that it had content not immediately accessible in one place on any of the other Wikipedia articles or linked sites, I edited the Wiki entry to replace the removed link. The removal mentioned that there are ads on the site -- true, but they are not particularly intrusive, and Wikipedia policies as far as I know do not exclude linking to sites with ads on them. The removal also mentions content. As I mentioned above, I felt that the content was useful enough to warrant reinclusion. If you choose not to include this specific site, I suggest you find another one which has all of this information in one place. Not having any link of this type on the articles in question ultimately makes the articles less useful to a large segment of readers (those who have the condition and are researching it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.15.164 (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Email
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay
Thanks :)--Angel David 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gratitude to Avb
Thank you for your support. You could say I might be a little fanatical about Christianity. But of course, I am a Catholic. And I respect the beliefs of others. You might want to call be SG for Sky God. I'm going to change my user name. But don't assume that title yet. I don't know if my request is accepted. --Angel David 00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup
The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Apologies, I undid a revision you already have undone at Psychic Surgery, sorry about that, I was just sourcing and I didn't realize Jenny Len ☤ 10:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

oops.
I see. sorry for the Toy story article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdog2000 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Geert
Hi,

These statements caused strong reactions in Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.[7][citation needed]

It is sourced now, how can I delete that citation needed? Mallerd 15:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay did that, but now it says [2] instead of [7]. :( Mallerd 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, thanks :D Mallerd 18:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whammy! The All-New Press Your Luck Photo
The one photo you have up

220px

It says "Push" Your Luck in it instead of "Press" Your Luck, so unless I am missing something, that has to be an edited picture or something. If I am missing something, please let me know about it, so I know that the picture is ok. Whammies Were Here 10:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're so right. Thanks. Avb 10:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Transrapid
we had some editing about the monorail issue on the german version as well, same IP anonymus involved. I tried a compromise, please comment--Polentario 13:52, 18 October 2007 I have now provided en detailed sources and i would appreciate u an admin should have an look again i assume --Polentario 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

71.85.133.97
Fush you main —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.133.97 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You must be a connoisseur then. Though in that case, the correct spelling would be Fush yu mang. Avb 11:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the death threat from the Lyme entry
Dear AVB

Thank you for removing the death threat from the Lyme entry. Do you have any idea who Kristin Picard is and why she was threatened?

The Ip address of the person who made the threat is

131.7.52.17

A Whois lookup on www.arin.net reveals that this Ip belongs to the US Air Force.

Elena —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.100.4 (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

GDB
In case it matters, I'm utterly, utterly indifferent to what Guido does to my comments on his talk page. WLU 19:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)