User talk:OpenFuture: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:30, 14 March 2010 editSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,555,920 editsm Signing comment by 58.96.94.220 - ""← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:43, 14 March 2010 edit undoOpenFuture (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users9,245 edits Removing harassmentNext edit →
Line 62:		Line 62:

	::: Yup, that's a part of how all conspiracy theorists work. SNAFU. --] (]) 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)		::: Yup, that's a part of how all conspiracy theorists work. SNAFU. --] (]) 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


	== OpenFuture Edit Wars ==

	You are continuing to edit the Permanent Makeup page in an attempt to exert your own opinions upon what is and what is not reasonable for external links. I consider your approach to be highly inappropriate as you have not participated in discussion on the page in question not have you made any contribution to the page in question.
	Your claim is that links to external sites are not appropriate however the page already contains links to external services which are no more appropriate than the ones provided. Yet you do not seek to remove those links.
	*
	*
	*

	An interesting observation for anyone using wikipedia is that the USA represents less than 5% of the worlds population yet of the 6 external links on the Permanent Makeup page not one is to a site within a country outside of the US. A visitor to wikipedia could be forgiven for incorrectly assuming that the only place that permanent Makeup is performed is within the USA. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	The question is why is it that you consider 'your' opinion to be more valid than someone else's opinion?
	Who made you the chief of the Permanent Makeup Page?

	I consider your behaviour to be vandalism and the arrogance in your style of editing is part of the reason why appropriately skilled people are becoming less inclined to participate due to bullying tactics of those who lack the skills pertinent to the subject matter in question. Hence the value of the information on the page is diminished because people who know what they are talking about are bullied into not contributing.

	I leave you to your silly games <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:The links you added were spam. Spam is not allowed. This is not my opinion, but Misplaced Pages policy. See ]. --] (]) 08:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

	Engaging in editing wars (what you have been doing) is against wikipedia policies please refrain from attacking other contributors particularly in instances where you have limited knowledge of the subject matter and you are merely expressing uninformed opinion. Your 'opinion' that external links added to a page, that lead to one of the few if not the only online source of information on the extent of training and detailed syllabus for technicians who provide the service as described in the article, constitutes spam, is just your opinion nothing more. You seem to be under some misapprehension that; 'I think' therefore 'it is fact' rather than more appropriately 'it is just one opinion' no more valid than the opinions of others.

	The USA is not the only country on the planet and having articles written in a way that places a constant bias towards American ideas and opinions is neither healthy nor accurate. A country that has less than 5% of the earth's population and yet articles are written, edited, and guarded to maintain a dominance of American cultural identity. Permanent Makeup was not invented in the US, Permanent Makeup is not a service that is provided more frequently in the US, yet we have an article which is clearly biased towards the US both in content and in links to regulatory and industry sites. Other contributors face an onslaught of attacks from those who seek to maintain this unhealthy cultural bias which ultimately leads to poorly written articles with inaccurate content misleading the public on the facts.

	Take pride in your achievement. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:The links you added were spam. Spam is not allowed. This is not my opinion, but Misplaced Pages policy. See ]. --] (]) 08:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

	I assume good faith of those who make an obvious contribution to the pages in question as opposed to those who simply like to engage in editing wars to dominate others with their narrow opinions. The facts are that you have made no positive contribution to the page in question and you engaged in an editing war which as you well know is against wikipedia rules. Please think about your actions before attacking the valuable contributions of other contributors especially in instances where you have nothing of any value to contribute yourself. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Please stop spreading the same texts in multiple places. One is enough. --] (]) 22:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

	Well actually it is you who is spreading repeated text in multiple places and I have simply responded to your multiple repeated posts. You have failed to address the valid points raised and you merely retreat to name calling labelling contributions of those with appropriate skills and knowledge as spam and it is abundantly clear you have made no effort to genuinely evaluate the benefit of the external links to the article in question, nor have you provided any alternative to the benefit of the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:I'm sorry, not one word of what you write above is true. It was spam, end of story. If you don't like it, take it to dispute resultion, but stop harassing me with your bullshit. It was spam. Deal with it. --] (]) 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

	== Editing Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring complaint notification ==		== Editing Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring complaint notification ==
Line 104:		Line 68:

	: I welcome dispute resolution, so that's good. However, the Edit Warring noticeboard is for violations of 3RR and general edit warriors, and therefore it's not relevant in this case. You are just continuing to engage in disruptive behaviour, and not dispute resolution or consensus building. This is of course because you are well aware that consensus is against you. --] (]) 11:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)		: I welcome dispute resolution, so that's good. However, the Edit Warring noticeboard is for violations of 3RR and general edit warriors, and therefore it's not relevant in this case. You are just continuing to engage in disruptive behaviour, and not dispute resolution or consensus building. This is of course because you are well aware that consensus is against you. --] (]) 11:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

	Ghostofnemo - More than happy to attest to the fact that this contributor (I use that term very loosely) started an edit war on the permanent makeup page and has made no positive contribution to the content on that page. This sort of behaviour should be discouraged because it ultimately leads to poor quality content that represents nothing more than the uninformed opinions of an aggressive few.

	<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Your "contribution" was spam. Spam is not allowed. I removed it. There was no edit war in neither this case nor Ghostofnemos case. You have been asked to read up on Misplaced Pages policies multiple times. Please do do. --] (]) 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

	Ghostofnemo - as can be seen from the aggressive attitude above, name calling and denigrating the positive contributions of others is not the sort of behaviour that should be tolerated in a community environment. OpenFuture has made no positive contribution on the page in question and it appears there is no intent to do so, one can only ponder the motives for the edit warring. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 22:43, 14 March 2010

Please Note: I will reply to your posts on this page!

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cornelius Anckarstierna

Hi OpenFuture, can you revisit the AfD? The leftorium 20:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

Nice work. Rklawton (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the same. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits OK, and thanks for the help. Can I please also ask that you also edit the template in future, so that {{editsemiprotected}} becomes {{tlx|editsemiprotected}}. That removes it from the Category:Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests. TIA, Ronhjones 00:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Law of Demeter

Didn't look into whatever specific action you took or the article if there is one, but you should know that Karl Lieberherr, an academic at Northeastern University was the author of a post object oriented methodology based on this law he so-named and which was reasonably well known in computer science in the late 90s. It has largely merged into other things such as AOP. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Block

Then I am under clock warning because I want to improvge the wording of an article to be more neutral and less false? Why don't you block yourself for being authoritharian... --190.174.64.243 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not under "block warning", I'm just telling you that continuing to use a talk page as a debating forum will get you blocked. Attacking editors also will get you blocked. You do not want to improve the wordings, you want to remove a piece of fact because you don't like it. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not true. I am trying to convey a sense of neutrality the article lacks specifically in that part. And what is written is not a fact, it's propaganda. You are the one attacking me and spamming me with undue notifications. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Spirit Level

Can you explain why "That's not the point"? when reverting a clarification made to the entry on 'The Spirit Level'? The edit that was made demonstrated that the foregoing critic couldn't have read the explanation of the authors' use of the regression line, because he implied that the authors drew it, and not the statistical software they used. Removing the edit masks the critic's mistake. Why would we want that? - FlakJacqueline (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's the authors' response to that criticism, it just shows how naive they are about statistics. Nobody claims they have chosen the regression line, it's clear that the regression line is correct. The point is that a regression line does not show anything. Another Swedish economist on his blog recently did the same kind of graphs with regression lines showing that marriage leads to poverty, inflation, lower life expectancy, low human development, lower education, less doctors and lower access to clean drinking water. Yes, he did so as a joke, to show how the authors of the Spirit level are mistaken. They take a bunch of regression lines, and from that draw the conclusion that inequality causes social problems. In fact, it's the other way around. The social problems cause inequality. It's pretty obvious once you realize it. And marriage doesn't cause these other problems, it's poverty that causes them. But in poor countries people tend to get married more. It's just an correlation, not a cause.

In any case, the point of the criticism is not to say that the regression lines are incorrect, but that that conclusions are incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say this, but if you had correctly read the part of article which you deleted, you would realise that that this was *not* "the authors' response to that criticism": the deleted passage cited a page number from the introduction to their book as the source of their explanation of the regression line. Therefore unless effect precedes cause, the authors were not "responding" in the introduction to a criticism that had not yet been made. This means that you have now duplicated the mistake of the critic you defend: neither of you correctly read the thing you disagree with. Moreover, if the matter is, as you claim, "the other way around" - i.e., that social problems actually cause inequality - I would be interested in hearing an explanation of how, say, higher rates of obesity make the rich richer and the poor poorer. - FlakJacqueline (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, good, then at least the authors wasn't very naive of the use of statistics. But it doesn't change the fact, the part you quoted does not in any way respond to or counter the criticism. I think the only way we can agree on this issue is to educate you in statistics, whgich I'm not the right person to do, and this is not the right place to do it. If inequality causes one problem it does not mean that it causes the other problems. Also, can you show that inequality causes obesity? That poor people are more overweight doesn't mean inequality causes obesity. If it did, then rich people would be obese in countries with high inequality. You can't show this by looking at a countries inequality and their national rate of obesity. you would have too look at obesity amongst rich, and compare that to inequality.

But, to answer your question: Poor people tend to be more obese. Obese people are looked down upon, and have problems getting jobs. Hence, poverty causes obesity that causes unemployment that causes poverty. It gets harder to climb a social ladder if you are fat, quite simply put. So obesity cements social differences and inequality. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... - FlakJacqueline (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there something unclear? The critics *has* read the part you quoted. It is *not* an answer to the criticism. The book mistakes correlation for causation. Many social problems causes inequality, but there is little or no evidence that inequality causes social problems. If you have questions on this I'm prepared to explain it to you, if you are willing to listen. I know I'm not the worlds best teacher, but I'm willing to at least try. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo

In case you didn't notice, Ghostofnemo is peddling conspiracy theories all over wikipedia, as exemplified by his "work" in the JFK assassination article discussion. 78.55.165.233 (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's just to be expected. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's using the same tactics there and is having people explain to him the same things again and again, just as in the 9/11 conspiracy article. In effect, disruption appears to be his m.o. 78.55.165.233 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that's a part of how all conspiracy theorists work. SNAFU. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring complaint notification

Hello Open Future, I am in the process of initiating dispute resolution over your removal of referenced material from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article at the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I welcome dispute resolution, so that's good. However, the Edit Warring noticeboard is for violations of 3RR and general edit warriors, and therefore it's not relevant in this case. You are just continuing to engage in disruptive behaviour, and not dispute resolution or consensus building. This is of course because you are well aware that consensus is against you. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)