User talk:Famousdog/Archive 1

Arbitration request – Bates method program or educational program ?
This message is to let you know that I have posted a request for arbitration for the cabalcase :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Bates_Method

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAR

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration 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—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Review of Muzaffar Iqbal's Science & Islam
I thought you might be interested to have a look at Robert Irwin's review of Muzzaffar Iqbal's book Science * Islam in the Jan 25 issue of TLS (pp. 8-9). Iqbal is a strident defender of Islamic science, against the perhaps overly-pessimistic claims of blowhards like Steven Wienberg. Irwin, I think, strikes just about the right balance between the two. Although no mention is made of Alhazen, it is still and interesting piece. 76.69.140.17 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Psychology
Your response to the contributions of "Jagged 85" to the history of psychology entry has become part of a blog entry I recently posted at http://ahp.yorku.ca/?p=299. I thought you might be interested to read it (and leave behind a comment of your own if you wish). Christopherdgreen (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute
The MEMRI article is always a challenge to edit. I have restored some criticism that was based on a recent compromise. Not sure why it was deleted. Always try to think of where content can go besides one single article -- there are usually alternatives that may be a better fit. --Deodar 23:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: MEMRI, did you take a look at the Yusuf al-Qaradawi article? The guy is "controversial" according to multiple POVs and as the cite makes abundantly clear. I don't understand your objection, and I really don't see how the Mayor of London's criticisms are even notable in the first place, when they are simply a reproduction of Brian Whitaker's, which are already in the article. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the original BBC article Isarig accused you of fabricating. Notwithstanding Isarig's nonsense about a "conspiracy theory," it's pretty usual for online news services to continue editing stories that are already posted.--G-Dett 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to The Fountain
Since the edit summary is too small to let me explain fully, I want to tell you why I'm reverting the information about Yggdrasil. There is nothing that I've come across in my research putting together this article to indicate any kind of connection with Yggdrasil. You are making a connection where there may not even be a connection, and this qualifies as original research. Everything in the Themes and influences section has been cited directly, but your citation mentions Aronofsky in the lead paragraph of the interview, and Aronofsky isn't even mentioned in the interview at all. The "connection" is shaky and underwhelming, and I'd prefer that the article for The Fountain to steer clear of any assumptions that cannot be verifiable. If there is a citation in which Yggdrasil is specifically mentioned as inspiration for the film, we can use it. --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 16:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not contesting the existence of the Hyperion project or that Aronofsky was attached at one point. I am contesting that there is a connection between Hyperion and The Fountain based on lack of citation in regard to the tree ship.  If you say you're "not the only one" who suspects plagiarism, then verify your claim by citing reliable sources. --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Refrencing
Please use a template whan refrencing rather than just the website in ref brackets it make life simpler when trying to verify sources thanks.--Lucy-marie 18:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This refrence is in relation to a webiste that you added I know it is laborious to add in all this information for just one webiste but it does save someone the task later on when the template has to be substituted in. So could you ploease use he template for all additional refrencing including webistes. Thanks very munch Lucy-marie 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request
As you may have seen, the Arbitration Committee has decided not to hear the arbitration case recently filed against you. Several of the arbitrators recommended that you continue to perform other means of dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion on your disagreement. Good luck. Newyorkbrad 20:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
Can I remind you that Wikipedia articles should conform to Neutral point of view. This means that it is inappropriate for articles on British energy suppliers to rely disproportionately on the amount of money spent on new renewable resources when assessing how green they are. It is also inappropriate to use glowing language and phraseology in articles about one such company and highly critical language when editing articles about its competitors.

If you work for or are otherwise associated with one of these firms then I strongly suggest you cease to edit articles about them. Regards, The Land 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's your responsibility to make sure that your edits reflect a neutral point of view. In the past on this subject they have not: please take the fact that there is another side to the argument on board in your future edits. Regards, The Land 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My VTS rv
Sorry, did not intend to rv your edit. I was rv the vandalism using pop-ups that obviously don't work on high volume articles. --I already forgot 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not have admin powers so I cannot issue blocks. However, the admins are handing out blocks as fast as the vandalism is being added to the article. --I already forgot 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Orgone
Hi, I notice you reverted my removal of the pseudoscience category tag from Orgone. I'm figuring that you probably thought I was trying to say that the subject wasn't pseudoscience, since that's happened a few times already with other articles I've re-categorized. I assure you're I'm most definitely not. :) I'm actually just trying to clean up the category page itself, since it includes a lot of articles that are already listed in one or more of the sub-categories (in this case, Orgone is listed in both Category:Orgone Science and Technology and Category:Vitalism, both of which are sub-categories of Category:Pseudoscience. I'd prefer to have just the sub-categories listed since this keeps the parent category page cleaner and easier to use (and this is also in line with Wikipedia guidelines on categorization, although there is some room for debate on the issue) but before I re-edit the article I wanted to have your thoughts on the matter, and to make sure I understand your motivations correctly. --Sapphic 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Psychological Publishing, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
Thank you for your addition to this article. Unfortunately, I had to revert it as no source was provided for the claim that the Bates method is pseudoscience. As "pseudoscience" is a derogatory label, we're forced to maintain a hard line and put subjects in this list only when there's an authoritative source claiming them to be pseudoscience and this source is referenced in order to avoid possible NPOV and original research violations. For a subject which indeed is pseudoscience, a source shouldn't be hard to find, but if one can't, this is likely indicative that it isn't notable enough to merit inclusion anyway.

I've also just put a notice similar to this commented in the code for the article, so hopefully it'll jump out at people more in the future. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a bit better; though I'd still prefer if we could get some quote which specifically uses the term "pseudoscience." Another problem is that we prefer sources that come from authoritative scientific groups (not just individuals, as many can be cranks in their own right) or notable skeptics. What you've given is just a couple scientific papers (under the heading of "individuals") and a newspaper piece (which is next to worthless when it comes to judging science, unless it's a guest column by a scientist or skeptic).


 * However, if you can provide some source that shows that the Bates method is often presented as science, this might be good enough (you can just post it on the talk page for evidence to editors; I'm not sure the readers need to see this). However, I can't guarantee it will stay up in the article indefinitely unless we get the prefered type of source. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
You say it as if I am maliciously or purposefully putting it in the wrong section. I am not super-familair with the article. I have dealt with several users trying to contribute on pages they are not completely familiar with and I believe a friendly notice would be in better faith than such a comment in the edit summary. Thank you. --Shamir1 05:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emotional_Freedom_Techniques
Ben Meijer 14:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Made a cabalcase. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07_Bates_method Seeyou (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Bates method. The case is located at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 19:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy medicine schools
You recently deleted the list of schools and training programs from Energy medicine as spam links. I'm new to Wiki. Can you clarify what set off the spam link alarm? Is there a way to build a list of training programs that would not raise this concern (e.g., a more comprehensive list)? Thanks. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. No, it wasn't my original list, but I did contribute to it.  And not brutal ... just trying to learn my way around the Wiki.  I get that Wiki is not meant to be used for advertising or tricking search bots.  Your reply said that businesses should not be listed, but when I look at List of digital camera brands, each of those references points to a page, and then each of those pages has a direct URL to the web site of the respective business.  So I would draw the conclusion that a single link is appropriate for businesses notable enough to get a page in Wiki, but otherwise not.  The same seems to apply to schools (List of colleges and universities in Connecticut).  Would that be a fair assessment?--Mbilitatu (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bates method‎
Thanks for your contributions to the discussions in Talk:Bates method. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Bates method is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
Stop trying to cover up the embarassing truth of what you are doing here. If you truly think your censorship is OK, and your accusations at me are fair, then why are you trying to hide any evidence of my protest? Leave this up so that people can see what you have done and agree with you. No? You won't? Of course you won't. Because you know you are absolutely wrong and that you have no right to be undoing any of my edits.

ROFL buddy. The simple fact that you are accusing me of this shows your own stupidity and bias. I have not "smeared" any Wikipedia user, although it is clear to me now that I SHOULD be smearing you. By giving me this message you have proven your true intentions. The truth of the matter is that I updated a page to include relevant and 100% true information, mainly that boycotts of Israel are internationally condemned and most people view the initiators as anti-Semitic. If you dispute this fact then you yourself are anti-Semitic. This is not an opinion, it is globally accepted fact.

Argue with that and you are an anti-Semite.

I don't know why you even found the necessity to harass me with that message. I made an edit two days ago and it was apparently reverted within a matter of minutes. Now two days later you come and bother me with these verbal attacks? Get out of here.

Thank you and good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.202.228 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not censoring you, you f*ckin dick. New posts go at the bottom. What you did is top-post. Now f*ck off, I'm sick of 14-year old revolutionaries messing up my talk page. Famousdog (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U
There is currently a RfC going on that you might be interested in. - Jéské  ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 01:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lazy eye
I just added a strabismus header to the lazy eye disambiguator - it looks correct to me, but would you mind checking it? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am Cosmos0001. I am a Wiki-Noob. :') Please bear with me. Is this the PM you speak of? I'm interested in the links to cutting edge research/top Amblyopic Docs/etc... any info would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. Cosmos0001 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Just dropping by again.You remember, Im the guy who was looking to be part of the lazy-brain study. Any news?Cosmos0001 (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Seeyou's MedCab case.
Hello, I am Atyndall and I have taken it upon myself to mediate User:Seeyou's MedCab case here, just letting you know that I have reviewed your side of the story and have compiled a report containing facts and suggestions about the situation, it can be found here (after reading the main stuff, look for the "To User:Famousdog" heading). I have also written similar reports addressed to User:Ronz and User:Seeyou. Feel free to discuss your report under the provided heading (Discussion of User:Famousdog's report) here. Happy editing! Atyndall93 |  talk  12:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Update
The case was closed on the grounds of being unsolvable; Seeyou and Ronz have been referred to formal mediation. Atyndall93 |  talk  01:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgone
You participated briefly on the orgone article, I have put forward a proposed lead to try and work past some of the substantial issues with the article. If you have a chance could you offer your opinion on the talk page? Thanks. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Third-party" discussion
Hi Famousdog. If you have time you might want to contribute to this discussion, considering your sentiment regarding the expression "third-party". PSWG1920 (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bates method
Please refactor, "Ronz, it just seems that you are determined to remove any reference or link to a pro-Bates site." to remove all assumptions of my actions and motivations that violate WP:AGF. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern, as I've mentioned earlier, is that the article is a NPOV disaster because editors are using poor references to expand the article to the point that the notable information is drowned in a sea of poorly sourced trivia. We determine NPOV by finding and following independent, reliable sources. Where are these sources? I'm not sure the article has any. Searching the internet, all I can find notable about the Bates method is that it is quackery. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Strabismus article a new link
Famousdog I added a link in our diccussion paragraph about strabismus and the possibility of selfcorrecting. Maybe you can respond. Seeyou (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou
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/Seeyou/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/Seeyou/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom
ArbCom generally takes some time to decide cases. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 08:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shame... Famousdog (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessing Psychology Articles
Thank you for assessing Abraham Low Self-Help Systems. I trying to get some other articles in the Psychology Project assessed, is there a ToDo list somewhere, or some place else to request them? -- Scarpy (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a To Do list on this page: Portal:Psychology. I'm not sure why it isn't on the Project page, but c'est la vie. I also check out pages in the 'unassessed' category to see if there's something I know a bit about. Famousdog (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Nicki Scully
Hello Famousdog, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Nicki Scully has been removed. It was removed by Closedmouth with the following edit summary ' (prod is contested, please take it to afd instead if you wish to have it deleted (per WP:PROD)) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Closedmouth before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Good work cleaning up cctreadway's mess
Nice one famousdog. But take a moment to look at some of the articles she was editing... the article on Aromatherapy is a blatent NPOV violation. It mis-represents the fringe-theory of aromatherapy as if it were a standard evidence-based psychotherapy practice. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

University of Buckingham - Vice-Chancellor
I appreciate your comments about the recent revisions made to the University of Buckingham page but I'm afraid I don't agree with your edits about the Vice-Chancellor - I'm aware that you don't agree with mine. It's public record that THE commissioned a satirical piece and Dr Kealey fulfilled his brief - albeit not expertly. I am currently researching and preparing a para about his most recent articles in the media about the creation of a second independent Uni (see below) so the section could do with a prune anyway. Can we come to a compromise that we are both happy with? My new para will go something along the lines of:

In February 2010 Kealey proposed the establishment of a new independent university, modelled on American liberal arts colleges, that would concentrate on high-quality teaching for undergraduates rather than research. The plan is currently being considered by the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference (HMC), whose 243 members include independent schools such as Eton, Winchester and St Paul's.

Kealey believes that complaints about impersonal teaching and oversized classes at many traditional universities mean there will be strong demand for higher education at the standard provided by independent secondary schools. It may also attract pupils worried about government pressure on top universities to discriminate in favour of state school-educated pupils.

I intend to use the following links: and. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter32 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — Dexter32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Dex, My problem with your edits was that they 'pruned' all the links and citations that expressed valid criticisms of his article and the only citation left to show that he had offended anybody was his own defense-piece. This is against WP policy as it gives undue weight to Kealey's views. Your addition of "unintentionally" implies that we can know Kealey's intention in writing the piece. We cannot, so it's best left out. Frankly, Kealey frequently says stupid things simply to keep his University and his name in the public eye. The fact that his article was commisioned by THE is neither here nor there. He could have written it in a totally different way and not offended anybody. He chose not to. Finally, I think Kealey's behaviour and the response to it are of great interest to any female students thinking of attending Buckingham.


 * Regarding your suggested new para, I would remove a few peacock terms and the last sentence, unless Kealey has some tangible evidence that such 'pressure' actually occurs:


 * In February 2010 Kealey proposed the establishment of a new independent university, modelled on American liberal arts colleges, that would concentrate on undergratuate teaching rather than research. The plan is currently being considered by the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference (HMC), whose 243 members include independent schools such as Eton, Winchester and St Paul's.


 * Kealey believes that complaints about impersonal teaching and oversized classes at many traditional universities mean there will be strong demand for higher education with staff-student ratios similar to that provided by independent secondary schools.


 * What say you? Famousdog (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I get your point, although I don't agree with it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I won't change it back though - it could get very silly.

Thanks for the amends to the new para. I agree with those completely.

Incidentally, I do appreciate your honesty and the fact that you will enter discussions about my amends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter32 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC) — Dexter32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Thanks for your honesty. I didn't want to edit war either. Famousdog (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just uploaded some changes on the Chancellorship section of the University of Buckingham entry. Nothing has been cut but I've added some additional links to try to balance the piece a little - Kealey did have some supporters and the previous piece didn't really give them a voice. I've tried to keep it free from the dreaded peacocking etc. and I'm sure you (and / or others) will pick up anything that may have sneaked in (I'm no expert on Wikipedia). Hope you have no objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter32 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC) — Dexter32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Made a few minor changes, but generally I'm fine with it. Famousdog (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Famousdog. Very happy with your changes. Have removed sentence about news coverage (the one you moved to the end) for now and am trying to find evidence to support (in which case I'll put back in). Couple of other very minor tweaks. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter32 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC) — Dexter32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Articles for deletion nomination of Modern Islamic contributions to science
I have nominated Modern Islamic contributions to science, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Modern Islamic contributions to science. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Chuunen Baka (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Blanking talk pages
Regarding this edit; editors are entirely free to blank their own talk page if they wish (if it follows a warning then the blanking can be usefully taken as a sign that the editor has read it), and telling someone to "stop acting like an idiot" (as well as restoring the comment after you've provoked them into deleting it) isn't in line with basic WP:CIVILITY.

If you have a problem with an editor's behaviour on an article, and they aren't cooperating on their personal talk page, just take it to the article talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to policy, such behaviour is "to be discouraged", and I don't like my comments (civil or otherwise) simply being deleted, but I accept that it is within other editors rights. Reverting Nigel_Harris' blanks was an simple way of registering that I was not of the opinion that such behaviour was the way to proceed. Secondly, I think that one's right to be treated in a civil manner rather depends upon how one has treated others. Harris' behaviour has been downright bonkers since he appeared on WP. Finally, forgive me for asking but what is your interest in all this? Famousdog (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I just noticed an odd edit to Natalie Haynes and was checking you hadn't pasted the same incorrect-gender sentence into other articles. Your previous edit summary showed that you'd reverted an editor on their own talk page, which seemed an odd thing to be doing, so I took a look at it.
 * WP:NPA explicitly tells all editors to refrain from making personal attacks. I appreciate that there are a lot of difficult editors out there, but levelling abuse at them rarely helps resolve a disagreement, and often just raises tension and makes it worse. Take it to the talk page, make it clear that other editors agree with you rather than with them, and just dole out dispassionate warning templates if their behaviour crosses the line into actual vandalism. --McGeddon (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Wikipedia is not a forum. There for the argument we had is of no value to the talk page. If you love arguing so much go on youtube.--English Bobby (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read this policy document and do not remove my comments without my permission. If you want to remove your own, go ahead, but please add a placeholder to that effect. Famousdog (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes i have and it says you can remove comments that are nothing other than personal attacks which is all these comments were.--English Bobby (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Which leaves me wondering why didn't you remove your original comment ("Your totally right! Wikipedia is full of selfloath lefty unionists who hate being English and English nationalist patriots!"), which would seem to be an attack on WP editors in general, an example of "using a talk page as a forum" and, if we're honest, is the post that started all this tripe (my own retaliatory tripe included)? Remove your own comment and I'll be happy. Famousdog (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Report of edit waring
I appreciate your hard work to sort out this problem. However, IMO they seem entrenched in their POV. As the edit waring has been getting worse, I've filed a report at AN/EW. Hope this brings a measure of peace to that article. Sunray (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Barber's pole
Your remarks were needlessly, gratuitously (and without substantiation) insulting, and ignored the fact that another editor said he was going to take care of the problem on the talk page. WP:AGF. WP:Civility. There are better ways to accomplish your goals. Happy editing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

PNAS
Hi, teh reference you added for the IF does only work for you... Try it at home, you'll see. (And after your ISI session expires, it won't even work for you any more either...:-) --Crusio (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Thanks for the heads-up. Famousdog (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Time Perception Edit
Hi Famousdog. I thank you for editing the article in a mature way and replacing the so-called "peacockery" with a valid sentence and source, although i do not get your intentions. My intention was not to promote or advance an person or to advertise, but to add a scientist to the pioneering list of people on the subject. Do you not agree that the article is a pioneer article? I do not see a reason for such a drastic edit and removal of name(s). The scientist does relate the time perception to Einstein's Theory of relativity, as well as the process of aging, and that first part was removed as well. I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simple359 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That article shows several biological processes "slowing down" over the lifespan, and then seems to negatively correlate them with the subjective sense of time "speeding up". As you no doubt already know, correlation does not imply causation. I also fail to see how the brain (our experience of time) could have access to the level of hair graying, for example, or the rate of cell proliferation, and I don't see how or why these biological changes would affect psychological processes. These "non-neural" biological changes aside, mention is made of neural connectivity getting slower (although we probably need a citation to show this, since a relevant source is not cited in the article) and I agree that neural "sluggishness" might change the perception of time, but how is that related to the other biological markers, and is any evidence beyond a correlation and a hypothesis presented? Regarding the link with the theory of relativity, it seems to simply be an analogy - not a causal factor in time perception. Finally, the journal in which the paper is published isn't listed on PubMed or Web of Science, so I can't check whether anybody has cited it in order to establish whether it has had any significant impact on the field. With regards my edits to the section and my removal of it from the lead paragraphs, before we start saying that "Scientist X" is a "pioneer" in their field, we need some kind of independent evidence that they are a notable scientist. I hope that explains my edits. Famousdog (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your points. I appreciate you clearing up the reasons for me, they seem to be very well backed and thought out. Regarding the journal (book), it is correct that it is a rare one, hard to come by and to cite. There has been a number of articles in the recent years that explain basically the same idea as was presented in this one, failing to cite this one as well. Thanks again. By the way, if you are interested in the subject, the ISBN of the book is 3-85076-525-3 .Simple359 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture: all good now
Hi Famousdog -- as I guess you surmised from the source, this edit was not accurate but this one was. (The latter may have gotten reverted because the edit summary was unclear.) Anyway, your more recent edit seems to have stuck, as it should. Thanks & regards, Middle 8 (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to Our Lady of Zeitoun
I think your reversion of the edit is a mistake. Any criticism of Persinger's work belongs under his article, not on an article that refers to him and deals with only one aspect of his research, the tectonic strain theory (TST). In fact the bulk of the criticism in question isn't in the article on Persinger at all. It is fairly general in nature and makes reference to a 'God helmet' which has nothing to do with the Zeitoun apparition. The paragraph simply doesn't belong. More specifically:

1. The citation for Persinger's 'claims' (note the evocative language) "being widely dismissed" is not to a scholarly work but to a book written by a barrister! Hardly a refutation to a serious researcher.

2. "Not been independently replicated" cites to a research on building a haunted house - no relation to tectonic strain research (as stated in the abstract of the paper). How can you independently replicate tectonic strain?

3. The reference to the 'God helmet' is irrelevant as far as I can determine - again no relation to tectonic strain theory.

In summary, the place to argue any failings in Persinger's research is in the article on Persinger. To the contrary, under the "Tectonic Strain Theory" section of his article, I see qualified support from other researchers such as Devereaux and Rutowski. No real criticism apart from a similar edit made by the same person who edited the Zeitoun article. There is certainly no case made there that Persinger's theory is "widely disputed". 60.242.156.51 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Wired for God is a recent, popular science book. The author is a writer, theologian and (yes) barrister. He references Rutowski's arguments as an example of the "icy reception" that TST has received. "Widely dismissed" perhaps oversteps the mark, simply because Persinger's theories are not "widely known".
 * 2) The haunted house project aimed to use Persinger's theories to create a haunted space. It is as close as you can get to an attempt to replicate the unreplicable.
 * 3) The failure of other groups to replicate Persinger's findings regarding his other (closely-related) theories is highly significant. Famousdog (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.
 * 1) A popular science book (if that is what it is) is not a scholarly reference. It is far below the peer-reviewed published paper standard that an encyclopedia should be aiming for. We can always find a published book that supports or opposes a particular position. It doesn't make it suitable for citation on its own, especially as the author is a non-scientist.
 * 2) The tectonic strain theory was supported by a statistical study. In terms of research, it stands on its own. Persinger then looked for possible explanations such as piezo-electric and electro-magnetic effects. The failure of one experiment to test the latter has nothing to do with the former. A case has been made for a correlation of light phenomena with tectonic strain although the mechanism has not been identified yet. The Zeitoun article only talks about the tectonic strain theory itself. That statistical study is good science and has not been refuted.
 * 3) You are incorrect. A researcher being possibly wrong in one area (negative experiments are not conclusive) does not automatically cast aspersions on his other work. Even if it did, the article on the Zeitoun apparition is not the place to discuss it.

I repeat: Any criticism of Persinger's TST belongs in that section of his own article. Talk of a 'God helmet' is totally inappropriate under Zeitoun. It just hangs there out of context.

Since it appears that we can't agree, can we please get a third opinion? 60.242.156.51 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you need to read Wikipedia's guidelines on what is an acceptable source. You also place too much credence in Persinger's research. I think he is misguided and a poor scientist. If you have a problem with the edits I made, then change them. That is how WP works. Stop trying to convince me here. Edit the article as you see fit. I will edit it as I see fit. Also, please get a user account and stop editing anonymously. Famousdog (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Colorpuncture
You may wish to comment at this Help desk thread, where is asking about your reversion of his/her edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Siegel (scientist)
That article is an utter and blatant copyvio (of this page). You're far too experienced an editor to do something like that. I'm going to give you a chance to fix the problem before taking further action. Looie496 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was a pretty harsh response, but you have a point. What actually happened was that I started the article, using the Rutgers obit as a starting point and then got distracted by other stuff and wasn't on WP for several days. I'd actually forgotten that I'd begun it! I will sort it out now. Consider my hand slapped. Famousdog (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but copyvios expose Wikipedia to legal jeopardy, so they can't be handled in a wishy-washy way. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me add that this way of working is a really bad idea. If you start with a verbatim copy and then modify it, the result is almost certain to be a "derived work" in the legal sense, meaning a violation of copyright.  The only way to avoid creating a derived work is to put the story in your own words from the start.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

EspaisNT
Distinguished Famousdog. I wish you told me that part of the article you think should be eliminated. I would tell you that I am not English. That is, I can not write well in your language. I wonder if there is any possibility of revising the article. If so, I would appreciate you let me know how can I do it. Otherwise, you can delete it now. cordially — Preceding unsigned comment added by EspaisNT (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr Famousdog, I have wrote you at "espaisNT". Cordially. --EspaisNT (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also moved it at the discussion of the theory --EspaisNT (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Polarity therapy research sources
Great work on the scientific investigation sources, Famousdog! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SympatheticResonance (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I need help with my article, please.
Hi there I would like some help with editing my article. I got this message: You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spatial Intelligence a new approach for architecture and design. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! My reviewer suggested this: This article is interesting but needs to be heavily edited. It reads like a research paper and most importantly, it reads like original research. (WP:OR) I heavily recommend that you look into contacting some of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology to help you edit the article so it can be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. You might also need to get more resources to back up some of the claims in your article. I also recommend that you collaborate with the members of WikiPsychology to see if you can find a better name for the article. The title is reminiscent of a research paper, which is discouraged here on Wikipedia and will be more of a hindrance than a help as far as getting the article approved. Hope this helps you out! I saw that you put a lot of work into this article, so I don't want you to get too discouraged.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

I would appreciate your help and reply. Jsivira (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Spatial_Intelligence_a_new_approach_for_architecture_and_design

December 2011
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited 2011 Somerset hot air balloon crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Section: User:Dickmojo on Acunpuncture  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique
Could you please refactor your recent comments there? While I understand your frustration, the personal remarks only make the situation worse.

The discussions appear to be coming to an end. Looks at least one editor wants to get in some parting shots before being blocked. Don't take the bait. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. The last thing I want to do is alienate other experienced and sensible WP editors like your good self. I will let my comments stand as a testament to how frustrated this whole affair has made me, but I will not be contributing any more to this discussion. Famousdog (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Formal warning for your ad hominems and personal attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#RfC_request

Also, not sure what WP policy is on stalking but it won't help your case I'm sure. --Mindjuicer (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Evidence? Famousdog (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It stands on its own. --Mindjuicer (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha. Code for "I can't back up my accusation". Regarding "stalking"... exactly whose talk page are you posting on? Oh, that's right. Mine. Famousdog (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest Editing T.B. Joshua Article
Hi Famousdog, just wanted to be up front about my interest in the T.B. Joshua article. I recently had an opportunity to travel to the SCOAN and was very impressed by what I saw there. The edits I made to the article reflect this impression. I am still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing and I apologize for linking to YouTube videos from the Official SCOAN YouTube Channel. That demonstrated poor judgment and I just wanted to be up front and apologize for it. Cheers.

Rolandwilliamson (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No gravedancing, please
Please don't do this kind of thing. It only inflames matters and has absolutely no constructive purpose. Worst of all (from your point of view) it gives your opponents a perfect example of pettiness to display next time there's any kind of dispute, thus weakening your own case. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  11:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Or this either. You are moving closely to disruptive editing and I advise you to stop. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  11:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Mind–body intervention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relaxation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

EFT article help
The EFT article is incredibly biased, and I was simply trying to remove a section which has no value. The intellectual arrogance on wikipedia is disgusting. These very effective techniques have been used for thousands of years, and helped countless individuals overcome incredibly disabling conditions. There should be sections on each of these articles about their historical use and effectiveness, not just the claims of the western scientific community. It's almost like Monsanto owns Wikipedia, and damns established practices that would conflict with the prescription of medication for those who could cure these diseases on their own. I don't know the proper way to go about fixing this, but I find it sad that Wikipedia tends towards pushing people away from anything modern corporate interests conflict with, especially when concerned with medicine. EFT works better than valium for every individual I've ever known for panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, disrupting cycles and preventing further episodes for the rest of ones life. No practice in modern psychiatry can tout such effectiveness. How might I include information about something like this in these articles? The level of unbalance in represented perspectives is pathetic, ruins this site.


 * Dear Anonymous user, I can't find your IP address in the EFT article history. Are you responsible for these unhelpful and abusive edits? If so, I don't feel that I need to justify myself to you. And please don't top-post on a talk page. Good day. Famousdog (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. When you recently edited List of genetic algorithm applications, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eyewitness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your signature
Please change it to accord with WP:SIGNATURE. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I must have missed that section of the guidelines. Done. Famous dog   (c) 19:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Famousdog, this section also shows up on the Talk:Orgone page. --Gulpen (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out Gulpen. I've fixed it (hopefully!). Famous dog   (c) 19:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A much needed laugh
During today's article crawl I happened upon electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine), checked out the talk page and came across your old comment. I just wanted to thank you for providing me with a much needed laugh today (even if it meant that my keyboard is now covered in tea). Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 Somerset hot air balloon crash for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Somerset hot air balloon crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2011 Somerset hot air balloon crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  LGA talk  edits   07:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Your deleted article
I must say I am very disappointed that someone who has been editing as long as you have should have created an article that so obviously failed the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. I am even more disappointed that you expected it to remain there and apparently think I have done something wrong by removing it. The first thing I did was to conduct a Google search but could find no reference to Apply AS, unless you were referring to this company, called Apply. If so, you need to check out the actual title of the company and make sure you have named the article accurately. If you want to associate yourself with the many users who choose to take exception with me trying to do my job as an administrator properly, feel free. I don't suppose you will be the last. Deb (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "That doesn't seem too much to ask, does it?" Yes, it does. What you are asking is for other people to clean up after you.  If an article is not ready for article space, please keep it in your user space until it is, and then transfer it.  That doesn't seem too much to ask. Deb (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)