User talk:ChemistryProf

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sr13 05:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

No more OR on Transcendental Meditation please
Hi there. Your recent edit introduced WP:OR on the Transcendental Meditation article. Please come discuss with us on Talk:Transcendental Meditation before making any more such edits. Thanks! Tanaats 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tanaats: Yes, I did see this last night. You put it up almost instantly, before I could insert my pre-written detailed reasoning in the discussion. It's not that I resent your taking out the changes. That was expected. I just was surprised it happened so fast. Do you have a little bell that goes off as soon as someone makes a change? Anyway, I was just following the guidelines, as were you. Have a good night! ChemistryProf 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal comments
First off, welcome on board! You have already helped tighten up the article.

I respect your opinion that the intro isn't neutral and it is getting tended to, soon we'll have everyone happy.

On the other hand I don't respect your opinions about me:


 * "As a result, most readers with a scientific background would have guessed that the clause concerning the validity of the research was placed there by an editor wishing, perhaps unconsciously, to discredit the Transcendental Meditation technique... Thus, the apparent wish of the aforementioned editor was achieved. "


 * "To say that threatens the validity of the reseach only shows a lack of understanding of research and how it evolves. Any scientist reading that last sentence knows immediately that the author of the statement wishes to discredit the research, whether he is aware of that wish or not."

I don't respect them because they're REEEEEAAALLLLLYYYYY innacurate, and because wikipedia ain't the place to air them.

Please stop. Now.

Please keep your commentary and psychoanalysis about me and my motives, or any other contributer to yourself, along with your supposed "Any scientist" would recognize/understand statement. On here, you're just another Bozo on the Bus, like the rest of us! Please focus your commentary about edits on the CONTENT, not the contributor.

It's kind of a... well, law around here. WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

PEACE! Sethie 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sethie: I did not mean any of my comments to be personal. I was simply trying to show how most scientists I know would interpret the sentence. It was used to make a point that, even if you did not intend the sentence to be biased, it would appear that way to scientific readers. On the other hand, non-scientific readers, many of them at least, would likely have bought the spin and either would not have read further or would have read with a highly jaundiced eye. Having read a large percentage of the TM research and thousands of research articles in other fields, the peer reviewed TM research actually compares quite favorably in terms of rigor of methods and neutrality of the authors. All my discussion was about the CONTENT, not about any contributor. I do see how you could take it differently, though, and apologize for any offense you may have felt. Thank you for agreeing to one of my suggestions. I look forward to more fruitful discussions and revisions. ChemistryProf 06:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your appology! I didn't take offense to it, at all. I just didn't like how you were (unknowingly- you didn't know I was the one who wrote that sentence) talking about me.


 * For the record, it is flat out innacurate to say that this sentence was used to make a point, or that it was spin. As I said on the disucssion page, that sentence was inserted as a counter-balance to to an introduction which origonally listed some of the positive findings of TM research. At some point, someone took out the positives and left that counter-balance in. If it is really important to you to understand the context of that sentence, please browse through the archives of the disucssion (located at the top of the discussion page) to see an actual log of the discussion around why that sentence was placed there.Sethie 07:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sethie: Thanks for your time in trying to make this article balanced and neutral. Yes, I can see how the sentence came to be there, and that progression may have been logical, but by the time I read it, it had a spin, even though you did not intend it. I view this as a problem of the WP approach, that things tend to get disorganized and disjointed due to frequent insertions and especially deletions. To me, the whole Intro now reads rough and disconnected. I will put some suggestions in the discussion soon about how we can make it more accurate, more balanced, and more of a lead-in for the rest of the article. ChemistryProf 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't deny the version you read was unbalanced, I missed it, or I would have taken it out myself. I personally don't like the current intro very much, so I am curious to see what you come up with. Sethie 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not personal!
Hi again. I'd like to emphasize that nothing was intended personally. I took quite a bit of chemistry in college and it was a butt-kicker. To have become a chemistry professor you must be brilliant, and I mean it. I got batted around like a ping-pong ball when I first showed up on Wikipedia only weeks ago. My first edits got reverted like crazy by TimidGuy who is a professor at MUM. So it's not a POV thing that I reverted your edits. On an article like the TM article which represents strongly contrasting POVs one especially has to have the guidelines down pat, because you will always be called on it if you don't. It took me weeks before I even started to get a clue, mostly by watching how much more experienced editors conducted themselves and how they made their edits. I'm sure you'll come up to speed much faster than I did. I meant my "welcome" sincerely, it'll be nice to have you on the article. Welcome again. Tanaats 16:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats. I'm sure we will enjoy this process. I do sincerely want to make this a Featured Article. I hope others will join with me in a spirit of cooperation and make this happen. ChemistryProf 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. And I think that FA is a laudable goal.  Certainly we should strive to make edits that take steps toward that.  Tanaats 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Word Volume
I would like to ask of you if it possible for you to express yourself using less words? I haven't gone and counted words, and yet it appears as if your volume is somewhere at least double, maybe a bit more then mine and Tanaats combined.

The volume, for me, makes our discussions a bit of a chore.

That doesn't mean that you should, or have to, or ought to, or hell even CAN! Everyone has their own way of expressing themselves. And, it would certainly be much appreciated by me.... and I am guessing other users, though I cannot speak for them. Sethie 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, and do not intend to continue in such a wordy vein, but fully understanding the guidelines with which we are dealing and which need a consensual understanding before we can smoothly proceed requires considerable explanation and examples. I'm sure that after having reached that point of agreement, everything could become more compact.ChemistryProf 05:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad you said that, because I also wanted to thank you for really wanting to go for mutual understanding on policy over content.... and in sitting with that, policy sounds to me like it would take more, well words, to hash out. It is a different approach then I have seen and I actually like it. Peace! Sethie 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you agree. Peace is my real name. ChemistryProf 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? FAR OUT! I hope your middle name is N, and your last name is Love! :) Peace-n-Love! Sethie 07:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

TM article Refs
Hey CP, in the TM article you mentioned a problem with the refs. I'm still not sure what you mean. I don't see any problem with them. One thing to remember is that as new refs are added the citation number in the article changes if the ref is added before that citation in the article. Also please be sure not to confuse the Refs on the talk page with the Refs in the article. They are two entirely different things. With that in mind, do you still see a problem? If so, let me know so we can fix it. thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk  • 18:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, KBob, I discovered that I was indeed confusing the article refs with the talk page refs. That was the only problem. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad we figured it out.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To and of
Chem I originally went in to clean up the section. There was a signature there for some reason. The section as I undeatand it is about the reception this apsect of Hagelins' research has received from others ... the reaction to or reception to his reseacrh from others. One reacts to something. I think the syntax of "reception of" is not quite right. I had made that change before so just changed it again. I'm not attached to it, but I think its a syntax question.(olive (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I guess the syntax will depend on what the meaning actually is.  Please change it to whatever you want. I don't think its a concern one way or the other.(olive (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

MUM and Hagelin
If you are a friend or colleague of John Hagelin's then it'd be fair if you'd disclose that. You've written that, " It is clear that the article is being badgered by someone who harbors a negative POV and wishes to undermine it. " If that editor's POV is open for discussion then yours is too. Being an associate of Hagelin's doesn't mean you can't edit the article, but it helps put your views into context and being honest is usually a good policy.  Will Beback   talk    20:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your interest in my personal life, Will Beback, but I don't normally divulge such information. However, since you are in a mood of laying cards on the table, if you wish to reveal why you harbor such a negative attitude toward anything to do with the Transcendental Meditation technique, I will answer your question. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That says it all, doesn't it? Will is an administrator who came to the TM articles as a result of the COIN discussions on olive and timidguy in an attempt to keep things neutral, but being neutral means he must "harbor a negative attitude toward anything to do with the Transcendental Meditation technique". Priceless. Fladrif (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fladrif. Your insights are priceless. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Anytime.Fladrif (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ChemistryProf, I wasn't asking for any personal information. However you do apparently claim to be a chemistry professor, and we're writing about a physics professor. You are heavily engaged in that effort and there seems to be a lot of effort to remove anything critical from that bio. If you aren't willing to be honest about your association with the subject then that's unfortunate. It doens't speak well about the integrity of his colleagues if they're embarassed to admit they know him.   Will Beback    talk    03:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an astonishing comment, with amazing extrapolations, and spectacular  jumps in logic. A veritable circus. You suggest that because an editor chooses to not divulge personal information (and yes it is personal, and no one's business),  about whomever his colleagues or friends might be that you have the right to say they are dishonest. No one is required to divulge such information as we all know. And this is based on the fact that Hagelin is a physicist and ChemProf associated with chemistry. And Hagelin's colleagues whomever they are, are lacking in integrity and are embarrassed by association with Hagelin. I suppose if we could find them, we could ask them. And further, that efforts to create a BLP article inline with an honest understanding of BLP is construed as an attempt to remove the critical material.  Gosh, when do we get the elephants standing on balls, the dog jumping through hoops, and the clowns. A show in every ring.  WP:AGF comes to mind as does WP:NPA, and is there some bait there, and fishing too. Truly astounding.(olive (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Have to agree with Olive on this. It is completely irrelevant whether or not CP knows Hagelin, and not appropriate for Will to ask CP to divulge anything person in this discussion.  --BwB (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback, in my book whom one happens to know or not know is personal information. I do not divulge it. My sole interest in the Hagelin article and the Transcendental Meditation article is in seeing that they adhere to the core principles of WP, including especially WP:NPOV. I am mystified why there always seem to be one or two editors at these sites that insist on trashing them. These editors will not listen to the usually sound arguments of other editors. Instead, they keep coming back to views that are contrary to WP:NPOV and often are contrary to other core WP guidelines. More often than not, you either have supported those editors or you have failed to speak up when they have made off the wall claims. One editor in particular frequently crafts arguments by totally distorting some WP guidelines while ignoring other, more directly relevant ones. So, my question for you is "Why are you doing that?" As an administrator, aren't you expected to behave as a neutral referee? ChemistryProf (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that my response above was written before I saw Olive's. (There was an editor conflict when I went to save.) ChemistryProf (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a perfect right and possibly a responsiblity to comment on your own user page whether someone else comments or not Chem, even if the points made overlap.(olive (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
 * How to clarify this.... What I meant is that when I began my comment it was directly underneath Will's, but as I finished my reply and went to save, your comment had just been saved, so my attempt to save ran into an "Editor Conflict" message and I had to insert my response after yours was in place. I just wanted to affirm that my response was written before and therefore was independent of your remarks. You are free to chime in on the discussion between Will and me, of course. I just wanted the order of events to be understood. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Just wanted to say 'hi' and welcome you (belatedly). I gather you teach chemistry at MUM? Although I know there have been some professors there who didn't like the MUM approach, I'm glad you seem to appreciate how SCI can tie together different disciplines and how TM can make the student's mind better able to absorb knowledge and the teacher's mind better able to teach clearly. I really don't know how I could have lived my life without TM. Anyway, welcome. If you would ever like to discuss anything with me off of WP, see my Talk page. David spector (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what gave you the idea I ever taught chemistry at MUM, but thanks for your welcome, and please continue to make reasonable comments and edits on the contentious websites having to do with meditation. Level-headed editors are few and far between on some of these controversial articles. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation
We've never communicated as far as I know, but I saw your comments at WP:FTN and thought I'd post a note here. I've been around the block in areas such as the ones you are currently embroiled and I offer a little bit of advice: branch out.

The reason I offer this advice is because you are acting right now like a single-purpose account and I can tell that the current environment surrounding MUM and TM is likely to head to arbitration within the year. That may result in some unpleasant rulings including banning you from editing those pages. I take it at your word that you are a chemistry professor and so are likely to be a great source of information and editorial guidance in areas related to chemistry that could use your help. WP:CHEMISTRY is a great place to start to find out about areas where we could really use your expertise.

I'm not saying that you should stop editing at MUM or TM, only that your current nearly obsessive focus with these subjects will not be looked on favorably by people in power here at Wikipedia.

Just FYI.

Regards,

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. If I were not so busy, I would perhaps contribute to other sites. I contribute when and where I do because I see injustices being perpetrated by obtrusive editors who lack direct knowledge of the subject. Naturally I want to bring in a more balanced view. No editor can be faulted for that. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.  Will Beback   talk    21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Conduct
Your (above) post on the TM talk page, could be seen as a violation of No Personal Attacks WP:NPA; a Wiki policy which says "comment on the content, not on the contributor(s)". Please take a moment to read this guideline and if you have issues with certain editors, please address those editors on their User talk pages or an Administrative noticeboard. Conversations about editors, bias, conflict of interest etc. are not appropriate for article talk pages. You may have been unaware of these policies and if so, its important for your own well being and the progress of the article that you become familiar with these policies and follow them. Thanks for your attention to this matter,-- — Kbob • Talk  •
 * What I am seeing here is two or three editors who reveal in almost every sentence they write on these discussion pages that they have a VERY STRONG NEGATIVE BIAS against TM and its research, and two or three editors, who happen to be TM practitioners and maybe even faculty members at Maharishi University of Management, who appear to be making a genuine effort (though not always succeeding) to create an article that is neutral. This is a condition of imbalance.


 * Thanks, Kbob, for the warning. I was not meaning to be personal, just decrying the content that seems quite clearly to reflect a non-neutral POV. The evidence is clear both in the recent revisions of the article and in the discussion. I realize that directing my comment toward the editors instead of focusing on their specific edits was the wrong angle from which to make this point. The fact that there are contentious positions regarding almost everything going on on the TM article right now makes it difficult to reach much agreement. I'll try harder to keep the focus on the content and to discuss the bias issues on the individual editor's talk page. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Chem Prof, Sorry if my prior post was a little strong and thanks for understanding. I try to keep people vigilant on this point otherwise emotions start to fly and there is no progress on the article. Thanks again, -- — Kbob •  Talk  • 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You were perfectly correct to admonish me. My statements did seem to be directed more at the argumentative editors that have, as I said, revealed negative bias in almost every breath. There is no place for that kind of talk on the discussion page of the article. So now I am directing comments toward the content only. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
 * All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
 * Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
 * Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
 * Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
 * From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
 * User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
 * Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

spin
Ello there, DonaldET3 here.

The point of this section: spin. I was just exploring Wikipedia when I came by an article about this thing called a "Hydrogen atom". Looking down the list of nuclide data, I understood everything except the concept of "spin". Just "spin = 1/2+", no units. It appears to be a measurable quantity, but units are required to measure something. The article on "spin" did not help. 1/2 what, hertz? Is this a measurement of time? Can ChemistryProf help me, or is this a physics question? Oh, and a little side question: how closely are chemists like you related to biologists? Can I ask you biology questions too? DonaldET3 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)