User talk:Simonm223: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Quantum mysticism article 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—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your edit? The source is a professor, and the material is attributed solely to him. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed content quite different from the content the other user removed. The content you removed was from a different book from a different author and was even attributed differently. Please explain how the other user's rationale applies to your revert. Mitsube (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought that I had reverted Lucky Louie and so reverted me by mistake, that's an honest mistake. If so could you please restore the information, possibly adjusting it so as to be neutral? I tried to do this but perhaps you could improve it. Mitsube (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the talk page concensus so far is that the side bars and fascist listing is inappropriate. Please do not reinsert this as it will be interpreted as disruptive. Please do not disrupt the project to make a point.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:CANVAS and see exactly how it was not violated. If you need me to explain it slowly for you, just ask. I would also be willing to upload a video to Youtube and make monkey motions. Just let me know. If you feel that there was a violation, please take it to ANI.Judging by your history, you have enough experience there to navigate it solo.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As were your bad faithed personal attack on mine and lack of WP:AGF on mine. I will assume that you did take the time to read the policy, and are now understand the inappropriateness of your first post. Please review WP:HOOSHBUG for the analogous claim of incivility when you yourself were first.Carry on.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To misinterpret my history purposely to make an inappropriate backdoor implication that I had canvassed was an attack and not civil. Please do not feel that you need to respond.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help that my position was the correct one. Being right does not equal canvassing. It was transparent and neutrally worded. Some of those editors happen to work on fascism articles and seem to know what it is. You do not appear to know, or are being obtuse. I assume that most responded to the RfC. I assume you do not know the racist use of "call a spade a spade" and were not aware from my previous user page that I am of Black slave descent--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could I possibly be aware of either of those things? I was citing a specific Wikipedia policy with regards to calling your actions canvassing. I have absolutely no prior knowlege of your descent. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:Spade is not a policy. A careful look at the page should reveal this. I assumed good faith that you did not understand these things. Now that you do, I hope we can put your unpleasantness behind us.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A small aside from discussion on Talk:Dunmanway Massacre; why is it 'lede' and not 'lead'? Jdorney (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on your overeagerness on your rational skeptic board. No offence intende but I think you jump to conclusions to often. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism#Rational_skepticism_or_pseudo_skepticism Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Simonm223, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to David Michael Jacobs has been removed. It was removed by Ocean33 with the following edit summary '(Undid revision 318313669 by Simonm223 (talk))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Ocean33 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) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it was an automated message that was sent. I have put a response on the discussion page of the article. Thanks. Ocean33 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed a typo on your userpage, hope that that is alright by you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at Talk:Cult and am going to leave it alone till discussion is done. However, I went ahead and reverted at the NRM entry simply because all the material I brought here has to do with NRMs. I understand asking for an explanation for removing content but unless there is an objection to adding relevant content to another entry I think it should stay.PelleSmith (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bothering me about a private conversation between me and the owner of that talk page? --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright that is nice to know. Have a good day and please don't harass me any more.--Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. And don't edit war. Thanks, Master of Puppets 15:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1, which, albeit confusing, looks like warring. Edit 2, restoring contested information. Compare previous edits. Master of Puppets 16:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you didn't notice the huff-puff business over that particular passage. As I said on the talk page, try to be careful about adding in material, even well-referenced, if people object to it before-hand. :) Master of Puppets 16:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You feel like cleaning out this list? You stated over at Swedenborgianism that they are not RS. There are a few dozen links to the site from articles, but I do not feel like sorting through that much religious DUE right now. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yowzers! I'll put it on my to-do list... religious WP:DUE issues is sort of my usual stomping ground. But it'll take me a little while. Simonm223 (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Simonm223. I have cleaned up / rewritten Shawn Baldwin. Could you revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Baldwin? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some people (sock puppets?) have seemingly unlimited time to spend pushing a coup apologist/denier POV on the Honduran coup articles. Is there some way I can help without spending my whole life trying to stop them? Is there something we need to focus on?

There seem to be a couple of usernames that just focus on pushing a POV on these articles, editing just them.

Most Interested Persons on Wikipedia ruin everything. -- Rico 03:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message informing me of the proposed deletion of the 23 Enigma article. You are mistaken, however. I did not create that article. I apologise for tardyness in replying but I don't log in to wikipedia very often anymore, I've lapsed into a very occasional editor over the past few years. --wayland (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to ask you to reconsider your RS/N judgement on the Ian Plimer issue. Please read the relevant section on the page here and comment again on the noticeboard whether you feel the encyclopedia should link to the rebiuttals by the attacked party. Note: their site does not attack Plimer, only points out his errors. This is not libellous, BLP-sensitive stuff. I hope you can see the other side of this. ► RATEL ◄ 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Thanks again. ► RATEL ◄ 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon,

I'm wondering what prompted you to do this redirect and how much you know about the two technologies? Magnetic water treatment is a relatively old technology involving the use of expensive permanent magnets that fit on pipes and continuously generated only one frequency of magnetic field. These are effective only under a certain speed of water flow. Electronic water conditioning, on the other hand, involves the use of a coil which, when wrapped around a pipe, generates a variable electromagnetic field that changes 1000x/second, covering the entire range of frequencies. By redirecting the page I initially created to Magnetic water treatment, you inaccurately lumped the two together.

It is true that I work for a company that sells electronic water conditioning devices, and so have an interest in educating the public about this technology and how it differs from others with similar aims and claims. However, I in no way mean to disregard Wikipedia's neutrality principle. That's precisely why I am honest about my employment. I am not trying to hide anything. I am new to Wikipedia, and so I am very much at the beginning of learning how to write neutrally, find appropriate sources and cite them, etc etc. I could use some help with this. If you wish to help me research the differences between these two technologies and help clarify the separate pages, rather than doing a misleading redirect, I'd greatly appreciate it. Otherwise, if you don't want to take the time to learn about how they are different, then please do not interfere with my efforts to publish accurate information.

SFWinn (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)SFWinn[reply]

MARDYKS here. I'm not blocked, so back off and stop "censoring" my posts. Find something more constructive to do, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.20.2 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the IP to WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I haven't broken a single Wikipedia policy and get two angry posts on my talk page from people who want to bend Wikipedia to their non-encyclopedic purpose I feel like I'm doing something right. :D Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rico 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see that? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry and Berman want it changed or dumped because of the headaches its giving the administration. They are going to meet with the Law Librarian of Congress, the head honcho, instead of just the specialist who originally wrote it. So we shall see what comes of that. But as of now, they have not backed off it. Read more if you'd like. Moogwrench (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I know it doesn't need to be clarified, but it was a dangling modifier before i edited it. Any way, lets block quote this beezy! And why were you looking at that page anyway? Hahaha, pothead. Cheers! Food_Puma 20:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you notify everyone involved at the last AfD (neutral, keep, and deletes) - I have to go. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A post at FTN would probably be useful too. Verbal chat 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the chance, could you take a look at the wording on my most recent [1] edit in International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup and see if it looks like something that could support the removal of the reliable sources tag on the clause? I just kinda wanted to get your opinion since you had mentioned concerns about attributing to the LLoC what rightly should be attributed to Norma Gutierrez. I could use all the constructive criticism that I can get. Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there any chance you can come back and moderate here (moved unilaterally to Dunmanway killings)? If we don't have a mod there is absolutely no way of reaching consensus or of maintaining changes without edit wars. I am NOT asking you to side with me by the way, and will abide by any judgements you make. Your help would be much appreciated. Jdorney (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I recently made an addition to the see also section on this page. Funny, I don't have any particular interest in or knowledge of the addition, and don't recall making the edit. Could it be you were staying in my apartment for a few days, and maybe making edits to Wikipedia on my computer without checking which one of us was logged in? I'd say it's either that or the cats are about to take over. Anyway I neither approve of nor disagree with my (your) edit, and don't know if an appropriate procedure exists to have an edit by me (you) as me (me) replaced with an edit by you (you) as you (not me), so I haven't done anything. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]