User talk:PelleSmith/Archive 4

SRA article… again
Now that it's is becoming more and more clear that RE (ResearchEditor, previously known as AbuseTruth before s/he was forced to change his/her name) abuses the sources, I would recommend we revert him/her en toto when s/he makes multiple pov edits at the same time. Last midnight I was about going to bed and stayed a little while to check and see if RE would modify the article I just edited. I saw s/he was contributing instead to the articles on DID and multiple personality. I didn't expect s/he'd multiple-edit on SRA. This morning I leant that, between 06:47 and 07:07, RE did multiple-edited SRA and you were the first to find the altered article after those edits.

I would recommend next time this happens just to revert, in a single strike, the whole thing to the previous incarnation of the article and ask RE to go to talk. This approach saves our time. (In the McMartin article a member of ArbCom told him/her to do step-by-step changes and discuss it in talk.) —Cesar Tort 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see... I posted that because our patience is running thin :) Have you seen this? Cesar Tort 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Citaiton templates
Hiya PS,

You don't seem to use citation templates. I'm not sure why, they're pretty handy, simple to make and there's some good tools to generate them for you. The best ones I have found are:


 * Google scholar autocitation, a google-style search engine and reference generator. Useful when the article doesn't have a pubmed number (old, social sciences or humanities) but the citation template isn't as neat and it does not fill in ISBN or pubmed numbers
 * ISBN searchable database, used in conjunction with Diberry to find, and generate citation templates
 * pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator, incredibly useful, uses the pubmed number or isbn to automatically generate a citation template for you; the most useful if you have a pubmed or ISBN

Diberri is usually the most handy, for SRA you'd probably end up using the google scholar generator 'cause of all the social sciences and humanities articles. There's one in the tool bar above edit pane, but I've found it more of a pain in the ass than it's worth.

I could be wrong, since I'm basically calling this on the basis of one edit to the SRA page : ) No matter what they're handy, I have them bookmarked on all my computers.  WLU (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

JAR on RE & SRA
Thanks for your recent posts in talk:Satanic ritual abuse. I've never understood why WLU defends the defender of RE except sheer politics: he wants JAR as a moderate editor once RE is (hopefully) on permanent vacation. Is he on wikivacation really?... Without him SRA will be no fun. We might miss a lot our favorite wikipedian. LOL... :) Cesar Tort 20:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AN board mess
As per wp:RTP, maybe we should put WLU's comments back the way they were instead of awaiting that RE cleans up his mess (just copying as pasting the intact WLU post and not touching RE's broken reply)? —Cesar Tort 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sting au
Hi. Can I suggest you remove your last comment from User talk:Sting au? While I entirely understand your frustration and irritation with the manner in which Sting au has conducted himself -- and to a great extent share it and think it entirely justified -- I think your wisest course would be to withdraw from pursuing the conversation. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you are correct.PelleSmith (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

IP check
I've never requested it before. Do you know if there's a requisite before doing it? If AT/RE is baaack, we will have more fun —Cesar Tort 00:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * EB has said: "no". If he and others continue to pov-push in mainspace, we have no choice but going to IP check. If someone of the many "newbies" turns out to be AT/RE, he might be indefenitely banned for violation of his topic-ban. —Cesar Tort 19:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and edit summaries
Thank you for your outside points of view on that AN/I thread. I agree that "ordinary" editors opinions should carry the same weight as administrators.

I encourage you to use edit summaries as this will help other editors, and add weight to your comments. For instance, "Reply to Username", is a good edit summary during a discussion. Edit summaries are one of those things that people look at when considering whether to support somebody's request for admininship, in case you'd ever think of doing that. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. If its helpful I'll try to use edit summaries more carefully.  I'm not sure why but I tend not to use them on talk pages.  I guess that's not helpful.  I don't ever imagine wanting to be an admin -- no offense of course, but if I were an administrator I'd lose my "outside" status and that would be no fun :).  I'm not sure all of my commentary is helpful, but I just get disheartened when inter-admin politics seems to get in the way of dealing with stuff that is actually hurting the encyclopedia, like tendentious POV-pushing.  It is particularly frustrating when admins who have a very public negative history are fueling this.  Anyway, I was very pleased to see you actually make that block, because something other than bickering had to be done about the real issue.PelleSmith (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh
I noticed that you referred to Wikipedia's article on Kaveh Farrokh in your reply to my query on the RSN. I did a bit of digging and it turns out that he's actually an educational counsellor at a British Columbia college. I've replaced the Radio Free Europe source you pointed out with something that is hopefully a bit more authoritative - see. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like I spoke too soon - Khoikhoi is objecting for reasons that I personally find quite baffling. I've raised it at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - you may have a view on this. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Paganism, Theology etc.
Hey. Thanks for your comments. I've been really trying to bring the historical "pagan" faiths pages up to scratch, though I am by no means an expert. My use of the word "theology" may not have been the best, but it is the only word than I know that relates to the gods and/or God, so I used it, though please feel free to edit the pages and use a better word. I have also placed brief descriptions of the neopagan movements on these pages, though there is obviously differences between the two, and I plan to add that in. However there is a definate link between the two in that one is directly inspired by the other. Maybe "inspired" is a better term to use, or "based upon" than "resurrected". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the advice
Hey, thanks for the advice, I know it must seem like I have been rushing a bit, and I know that wikipedia needs sources, but i've found it very hard to find online sources for what i've written half the time, even if it is correct. I've found many of the articles on paganism to be a complete mess of unsourced essays that often miss some of the keypoints about those religions. For instance, the Norse paganism entry didn't even mention the deities of the Norse, such as the Aesir and the Vanir, and the less said about the Canaanite religion's section on cosmology the better, it is so complex with terms that it is virtually non-understandable, and just as unsourced. What I've been trying to do is to bring about order (which is desperately needed) in many of these articles, not add unsourced mess. I've collected together some books and aim to try and source everything I put in in the future. I have found it frustrating when certain editors (yourself not included), have deleted everything I have done, even when all I have done in certain circumstances was to organise mess and write up already existing sentences in understandable terminology. I appreciate your guidance, and I hope that you understand my point of view. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

My mistake and my apolgies
My mistake and my apolgies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lansing3456 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent comment at Talk:Cult
I'm still waiting for Cirt to back up his spurious claims.
 * Please avoid such language in the future, "spurious claims". It is not conducive to a polite and constructive dialogue. It is also rather impatient, as you posted "still waiting..." a mere two hours after I had commented. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)
I've had a go at tidying up the rest of the Rick Ross article; pls review and let me know what you think. Jayen 466 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That thing with the stuff
So...what is your favorite vegetable? Did you have any useful sources for the Diana Napolis page by the way? I love a fellow expert. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Potato.PelleSmith (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Cos you and AR were editing the section - what do you think of this wording? Emphasis is on the explanation, not the authors.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 14:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)