Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:39, 19 December 2007

I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases. I am prepared to do this. I am not intending to be here much, at present. I have not yet decided whether to start using this account actively again. No, I don't want to talk about any of the foregoing, thanks, the people concerned know who they are and how to get hold of me. This is about some ongoing unresolved issues being discussed on one or more mailing lists, when that debate comes to fruition I will take a view. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
• My take on the Durova incident.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roy R. Theriot

Twinkle didn't finish this AfD for you, so I did. Hope you don't mind. Ten Pound Hammer • 22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy (Help!) 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Planoclear! halfready

Please see the investigation that's been done here and provide any additional information you can. Thanks. - Jehochman 03:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Hi. :) An editor on this article has requested that the protection be lifted from Race and intelligence. Since you last changed the protection level, I'm checking to see if you're in touch with the disputants or have any objection to its being lifted before it expires in February. Cheers. --Moonriddengirl 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• No objection, if the parties think they can proceed without warring. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on 'em. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration...

I found the comments you made here to be highly inflammatory, lacking in any sort of civility or assumption of good faith, and completely untrue. I am sorry that you have this impression of me, but if you read my response to your comment, I hope you understand that this impression is completely false. -- Levine2112 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You have worn out any presumption of good faith. You attack every article with a passion that only the Creationists around here match. OrangeMarlin 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, OrangeMarlin. I understand that I can't expect any good faith from you, but please know that despite your lack of good faith in me, I will still assume good faith in you. How about you, Guy? -- Levine2112 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine, you can add me to your growing list of people who don't believe you act in good faith with any article/talk space edits. Shot info (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As with OrangeMarlin, I still will assume good faith with your Shot info, despite your inability to do so with me. -- Levine2112 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit history showing bad faith editing and inability to accept a consensus nor achieve a compromise position suggests otherwise. Shot info (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I am working hard to achieve a consensus at Quackwatch. I have suggested several compromises and agreed to other's suggestions. So, I hope you understand that I am unclear what you mean when you say I have an "inability to accept a consensus nor achieve a compromise position suggests otherwise". -- Levine2112 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Levine, my opinion of you is low and dropping, and you're not doing anything to fix that, nor do you appear to care. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I do care. I did come here and talk to you, did I not? I would appreciate some constructive criticism from you - an Admin - rather than personal attacks I've come to expect from editors like the ones commenting above. Again, I found your comments on the AN/I particularly offensive and I am asking you to either redact or explain your rationale to me, giving me specific examples of ways I may have offended you. Thanks! -- Levine2112 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

At least I'm honest with myself. I don't say "Gee, should I assume good faith or not." When I don't have AGF, I just state it clearly. OrangeMarlin 02:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And I am honest with myself. And I always try my best to assume good faith in others. Everyone please consider this from WP:AGF's nutshell: If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives. -- Levine2112 03:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Enjoining others to assume good faith is usually a failure to assume good faith. In this case, though, you have established your position as an advocate for fringe and pseudo science, leading to unavoidable tension between you and those editors who have as part of their self-declared Misplaced Pages mission the enforcement of WP:NPOV in respect of fringe and pseudo science. You just need to learn to live with it. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, that's why I quote you on my user page. EXACTLY. OrangeMarlin 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Consider that I am not as you say, but rather as I say. Assume some good faith and believe me when I say that I am neither an advocate of fringe nor pseudoscience. This is a false description perpetrated by editors who cannot otherwise understand what I truly do advocate: fair coverage, article improvement by using the best reliable sources, and NPOV. Know that I take great offense when I am labeled "pro-quackery" or "an advocate of the fringe" et cetera because these are uncivil and untrue. I request that you please try to be more considerate of this in the future. If not, then I will do as you say and learn to live with it, but I think it would be much more pleasant if we all treated each other with respect rather than having to ignore each other's disrespect. -- Levine2112 07:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Consider that my assessment is based on your actions. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Essittam

It's Ekajati's on her hosting machine. DYK that the same hosting machine dug up by CU was blocked by Dmc ten months ago...I presume your comment about Mattisse is a joke.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Essittam is Matisse backwards, hence the comment. Thanks for clearing everything up, I had a bit of a family issue that interrupted me there. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - Race and intelligence

Guy, Thanks for the help at trying to control the maelstrom at Race and intelligence. I tried to get some focus on a cooperative edit in sandbox-mode during the protection period but with limited success. A battle emerged over a new title for the article and then .... Without controls not acceptable at WP this will just be a festering sore in perpetuity. Please keep up your enthusiasm for the project! Happy holidays to you and your family. Cheers! Kevin. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OMPT

Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy is a real thing, with much significance to the field of rehabilitation science. You deleted the page which I was building and recruiting the help of others to build. I wonder as to your timing, b/c previous to my edits today, I had to remove links to personal web sites on the page. Regardless, this is a very real sub-specialty supported by numerous peer-reviewed publications, including funding by the NIH. I see no reason for you to have assumed it is only a page to serve a professional organization. If the organization should not have been on the page, fine, but you were a bit over-zealous. By the way, I am a professor at a Medical University...hired to teach Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy ONLY! How's that for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekrdpt (talk • contribs)

• I know who you are, I userfied your autobiography, remember? Guy (Help!) 18:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of LBU. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ra2007 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I kindly thank you for relocating my autobiography to my user page if that is where it is intended to be. I'm still disappointed with the deletion of the OMPT page. I do not understand how to participate in a deletion review on that topic.--Ekrdpt (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jericho

Thanks for protecting. Unfortunately, the anon just logged in. —Angr 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Ra2007/JCSM&action=history

Should we just delete it already? David D. (Talk) 23:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping