User talk:TechBear

Category:Anti-gay propaganda

Did you really want to vote on your own deletion nomination? I think the proposal justifying the nomination counts as your viewpoint.—Ash (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a deletion, and voting on it, are two separate acts. Also, the proposal only allows for a summary; my vote allows me to explain why I made the proposal. TechBear (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas

Why is the inclusion of a picture of a scholar on the issue wrongful but the inclusion of a Supreme Court Justice who had no published opinion on the case rightful? - 129.252.67.2 (talk)

First, please sign posts you make to a Talk page; that will help identify who you are. You do this by adding four "twiddles" at the end, like this: ~~~~

Second, the four US Supreme Court justices whose images appear in the Lawrence v. Texas article are directly relevant. In the section of the article on the Court's decision is a picture of Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. Justice O`Conner wrote a concurring opinion, ie one that agreed with the majority but for diferent reasons; her image is displayed next to the part of the article that presents her opinion. Justice Scalia wrote the main dissent, so his image heads the section on dissent, while Justice Thomas' picture appears next to a paragraph where his separate dissent is presented. All four of these images are captioned, giving the name of the person pictured, wikilinks to articles about that person, and an explanation as to how the image is directly relevant to the article. Also, the images are placed in the immediate vicinity of text that deals directly with these people in relation to the case.

I have three objections to your image. First, it was uncaptioned and provided no clue as to who she is and why it was relevant to the article. Second, your two manual inserts of the image placed it in different locations, neither of which provided context as to who this person is or why her image was relevant to the article. Third, assertions that someone "is a scholar" on an article's topic are not sufficient reason to insert a photo into the article: the image must be relevant. Should every single article that touches on biology or atheism have an image of biology professor and noted atheist PZ Myers? You will note that Lawerence v. Texas has pictures of only four out of nine Supreme Court Justices, even though all nine were a part of the decision; that is because Chief Justic Rehnquist and Justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer and Ginsberg did not offer separate opinions. In other words, because their images were not directly relevant to the article.

Wikipedia policy requires that images be relevant to the articles that include them. All I am asking is that you provide support for your desire to add this image to Lawrence v. Texas and Bowers v. Hardwick. The burden of responsibility is on you to justify the addition, and not on me or any other editor to justify the exclusion. TechBear (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

HIV dissent & AIDS denialism

Hello, I would ask that you review the discussions regarding HIV dissent and AIDS denialism regarding the HIV dissent article. I understand the our viewpoints may differ on the subject, however, I feel that this information, however dissenting from normal viewpoints, has a place. I am attempting to create an article that would contain information that is not widely accepted, particularly by the editors of the aforementioned articles. The current talk pages are Talk:HIV dissent and Talk:AIDS denialism. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Neuromancer (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my position: I think you are a crackpot desperately promoting crackpot theories. There is a reason why your positions are not widely accepted, why they are not accepted at all among the vast majority of serious researchers. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that AIDS is late-stage HIV disease; while it is acceptable to note that there is dissent in this finding, this dissent can only be classed as pseudo-science by an rational metric and the Wikipedia has a fairly clear policy regarding pseudo-science. I do not think you want me to jump into the fray, as I can only add my voice against you. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello, TechBear. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Neuromancer. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Christ Myth and Holocaust Denial

Hi, you're probably right that my recent edits to the Christ Myth article were overly synthetic. I do, though, think that it is significant that arguably the most notable recent advocate of the theory (possibly barring Wells, but he's since moderated his position making an evaluation difficult), the only one I'm aware of of the last generation to hold a tenured professorship at a real university in a relavent-ish field, was also a holocaust denier. I think it demonstrates the sort of conspiratorial and over-skeptical mind that the theory appeals to. Your comments to Neuromancer regarding AIDS denial makes me think that you're a resonable person so I'm going to reinsert a reworked version of my edits with less snark and any advice you might have would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugeneacurry (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Link removal in IQ page

Although you may wish to consider this statement "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Wikipedia:RS, the link was not given as a reference/source as you stated, but as an external link as indicated by the title of the section. The fact that the link is a blog doesn't change anything (no specific rule exists for blogs), only the content matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.153.27.132 (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Martin Ssempa

I've made some edits and included some more references to the Martin Ssempa article, which you discussed on the talk page. I believe the sources are reliable and the article includes information that is now more neutral. Please let me know what you think! Thanks. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Roland Berrill

Please familiarise yourself with WP:REDLINK. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How many sorces is usually good for starting a new article?

Hi. I'm that annoying person who tried to preserve the external links on List of political parties in the United States. I managed to find some reliable sources for some of those parties (that don't have Wikipedia pages on them) and I am considering starting articles on those ones. For some parties, I found two references, for others, just one. I doubt one source will be enough, but what about two? Thanks. 173.76.156.251 (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the article; one source can be sufficient for something basic, provided that it comes from a published third-party with a reputation for reliability. If your only source is the organization's website, you will be challenged to prove that the group is notable enough to merit inclusion in the Wikipedia. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

homophobia

thanks for the help on my talk page. Daenumen (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi TechBear, Regarding the article Homophobia since you were involved in issuing a warning, I would appreciate it if you would review the conversation on the article's talk page (and Daenumen's Talk page) and weigh in on whether my synopsis of the problems we all have are correct, and properly stated on everyone's behalf. Thanks, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of anything to add that hasn't already been said many times before, he just won't listen. Now he's doing the same thing over at Atheism. My apologies for having started this, I thought he just needed editorial guidance. Proof that the Wizard's Second Rule is not just something from a fantasy novel. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

One of my favorite series... but that's another matter. :-) On to the subject at hand though. I've made what may be a mistake in speaking for you and the other editors involved (my second to last entry), and thus would appreciate if you can clarify on the article's talk page whether I have properly or improperly (with my apologies) stated our position on the problems with his addition. After that, if things continue, I have a feeling myself or another editor will bring the whole thing to an administrator's attention. I probably should not have made such a blanket statement in my post, but I am loathe to edit it now since the whole conversation is in such contention. Best (and thanks), RobertMfromLI | User Talk 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are doing a great job, and with far more patience that I would have done; that's why I haven't stepped in yet. Let me get my waders, it's pretty deep in there.... TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there TechBear, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:TechBear/HIV Vaccine Trials Network. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Hi. I'm actually not a party to the dispute at all - just an intervening administrator. Can I ask, is there some of, um, like thing going around (e.g., an email)? Because LAEC is attracting an obscenely high amount of opposers - too high for it to be just a natural consequence of his behavior. How did you come to edit this page? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC page has been on my watch list for a while now. The organization recently updated its list of anti-gay hate groups to include several nationally known religious conservative groups, so attention on the article is very high right now. Certain editors have been pushing the view that anything other than condemnation in extreme language is "proof" that the article is biased against the groups in question; certain other editors have been pushing in the opposite direction. I am trying to stay in the third group, which wants to maintain the hard-fought consensus that the article meets the non point-of-view standard. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sign your comments with 4 tildes as per WP guidelines or else stop interfering in other people's edits. 68.183.68.151 (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 68.183.68.151

I did. Notice my name and links after the warning I put on your talk page? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TechBear. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Poppycock.
Message added 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FRC

Watch the reverts there, you don't want someone to ding you for WP:Edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Centrist Party

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Centrist Party, as the article has been kept after two AfD discussions and therefore cannot be deleted via prod. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no comment on the merits of deletion and no prejudice against opening another AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hate groups

Hi! You're getting this message because at the deletion discussion for "cat:organizations designated as hate groups," you expressed support or interest in a list. I have the beginning of such a list here, and I welcome your contributions. Specific things that need work: is the list comprehensive, including all groups that have Wikipedia articles? Should we include the designating organizations' reasoning? Are there other institutions that designate hate groups whose designations should be added? Can someone help with the nitty-gritty work of referencing? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your comments regarding the quality of my work improving the article Santorum (sexual neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Atheism Talk Page

Hi TechBear, please review my comment here[1] to ensure I've accurately portrayed what you were intending to explain. I've simply tried expounding on what you wrote in more detail so the new editor understands it's not a matter of what his opinions are, as there's really no problem including such, as long as they are properly citable, held by sufficient others, etc, etc, and so on. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Template_talk:Political_neologisms

You have been asked a question at Template_talk:Political_neologisms

"Can you use "santorum" in a sentence with a political meaning?"

Rather than edit warring on the template, please answer the question. Thank you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to use that metric, then most of the articles in the template must be removed as well. As for edit warring, keeping the current content while changes are under discussion is the norm; YOU are the one edit warring by refusing to wait until the matter has been resolved. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NAV does recommend against indiscriminate collections of articles. But at present, only one is being used as a google bomb to attack a living person, which makes it more important that we address this promptly and appropriately. My position is that we don't include the disputed item when there isnt consensus for it. It is doing harm both to the person and to Wikipedia, right now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

MassResistance

TB: [2] re [3] —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C08:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)