User talk:Jefffire/Archive the fourth

Re:Proof, Re.: People shooting at UFOs, Re.: Cattle Mutilations
Google:"People shooting at UFOs/Animal mutilations". 65.163.113.170 (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done that and I also found another rancher who shot at a UFO that was attacking his cattle. Ranchers WILL shoot at any and all intruders. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They've not done a very good job at bringing them down. Jefffire (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments of the RSN
Just to be clear, you agree that a homeopathic article can be used as a RS. However you content that the fact that it is published by a homeopathic journal doesn't settle the issue of undue weight. Anthon01 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to be specific. If it is agreed that a thing has enough weight to warrant article inclusion, Then it might be that a journal mention is a suitable source to cite it, "it" usually being a belief or practice of homeopaths. However, text-books are usually better to cite with. Jefffire (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

awwww, OK
. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You really aren't helping yourself. Jefffire (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you keep harrassing me with your threats, I'm going to report you. that talk page if full of blatant violations WP:NPA WP:AGF and a complete disregard for WP:TALK, so get over it, and lose the cheap intimidation tactics. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not harrasing you, I'm asking you to quit being disruptive with your "humour". I don't find being called a Stalinist particularly pleasant, nor the half dozen other things you've called scientists on the talk page. So kindly stop. Jefffire (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeffire, the behavior Boodles is commenting on is far more disruptive, and any "civility" issues should be addressed at the root of the problem. The user Boodles is commenting on is way out of line, throwing up Smoke screens, and I personally find it to be disruptive. If Boodles "socratic irony" is what it takes, well that's unfortunate, but it's better than locking the article over and over again, which is what we had before. You've threatened me similarly and it's getting old. WNDL42 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that means-to-an-end isn't an accepted excuse for incivility. In fact, it likely falls under WP:Point. Jefffire (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Balanced treatment of Civility issues at What the Bleep
Jeffire, I have found you to be, in many instances, a good and moderate advocate for your POV, indeed I would complement you as being among the "best of breed" editors among what is a largely incivil and difficult group.

Unfortunately, at the "Bleep" talk page, you recently said:

If a "consensus" only exists until someone with a a scientific background speaks up (or a Stalinist, as Boodles and Wndl42 call us), then it is hardly worth defending. A true consensus can only arise in a full informed community. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I've asked politely on several occasions now that you please stop falsely portraying my characterizations of the conflicts there as personal attacks, as you have again, above.

The entry on my personal talk page that you posted at the Bleep talk age refers to this diff of the conversation, and clearly the critique it refers a general world-view held by off-wiki critics, not any person or group on wikipedia. If that "shoe" I described happened to have an uncomfortable "fit", then I am sorry -- but you are assuming bad faith by publicly interpreting it there on the talk page as an "attack" on you.

Now, posting links to my talk page discussions is not appropriate on an article talk page (incivility), especially to the extent that you choose to remove the discussion from it's essential context (again). You know full well where the vast majority of the discrediting attacks come from...indeed you are to be commended for taking time to counsel some of the most chronic and unapologetic members of that "tribe", and when I use that word, please consider your edit history may be less helpful than you think in the context of this "tribal" behavior.

So FYI, here is the context that you have excluded in order to discredit me there. It's disingenuous for you to repetitively harp on "incivility" that can more accurately be portrayed as Socratic irony as a sometimes (unfortunately) necessary part of Socratic discourse, while you defend what is a long history of much more serious behavior elsewhere -- this is tantamount to talking out of two sides of the same mouth, an irony illustrated here, where you "tag" people for "opening up scabs", but then you rip them open yourself on the article talk page. I would respectfully request that you strike/delete the offending talk page entry at WTBDWK and please don't repeat this again. I look for you to revert to a more balanced approach to your civility assements, your team needs a leader. WNDL42 (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The comments on your talk page are clearly directed towards science based editors. Furthermore, your condescending description of said editors as a "tribe" in need of a "leader" is particularly ugly. In light of this attitude, I see nothing to be gained from continuing this discussion. Jefffire (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, no further discussion needed. I have registered my concerns about your commentary at the Bleep talk page and if there is no recurrence, then there's no problem. To the extent that my invitation to you -- to treat your established role in a more balanced fashion offends you, then I do apologize -- no offence intended. Cheers. WNDL42 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather a large number of your supposedly innocent comments are open to 'misinterpretation'. If you can't see why describing groups of editors as a "tribe" is unhelpful, then my advice is that you depart. Jefffire (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I do see your point. Thank you. WNDL42 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

 * I was just opening up the edit window for your talk page when I got the "new messages" window. I'm there. This isn't a discussion, it's just a prolonged tantrum.Kww (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After this, I'm eager to see what you write in the RFC. Clearly not even trying.Kww (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you ever do it, this is probably worthy of mention as well.Kww (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sock puppet accusations now? Well, I have plenty of time tomorrow. Filling out a RfC is a pest, but compared to the time wasted at the moment it is necessary. Jefffire (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're serious about this, I'd be behind you.  Unfortunately my support doesn't mean much, since I've only got one actual edit to my name; I thought it would be best to watch and learn for a while rather than blundering right in.  I've only been observing for a couple of weeks, but to an observer, this one really stands out for positions which are not only unique to the user, but apparently constructed on the fly and flimsily shored up, yet defended as stubbornly as if they had all the logic and solid evidence and consensus of the world behind them.   Good luck. Woonpton (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For your interest, it's been created Requests_for_comment/WNDL42. Jefffire (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a note sent to my talk page (sorry, I don't know how to make those compact little link things)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWoonpton&diff=194796427&oldid=193321889
 * would there be any purpose in adding it to the RfC, or would it be considered redundant? Woonpton (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be perfectly fine to add comments to it in the correct spaces. Just say what your experiences have been with the user and your perceptions of the disagreement. Jefffire (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Trigger happy
Hehe, me, too!

Groupthink
This is getting surreal.Kww (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ag, there is no mention of group think in the Rabbi joke, making it OR. So much seems bases on a couple of authors. Jefffire (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert of Bigfoot Page
You just reverted a carefully written addition to the article that followed all the rules of wikipedia.

Every source was carefully cited. Every source went back to a scientific authority.

It took two hours for me to do all that work--

Which you just arrogantly eliminated. What you just did was very unkind-- and was also intellectually irresponsible and in violation of wikipedia rules.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:Undue weight. It is not enough that it be well well cites, an article mush accurately reflect the controversy in weighting. Jefffire (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You did not accurately weight the article. You buried the opinions you did not like and titled your side of the debate as "Mainstream".

'''My version gives a full section to each side. Your version gives your opinion as the only section title-- and buries the opposing opinion.'''

Also-- part of what you deleted in my section was DNA evidence referenced by prominent scientists. Did you even read that part before you deleted it? DNA evidence carries enormous weight. DNA evidence of "an unknown primate" -- taken from hair samples at several Bigfoot sighting locations-- has been tested by scientists in several labs going back into the late 1990's. This is well documented. I properly cited this in my addition and you removed it. Sean7phil (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weighting is not determined by an editors view of the strength of the evidence, but by the relative support amongst the scientific community. Jefffire (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cite a source that accurately counts all the primatologists and details the statistics on all of their opinions about Bigfoot.

Otherwise your definition of "mainstream" is nothing more than your own opinion-- or the slant of an article that itself is lacking such a careful count or scientist opinions.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not how what is mainstream is determined, and any admin can tell you that's not a reasonable standard of evidence. Are you seriously arguing that belief in bigfoot is the majority opinion amongst primatologists, or this this just a rhetorical device? Jefffire (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help SA
My advice to SA was triggered by a request he made at the latest WP:AE Your advice to him about not taking the bait is very good advice. I also responded to your response on his talk page. Thanks again. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Saw your comments on Atheism
Hey, saw your comments on Atheism. Happy you liked my contribution. How about rouding the POV at Atheism as you say in your userpage! Am pretty flabbergasted at the disparity between Wiki and Conservapedia. Hellohigudby (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Crazy, crazy folks. I never believed such people existed before I found conservapedia. But I have made a few contributions which, shall we say, fitted right in. Jefffire (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Robert Taylor incident page
Hello, saw your concerns on the Robert Taylor incident talk page. I've added references and links to sources so that should ease some of your concerns. --Factorylad (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Naturopathic medicine
I see that you have recently reverted some edits to the naturopathy page. I note that you have given as your reason that the changes to the lead were POV, but that you have not bothered to explain why you think this is so in the discussion page.
 * Could you please explain why you think it is POV for the article to describe naturopathy as an aproach to medicine rather than a single proffesion or standard of care? Do you dispute the fact, or the way in which it was written?
 * Could you also explain why it would be considered POV for the article to mention that the principles of naturopathy may be practiced in multiple settings (complementary, altyernative, and primary care)? Again, do you dispute the fact or the way it was written?
 * Do you really think that adding scare quotes around the word "natural" in the lead is an example of NPOV? Really? What do the quotes add to the article? What is lost if they are taken away?

Naturstud (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RV
Hi,

Your recent edit to Remote viewing made the statement go from uncontroversial to controversial, but kept it a direct statement of fact. We need to go with attribution once we get into controversial areas, as with the last sentence in the paragraph. Also, the article is currently under informal mediation, which means we really should discuss things first, if they are likely to be controversial. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your evaluation. Lack of evidence is a far larger reason for the scientific communities rejection of remote viewing than theoretical contradiction, so the existing wording misrepresented the scientific community. In any case I think it would be better wording (more pithy and elegant) to leave the reasoning to the main body of the text. Jefffire (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

sports chiro AfD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_Chiropractic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sports_Chiropractic Their talkpage is the funniest part. Are you allowed to say wankers on wikipedia? Mccready (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article needs to be deleted as non-notable, but this is coming close to canvasing. In the future I suggest posting to talk:chiropractic instead. Jefffire (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility please
Please consider refactoring this edit by removing the personal attack on me. I would appreciate it. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no shame in being scientifically illiterate Levine. But if you misrepresent yourself, you will be called up on it. Seeing as how you got the impact factor wrong by 1000x, think the Journal of Scientific Exploration is an authoritative scientific source, and seemingly have no knowledge of how scientific reliability is judged, I would appreciate it if you stopped pretending to be scientific. Jefffire (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am offering another opportunity to remove these personal attacks. After that, I will take it to Wikiquette board. Also, please know that the comma and period treatment in impact factors are often interchanged. Take this one for instance which uses the comma delineation. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comma's are commonly used as decimal points in Europe. If you want to play with science, you don't get to get away with pretending. If you cease misrepresenting yourself, I won't call you up on your, shall we say...put-upon-knowledge. Deal? Jefffire (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeffire, you're blurring the civility line pretty heavy here. What makes you think you a bigger or more notable understanding of science than Levine2112 or anyone else here? CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the two of you are so obviously bad at it. Jefffire (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sports Chiropractic
Thanks for knocking out that section on NCAA athletes. I was trying to run through those sources and see which ones fit the article text but I couldn't get to that particular journal article. Protonk (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Take care working on these articles, many of the adherants react extremely negatively to editors that don't accept their wordings. User:Dematt is pretty good at general questions though. He's a chiropracter by trade I believe, and is generally very good with helping with neutrality issues without taking offense. Jefffire (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OM
This is the report that is referenced, its suitability and any possible synthesis concerns was discussed (at great length) in at the [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_American_Medical_Association_a_reliable_source.3F RS noticeboard]. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

comprehensive 2004 review
Would comprehensive be an acceptable substitute for authoratative. Q ua ck Gu ru  18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to just say it's a Cochrane review. Jefffire (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with "Cochrane" review. Thanks for your advise.  Q ua ck Gu ru   15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/TheNautilus
I'd appreciate your input on this, since you are familiar with these problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Jefffire (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this comment and this comment. These two accounts have the same type of writing style. And take a look at the edit summaries of these two comments. Both accounts used the abbreviation ps. Take a look at this TheNautilus comment. I'cast replaced TheNautilus signature. This is a potential violation of sock because the editor is splitting up contributions to avoid public scrutiny IMHO. Q ua ck Gu ru  17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've decided to continue with this RfC, but to note that this is an alternate account and invite people with experience of the other account's actions to comment as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine and nutritional medicine in delinquents.
Please look into the research by William Walsh, Carl Pfeiffer, and the Pfeiffer Treatment Center into orthomolecular / nutritional therapies for delinquency. There is a large body of very promising research, and once one is aware of its depth and history, it is impossible to assert in good faith that they are not the same.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't care. Either they describe themselves are orthomolecular or they don't. If they don't, then asserting that they do is WP:SYNTH. Jefffire (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Claiming that orthomolecular therapies are orthomolecular until they are adopted by mainstream medicine does not serve the readers of WP.--Alterrabe (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the lede in such a way that I hope it does your sensibilities justice. Should it not, we may have to request outside comments.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this before. You are wrong, this is WP:SYNTH. If you want to rewrite the policy, take it up on the policy talk page. Otherwise, cease PoV pushing on wikipedia. Jefffire (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OM and Syntheses
An editor has found another article that is used to describe orthomolecular medicine in the OM article, but, unfortunately doesn't contain those two words. Would you agree with me that it too should be removed, as using it in this connection violates WP:SYNTH? (These are described on OM talk.)--Alterrabe (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you another question on OM's talk page, and await an answer.--Alterrabe (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, seen it all before. Go push pseudoscience on some other website. Wikipedia is not the place to overturn us evil scientists. Jefffire (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments about third opinions are meant to be as neutral as possible, which I strove to be. I am not trying to "overturn scientific consensus," I am trying to see that those who believe that the current scientific consensus needs revision have their views explained accurately. I wish you wouldn't allege that I think you are evil; I believe that far more mistaken beliefs are due to intellectual limitations than malice.--Alterrabe (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Quit wasting my time. Wikipedia is not the place to push fringe beliefs. Put up or shut up. Also, please do feel free to take a look through my talk archive. As you'll see, you're hardly the first person to want to push fringe beliefs in Wikipedia. Jefffire (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to edit from a neutral point view. Real physicians and scientists work orthomolecular issues too, orthomolecular being first in a lot of cases. You deleted a lot of consensus text that was well referenced and showed the orthomoecular references' claims juxtaposed with the mainstream references recommendations, including vitmain E for betalipoproteinemia. Fish oil was clearly recommended early on by OMM, the Braverman (1987) reference is one example. I've restored long standing consensus text that is adequately referenced. If you need more, pls let us know, is the standard request. However I've seen complaints about *too many* refs, back about 50 references ago.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreement between meatpuppets is not a "concensus". All material which violates WP:NPoV and WP:SYNTH should and will be removed. Jefffire (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What, you think Andrew73, Gleng, SBHarris, MastCell, etc. were meatpuppets? I believe that some of that material was part or similar to that you agreed to in Aug 2006. You have become very aggressive and OWN without much collaborative discussion.  The "fringe" -> "pseudoscience" part is particularly disturbing when you claim "NPOV" and your version of SYNTH removing well referenced points seemed a bit over eager.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I refer chiefly to material added post 2006, which is clearly PoV. Jefffire (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I ask a straight question? Have you read the various QW-NCAHF papers on vitamin C, Pauling and orthomolecular medicine?--TheNautilus (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not actually interested in the subject. I'm only editing to correct policy violations which are common on alt-med and pseudoscience articles. Jefffire (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WQA on you
As you know, a WQA was filed against you by User:ImperfectlyInformed. A lot of the issues are not for WQA, and I think it can be closed with a friendly reminder: please remember that the term 'meatpuppet' is considered highly incivil and should not be tossed around loosely, in the absence of evidence and outside of the appropriate forums. If you take note of that, then I think the matter has ended with me closing it. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The presence of so many supporters in a fringe article is deeply suspicious, but I will heed this advice. Jefffire (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable or weak sources?
Can you explain how the sources used in this edit which you reverted (diff) are unreliable or weak? The sources are Nutrition Journal, Proceedings for the Nat'l Academy of Sciences, and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The CMAJ is the weak one here. Bear in mind that the claim being made is about treatments for cancer, which as extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence such as review articles in the very top medical journals. Primary papers and those in more minor journals do not make the cut. Jefffire (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On its own, the CMAJ article may be "weak." In the proper context - remember that you have refused to thoroughly acquaint yourself with orthomolecular thought and history -  of a Nobel Prize Laureate and other physicians having previously published books and papers on treating Cancer with vitamin C, it appears to be a lot stronger, and, I would say, relevant.  It is misleading but I note, advances your personal point of view, for you to assasinate articles using justifications that take them out of context.


 * When you delete three references, and only provide reasons why you believe two are "weak" or "unreliable," it reeks. You must also know that scientists differentiate between theories which are proven beyond any doubt, and theories which is supported by preliminary evidence.  Rather than deleting articles apparently not to your POV, you could have edited to emphasize the preliminary - i.e. not yet thoroughly proven - nature of the article of CMAJ.  This strikes me as horrible editing.--Alterrabe (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pushing fringe medicine on Wikipedia strikes me as the same. When you have review articles in major publications that are actually about "Orthomolecular medicine", then I'll happily put them in. WP:SYNTHing material that fits your vague description of what the subject is violates policy. Don't like it, don't edit. Jefffire (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Eppur si muove--Alterrabe (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience checklist number 1: Comparing yourself to Galileo. Jefffire (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm getting a huge amount of lag in Huggle and I've reverted your edit here along with some vandalism. Damn slow internet. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I should have checked the last few edits on the article weren't vandalism before editing. Jefffire (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lag actually worked in my favour and I only had to revert myself once to fix it. Hoorah. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
We've disagreed in the past, and I've tried to be accomodating to your point of view. But I can't accept when you delete well-sourced facts and make (transparently) false claims about their sourcing. Please stop this immediately, or I will do what I can to ensure that wikipedia's management stops you.--Alterrabe (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So...you think that Economist is a scientific source? Or that WP:SYNTH doesn't apply to a case where it clearly does? Or that WP:ATTRIBUTION has collapsed. I delete a lot of pseudoscience, please be more specific which piece of falsity you are championing. Jefffire (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: your deconstruction definition reverts
Hi, Jefffire. In my opinion, the definition you provided from the medialit website is less helpful than the original definition you reverted. I am not going to revert your edit, since I am sure you disagree, but the original was quite accurate and concise. It agrees with the deconstruction entry in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2000), which says: 'Deconstruction [preserves the spirit of the Enlightenment] primarily through a close reading of philosophical and other texts and by drawing attention to the moments of "aporia" (unresolved tension or conflict) that tend to be ignored by mainstream exegetes'. Furthermore, the original definition agrees with and accurately summarizes the entire 'Theory' section which is well cited. I agree on the level that it is nonsense, but it is nevertheless accurate nonsense. I encourage you to revert the original definition. - Snookerfran (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:VERIFY. The definition provided by the Encyclopedia of Philosophy could provide a useful reference for a definition if properly attributed. Jefffire (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with WP:VERIFY, and I am starting to wonder if you are. You have gone against the advice asserted therein by undoing an unreferenced definition rather than simply adding the 'unreferenced' tag. You have - bizarrely - listed vandalism as the reason. If you do not agree that the Routledge reference corresponds closely enough to the original (perfectly reasonable) definition then please revert it with the unreferenced tag until such time as we can find one that does. - Snookerfran (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote from the encyclopedia suffers from jargon, but it at least makes sense. The sentence I removed from the article was utter gibberish, bearing little to no semblance to that in the encyclopedia, and I strongly suspect you are trolling me or need a trout regarding encyclopedic writing. Jefffire (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I assure you I am not trolling; our disagreements arise from the simple fact that deconstruction is insensible and that 90% of writings on it are indeed indecipherable from gibberish. I have found a source that I think could be used as an appropriate citation for the removed definition: page 165 of Deconstructing Radical Orthodoxy by W. J. Hankey & Douglas Hedley - google book search. What do you reckon? - Snookerfran (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you need to read WP:SUBSTANTIATE. If a given definition is insensible, then you should quote a source as saying it, rather than repeating it. Jefffire (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay - agreed. Just to let you know, I've put the OED definition in the article instead. Like the Routledge one, it's a little muddied by jargon, but it's concise, correct, and specific. - Snookerfran (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL
Thanks, enjoyed your mischievous reference to Godwin's law. So making a complimentary reference to a Wikipedia article automatically loses me the argument? Sounds right to me. Sorry about the length, in my defence it was mainly a recap of the key points in what had become a very long and fragmented exchange. OK, with a joke in it (but quite a good joke).Gleng (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't take this too hard, but you are developing a tendency towards pretentiousness in your writing. Recaps are very useful in my experience, but if people have trouble understanding them then their not so helpful. Best, Jefffire (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I never take anything hard. And I'm only a visitor here anyway, somewhat sad to see how collaborative writing is being locked out. But yes, meeting arguments from presumed but specious authority brings out the worst in my style. Honest rudeness is fine, civil obduracy is just irritating.Gleng (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You never know who might be reading user talk page messages. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

NLP
I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Wikipedia itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace process: pseudoscience
See my message on FT2's talk page and suggesting of mediation process. I think there are some important lessons to be learned from recent incidents, and would value your input. Let me know on my talk page. See also the points I discussed with Guy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources
I've left a note on the NLP talk page describing the problem of identifying reliable sources for possible pseudoscience. Any help appreciated. Peter Damian (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the article, not the contributor
Please respect WP:Civil. Hgilbert (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please respect WP:OR, and cease your PoV pushing campaign for your religion. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place to enact your little paradigm shifts. Jefffire (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm...go back to the top of this section. And where have I made use of original research??? Hgilbert (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your belief that AM is a legitimate field of science. WTF? Why not make a RfC on the subject, see how that goes ;). Jefffire (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

spoilers
Hi, Jefffire. You are right. So the question is "if" the article should contain them. The Nethack article is pretty good and it was spoiler-free except for just a couple very minor ones. I think removing them is the appropriate thing to do as the article benefits more from it than it loses. I was unaware that Wikipedia has changed somewhat regarding the Spoiler policy. Thanks for pointing that out. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded snarkiness
I don't appreciate your personal attacks here and here. I don't believe that these comments are helpful in anyway to our goal of good article writing. I am asking you to please refactor/remove your snarky comments per WP:TALK and specifically WP:NPA. Thank you. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not understand the basics of reliable sourcing and related rules/guidelines, and this is a perennial problem in your editing. Jefffire (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with you and ask you to assume good faith. I've been editing here just as long as you have so you can assume that I have just as good an understanding of WP:RS, WP:V, etc. as you do. So I ask nicely of you again, please remove/refactor your personal attacks on me. It's simple enough for you to do and after you've done so, if you would then like to talk about our mutual understanding of these basic yet core policies, I am happy to engage you in a civil conversation here or at my talk page. Perhaps I do have something to learn from you (and maybe vice-versa). Thanks again. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to learn that these far flung sources that no-one has ever heard of may be good enough for you- but they are simply not good enough by Wikipedia inclusion standards. I was please that you were apparently beginning to learn that, after all this time. Perhaps your days of offering UFOlogy journals as reliable medical sources are over? Jefffire (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked you to be decent and remove your incivility and instead you have opted to continue with your snarky personal attacks. Duly noted. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 02:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)