User talk:TimidGuy/Archive 2

Thanks for the assist!
Hello TimidGuy. Just a brief thanks for adding James F. Walker to the "notables" section of Kirksville, Missouri. "K-Vegas" is my hometown so I naturally take an interest in that particular Wiki, patrolling for vandalism and such. I knew a lot of our local history but Mr. Walker was a new one on me. Considering the Musick family (John R., Archie, RuthAnne) as well, Kirksville really was a hotbed for the artistic minded at one time. Thanks again and have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Default mode network
Hi TimidGuy. You may be interested in this article: Default mode network. Groet,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Indeed I am very interested in DMN, especially as it relates to meditation. Research shows that some types of meditation deactivate DMN while other types activate it. I think in the future this will be recognized as a key distinguishing feature among different types of meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Cro-magnon
I guess you noticed that the new editor tried to get me blocked. Which got him blocked by another Admin. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Doug. I saw that. And thanks for keeping an eye on all the paleoanthropology articles. I'm really interested in the topic, but am very much a dilettante. The topic of early European modern humans is fascinating. I wish we could resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. Maybe we should discuss creating an article by that name and move a lot of the current content in Cro-Magnon to it. The Cro-Magnon article would be about the usage of the term, and at the top of the article would direct readers to the main article. TimidGuy (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I've confused things slightly as the word European should come first. We have European early modern humans as a redirect to Cro-Magnon. So yes, turn that into a general article about EEMH as that is, I think we all agree, the preferred term. Cro-Magnon can discuss the usage but also perhaps more detail on the specific discoveries by Louis Lartet. That would save a lot of confusion and argument I think. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks. I'll propose on the Talk page. Will you have time to work on it? TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Too bad I didn't see this discussion until now. I oppose moving this article to EEMH. Cro-Magnon is by far the better known term of the two. This is an encyclopaedia, and I fully expect to find an article on Cro_magnons in any encyclopaedia, while only pleasantly surprised by finding one on EEMH. Besides, EEMH is actually a slightly different sample from Cro-Magnons. Cro-Magnons represents a culture, EEMH just a geographic subset. There are non-Cro-Magnon EEMH (the Grimaldi people), and there are Cro-Magnons finds all the way into Siberia, outside Europe. Both terms are restricted temporarily, the Cro-Magnon range is fairly well defined (as it is based on tool culture), the EEMH less so, as there's no set criteria for when "early" ends.


 * For the largest parts the two overlap of course. If they are to share article space, Cro-Magnon should be name (but EEMH mentioned in the lede, as now). The alternative is to make a separate article on EEMH, with some basic statements of what groups we refer to, and let Cro-Magnon be an article covering the Cro-Magnon culture. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit: I've made a quick-and-dirty European early modern humans, mainly text lifted from other, related articles. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming by my page, TimidGuy! I'll answer here, so as to keep the discussion in one place. I'm a zoologist, not a palaeoanthropologist, but I've had this discussion up and down over other terms though, like Reptiles vs. Sauropsida, two terms which more or less covers the same ground. I ended up making a page for Sauropsida (like the quick and dirty one I made for EEMH) rather than renaming the reptile article. The reason is simply that we are in a situation where there's a movement in science from one term with one concept to another based on a different concept.


 * When we have two terms, the Wikipedia standards is to use the better known term (sorry for wiki-lawyering), and both reptiles and Cro-Magnons are by far the better known terms than the alternatives. A simple google search returns 860 000 results for Cro-Magnon, and 380 for the exact phrase European early modern human(s) and 300 for Early European modern humans. If it is a question over which term to use, there's really no question Cro-Magnon takes presidence over over EEMH. Since however, the two differ ever so slightly in composition, we have a perfect excuse for making two, perhaps more narrowly focused, articles. As long as both are honest about how the word is used and are cross-linked, I believe this to be the optimal solution. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still hoping you can show me a source, ideally from the past 10 years. We should probably be having this discussion on the Cro-Magnon talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For recent use, Google Scolar 2004-2014 is your friend.


 * And yes, we should probably do this over at the Cro-Magnon page. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. You've made a claim, I've asked you for a source to support your claim, and now you seem to be suggesting that I find a source myself. I'm genuinely interested in seeing a source that supports your claim that the term Cro-Magnon represents a specific culture, geographical area, and time period. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have copied the discussion over to the Cro-Magnon talk page as you suggested, and answered you in full there. I am very sorry if my google argument came across as "find it yourself", that was not my intention. I posted the search link to give you an idea of the commonality of the term for the last 10 years. I'm hoping that was what you wanted a source for? Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Petter, for copying it over. I'll try to find the time to engage there. You made some intriguing comments that suggested to me there was a lot I didn't know -- that Cro-Magnon continues to be used to refer to a particular culture, range, and era. So I was hoping you could show me a source to support that. TimidGuy (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The only source I have discussing the term as such for culture, range and era is Fagan I'm afraid. I suppose we'll have to trust him as far as use goes. Other than that, I only have the examples of use, which is what I tried to show with the Google numbers I cited.


 * If I have understood yours and Dougweller's argument, it is that the pages Cro-Magnon and EEMH should be merged under the EEMH heading because 1) the terms are interchangeable, 2) the EEMH is the more common term and 3) the term Cro-Magnon is no longer in use in science. General considerations (Grimaldi man, Siberian Cro-Magnons) shows 1 to be false, the general Google search shows 2 to be false and the Google scholar search shows 3 to be false. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to a specific book by Fagan that I could look at? I'm not sure the terms are interchangeable. Cro-Magnon is used in the literature to refer to a specific group of specimens found at Abri de Cro-Magnon. One of the problems in the Cro-Magnon article is that many of the sources don't even mention Cro-Magnon, such as this one from the NY Times. This source in the article explains why the term Cro-Magnon isn't used any more. I'd be inclined to have a general article that has a more general title such as EEMH, and a Cro-Magnon article about the specific Cro-Magnon finds. And in the lead of the specific Cro-Magnon article explain the changing usage of the term and point to the more general article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just saw your post at Cro-Magnon. Will check out that Fagan source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The source for use is Fagan, B.M. (1996). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. This is about as authoritative as it gets I think. Here's what he has to say:


 * "The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10,000 b.p. [...] The term 'Cro-Magnon' has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans (AMH). They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label 'Cro-Magnon', which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term 'Cro-Magnon' is still very commonly used in popular texts because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic. This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons."


 * This is the focus I have tried to keep in the article. Since the term EEMH and Cro-Magnon now both have articles, we could in stead try to flesh out EEMH. When that article starts expanding, I think we'll quickly see what naturally goes there and what naturally goes in the Cro-Magnon article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this sounds like a good plan. Maybe check with DougWeller. I see that Fagan published a book with the title Cro-Magnon as recently as 2010. (Have ordered it.) TimidGuy (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have started on my end by copying the "assemblage"-chapter over to European early modern humans. Having done that, I asked a friend of mine who happens to be an expert on this stuff to go through the list and sort the assemblage into some broader categories. He argued (and I agree with him) that since all of the mixed-trait robust early European finds lack tools, and Cro-Magnon represent an ethnic group with a series of specific tool cultures, these can't be classed as Cro-Magnons. The remaining finds are mostly Cro-Magnon, though some are too fragmentary to tell. Some are on the other hand early modern but decidedly not Cro-Magnon, like Grimaldi and Chancelade. According to my friend, Cro-Magnons likely evolved in Europe. I believe this will allow us to have EEMH as a general article on physical finds (it refers to anatomy of skeletons, nothing else), while retaining a more restricted and more sharply focused article on Cro-Magnon as an ethnic group, including their culture. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Petter. That sounds great. I appreciate your focus on this. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to come in so late. Thanks to User:Petter Bøckman. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! If we can agree the European early modern humans article now has a reasonable scope, we can edit the Cro-Magnon article acordingly and make it more about culture and less about the assemblage. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You're doing a great job on the article. Thanks for focusing on this. TimidGuy (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  emergent orderliness and wisdom of the crowds

Thank you for quality contributions to articles about TM in your morning hours, with understanding for the importance of diversity, for not being timid in appealling your ban, and for your, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 333rd recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Issue investigation
Sorry to disturb you but user QuackGuru accuse you having some rule violation. You can check this to follow what is going on. Thank you.
 * Thanks for alerting me. I don't interact with QuackGuru, and in general I avoid interacting with Wikipedia's militant skeptics. They have no interest in collaborating, or in complying with Wikipedia policies. Their goal is to win. And to get rid of editors who don't share their point of view. If any evidence were needed that they are not rational, this situation is it. They argue that the website Quackwatch and skeptic blogs are reliable sources while at the same time arguing that a scientific statement by the National Institutes of Health is not. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
Hi, you wrote a contribution to Talk:Bitcoin, but it looks to me that you actually wanted to contribute to the Talk:Bitcoin. If that is the case, could you please move your contribution? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Also, please, when being at it, could you please check the proposal I wrote? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't have any time at the moment. Sorry, I misread the beginning of the criminal thread. Please go ahead and move it to the appropriate place, and I'll stop by tomorrow to look at your proposal. TimidGuy (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. Sorry, I will not move your contribution to not distort anything (I am not supposed to correct the opinions of other editors, just to express mine), please take your time as needed to read my proposal and, eventually to discuss changes to the article lead section. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that you directly edited the lead section. Please don't do that until the neutrality dispute is resolved. I acknowledge that does it, and I do not want to edit-war with him, but that does not mean I suggest everybody to be edit-warring as he is. TIA. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, TimidGuy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC at Bitcoin, re: mentioning its use in online black markets. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

fyi and appreciation
Hi, its time for me to say that I appreciate your rational presence on Bitcoin. I came by to let you know that I filed a 3 RR report re Fleethams edit wars over the last month here. It s because you ve been affected by his irrational reversals too. I hope you are able to enjoy some holidays. Namaste, --Wuerzele (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . His behavior does seem problematic. I'm surprised he reverted my minor change to the lead that fixed a grammatical problem with verb tense. TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion
The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

COI
Hello, would you please add yourself as a to the talk page of articles relating to TM that you have edited? I came across your COI statement at Good article reassessment/John Hagelin/1. Manul ~ talk 01:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see "A question of identifying reliable sources and references"
Here: Jdontfight (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors have indeed misrepresented sources, but I'm not sure the particular issue you're raising here is valid. TimidGuy (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Quantum mind
Reply to your posting I have revised the paragraph to meet your objections. The point I was trying to make is that we must be very humle in establishing where quantum processes can and cannot occur. The citation from Tegmark is over 15 years old. That is forever in science. Then it was thought that "noisy" macroscopic environments would inevitably decohere a quantum superposition. However, we know now that photosynthesis in a very macroscopic leaf depends upon quantum processes. Today we are even talking of building working quantum supercomputers so to rule out quantum processes in something the size of the brain is ludicrous. Indeed, we know about very big quantum devices like superconducting cables which are bigger than the brain. This is the point I was trying to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polambda (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Timid Guy!
I have certainly already experienced it, but I am trying to be smarter about how I edit this page now. But thanks so much for the support!! Since so many people use wikipedia as their first source of information, having it written neutrally is KEY, especially since biodynamic agriculture, as a closed system, is an important way to address some of the challenges we face in growing our food in the future. Any assistance you can give me by throwing weight into these edits, or collaborating with me on how to phrase them as most neutral will be much appreciated! -Samantha Snl223 (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help out. You were totally right, they are only interested in portraying it as a pseudo science, not in accuracy or having the most updated or neutral information. Yikes! I wish wikipedia were more transparent with that information. Snl223 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

COI
Hello, you didn't respond to my message from last year. Do you intend to follow WP:COI? Manul ~ talk 20:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added you to Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement. It would be helpful if you would add yourself to other pages. Best, Manul ~ talk 21:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Would like to make an amends
Hi- long time no.

I have an amends/appology I'd like make to you- wondering what medium you'd feel most comfortable with? Phone, skype, email?

I understand if you feel hesitant, I was VERY much less then kind and civil, and a lot has changed over here and I would very much like the change to make things right. Sethie (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Sethie. It's so kind and thoughtful of you to want to apologize and make amends. And based on this and an earlier post on my talk page, it's clear that you're a very different person now. Well done. To tell you the truth, I don't have strong memories of our engagement 10 years ago. Most such memories have been overshadowed by my engagement with two admins in recent years who have both deliberately misrepresented sources. I don't recall that you were ever as dishonest as they are. If you feel a need to communicate further, you are certainly welcome to contact me via my Wikipedia email. It sounds like things are going well for you (as they are for me). TimidGuy (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the response. :( Wow- misrepresenting sources- no fun to deal with that. :( Thanks for well wishes and the invite to drop you a wiki-email, will do soon. <3 Sethie (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

TM ARCA
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Manul ~ talk 17:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived
The Transcendental Meditation movement arbitration clarification request of May 2017, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda Arendt. Wikipedia needs more like you. TimidGuy (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Six years now. I only do what others started, and it's selfish thing, providing a start in a day to consider reasons for thanks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda Arendt. You're very kind. TimidGuy (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I try ... seven ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, 7 years. Thanks, Gerda Arendt. Hope everyone on WP is treating you well.TimidGuy (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Brian died. These days, we often sing "verbannet die Klage" - which can mean "ban complaining" and "ban lamenting". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. There should be more like you. TimidGuy (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * upgraded to nine, with thanks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Gerda. You're the best.TimidGuy (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)