User talk:Keepcalmandcarryon

SPI comments on WPI Talk

K, I clearly said in my SPI note that I believe that you followed policy. My comments were a criticism of the policy not of you.

When you say that I was coaching the sockpuppet, this doesn't make sense because I was the first one to raise this possibility indirectly when I reverted One000's first edit. I guess I was silly enough to try to follow WP:NEWCOMER: If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out things that they've done correctly or well. and Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account.

Maybe I am just a little more liberal than you in that I believe in being open about who I am, what I stand for, that WP business should be conducted openly, and that people deserve a fair trial before being found guilty. I know we have different approaches and have crossed swords, but can we at least be civil in our work together. I would really appreciate you not regularly accusing me of being an SPA, POV, pro WPI etc. It really gets very tedious. Thank-you. -- TerryE (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I also correct another couple of "facts" that you stated on the SPI talk page:

• Byanose hasn't edited since his/her 3RR warning and only edited the WPI article in Main. I had no dialogue with B as I regarded the editor as a rude nuisance. Only with One000 in a way entirely consistent with the WP:CIVIL guidance.
• I don't monitor editors such as yourself or OM. Life's too short. I went to OMs talk page because he'd reverted an edit on WPI and then didn't respond to a point on WPI talk. I only became aware of the SPI because I was responding to a talk post that One000 made to me.
• You say that you want to keep the attendee list on SPIs small because POV editors might complicate the process. I say that any accused has the right to a fair trail and that means that the attendees shouldn't just be limited to the judge and prosecution.
• When One000 was labelled as an SPA, the guy had done only one Main space edit. Every newbie is an SPA by this definition.
• You keep saying I have a strong POV. Just exactly what is it if it's that strong? My POV is a belief in scientific method and that the RS should be used verbatim, not enhanced or "do better" as you have said recently. My POV is that we should follow the PnG both in spirit and in their entirety and not to treat them as some bible where you pick out the verses that support your cause and ignore the ones that don't. My POV is that WP should not be used as a vehicle to attack any scientific author that has not had a substantive claim against them, so I still include Mikovits in the same group as Wessely and not in the smaller Wakfield group, but I suspect that we differ on this. As I have said on the talk page a number of times, I think that the case is swinging against WPI so how am I a WPI "defender"?
• The SPI last year. That was closed and I got flamed for it. I accepted the finding and archived the detailed 50x50 user analysis that I did to respond to some of the technical criticisms never to be brought up again. However, it is difficult to follow this decision when you yourself repeatedly bring it into discussions, when it simply isn't relevant: if I don't comment then I leave accusations unanswered; if I do then I breach the intent of the SPI finding. -- TerryE (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Terry, I have to ask you a question. Why do you not use indents? It's always hard to respond to you. Well, that's a minor point. I'm going to make an honest point with you. In my vast years on the internet (15, participating in a number of newsgroups in the day), I have always found when someone says they "believe in the scientific method (or science or evolution or whatever", I can immediately conclude that they do not. First of all, you can't "believe" in science, but that's a minor point. And writing an article does not employ the "scientific method". For all that you say, you seem to be very supportive of the WPI. Anyways, you can look at my page all you want. It can be entertaining. Sometimes a bit of drama.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy drama, but this is just soporific. It would be admirable if TerryE and other editors used some of the prodigious energy with which they monitor and protest my utterly and shockingly offensive behaviour to, dare I say it, actually edit the encyclopaedia. And maybe even articles that are unrelated to CFS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BLPN - Judy Mikovits

Hi there is a thread at the BLPN here that is disputing content that you added to this BLP, would you please comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)