User talk:Ravensfire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hurt Locker

A belated thanks for the note. I've been away, but you did a great job on the awards split. -- Gene Omission (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

New question

Sir, just a guess as the name neutral

Is Amer Indian mythology something you enjoy or do you study/research other mythology?

Also I could find no procedures -such as requesting semi-protection for an article from people that do mischief. I am assuming blanking to be = to deleting - correct?

Thanks for your help Allenwalla (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Executive Order 11110

Hello Ravensfire. Any chance you can work soon on restoring the background section of the Executive Order 11110 article in a way that doesn't violate copyright? --Loremaster (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you expand the Conspiracy theory section of the Executive Order 11110 article by summarizing Flaherty's key arguments in his essay? --Loremaster (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your latest editing of the Orly Taitz article

Hello! On my talk page I have asked contributors to the Orly Taitz article to explain the unreliability of World Net Daily as a source regarding the eligibility question of Barack Obama as US president. You are hereby invited to take part in that discussion. Another source that needs to be examined and discussed is The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Welcome! Magnus Johansson (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black

Hello Ravensfire. Your deletions have drawn the attention of myself and others in the media covering the on-going issue involving deletion of Jewish topics and Holocaust information. For example, you just deleted an article on the Rubashkin case that is today an Editor's Pick at the JTA, was syndicated to numerous outlets, and is being nominated for a Rockower Award. It is my main in-depth article thus far this year in addition to the Wikipedia investigation How can we contact you for comment to better understand your thinking? Edwin Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.128.247 (talk) 13:54, April 20, 2010

See my comments to your supporter Saxstudio on their talk page and on the article talk page. Posting four links to the piece to 3 article talk pages and a user talk page is not helpful. Posting it to an article talk page in general when it offered nothing useful to improve the article is not helpful. I had, and have, no issues with the post to a user's talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Saxstudio had nothing to do with it. Wrong edit. The specified deletion on your part was deleting my current investigation of the Rubashkin fraud sentencing from Major Articles I had written. Your remark can be found here: "This is not a list of everything he's done - explain why that article is notable before including." See my comment above for why real world editors thought this was an important investigation, one of only two I have done in recent months. The person adding it tracks to Pennsylvania and I do not know them. I should add--it does not matter to me whether the article is added or not--as you are quite correct, I write many articles albeit this is considered a major piece in the vein of my Pollard investigation. However, because it was on a Jewish topic, in the context of these discussions, your deletion caught our eye. I did not understand why you think this was not a major article? We are happy to be corrected. Edwin Black.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.128.247 (talk) 12:27, April 21, 2010

My apologies, I misread. My edit summary for that revision is accurate (see WP:N). Also, please note that you are indefinitely blocked for legal threats and these posts are considered block evasion. I will not respond further to you as long as that remains, and would suggest that you continue to work through Stifle or OTRS. Ravensfire (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read your explanation. It is your opinion. I will assume it is a sincere one and not related to the topic or theme of the article. Thanks for the useful answer. Edwin Black. BTW, I always sign my name to my messages.

Last time i bother you

Honestly :), i have done as you suggest would you be so kind as to take a look [1] thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Might i ask for your assistance

[2] With this, i see no problem with this one, but it has been stopped again :( mark nutley (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, problem sorted. Sorry for that :) mark nutley (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem - haven't had enough time to really look at it, plus you did get some feedback. I'll still through my two cents in (I'm stupid like that, sometimes!). It's a whole lot better than your previous RFC's - I wish someone had commented on that. The tone is a bit, umm, peevish in tone. It comes across like small child asking a parent at dinner asking "am I allowed to have my mouth open when I'm putting food in it" after being told to not chew with their mouth open. Okay, not quite that bad, but there's a definite aggressive tone to the question. Might not be what you intended, but that was my first impression.

There also is very much the feeling of refighting the "ClimateGate" name battle again. Generally, if you use a term in one place, it really should be used every where. This being Wikipedia that, of course, doesn't happen. The problem is that you then get pages distracted over refighting the same thing over and over and over. And then when you "win" once, you'll refight it again and again and again. Given the hostile nature of this area here, if you're willing to refight something, it's darn likely that the other side is as well.

Back to the RFC - one way would have been to ask "Which term used be used in the section title?", with your options listed below. I would just list the options, nothing about what it was called and what it was renamed. Save that for your post. Yes, that's going for about as neutral of a RFC as possible, and far, far more neutral than most that get posted. In this area, and with your previous efforts, that's what you have to go for. Text that does not, in any way, express a preference. You know when you're posting the RFC, so you'll get the first post in, especially if you have it ready and post it immediately afterwards. Any more advantage than that and you'll end up with a fight over the RFC, not a discussion about the issue. (Which does go for both sides - there's more wikilawyers around there than at a legal conference!) Ravensfire (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black to Ravensfire

If you wish to communicate with me, you are welcome to email me at inquiry@edwinblack.com or telephone me in a way that will not display your phone number. You are CST, I am EST. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ravensfire. You have new messages at ScottyBerg's talk page.
Message added 18:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ScottyBerg (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantitative Easing

Hello, I was wondering why you reverted the edit on quantitative easing to say that the money is borrowed where as in fact it is created as is documented in many articles? Regards, Jonathan

Two reasons. One is that you have been reverted by multiple editors, meaning you don't have concensus for the edit. You need to take this to the talk page and discuss it. Edit summaries DO NOT cut it. Second is that I disagree with your statement. I am going to revert it again, but will start a discussion on the talk page. Please do not add it again without getting some consensus on the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic Telepathy

Not my rants...thankyou very much...

Please don't feed the trolls. Let's just get this over with as smartly and cleanly as possible. GDallimore (Talk) 23:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 03:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping at the 2A article.

I appreciate your calm and well considered help at the 2A article. I hope your patience can hold out and handle the pressure. This problem seems almost intractable without help from people like you. On one hand with an ideologue AnonIP who has a penchant for WP:DE and WP:NPA spanning a time frame of almost a year now.[3] Plus, another editor who doggedly insists on edit war about his original research at to "the true history" and refuses to use third party reliable sources. This has been a long slog. Again, your well considered help there is very much appreciated, and thanks for watch listing that article. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

To look over some ref`s Here, if you have time. Cla is on a break, Lar is on holiday and the wordsmith did not answer my e-mail :), he must be on a break as well :) It is getting difficult to create articles when people keep going off and having a personal life lol mark nutley (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi man, can you tell me if a book review by Peter Taylor in British Association of Nature Conservationists is a reliable source for The Hockey Stick Illusion article? Review here mark nutley (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring - you've made your third revert

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Federal Reserve System. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That last edit was your fourth revert on the article today. Care to self-revert? Yworo (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And that was your fifth. If you self-revert both of your last edits, I'll not take it to 3RR. Yworo (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring reported here. You may still avoid a block if you self-revert those last two edits before the report is processed. Yworo (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I disagree with it, however. Prior to the edits, I left a message on the original editor's page about the changes. You have not initiated any discussion on this on the FRS talk page for these changes. I find that somewhat humorous as you even noted the need for that in one of your edit summaries. What will be, will be. Ravensfire (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

You seem to have broken the WP:3RR rule at Federal Reserve System. If you will add a comment at WP:AN3#User:Ravensfire reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: ) in which you promise to wait for talk page consensus before reverting again, you may be able to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

SSCS / eco-terrorism

It's been a pleasure conversing with you on this subject. Thanks for keeping civil. 68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic. Most groups, at least now, that get labeled "eco-terrorists" seem to be proud of it, and don't view it as a pejorative. Apply "terrorist" to a group however, and you get something else. Probably because the acts don't directly affect people, like a mass bombing could. Hopefully the debate will stay civil - a bit heated, mayhap, but still civil. Ravensfire (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

on the Federal Reserve System

first, thanks Ravensfire for writing on my talk page. I appreciate your explanation of your changes to my edits.

I have a few questions for you though based on your comment and on the article:

• What are the other 'parts' to the Federal Reserve System? Do you mean the Federal Open Market Committee, or the Board of Governors, or the Federal Advisory Council? Because clearly one cannot own stock in committees. So you're right—it's the Federal Reserve BANKS which are owned privately and which aim for profit. But this is essential knowledge which cannot wait for the "Structure" section. Why? Because most Americans think the Fed is just as federal as the federal post office: but this is not true. The Federal Banks are composed of the wealthiest private banks; and on the FOMC sit 5 presidents of these privately-owned Member Banks, entirely unappointed by public officials. This extremely important difference from what the average American understands about the Fed should be highlighted in the main page of the article, so that it is not lost in a sea of technical jargon by the "Structure" section.

• Continuing this note, it is my opinion that your "Structure" section is extremely misleading.You write that the "System is not a private organization and does not operate for the purpose of making a profit." This needs some clarification. Only the Board of Governors is entirely "public" in the sense of elected by a public official. The FOMC already has 5 seats for Member Banks—which, again, are privately-owned and for-profit. Then the Federal Reserve Banks are entirely private. So how is the Fed not a private organization?
• Also, I don't see any "adjusting" of my edits, or of Yworo's. In fact, I see from the history that you, Fat&Happy, Dark Charles and a few others basically get to edit the article as you wish. Why is this?

Sincerely,

ganjadi (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note my last edit to the FRS talk page. I think you've made a mistake about the ownership of the Federal Reserve banks. Thanks, LK (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll certainly call myself guilty of oversimplification of something that's anything but simple. And I even said something on the page about needing to be precise in language on anything around the Fed. Absolutely appreciate the corrections you made! Ravensfire (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating a separate page for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, similar to the pages that we already have for the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee. What do you think? Would that be overkill? LK (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's probably a good idea, as the BoG gets a lot of press, especially of late with Bernanki trying to expand what he regulates. Not to mention it might move some stuff out of the behemoth known as the FRS article. Somewhere on my personal PC I've got a draft to pull the entire Structure section out of the main FRS article, leaving a short(er) summary section behind. sigh - need to get back to that and get it finished at some point!.

Climate Change Exaggeration

Regarding the comment you made here [4] Can you clarify what you meant by Nearly everything in it was about exaggerations from pro-AGW supporters - almost nothing from pro-skeptic supporters Given the article is about people exaggerating the effects of climate change then naturally the majority of the text will be from AGW supporters, i do not see how a sceptic can exaggerate CC? they either say it is not man made or if so our contribution is minimal, that`s kinda the opposite to exaggeration right? mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry in advance for any rambling and the length - this got written over nearly the entire afternoon 30 seconds at a time!

Take the Hamilton comments in the public sector section. Originally, you had one quote from him that "Environmentalists have often overstated the effects of environmental decline". But really, that quote isn't even about climate change specifally! He goes on to say "Yet there is one area where the opposite is the case, where the protagonists on one side have for years systematically understated the dangers. Climate scientists have been afraid to talk about the true extent of the dangers of global warming. Those who have looked closely at what the scientists are concluding believe that the truth is so frightening that, if told, it will stop people from acting, rather than stimulate them to do more." Also "those opposed to taking action have engaged in absurd exaggeration of the economic costs of cutting emissions." But you only took that one quote, with a meaning totally different from the focus of teh article. Ask yourself seriously why you did that. Why did you overlook, in an article you read, a quote that wasn't anti AGW.

The way you're defining the terms, the article will be full of quotes from skeptics lampooning scientists, of politicians bemoaning the scaremongers, and precious little else. That's a pure POV fork. Look at the last quote above - "absurb exaggeration" - sounds like a great line to add! But it wasn't there. And that even fits your definition! So where are exaggerations along that line? Anything about wild claims by prominent skeptics that have been disproven? Look at Climategate - I'm sure there were some that sais something about the reviews would show rampant abuse and fraud, when the reviews have concluded otherwise. What about the impact of the exaggerations? That section is just a quote farm, not information.

I don't think it's intentional, but more from the material you tend to see (and links from that material to others ...). Selection bias in other words. If you want to keep the article tightly focused on exaggerated claims by AGW proponents, this article will almost certainly be deleted. All of that material could be added to the controvery article. Honestly, you could probably put in 2-3 paragraphs of information there and it would be just as useful.

Speaking of that, have you looked at how much of the article are quotes? Over 60% from a quick check I did! You've got quite a few paragraphs that are variations of XYZ said "blahblah" - but nothing around it. It's just a quote! Even the section where you define the term is at least 75% quotes. The first one really doesn't even fit in the section. How does that define the term?

As it's written, call the article "Quotes about climate change exaggeration". What's the impact on public policy from the exaggerations? On economics? Media? Research? Public trust in all of that? How much of the exaggeration is from scientists? How much from media trying (and failing, like they so often do) to report on the scientsts? You don't have much of that in here - just a bunch of quotes. And for the most part, they same the same thing over and over and over. The impression is that AGW proponents often exaggerate climate change. Is that the true view? Remember UNDUE - I'd say from the article you think it's about 90%+.

You've also got COATRACK problems in here. Example quote - "the 2035 projection was based on "poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession" and that proper checks were not made". Nothing about exaggeration there. Poorly substantiated doesn't cut it. There really isn't a lot of non-quote material. (If I pulled out everything before or after like 'XYZ in ABC said', the article gets REALLY short). You've got quotes and comments from just about everyone that doesn't like something about AGW. Yes, it's a COATRACK.

Mark, it's a bad article in my view. You could easily condense what's in there to 2-3 paragraphs tops, but nearly all of that is going to say "people exaggerate!" Ummm, yeah? Why do they do it? What areas? What's the impact? Why should I care? That's either missing, or totally buried in a quote somewhere. Ravensfire (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Still a WIP :) with regards to Hamilton i was going to use that text in the Effect of climate change Exaggeration section of the article, i thought it would go better there. Based on your previous advice i have been reading all the sources carefully and am looking at how to balance the article out, if you have time i would appreciate your help with it. mark nutley (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jews, Usury and Economic Warfare

You requested a reliable source concerning my edit of the page on Usury.... I think it had to do with my statement that "there are many people that think that one of the reasons that Jews started th4e Christians was so that they could exploit them by lending them money." This is hard to do when Jews are so overly in control of the media, the universities and even history, which is written by the winners, ie Jews. Just look at Goldman Sachs, Lehman bros and Madoff just did... during the entire time Madoff was doing his swindle, the banks in Israel were totally corrupt, it seems certain that the whole affair was a means for Jews to send their money to Israel where it could be laundered so clean that it disappears (maybe to reappear as an unaccounted for campaign contribution)and it allows for them to avoid capital gains taxes and has the effect of fucking the economy which let's those who know that they better kiss Jewish ass or there is more in store of the same kind of economic warfare. I hope you don't think george Bush is a Nazi, there are way too many fools who think that... http://radioislam.org/bush/jewishpower.htm Barnie Frank is the head of which House committee? Eaglesperm (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

darkstar1st on Libertarianism

Hello, just to inform, I have reported User:darkstar1st on WQA, [5]. This user is probably not a sock of Karmaisking though. Darkstar1st only wastes everyone's time. Thanks.N6n (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

CC articles

RE: "I don't know - have you seen the stuff on the climate change pages? Yikes!"

LOL ... have you been following that stuff? I only recently stumbled across that mess. Hil-air-ree-yus! BigK HeX (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert?

Why did you revert talk: Eurasian Land Bridge? 58.138.25.165 (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What did that contribute to improving the article? You've added the same image to half a dozen articles, but a talk page? None of the comments are related to the article in question either. The last bullet is pure soap-boxing. Please self-revert or actually discuss the article in question. Ravensfire (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

editor's name in section header

Your point about using an editor's name in a section header seems like a good policy. While it may be "generally frowned upon" in this particularly case it seems a bit irrelevant since the content of my post can certainly be interpreted by the editor in question as "aggressive" and "offensive." In any case, the only reason I used his name in the section header was that I was responding to a post on my talk page where an editor used the exact same section header. I responded using the same section header and did not see anything wrong with it in this particularly case. Your point is well-taken. Dwalrus (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Undo of changes on Malinvestment

Hallo Ravensfire,

you have reverted my change on Malinvestment. I am absolutely aware that the economic school in question is not part of mainstream thought, 'heterodox', as some would call it, or even fringe. However, the current wording is extremely negative, bordering on censorship. How can anyone take even remotely seriously a concept that is in every sentence disparaged? (And what the heck is an "attempted explanation"?)

What I would like to achieve is something along the lines "The concept X is important for the _____ theory. It is used by some folks, who are not mainstream, but here is what they have to say: ... ".

Can you please help me with the wording of the article? I seem to be running afoul of one Wikipedia policy or another with each edit, and only want to make a neutral sounding, encyclopedic description of the concept, which the current formulation can be hardly considered to be. The other editors don't seem very helpful I'm afraid.

Your help would be very appreciated. Pestergaines (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bump! Do you please have any ideas on this matter? Pestergaines (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I've been only able to bounce on and off WP the past few weeks, which hasn't given me enough time to look. It's only list, just not sure when. Sorry :( Ravensfire (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is always the lack of time, that gets us. Thanks for the response, we'll get to it! Pestergaines (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

ESaid/BObama

I've tried to respond here. If you in turn have anything further, over there's probably the place.

Thanks for your interest. Swliv (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Other theory of natural born citizen

What is objectionable to the content I contributed? Thanks

It's original research - you need to include references for additions like that. Ravensfire (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

HATs for Austrians...

RE: "Yup - but just throw a WP:HAT around it and move on, no need for drama."

Ahhh... were it only that easy..... [6]  :-| BigK HeX (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsure about your last reversion on Talk:Tea Party movement

I do not understand your explanation for your last edit to the article's talk page. Perhaps it was a long day for me, past my bedtime, and it's too obvious for words, but I was hoping you could humor me and explain why you deleted so much on an article talk page. Were those references yours and you self-deleted them?

I am assuming good faith, I just don't understand your actions. Veriss (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Veriss1, Petri Krohn had previously added the information back just a few hours earlier, but reformatted it to make it slightly more readable. See the section Talk: Tea Party movement#Some sources..., so when the IP reverted Balloonman's removal, he literally duplicated the information. Every comment the IP orginally made, every source, is still there, just easier to read/follow. Ravensfire (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty sure there was a good explanation. Thanks for cleaning up the mess and for taking the time to explain it to me. Veriss (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Ravensfire (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Chuckling as the redirect from your User Page still fakes me out. Have a great one. Veriss (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:CDODISASTER

Looks like another sock to me, but I'm guessing you knew that  :) BigK HeX (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup - not the usual pattern in places, but we'll see. Ravensfire (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: CRU controversy

Hi, could you check your revert? I believe that the Sailsbystars version is the sourced, consensus version. You restored edits introduced by an SPA and a poor, POV, outdated source tendentiously added by Macai. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page, but in short, "released" alone really leaves a lot to be desired to describe what happened. Ravensfire (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like you and User:Nsaa are objecting to this wording. It would help if the two of you could get together and present a united argument against it, while also proposing a replacement. That way, we can see if this dispute requires further discussion or not. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm out in the vineyards for the weekend, so I'll step away from things and go with whatever is deemed appropriate. Ravensfire (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

healthcare

I will double check, but I think this edit is probably correct. [7]. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's correct about that. [8].Malke 2010 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought he was correct in terms of general usage from a quick look - thanks for double-checking. I did leave him a note about not changing filenames, quotes or article titles. Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

Please see my comments here and here. I smell a rat. Q Science (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to suspect MN of socking, he doesn't seem that type to me. Checkuser can't confirm the IP one way or the other - that's against their privacy policy. There's quite a few trolls that do love to impersonate people in trouble, and with MN being the first from the CC case to go to AE and editing in other controversial topics on WP, he's an easy target. Ravensfire (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just spotted your common on the SPI page - I did see the comment he made, but it was after the SPI was closed, the block extended and talk page blocked. At that point, it wasn't going to be helpful to post anything, so I did not copy it. Ravensfire (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, he has now been cleared. Q Science (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ravensfire .. I was just curious on this bit of drama. It seemed Marknutley was cleared of SPI issues, but his talk page seems to indicate that the decision was... overturned? Or was there a different allegation of socking that did pass the duck test? BigK HeX (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If I had to guess, he did sock as an IP when he was blocked. It looks like the sock farm that was found (and linked to some unpleasant things) is run by a serial vandal and not connected to Mark. As it's an IP, CU (and probably the ArbCom as well) cannot publically connect the IP to a named account in good standing, so it won't be 100% confirmed by CU. Reading between the lines, there is some, or enough, technical evidence to connect some IP to Mark and he was not allowed to duck it. It was actually his second edit on the 6th where he mentioned the socking. Very disappointing. Ravensfire (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... with none of the SPI left, I guess I'm just bound to be confused. I got the impression that he pretty strongly denied the socking described here. From the allegations that are still left un-deleted, it seems that it is now being said that Mark actually lied about not socking, and that he's admitted to socking as Special:Contributions/81.94.201.92?? The deleted SPI makes it all very confusing.... BigK HeX (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

chiropractic

I apologize for not keeping to a more structured form in previous edits. I posted that before I was fully aware of the guidelines. The post that you deleted was approved by other editors. Your reason for deleting my post was that it misrepresented the article. I asked you explain how this is a misinterpretation. Clearly the intent of the pub med article is to state that the risk of stroke from a chiropractic visit is and I quote from the pub med article.

"VBA stroke is a very rare event in the population. The increased risks of VBA stroke associated with chiropractic and PCP visits is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke. We found no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care compared to primary care."

I would love to hear how you feel my post misrepesents this. I am more than happy to put this info on the talk page, however, please make sure we are keeping to a NPOV, which the citation previous to the one I made clearly does not. To completely ignore information from a completely legitimate source like pub med, that offers a more balanced view, is not keeping with the spirit or intent of wikipedia. Thanks for your feedback and look forward to helping others improve the content of the Chiropractic page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock climber02 (talk • contribs) 10:36, November 4, 2010

This is something that needs to be discussed on talk page of the article, with all editors there. Here's the point I was making - ultimately, Wikipedia works on concensus. Material remains in an article that the editors of the article generally agree with. You run into conflicts at times which is when the various policies of WP come into play (WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, etc). Those policies help guide and push concensus to present a good, NPOV article. Note that NPOV does NOT refer to the article - if something is blue, the article must present it as blue. It refers to the presentation of the material from sources. Saying something is blue, for example, requires good sources to support if that's contentious. Violating NPOV would be saying it's a blindingly ugly shade of blue.

I don't edit the article because it's an extremely contentious article - lots of views on one side or the other. I've got real-life friends on both sides of it too. It's on my watchlist, and I see you making changes, being reverted, making the changes again, being reverted and making the changes again. And not ONCE did you post on the article's talk page. That's a Bad Thing, and leads to blocks. So, I reverted with an edit summary directing you to the talk page, then left you a message on your talk page saying the same thing. You need to get concensus on the talk page before making the change - it's that simple. If you can't do that on the talk page, and you think you've got the sources and policies to back your version, you can try posting on the NPOV Noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard or try other dispute resolution. However, in most of those, if you haven't posted on the article's talk page, you'll be sent there first. Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

chiropractic

Thanks again for your help and feed-back and constructive criticism. Please know I meant no malicious intent with any prior edits. I only became aware of the importance of the talk portion after I mistakenly thought my post had been approved. My previous edits, I now realize, did violate standard rules of Wikipedia as they now stand. I also understand your thoughts about calling something blue if it is blue. However, this should not be confused with someone looking at something that is white with blue glasses on, just so they can say it is blue. There are numerous examples of this on the chiropractic topic. I will attempt to educate myself on the proper procedures of addressing disputed topics before attempting any new changes. Thanks again.Rock climber02 (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem! For better or worse, there are lots of rules in WP, and it's easy for a new editor who starts on a contentious topic to feel ganged on, or targetted or worse. Unfortunately, the established editors who frequent that topic can feel like a new editor is barging in, ignoring them, skipping process, etc. Kick back, relax, and work through the issues with patience. Remember there are other paths to resolving disputes if the talk page doesn't get you far, but you always should start there. Good luck! Ravensfire (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done

Done. Mystylplx (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ravensfire. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. All help appreciated.

Oldtaxguy (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Quantitative easing article and edit-warring

I have prevented Pavelmalik making untrue statements about the source of the money for QE. He had edited the article to say that no money is created for QE. He also changed my contribution to be incorrect. I have also added significant contribution to the QE talk page and referenced numerous articles from different sources documenting what I have said. So why doesn't he get a warning from you? I think you are being biased and unfair and if you threaten me with any more warnings for correcting incorrect statements I will see if I can get a warning issued to you. --Caparn (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I received a strange additional message re Signpost in addition to Signpost itself. After reading Signpost, I deleted it as usual, and the other, and obviously screwed up. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)